Manning was just a show-off trying to data-dump anything she could get her hands on without a greater purpose in mind. She did it because she could, not because she had any morale compass.
According to Manning in her final statements:
I believe that if the general public, especially the American public, had access to the information contained within the CIDNE-I and CIDNE-A tables, this could spark a domestic debate on the role of the military and our foreign policy in general as [missed word] as it related to Iraq and Afghanistan.
I also believed the detailed analysis of the data over a long period of time by different sectors of society might cause society to reevaluate the need or even the desire to even to engage in counterterrorism and counterinsurgency operations that ignore the complex dynamics of the people living in the effected environment every day.
When someone claims a purpose that matches his actions it seems wrong to claim they didn't have a purpose. Manning's leaks were what actually took the troops out of Iraq, when their government was forced to threaten taking American criminals to international court. Stratfor leaks relating to Syria show that officials believed the public would not support air attack without media attention to a massacre. Obama bombarded Libya without congressional approval. She not only had a purpose, but she actually achieved it.
Read the emails, it's stupid to talk about accessible, undisputed information without reading it.
Trump is worse in pretty much every imaginable way when it comes to being a criminal and an all around terrible person.
Only someone that does not know about what Hillary has done can say that. Only US secretaries of state and presidents can achieve that level of evil, there is no information enough on Trump to claim what you did, the things he said cannot be counted as worst than the things she did. After he starts a war without congressional approval for political gain we can claim he is getting close to her (yes this information is also in the emails).
US Military Members Had More than 15,600 Accounts on MegaUpload. It's not someone could have used megaupload for some legal activity. Lots of people were using it, the above article points to just a small subset of Americans who were doing it (the whole world used megaupload). I know American soldiers are not known for legal activity, but in this case it seems it was mostly a means of communication with their families.
Mega is one thing, Megaupload was another. I wouldn't bother with this shortening if the Mega service hadn't been created later.
Ad hominem attacks shouldn't have a place on the legal system. He looked bad and criminal and Google executives doesn't? Megaupload was doing then the same that youtube has been doing all along. Your claimed cat videos purpose has nothing to do with it.
As I understand, if the content owners wanted to sell files and provide them to customers through a link on megaupload, they could. Just like content owners expose their files on youtube in exchange for advertising money. The "original content owner" doesn't get anything for pirate views on youtube, like they didn't on megaupload.
I read the wikipedia page too, but the prosecution's side ignores the technical reason why they didn't necessarily delete the files. I read an example of the file deletion thing, it was on these lines: 1. user1 makes a copy of the file for personal use (legal); 2. user2 makes a copy for sharing in his blog (illegal according to American laws) 3. user3, the rights holder, makes another copy of the file, for private use (legal).
If they deleted the file because of a notice on user2's link, the other users that had legitimate access to the file would have their legal property destroyed.
But about them not "playing nice", that's arguable, and my point is that according to the "rights holders", youtube is both a violator AND isn't playing nice, see 1, 2 and RIAA Says YouTube is Running a DMCA Protection Racket. They are all about how youtube and google are pirate heavens and are not helping enough in the good fight. In TFA they are talking about well-known loopholes (claiming/implying youtube should be doing something about it).
Megaupload was taking down the links for infringing content, that means that the alleged pirate lost access to the file, but without destroying the data of those users that were never accused of infringing anything. This is what caused controversy, the prosecutor thinks they should have deleted people's files.
The fact that they were complying with the DMCA notices the way google and everybody else does should be enough. People shouldn't have to do more than what the law says, they should to as little as possible. Specially if going through extra lengths would hurt legitimate users. Being prosecuted or not shouldn't be about playing nice with the powerful or about being one of them. While megaupload is being prosecuted, and torrent sites are constantly being persecuted, Google is the big pirate. The best way to find a torrent is still googling FILENAME.torrent and to find a song is still youtube. They are not prosecuted because it is google.
Isn't this exactly megaupload's case? They were a legitimate service for storing and sharing files publicly and privately, just like youtube. They had a takedown system and were compliant to the DMCA, just like youtube. But not enough for the content "owners" liking, like youtube. Their system was used for piracy some of the time, just like youtube (and the proportion BS people tell about torrent sites does not apply here, the legitimate use was huge).
