Wikileaks has said nothing like "stop it you morons you're not helping". Wikileaks is at least using the misguided angst to their advantage.
Well, it did help in a way actually. Paypal decided that they'll pay Wikileaks what they owe them, though they won't reinstate their account.
But, there's a problem there: Who exactly would make a statement? Assange would have some trouble with it. I'm not sure if in his absence anybody has the right to speak for wikileaks. With Assange being in the situation he is I doubt anybody else feels like doing public speaking. And I'm not entirely sure anonymous would care anyway, they're not the type to take orders.
Also, I never said they outed Manning. I said they were a honey pot for useful idiots. Assgange has an agenda and Manning willingly gave him the weapons he wanted.
Honey pot, in my understanding means you're trying to trap somebody. Like giving the appearance of "drugs are sold here", then arresting everybody who enters. Wikileaks accepts leaks and publishes them, the leakers submit material that gets posted without their identity being revealed. That works exactly as advertised, no honey pot here.
Assgange has an agenda and Manning willingly gave him the weapons he wanted.
So what if he does?
I don't understand your interest in Assange and Wikileaks. My interest is in what is leaked. Who leaks it, and what their motives are is completely unimportant to me.
The way it has turned out Wikileaks is (possibly was) nothing more than a honey pot for useful idiots feeding Assange information to use
If you mean Manning, he outed himself. Wikileaks did nothing to reveal his identity, and in fact said they'd support him financially.
on his publicly stated quest against the US.
Wikileaks published information on icelandic banks and quite a few other things as well, that's part of the anti-US agenda?
But even if for whatever reason they're going to focus on the US exclusively now, I see nothing wrong with that, so long the information is accurate.
Yes, they are making things very public but only some things and they do editing to make things conform to their agenda.
Proof of the editing please. Other than the removal of names they do, of course.
The site itself doesn't need to be DDoSing major companies to get the word out. As long as people with influence know about the site and *they* report whats on there the word will get out without the site needing to resort to douchebaggery to get the word out.
Wow, you're VERY badly misinformed.
The DoS is not coming from wikileaks, it's from anonymous. Anonymous is a very loosely defined group of people who hang out at 4chan, which is sort of a forum without user accounts. As a result, nobody knows who is who, hence "anonymous". They're not affiliated with wikileaks or with anybody else really, and don't have much of a fixed agenda.
Think of them as a disorganized group of bored people who hang out at some park. No established structure. One day somebody goes on a rant against somebody who wronged them, and they get together and egg their house. Another day they're feeling unusually charitable and rescue a trapped kitten. It's pretty random.
Now they're going on a revenge against those who they feel wronged Wikileaks. Previously they staged bizarre protests against scientology with signs featuring lolcats. They also grief online games and post lots of cat pictures on saturdays. Eventually they'll get tired of this and come up with something else to do.
When a whistleblower reports that for instance, company X is secretly dumping poison into a river or some such thing, why do they do it? Why do their risk their career and wellbeing? To have information archived at some obscure site for historical purposes? Heck, no. They're doing it because they believe they found something that is deeply wrong, want it to stop, and are unable to do it by the official channels. So they go public with the information.
For that to work, the information needs to become very public. The entire point of doing things like that is causing a mass outrage at the company to pressure them to change.
So, same thing here. There's no point in getting information released if that release isn't going to get results.
As a retailer your job is to sell stuff, not to impose whatever your morality on others. And most definitely, not post-sale. Definitely won't be buying a kindle seeing how things are.
There are quite a few other explanations for that other than piracy, some of which people mentioned when it was discussed originally.
For instance: Buying at work, saving the URL and downloading at home or vice-versa (some people still use modems) Paying double then giving a friend the download URL. Children people in some countries can have trouble making online payments. Proxies Changing IP addresses
My country deserves no unconditional love just because I happened to be born in it, the flag is just a picture, and the soldiers sometimes fight for a just cause, and sometimes for a completely senseless one. My country is not special. If it goes wrong, I try to set it right, and do the exact same thing with any other country I happen to be living in at the moment, if I have the ability.
Nothing deserves unconditional respect. Respect is earned through good deeds.
I don't think it the implications are that impressive unless you're very big yourself.
I mean, it wouldn't necessarily be a good idea to get hosting at amazon based on this. Your site might stay up, but I bet that Amazon will charge you for all that traffic, and anonymous can use quite a bit of it. So instead of your site going down you'll get a huge bill. For a small site, that's very likely to kill it. Even for a small/medium size business it could do very appreciable damage.
