One of them is a member of the press distributing information, one of them is a business collaborating with a government in the suppression of freedom of the press. Do you see a difference there?
1. You were talking about rights. In case of rights there is no crucial difference between Mastercard and Wikileaks. If Wikileaks has certain rights, so does Mastercard. Moral high ground doesn't give a +1 rights modifier. That is the very nature of rights.
2. If you wan't to claim the privileges of free press, you have to follow the obligations that come with it. It would have been much smarter of Wikileaks if they would have done it first. But they preferred not to do so.
3. Mastercard is not "suppressing the freedom of the press". They are a business that compared two risks ("angering the goverment" and "angering the wikileaks crowd") and then made their choice. I would be more angry at the goverment than at Mastercard at this point. You expect Mastercard to put up a fight for Wikileaks. Those expectations were wrong. No surprise here...
If "Mastercard is an organisation" implies "Mastercard has no freedom of speech right", then "Wikileaks is an organisation" implies "Wikileaks has no freedom of speech right".
If Mastercard has only privileges and no rights, than Wikileaks has only privileges and no rights.
If you complain about shutting down Wikileaks (because of doing something other people don't like), than you should complain about shutting down Mastercard (because of doing something other people don't like).
"Wikileaks" is not equal "We the people".
I have not said, that Mastercard has any freedom of speech rights. I just ranted about the "I am holier than thou"-attitude: complaining about a thing and then doing exactly the same (and the tactical stupidity going with it).
OK, when someone shuts down the Wikileaks web site, it's an attack on free speech. When someone shuts down Mastercards web site, it's "disrupting corporate operations to highlight the injustice". Thanks for pointing that out. I would have missed the difference.
I know the meaning of revenge, but i also know that it is a dish best served cold.
The current action sounds too much like that "crack suicide squad" from Monty Python's Life of Brian. Hurting your own position and then say "Zat showed 'em, huh?". I can only quote Brian at this point, who replied "Silly sods".
The same people who are complaining about the TSA doing exactly what the terrorists want them to do, react exacrtly the same way once they feel attacked. Don't they see they play into hands of those trying to silence Wikileaks?
When someone who says "X is violating the freedom of speech rights" and tries to shut him/her/it up as punishment, than that person has not yet grasped the principle of "freedom of speech".
On the tactical level: Disrupting Amazon such a short time before christmas? Fox will have a field day.... At best it will convince the average man/woman on the street, that Wikileaks is evil (since they won't distinguish between Wikileaks and their anonymous supporters). It's like saying "We are facing a supperior enemy, let's make more of them". To mee it looks like some kind of Anti-Sun-Tzu or Clausewitz-in-reverse. Is there goal beyond "venting frustration"?
We, the sophisticated western people would never do such a thing. Take a web site like that nasty wikileaks that is publishing our diplomatic small talk. We would never ever dream of kicking them from their hosters, cancel their bank accounts, block/ddos their web sites or imprison their founder.
I had already typed the reply when i became unsure....
Julias Assange continued to make himself the center piece of Wikileaks after the accusations surfaced. By doing so (against counsel of other Wikileaks activists), he was pulling Wikileaks more than necessary into it. His "CIA conspiracy defense" is not helping neither. While i cannot rule out CIA involvement, other explanations (even favorable ones for Assange) seem to be a lot more likely. He is stylizing himself as martyr. This generates support but also damages credibility.
I do not believe Julian Assange to be guilty of rape (at least in the sense i would define it).
I would agree with your remark, if at least a significant part of the cables would fall into that category. Most of the cables from/to Berlin were second hand gossip and venting frustration.
History has shown that comfort is important enough to commit crimes for.
Unluckily you are 100% correct.
Could you please give us some convincing arguments for your statement?
The "should" in my statement was intended as expression of hope/optimism/moral appeal. Therefor any argument i could bring forward would only appeal to the alredy convinced:-).