If the US had a decent prosecutor, he/she would go after Google with the same methods and arguments used in megaupload's case. To lose the case, of course, and set some precedents for the small people and the foreigners (Kim is anything but small).
An electric vehicle only works as a primary vehicle if you rarely leave a major metro area.
Or that there are better options than cars for leaving your living metro area, like trains and bullet trains everywhere (plus cheap taxis in China), so that's what you do when you have to go further.
Obama made the most pro-transparency move of his office time. By greatly increasing access to secret information, the odds of us knowing the lies and crimes of the future administration are also increased. Let's hope for new troves.
You will not provide any false personal information on Facebook, or create an account for anyone other than yourself without permission.
I don't think that complies with the CFAA. Violating the terms of service is illegal. You are teaching them to be criminals!!!
Besides this little detail, your simplification for kids seems pretty good. Changing the law so that they aren't considered criminals for following it is the solution.
In one excerpt of a speech to Deutsche Bank in April 2013, according to the document, Clinton boasted about the federal government’s support for fracking and her own work to promote the process across the globe.
“Fracking was developed at the Department of Energy,” the document shows Clinton saying. “I mean, the whole idea of how fracking came to be available in the marketplace is because of research done by our government. And I've promoted fracking in other places around the world.”
In another excerpt of the same speech, Clinton outlines why she supports a continued push for fracking.
“The ability to extract both gas and oil from previously used places that didn't seem to have much more to offer, but now the technology gives us the chance to go in and recover oil and gas,” the document shows her saying. “Or with the new technology known as fracking, we are truly on a path -- and it's not just United States; it's all of North America -- that will be net energy exporters assuming we do it right."
I don't mean, in any way, that Trump might be good for the environment. Just that he probably isn't going to be worst (frackingwise) than Hillary would have been.
They do say that the coal use will be reduced, because they have to reduce it anyway, but they use the opportunity to also blame the open-air barbecues and attack them. That is part of Beijing's dream of becoming a "clean", modern city like Shanghai; to take the poor and the muslins from the streets/city.
The AC assessment that this is a PR stunt to blame random people grilling is correct. You don't even have to know the Chinese government well to see it through their BS. He read the summary and pointed the BS, the "reason" why they created this force is not pollution, I'll add that it is blaming the problems not on random people, but on the poor people, painting them as responsible for the pollution as much as the factory owners, and then hunting/expelling them through fines and prison threats, while financing upgrades for the rich.
The environmental police squad was one of several new measures
Other measures included cutting coal use by 30 percent in 2017...
They are being forced by the situation to act on the pollution issue, something that will be done by reducing coal use and closing/renewing factories. But they are using the opportunity to hunt the people who are not really contributing to the problem (thousands of open-air barbecues are nothing compared to one polluting factory), but that they dislike.
Do know that there is a lot of smoking inside Beijing's restaurants, even though it is illegal (and the law was made so that restaurant owners have no reason to try to enforce the law). Where are the police squads to enforce that law? The second hand smoking people get because of this lack of enforcement is a real problem*, but they are after the open-air bbqs. You see the discrepancy? That happens because the politicians are mostly smokers, and like the resources that come from China Tobacco ("the world's largest manufacturer of tobacco products measured by revenues").
*The US Surgeon General, in his 2006 report, estimated that living or working in a place where smoking is permitted increases the non-smokers' risk of developing heart disease by 25–30% and lung cancer by 20–30% source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passive_smoking#cite_note-93
If someone threatens to take your Internet away, that is a big incentive NOT to go to the movies. Why would you finance the bullies? Meanwhile, if you forget that they are spying on you and censoring the Internet, then you might go to have the "movies" experience.
And I note that a lot of people here are talking about the warnings in the beginning of the movies, but that's not what the article is talking about:
France was one of the pioneers in this area with its three-strikes anti-piracy law, and similar policies have been implemented in countries such as Ireland, South Korea, New Zealand and the United States, among others.
The "Russia hacked the U.S. election" headline, in contrast with "some Russians hacked the DNC and we don't know who leaked to Wikileaks", is the biggest case of fake news out there and almost no one is talking about it. Because of this type of deceitful headline half of Clinton's voters believe that the Russian government hacked the vote tallies, even tough there is no indication of that and no officials are actually claiming.