This is only impressive if you have the cash to pay the bills and staying online is more important than paying for all the bandwidth the DoS manages to use. Probably there's not a huge customer base for that kind of thing.
The technology is expensive for the company to set up, it's also expensive for the user, and it provides a very niche service: ability to call people from the middle of nowhere, and from nowhere else.
If you're anywhere even relatively civilized there are cell towers that are much cheaper and convenient, and buildings inside which the tech doesn't work. If you do happen to be in the middle of nowhere you're either one of the 20 people working at some research station on the north pole or similar location, or are some sort of aborigine that can't pay for it anyway. Not a huge customer base there.
You seem to have this weird idea that "survival of the species" and "survival of the individuals that compose it" are equivalent things. But they aren't. For instance, let's suppose that things change enough that your area turns into a searing desert, crops die, and life in a city becomes impossible (because cities must be supported by the countryside). At the same time, Greenland becomes a lush tropical paradise.
Now the global stats of such a thing could conceivably look pretty good really. Perhaps overall things improve. But that doesn't mean that it's necessarily going to be pleasant for you. If your area ends up being disadvantaged, what are you going to do, move to Greenland? Think they'll just let you go and move there?
If such a thing happens over tens of thousands of years it's not such a big deal. Eventually things get uncomfortable and people figure out that maybe it's time to move somewhere better. But if something like that happens over a human lifetime, it's going to be a mess of epic proportions.
Because it involves intentionally producing individuals whose entire meager existence is fraught with pain. The pain itself may not be intentional, but it's certainly a result of the reckless disregard given by someone who would pursue this sort of research.
How do you balance that with the suffering of other people that could be alleviated by the research? Research like this has a lot of potential in areas other than just making children. Things like growing replacement organs perhaps, which a lot of people need badly.
In other words, in your opinion, is causing pain for the sake a research always wrong, no matter the benefits obtained?
There's already evidence to suggest that Bad Things will be produced by the learning stages of this process, at least part of the time.
Like with any other research really. Ocassionally the best intended research goes much worse than anticipated. An experimental medicine has some sort of horrific side effect, or the study turns out to have deeply disturbing results (Milgram experiment for instance)
But sure, let's do it anyway. What do you say when something horrible is the result, just say "oops, my bad" and move on?
Pretty much that, yes. Obviously one doesn't go causing pain for shits and giggles, but ocassionally things are going to go wrong. If we let that us stop from doing any research we'd still be living in the middle ages with all the suffering that involves.
One should try to avoid causing unnecessary harm, and if things go wrong anyway the proper thing to do is to try to fix as much as possible.
Fat lot of good it does the person that lives in agony for its mercifully short life.
But you're not doing all that much good to the people who can't get well due to lack of research on the subject either.
Why? Like quite a few people you seem to be really sure that it'd be wrong, but don't provide any reasons why.
So explain, why isn't it right?
We don't know what the long-term effect of this would be in mice. The point the OP is making is that humans have differences in genetics that make this process even more fraught with danger than the basic stuff they've managed to accomplish so far. Allowing offspring to go through that is totally uncivilised.
Well if we don't know what'll happen, then let's make some and see what happens? Why pointlessly speculate when you can try and see for yourself?
Mark my words, crazy fuckers and those promoting 'equality' for same-sex couples will be pushing for this. I have no problems with same-sex relationships but this kind of stuff is where we need to draw a very clear line.
Again, why? And I disagree on that any kind of line needs to be drawn.
No, I don't. Certainly not to a blanket statement without a reason for it. I don't arbitrarily reject things because it "feels wrong" or vague junk like that. You're going to have to provide a good reasoning for what's wrong with it.
What about if you could make a human-animal hybrid, would you do that?
So? Ever checked what's the weather like in Russia, for instance? Plenty rain and snow, yet the railroads do just fine. Good quality steel, construction and maintenance go a long way.
And why are you so sure they "won't have that luxury"? Like I said, if it makes economic sense, it will be done. The technical possibility is there.
Why? Where's the big difference between this and a railroad? They need a bit of periodic maintenance, but they manage to survive the moisture and elements just fine.
I suppose that if this provides enough of an advantage, then it makes sense to rework the whole field so that it lies on a perfectly flat and straight grid.
It's been done with warehouses (Kiva for instance), so why not in a field?
There are a lot of fucked up places in the world. Your might not be the worst of them, but as of lately it's far from ideal.