This shit got +5? That is Slashdot's lowest. Russia didn't destroy Iraq, or plan and give tactical, military and financial support for the destruction of Libya and Syria. The USA did.
they said without saying that SOF teams (presumably from US, UK, France, Jordan, Turkey) are already on the ground focused on recce missions and training opposition forces. One Air Force intel guy (US) said very carefully that there isn't much of a Free Syrian Army to train right now anyway
So there were no rebels to train, but they were there and training them anyway.
the idea 'hypothetically' is to commit guerrilla attacks, assassination campaigns, try to break the back of the Alawite forces, elicit collapse from within
They dont believe air intervention would happen unless there was enough media attention on a massacre, like the Ghadafi move against Benghazi. They think the US would have a high tolerance for killings as long as it doesn't reach that very public stage.
Would mod insightful. I'm from one of those countries, that's why the (somewhat wrong) reasoning about pirate parties. I guess that leaves the responsibility of creating and voting pirate to the other countries, to avoid the trade agreements that the US uses to push censorship and criminalization of sharing. For the US people tough, as bad as it is, I can only hope that things get worst to the point were marijuana got, so that it is legalized too.
if you establish a precedent that it's basically okay for foreign governments to hack and dox political campaigns in the USA, they're going to keep doing it.
It wasn't just the political campaign that was doxed, but who Clinton is, the foreign money she was getting and laundering, her weapon sales to terrorist supporters, etc. But the really bad precedent being set is that many Americans decided that it is wrong if foreigners expose American corruption. To the point of the people ignoring said corruption and the government sanctioning whomever they are accusing of doing the exposing. It should always be OK for anyone to expose your politicians corruption. That's what gets them accountable, or at least off of the office like in this case.
The "meddling" that the Democrats are complaining here is the exposure of the truth to the voters. That's very different from JTRIG's psyops (from the USA's five eyes partner) were deceiving is one of the tactics. If Americans see that the American media is colluding with one of the candidates, and proceed to find unacceptable that foreign publishers tell the truth, what are America's chances of having a fair election or being a democracy?
Worse still, candidates might preemptively cozy up to Russia or whomever in hopes of getting assistance against their opponent(s).
Yes, that's exactly what she did. She cozied up to George Soros, the Saudis, Qatar, WP, CNN, etc in hopes of getting assistance against her opponents, both by taking Bernie out and by first pushing Trump up (the pied piper candidates strategy) and then trying to bring him down (by the media largely ignoring the content of the leaks).
BTW, I'm calling it foreign "meddling" because Wikileaks is a foreign publisher. This report and previous official claims gave no indication that there is any proof or indication that the Russians leaked whatever they hacked. Since Wikileaks did the exceptional step of saying it wasn't the Russians, they have a perfect track record, and it doesn't even contradict what the officials are reporting (that is different from the claims being made by politicians, POTUS and the press), I'll believe them.
Legalization is the other way to survive. Create more pirate parties, then proceed to vote pirate. A lot of gay people and marijuana users were prosecuted before it becoming legal. Keeping it on the clearnet and sharing despite the law, in massive quantities and every type of media will enshrine the practice. People being prosecuted for doing something common and moral will eventually grow enough outrage that it will stop. The first step, besides sharing, is to stop the sharing = stealing narrative.
Multiple vendors really helps the Android user to get what they want.
Your response:
you won't be able to buy a Samsung phone with a "headphone jack", either.
Just that is enough to call your comment obtuse. You quoted the part that showing you are wrong. But let's read further...
He then repeats the point that there are more manufacturers.
To which you claim that all of them copies samsung, despite the diversity in phone models, sizes, materials and focus (like better front facing camera, lasting battery, water/dust resistance - that sony was doing for years before samsung or apple).
He gives you one example of how your sentence cannot be correct. To what you reply:
You know very well what I mean. Quit being intentionally obtuse.
I though I knew what you meant, something completely wrong about android phones, samsung and apple. But with this last comment I'm not sure anymore. If what you meant was that some companies copy some things that samsung does, that sometimes is the same stupid shit apple did. That was a terrible way of expressing it.
On boycott you are correct. Considering my position on censorship and their lobbying in favor of it, I should boycott them and I mostly do (bold because the rest of my comment gives the impression I don't). But I also think that culture should be accessible to everyone. That and the fact that much of music history is own by them puts me in a position where stepping on their copyrights and sharing the songs they own the copyrights to works better in relation to the future I want for humanity - one with universal access to all culture. While financing them works better for the future they want for humanity - with censorship and the consequent widespread surveillance, as well as limited access to culture. Only boycotting certain content is not enough if I want universal access to culture. FOSS and filesharing are ways to push on this direction - look at homosexuality and marijuana use as examples of how the general practice of a crime eventually turns it legal.
On stealing/pirating, you are wrong. Criminal codes lists several different offenses for a reason: things are different. Robbery is not murder. Copyright infringement is not stealing, they are different things that the industry is trying to mix up to both increase the penalties for those who share files and to reduce their risk of the legalization of file sharing (filesharing is not a crime here in Brazil if not for profit).
You heavily distorted what I said. I never claimed it was immoral to listen to free music. What is stupid and immoral is to support/give money to RIAA/MAFIAA. That was pretty clear in my comment. There is nothing wrong with listening to the 14 million bands that aren't represented by the RIAA and I'm not criticizing anyone that does support decent bands. I do that too, mostly locally.
If you ignore the 99.99% of music that's not produced by RIAA, and instead steal the RIAA music, that's not because it "would be immoral" to listen to most music, it's because you a) like what RIAA provides you, and b) would rather steal things than pay for it.
You mixed up everything here. I do not ignore the rest of the music. Sharing is not stealing. I didn't claim it was immoral to listen to other music, I claimed it's immoral to give censorship lobbyists (RIAA) money. The conclusion then over generalizes: A) Yes I like what the RIAA "provides" me, but B) No, I'd rather pay for things(and gave two examples in my comment), except if the person/group "providing" the content is threatening my way of life.
BTW, "providing", because I live in Brazil. When I first became a pirate it was because I couldn't legally listen to the songs my parents were trying to present me (that were pushed on them by radio on their time) without committing resources I didn't have. I wasn't rich, importing CDs is/was very expensive. When I did import Cream's whole discography, because I wanted to pay for it, I was rewarded with poorer quality than what I had in my mp3s. Nowadays I can buy all those songs with decent quality, but I can't legally watch Mr. Robot. So yeah, they aren't really providing me. At the same time, pirate software gave me the education I needed to get a decent job position (culture that I would never have got otherwise). Now I use Linux.
They were routinely deleting songs legally bought from competitors for two years and now they should be forgiven? Lets reward the abusers because in this topic they appear to have changed. But reports of itunes deleting personal music files are not a thing from the far (6 year) past. Last year and this year they deleted people's songs too. There was some famous musician that complained about it but I can't remember his name (they changed his personal edition to something they had in their store)
Uh oh, someone told the truth. Around here we're supposed to pretend that it's something else, other than being cheap.
It's about not supporting censorship lobbyists for me. I don't mind paying for drm free content from Louis CK of GOG because they don't go around spreading viruses, tracking your online movements, suing families or lobbying for censorship bills around the world. But giving the MAFIAA my money? That would be immoral AND stupid (not because I spend a little money, because it's against my own future freedom). I have plenty of money, do waste on other BS and miss some stuff for having this position (like going to the movies or live sports on cable). To claim people act in certain ways because of only one reason gives the impression you have no idea about how human beings are like.
Try to trace back when this Brexit thing started. It was some time after Snowden. When the EU started complaining about UK's abuses. They called it interference on national sovereignty. Then they started to push other reasons that would be more appealing to the public.
Slashdot Mirror
Manning was just a show-off trying to data-dump anything she could get her hands on without a greater purpose in mind. She did it because she could, not because she had any morale compass.
According to Manning in her final statements:
I believe that if the general public, especially the American public, had access to the information contained within the CIDNE-I and CIDNE-A tables, this could spark a domestic debate on the role of the military and our foreign policy in general as [missed word] as it related to Iraq and Afghanistan.