People used to be very proud of that America is the "Land of the Free", not that "It's better than North Korea". If that's what it's supposed to be, why do you keep trying to divert the attention by pointing to some hole like North Korea? Shouldn't you be working tirelessly to uphold that ideal, no matter how much shittier some other place might be?
You're in the US (I assume from your message), and you're in the position to make it less fucked up. So your dirty laundry suddenly got exposed. Don't whine about people noticing the stains, don't point to your neighbour's, but do the proper thing and clean it up.
A ship or anything else isn't necessarily made from the same stuff at any given time. A wave in the ocean for instance is a shape that persists and that we see as a "thing", though the water it's made of constantly changes. Same happens with people. You consume, rearrange and excrete molecules. You're not made today from the same atoms you were when you were 10.
"Copy" is just a human descriptor, meaning "this object was made using another as a reference". Copies often suffer generational loss, which is why it's useful to know what is a copy of what. In that sense, the new ship built from the replaced pieces is the copy, because it probably was built looking at the fully functional ship.
The way I see it, if two things are close enough that no diffrence can be discerned, the "copy" status of any of them is irrelevant, and both are as good as original.
Looking at it another way, everything is a copy. The first object is an imperfect reproduction of a plan. An original painting is still an imperfect execution of what the artist wanted to paint. Any given human is an imperfect execution of the orders encoded in the DNA.
I think having people who live forever (or a few centuries at least) would do a lot of good for the world. Several reasons:
People who plan to live 500 years can't afford to fuck up the environment. Normal people may vote for a bad policy because the consequences in 50 years are far away and they'll probably be dead anyway. But if you plan to be around and healthy in 100 years from now, you've got to give long term plans some more thought. The exhaustion of oil would be well within one's expected lifetime.
Same goes for political decisions. Some things take a long time to take effect. People would be more careful if the consequences of their decisions could still bite them 50 years later.
It would be valuable for politics. I think we currently forget far too quickly. People who personally remember important events and wars are very valuable.
It would be incredible for progress and science. Imagine if Einstein was still around. A normal human lifetime is short when doing groundbreaking work.
Of course there would be plenty worthless people around as well, but there's nothing new there.
I don't think the downsides would be very big. This would probably involve "periodic maintenance", which would make overpopulation a lot less likely. Some people would get tired of living and decide to stop rejuvenating themselves, some would run out of money. There's always death from accidents. And this would be mostly limited to first world nations, which aren't the ones having a population problem anyway.
Promoting the US view? According to that article they found a few remnants. It's hard to get exact numbers out of that article with wikileaks being DoSed, but I don't think that some rusty artillery shells (it strikes me as a very bad idea to try to fire a round that's leaking) and the 10 rounds amount to anything significant and justify the war.
BOINC users who are considering joining this project should know that it only occasionally has work; the project is used for design and repair considerations related to the LHC. There are currently no plans to use the project to do computation on the data that will be collected by the LHC.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, it did help in a way actually. Paypal decided that they'll pay Wikileaks what they owe them, though they won't reinstate their account.
But, there's a problem there: Who exactly would make a statement? Assange would have some trouble with it. I'm not sure if in his absence anybody has the right to speak for wikileaks. With Assange being in the situation he is I doubt anybody else feels like doing public speaking. And I'm not entirely sure anonymous would care anyway, they're not the type to take orders.
Honey pot, in my understanding means you're trying to trap somebody. Like giving the appearance of "drugs are sold here", then arresting everybody who enters. Wikileaks accepts leaks and publishes them, the leakers submit material that gets posted without their identity being revealed. That works exactly as advertised, no honey pot here.
So what if he does?
I don't understand your interest in Assange and Wikileaks. My interest is in what is leaked. Who leaks it, and what their motives are is completely unimportant to me.
If you mean Manning, he outed himself. Wikileaks did nothing to reveal his identity, and in fact said they'd support him financially.
Wikileaks published information on icelandic banks and quite a few other things as well, that's part of the anti-US agenda?
But even if for whatever reason they're going to focus on the US exclusively now, I see nothing wrong with that, so long the information is accurate.
Proof of the editing please. Other than the removal of names they do, of course.
Wow, you're VERY badly misinformed.
The DoS is not coming from wikileaks, it's from anonymous. Anonymous is a very loosely defined group of people who hang out at 4chan, which is sort of a forum without user accounts. As a result, nobody knows who is who, hence "anonymous". They're not affiliated with wikileaks or with anybody else really, and don't have much of a fixed agenda.