I also believed the detailed analysis of the data over a long period of time by different sectors of society might cause society to reevaluate the need or even the desire to even to engage in counterterrorism and counterinsurgency operations that ignore the complex dynamics of the people living in the effected environment every day.
When someone claims a purpose that matches his actions it seems wrong to claim they didn't have a purpose. Manning's leaks were what actually took the troops out of Iraq, when their government was forced to threaten taking American criminals to international court. Stratfor leaks relating to Syria show that officials believed the public would not support air attack without media attention to a massacre. Obama bombarded Libya without congressional approval.
She not only had a purpose, but she actually achieved it.
thing you imagine the Clintons to have done
Read the emails, it's stupid to talk about accessible, undisputed information without reading it.
Trump is worse in pretty much every imaginable way when it comes to being a criminal and an all around terrible person.
Only someone that does not know about what Hillary has done can say that. Only US secretaries of state and presidents can achieve that level of evil, there is no information enough on Trump to claim what you did, the things he said cannot be counted as worst than the things she did. After he starts a war without congressional approval for political gain we can claim he is getting close to her (yes this information is also in the emails).
US Military Members Had More than 15,600 Accounts on MegaUpload. It's not someone could have used megaupload for some legal activity. Lots of people were using it, the above article points to just a small subset of Americans who were doing it (the whole world used megaupload). I know American soldiers are not known for legal activity, but in this case it seems it was mostly a means of communication with their families.
Mega is one thing, Megaupload was another. I wouldn't bother with this shortening if the Mega service hadn't been created later.
Ad hominem attacks shouldn't have a place on the legal system. He looked bad and criminal and Google executives doesn't? Megaupload was doing then the same that youtube has been doing all along. Your claimed cat videos purpose has nothing to do with it.
As I understand, if the content owners wanted to sell files and provide them to customers through a link on megaupload, they could. Just like content owners expose their files on youtube in exchange for advertising money. The "original content owner" doesn't get anything for pirate views on youtube, like they didn't on megaupload.
Or did you mean megaupload didn't bribe the RIAA?
I read the wikipedia page too, but the prosecution's side ignores the technical reason why they didn't necessarily delete the files. I read an example of the file deletion thing, it was on these lines:
1. user1 makes a copy of the file for personal use (legal);
2. user2 makes a copy for sharing in his blog (illegal according to American laws)
3. user3, the rights holder, makes another copy of the file, for private use (legal).
If they deleted the file because of a notice on user2's link, the other users that had legitimate access to the file would have their legal property destroyed.
But about them not "playing nice", that's arguable, and my point is that according to the "rights holders", youtube is both a violator AND isn't playing nice, see 1, 2 and RIAA Says YouTube is Running a DMCA Protection Racket. They are all about how youtube and google are pirate heavens and are not helping enough in the good fight. In TFA they are talking about well-known loopholes (claiming/implying youtube should be doing something about it).
Megaupload was taking down the links for infringing content, that means that the alleged pirate lost access to the file, but without destroying the data of those users that were never accused of infringing anything. This is what caused controversy, the prosecutor thinks they should have deleted people's files.
The fact that they were complying with the DMCA notices the way google and everybody else does should be enough. People shouldn't have to do more than what the law says, they should to as little as possible. Specially if going through extra lengths would hurt legitimate users. Being prosecuted or not shouldn't be about playing nice with the powerful or about being one of them. .torrent and to find a song is still youtube. They are not prosecuted because it is google.
While megaupload is being prosecuted, and torrent sites are constantly being persecuted, Google is the big pirate. The best way to find a torrent is still googling FILENAME
Isn't this exactly megaupload's case? They were a legitimate service for storing and sharing files publicly and privately, just like youtube. They had a takedown system and were compliant to the DMCA, just like youtube. But not enough for the content "owners" liking, like youtube. Their system was used for piracy some of the time, just like youtube (and the proportion BS people tell about torrent sites does not apply here, the legitimate use was huge).
If the US had a decent prosecutor, he/she would go after Google with the same methods and arguments used in megaupload's case. To lose the case, of course, and set some precedents for the small people and the foreigners (Kim is anything but small).
American imperialism sucks.
I wonder when they will put the prices up.
An electric vehicle only works as a primary vehicle if you rarely leave a major metro area.
Or that there are better options than cars for leaving your living metro area, like trains and bullet trains everywhere (plus cheap taxis in China), so that's what you do when you have to go further.
He just needed to get out of office.
Obama made the most pro-transparency move of his office time. By greatly increasing access to secret information, the odds of us knowing the lies and crimes of the future administration are also increased. Let's hope for new troves.
Your suggestion:
2) Always lie about your age, use a fake name, and never provide a real address
Facebook's Terms of Service:
You will not provide any false personal information on Facebook, or create an account for anyone other than yourself without permission.
I don't think that complies with the CFAA. Violating the terms of service is illegal. You are teaching them to be criminals!!!
Besides this little detail, your simplification for kids seems pretty good. Changing the law so that they aren't considered criminals for following it is the solution.
To every congressman in the country, asking them to repel the CFAA or at least heavily reform it, while also making a huge PR stunt about it.
You know Clinton was the fracking candidate, right? (it's in the attachment of the email).
From an article about the subject:
In one excerpt of a speech to Deutsche Bank in April 2013, according to the document, Clinton boasted about the federal government’s support for fracking and her own work to promote the process across the globe.
“Fracking was developed at the Department of Energy,” the document shows Clinton saying. “I mean, the whole idea of how fracking came to be available in the marketplace is because of research done by our government. And I've promoted fracking in other places around the world.”
In another excerpt of the same speech, Clinton outlines why she supports a continued push for fracking.
“The ability to extract both gas and oil from previously used places that didn't seem to have much more to offer, but now the technology gives us the chance to go in and recover oil and gas,” the document shows her saying. “Or with the new technology known as fracking, we are truly on a path -- and it's not just United States; it's all of North America -- that will be net energy exporters assuming we do it right."
I don't mean, in any way, that Trump might be good for the environment. Just that he probably isn't going to be worst (frackingwise) than Hillary would have been.
They do say that the coal use will be reduced, because they have to reduce it anyway, but they use the opportunity to also blame the open-air barbecues and attack them. That is part of Beijing's dream of becoming a "clean", modern city like Shanghai; to take the poor and the muslins from the streets/city.
The AC assessment that this is a PR stunt to blame random people grilling is correct. You don't even have to know the Chinese government well to see it through their BS. He read the summary and pointed the BS, the "reason" why they created this force is not pollution, I'll add that it is blaming the problems not on random people, but on the poor people, painting them as responsible for the pollution as much as the factory owners, and then hunting/expelling them through fines and prison threats, while financing upgrades for the rich.
The environmental police squad was one of several new measures
Other measures included cutting coal use by 30 percent in 2017 ...
They are being forced by the situation to act on the pollution issue, something that will be done by reducing coal use and closing/renewing factories. But they are using the opportunity to hunt the people who are not really contributing to the problem (thousands of open-air barbecues are nothing compared to one polluting factory), but that they dislike.
Do know that there is a lot of smoking inside Beijing's restaurants, even though it is illegal (and the law was made so that restaurant owners have no reason to try to enforce the law). Where are the police squads to enforce that law? The second hand smoking people get because of this lack of enforcement is a real problem*, but they are after the open-air bbqs. You see the discrepancy? That happens because the politicians are mostly smokers, and like the resources that come from China Tobacco ("the world's largest manufacturer of tobacco products measured by revenues").
*The US Surgeon General, in his 2006 report, estimated that living or working in a place where smoking is permitted increases the non-smokers' risk of developing heart disease by 25–30% and lung cancer by 20–30% source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passive_smoking#cite_note-93
Actually they made a deal to delete everything afterwards. So the stuff that was not deleted before the FBI got there was deleted after.
FBI Agreed To Destroy Laptops of Clinton Aides With Immunity Deal
If someone threatens to take your Internet away, that is a big incentive NOT to go to the movies. Why would you finance the bullies?
Meanwhile, if you forget that they are spying on you and censoring the Internet, then you might go to have the "movies" experience.
And I note that a lot of people here are talking about the warnings in the beginning of the movies, but that's not what the article is talking about:
France was one of the pioneers in this area with its three-strikes anti-piracy law, and similar policies have been implemented in countries such as Ireland, South Korea, New Zealand and the United States, among others.