Think of them as a disorganized group of bored people who hang out at some park. No established structure. One day somebody goes on a rant against somebody who wronged them, and they get together and egg their house. Another day they're feeling unusually charitable and rescue a trapped kitten. It's pretty random.
Now they're going on a revenge against those who they feel wronged Wikileaks. Previously they staged bizarre protests against scientology with signs featuring lolcats. They also grief online games and post lots of cat pictures on saturdays. Eventually they'll get tired of this and come up with something else to do.
Whistleblowing is precisely about the influence.
When a whistleblower reports that for instance, company X is secretly dumping poison into a river or some such thing, why do they do it? Why do their risk their career and wellbeing? To have information archived at some obscure site for historical purposes? Heck, no. They're doing it because they believe they found something that is deeply wrong, want it to stop, and are unable to do it by the official channels. So they go public with the information.
For that to work, the information needs to become very public. The entire point of doing things like that is causing a mass outrage at the company to pressure them to change.
So, same thing here. There's no point in getting information released if that release isn't going to get results.
Nobody cares about cryptome though. What does it matter that it exists if it has very little influence?
As a retailer your job is to sell stuff, not to impose whatever your morality on others. And most definitely, not post-sale. Definitely won't be buying a kindle seeing how things are.
Here's a question: who cares?
I mean, when selling software, what is your goal, to get enough money, or to enforce your vision of how the world ought to work?
There are quite a few other explanations for that other than piracy, some of which people mentioned when it was discussed originally.
For instance:
Buying at work, saving the URL and downloading at home or vice-versa (some people still use modems)
Paying double then giving a friend the download URL. Children people in some countries can have trouble making online payments.
Proxies
Changing IP addresses
I'll pay double if there is. I really liked messing with the source of the games from the previous bundle.
That's silly.
My country deserves no unconditional love just because I happened to be born in it, the flag is just a picture, and the soldiers sometimes fight for a just cause, and sometimes for a completely senseless one. My country is not special. If it goes wrong, I try to set it right, and do the exact same thing with any other country I happen to be living in at the moment, if I have the ability.
Nothing deserves unconditional respect. Respect is earned through good deeds.
I don't think it the implications are that impressive unless you're very big yourself.
I mean, it wouldn't necessarily be a good idea to get hosting at amazon based on this. Your site might stay up, but I bet that Amazon will charge you for all that traffic, and anonymous can use quite a bit of it. So instead of your site going down you'll get a huge bill. For a small site, that's very likely to kill it. Even for a small/medium size business it could do very appreciable damage.
This is only impressive if you have the cash to pay the bills and staying online is more important than paying for all the bandwidth the DoS manages to use. Probably there's not a huge customer base for that kind of thing.
The technology is expensive for the company to set up, it's also expensive for the user, and it provides a very niche service: ability to call people from the middle of nowhere, and from nowhere else.
If you're anywhere even relatively civilized there are cell towers that are much cheaper and convenient, and buildings inside which the tech doesn't work. If you do happen to be in the middle of nowhere you're either one of the 20 people working at some research station on the north pole or similar location, or are some sort of aborigine that can't pay for it anyway. Not a huge customer base there.
A problem to the people, duh.
You seem to have this weird idea that "survival of the species" and "survival of the individuals that compose it" are equivalent things. But they aren't. For instance, let's suppose that things change enough that your area turns into a searing desert, crops die, and life in a city becomes impossible (because cities must be supported by the countryside). At the same time, Greenland becomes a lush tropical paradise.
Now the global stats of such a thing could conceivably look pretty good really. Perhaps overall things improve. But that doesn't mean that it's necessarily going to be pleasant for you. If your area ends up being disadvantaged, what are you going to do, move to Greenland? Think they'll just let you go and move there?
If such a thing happens over tens of thousands of years it's not such a big deal. Eventually things get uncomfortable and people figure out that maybe it's time to move somewhere better. But if something like that happens over a human lifetime, it's going to be a mess of epic proportions.
How do you balance that with the suffering of other people that could be alleviated by the research? Research like this has a lot of potential in areas other than just making children. Things like growing replacement organs perhaps, which a lot of people need badly.
In other words, in your opinion, is causing pain for the sake a research always wrong, no matter the benefits obtained?
Like with any other research really. Ocassionally the best intended research goes much worse than anticipated. An experimental medicine has some sort of horrific side effect, or the study turns out to have deeply disturbing results (Milgram experiment for instance)
Pretty much that, yes. Obviously one doesn't go causing pain for shits and giggles, but ocassionally things are going to go wrong. If we let that us stop from doing any research we'd still be living in the middle ages with all the suffering that involves.
One should try to avoid causing unnecessary harm, and if things go wrong anyway the proper thing to do is to try to fix as much as possible.
But you're not doing all that much good to the people who can't get well due to lack of research on the subject either.
Why? Like quite a few people you seem to be really sure that it'd be wrong, but don't provide any reasons why.
So explain, why isn't it right?
Well if we don't know what'll happen, then let's make some and see what happens? Why pointlessly speculate when you can try and see for yourself?
Again, why? And I disagree on that any kind of line needs to be drawn.
No, I don't. Certainly not to a blanket statement without a reason for it. I don't arbitrarily reject things because it "feels wrong" or vague junk like that. You're going to have to provide a good reasoning for what's wrong with it.
RL furries, that would be so awesome.
So? Ever checked what's the weather like in Russia, for instance? Plenty rain and snow, yet the railroads do just fine. Good quality steel, construction and maintenance go a long way.
And why are you so sure they "won't have that luxury"? Like I said, if it makes economic sense, it will be done. The technical possibility is there.
Why? Where's the big difference between this and a railroad? They need a bit of periodic maintenance, but they manage to survive the moisture and elements just fine.
I suppose that if this provides enough of an advantage, then it makes sense to rework the whole field so that it lies on a perfectly flat and straight grid.
It's been done with warehouses (Kiva for instance), so why not in a field?
There are a lot of fucked up places in the world. Your might not be the worst of them, but as of lately it's far from ideal.
People used to be very proud of that America is the "Land of the Free", not that "It's better than North Korea". If that's what it's supposed to be, why do you keep trying to divert the attention by pointing to some hole like North Korea? Shouldn't you be working tirelessly to uphold that ideal, no matter how much shittier some other place might be?
You're in the US (I assume from your message), and you're in the position to make it less fucked up. So your dirty laundry suddenly got exposed. Don't whine about people noticing the stains, don't point to your neighbour's, but do the proper thing and clean it up.
My take on it:
A ship or anything else isn't necessarily made from the same stuff at any given time. A wave in the ocean for instance is a shape that persists and that we see as a "thing", though the water it's made of constantly changes. Same happens with people. You consume, rearrange and excrete molecules. You're not made today from the same atoms you were when you were 10.
"Copy" is just a human descriptor, meaning "this object was made using another as a reference". Copies often suffer generational loss, which is why it's useful to know what is a copy of what. In that sense, the new ship built from the replaced pieces is the copy, because it probably was built looking at the fully functional ship.
The way I see it, if two things are close enough that no diffrence can be discerned, the "copy" status of any of them is irrelevant, and both are as good as original.
Looking at it another way, everything is a copy. The first object is an imperfect reproduction of a plan. An original painting is still an imperfect execution of what the artist wanted to paint. Any given human is an imperfect execution of the orders encoded in the DNA.
I think having people who live forever (or a few centuries at least) would do a lot of good for the world. Several reasons:
People who plan to live 500 years can't afford to fuck up the environment. Normal people may vote for a bad policy because the consequences in 50 years are far away and they'll probably be dead anyway. But if you plan to be around and healthy in 100 years from now, you've got to give long term plans some more thought. The exhaustion of oil would be well within one's expected lifetime.
Same goes for political decisions. Some things take a long time to take effect. People would be more careful if the consequences of their decisions could still bite them 50 years later.
It would be valuable for politics. I think we currently forget far too quickly. People who personally remember important events and wars are very valuable.
It would be incredible for progress and science. Imagine if Einstein was still around. A normal human lifetime is short when doing groundbreaking work.
Of course there would be plenty worthless people around as well, but there's nothing new there.
I don't think the downsides would be very big. This would probably involve "periodic maintenance", which would make overpopulation a lot less likely. Some people would get tired of living and decide to stop rejuvenating themselves, some would run out of money. There's always death from accidents. And this would be mostly limited to first world nations, which aren't the ones having a population problem anyway.
Promoting the US view? According to that article they found a few remnants. It's hard to get exact numbers out of that article with wikileaks being DoSed, but I don't think that some rusty artillery shells (it strikes me as a very bad idea to try to fire a round that's leaking) and the 10 rounds amount to anything significant and justify the war.
Wikileaks aren't journalists and don't pretend to be. They leak whatever they're given and hide the source.
That might be because it is stupid. Yet that's what the official justification for the wars amounts to, pretty much.
Unfortunately people weren't thinking enough of that back when all this crap was getting started.
Wikipedia says:
That might explain it.