The "Russia hacked the U.S. election" headline, in contrast with "some Russians hacked the DNC and we don't know who leaked to Wikileaks", is the biggest case of fake news out there and almost no one is talking about it. Because of this type of deceitful headline half of Clinton's voters believe that the Russian government hacked the vote tallies, even tough there is no indication of that and no officials are actually claiming.
This shit got +5? That is Slashdot's lowest. Russia didn't destroy Iraq, or plan and give tactical, military and financial support for the destruction of Libya and Syria. The USA did.
And if people have doubts on Libya and Syria, remember the we came, we saw, he died interview, the DIA 2012 report and the Syria insight stolen memo.
Because people are lazy I'll quote, yet again, from the memo:
they said without saying that SOF teams (presumably from US, UK, France, Jordan, Turkey) are already on the ground focused on recce missions and training opposition forces. One Air Force intel guy (US) said very carefully that there isn't much of a Free Syrian Army to train right now anyway
So there were no rebels to train, but they were there and training them anyway.
the idea 'hypothetically' is to commit guerrilla attacks, assassination campaigns, try to break the back of the Alawite forces, elicit collapse from within
They dont believe air intervention would happen unless there was enough media attention on a massacre, like the Ghadafi move against Benghazi. They think the US would have a high tolerance for killings as long as it doesn't reach that very public stage.
Would mod insightful. I'm from one of those countries, that's why the (somewhat wrong) reasoning about pirate parties. I guess that leaves the responsibility of creating and voting pirate to the other countries, to avoid the trade agreements that the US uses to push censorship and criminalization of sharing. For the US people tough, as bad as it is, I can only hope that things get worst to the point were marijuana got, so that it is legalized too.
if you establish a precedent that it's basically okay for foreign governments to hack and dox political campaigns in the USA, they're going to keep doing it.
It wasn't just the political campaign that was doxed, but who Clinton is, the foreign money she was getting and laundering, her weapon sales to terrorist supporters, etc.
But the really bad precedent being set is that many Americans decided that it is wrong if foreigners expose American corruption. To the point of the people ignoring said corruption and the government sanctioning whomever they are accusing of doing the exposing.
It should always be OK for anyone to expose your politicians corruption. That's what gets them accountable, or at least off of the office like in this case.
The "meddling" that the Democrats are complaining here is the exposure of the truth to the voters. That's very different from JTRIG's psyops (from the USA's five eyes partner) were deceiving is one of the tactics. If Americans see that the American media is colluding with one of the candidates, and proceed to find unacceptable that foreign publishers tell the truth, what are America's chances of having a fair election or being a democracy?
Worse still, candidates might preemptively cozy up to Russia or whomever in hopes of getting assistance against their opponent(s).
Yes, that's exactly what she did. She cozied up to George Soros, the Saudis, Qatar, WP, CNN, etc in hopes of getting assistance against her opponents, both by taking Bernie out and by first pushing Trump up (the pied piper candidates strategy) and then trying to bring him down (by the media largely ignoring the content of the leaks).
BTW, I'm calling it foreign "meddling" because Wikileaks is a foreign publisher. This report and previous official claims gave no indication that there is any proof or indication that the Russians leaked whatever they hacked. Since Wikileaks did the exceptional step of saying it wasn't the Russians, they have a perfect track record, and it doesn't even contradict what the officials are reporting (that is different from the claims being made by politicians, POTUS and the press), I'll believe them.
Legalization is the other way to survive. Create more pirate parties, then proceed to vote pirate.
A lot of gay people and marijuana users were prosecuted before it becoming legal. Keeping it on the clearnet and sharing despite the law, in massive quantities and every type of media will enshrine the practice. People being prosecuted for doing something common and moral will eventually grow enough outrage that it will stop.
The first step, besides sharing, is to stop the sharing = stealing narrative.
Multiple vendors really helps the Android user to get what they want.
Your response:
you won't be able to buy a Samsung phone with a "headphone jack", either.
Just that is enough to call your comment obtuse. You quoted the part that showing you are wrong. But let's read further...
He then repeats the point that there are more manufacturers.
To which you claim that all of them copies samsung, despite the diversity in phone models, sizes, materials and focus (like better front facing camera, lasting battery, water/dust resistance - that sony was doing for years before samsung or apple).
He gives you one example of how your sentence cannot be correct. To what you reply:
You know very well what I mean. Quit being intentionally obtuse.
I though I knew what you meant, something completely wrong about android phones, samsung and apple. But with this last comment I'm not sure anymore.
If what you meant was that some companies copy some things that samsung does, that sometimes is the same stupid shit apple did. That was a terrible way of expressing it.
On boycott you are correct. Considering my position on censorship and their lobbying in favor of it, I should boycott them and I mostly do (bold because the rest of my comment gives the impression I don't). But I also think that culture should be accessible to everyone. That and the fact that much of music history is own by them puts me in a position where stepping on their copyrights and sharing the songs they own the copyrights to works better in relation to the future I want for humanity - one with universal access to all culture. While financing them works better for the future they want for humanity - with censorship and the consequent widespread surveillance, as well as limited access to culture. Only boycotting certain content is not enough if I want universal access to culture. FOSS and filesharing are ways to push on this direction - look at homosexuality and marijuana use as examples of how the general practice of a crime eventually turns it legal.
On stealing/pirating, you are wrong. Criminal codes lists several different offenses for a reason: things are different. Robbery is not murder. Copyright infringement is not stealing, they are different things that the industry is trying to mix up to both increase the penalties for those who share files and to reduce their risk of the legalization of file sharing (filesharing is not a crime here in Brazil if not for profit).
You heavily distorted what I said. I never claimed it was immoral to listen to free music. What is stupid and immoral is to support/give money to RIAA/MAFIAA. That was pretty clear in my comment. There is nothing wrong with listening to the 14 million bands that aren't represented by the RIAA and I'm not criticizing anyone that does support decent bands. I do that too, mostly locally.
If you ignore the 99.99% of music that's not produced by RIAA, and instead steal the RIAA music, that's not because it "would be immoral" to listen to most music, it's because you a) like what RIAA provides you, and b) would rather steal things than pay for it.
You mixed up everything here. I do not ignore the rest of the music. Sharing is not stealing. I didn't claim it was immoral to listen to other music, I claimed it's immoral to give censorship lobbyists (RIAA) money. The conclusion then over generalizes: A) Yes I like what the RIAA "provides" me, but B) No, I'd rather pay for things(and gave two examples in my comment), except if the person/group "providing" the content is threatening my way of life.
BTW, "providing", because I live in Brazil. When I first became a pirate it was because I couldn't legally listen to the songs my parents were trying to present me (that were pushed on them by radio on their time) without committing resources I didn't have.
I wasn't rich, importing CDs is/was very expensive. When I did import Cream's whole discography, because I wanted to pay for it, I was rewarded with poorer quality than what I had in my mp3s.
Nowadays I can buy all those songs with decent quality, but I can't legally watch Mr. Robot. So yeah, they aren't really providing me.
At the same time, pirate software gave me the education I needed to get a decent job position (culture that I would never have got otherwise). Now I use Linux.
They were routinely deleting songs legally bought from competitors for two years and now they should be forgiven? Lets reward the abusers because in this topic they appear to have changed.
But reports of itunes deleting personal music files are not a thing from the far (6 year) past. Last year and this year they deleted people's songs too. There was some famous musician that complained about it but I can't remember his name (they changed his personal edition to something they had in their store)
Uh oh, someone told the truth. Around here we're supposed to pretend that it's something else, other than being cheap.
It's about not supporting censorship lobbyists for me. I don't mind paying for drm free content from Louis CK of GOG because they don't go around spreading viruses, tracking your online movements, suing families or lobbying for censorship bills around the world. But giving the MAFIAA my money? That would be immoral AND stupid (not because I spend a little money, because it's against my own future freedom).
I have plenty of money, do waste on other BS and miss some stuff for having this position (like going to the movies or live sports on cable). To claim people act in certain ways because of only one reason gives the impression you have no idea about how human beings are like.
Try to trace back when this Brexit thing started. It was some time after Snowden. When the EU started complaining about UK's abuses. They called it interference on national sovereignty. Then they started to push other reasons that would be more appealing to the public.