Wikileaks releases documents with insight into the Iceland bank scandal: + Credibility Wikileaks releases documents/videos with Insight to Iraq: + Credibility Wikileaks founder shows unmitigated ego and drives off supporters: - Credibility Wikileaks releases diplomatic small talk: +/- Credibility Wikileaks founders handling of dubious rape accusations: - Credibility Wikileaks hangarounds launch DDOS attacks: -- Credibility
I think there is a strong need for Wikileaks (or something similar). While Julian Assange has done some great services, he is probably not the person to head such an organisation. I am highly critical of the release of the cables. It contained very little information for the damage done. I think the decision to release those cables was because they could release them and not due to the insight they provided. My impression is that ego and publicity had a lot to do with it.
- X$ statistícally safe Y1 lives when invested into in airport security - X$ statistícally safe Y2 lives when invested into road safety (just an example)
For nearly any example Y2 is a lot bigger than Y1. Terrorist attacks are more spectacular than car accidents. Are my friends who died in car related accidents (several) less worthy to be saved than airline passengers? Nobody argues for no security at all. But safety dollars should be spent where they show the most effect, not where they generate just a show.
There are a lot of dead people who might disagree with the current spending of money on pat downs or body scanners. They would have wished the money to go into breast exams or mammography installations. So while i can understand your point of view, the argument is flawed.
Second problem is:
911 was so effective because (nearly) nobody seriously anticipated such an attack. The next big attack will be as un-anticipated as the last one. They just don't xerox their last op plans and try to pull them off again. All reasonable security measure against a re-occurrence has already been taken years ago. Is this a reason to start implementing the unreasonable ones?
.... instead the NASA managed a "first post" on slashdot story. Sources are cited that chances for that are slightly lower than finding intelligent life on Mars or GOP convention.
Exactly: They admitted to the fact they were selling software maintenance they were not entitled to. So the damage for Oracle would be the list price of those maintenance contracts. Oracle put up a show that "american" jobs would be on the line if not every download was treated like a lost enterprise license.
I have even sympathy for the Oracle side: Having to sell maintenance against a competitor which has not the necesary rights to do so, is a real pain. I know that from my own history. But the damage awarded is only so high because Oracle blew the case out of proportions.
I would love to do the same experiment with some Counterstrike gamer, just to dispell the myth of "kill training" in those games. While i noticed the virtual reality approaching the real stuff with cars over the years, shooting is still (and luckily) completely unrealistic.
Slashdot Mirror
One of them is a member of the press distributing information, one of them is a business collaborating with a government in the suppression of freedom of the press. Do you see a difference there?
1. You were talking about rights. In case of rights there is no crucial difference between Mastercard and Wikileaks. If Wikileaks has certain rights, so does Mastercard. Moral high ground doesn't give a +1 rights modifier. That is the very nature of rights.
2. If you wan't to claim the privileges of free press, you have to follow the obligations that come with it. It would have been much smarter of Wikileaks if they would have done it first. But they preferred not to do so.
3. Mastercard is not "suppressing the freedom of the press". They are a business that compared two risks ("angering the goverment" and "angering the wikileaks crowd") and then made their choice. I would be more angry at the goverment than at Mastercard at this point. You expect Mastercard to put up a fight for Wikileaks. Those expectations were wrong. No surprise here...
CU, Martin
If "Mastercard is an organisation" implies "Mastercard has no freedom of speech right",
then "Wikileaks is an organisation" implies "Wikileaks has no freedom of speech right".
If Mastercard has only privileges and no rights, than Wikileaks has only privileges and no rights.
If you complain about shutting down Wikileaks (because of doing something other people don't like), than you should complain about shutting down Mastercard (because of doing something other people don't like).
"Wikileaks" is not equal "We the people".
I have not said, that Mastercard has any freedom of speech rights. I just ranted about the "I am holier than thou"-attitude: complaining about a thing and then doing exactly the same (and the tactical stupidity going with it).
CU, Martin
OK, when someone shuts down the Wikileaks web site, it's an attack on free speech. When someone shuts down Mastercards web site, it's "disrupting corporate operations to highlight the injustice". Thanks for pointing that out. I would have missed the difference.
I know the meaning of revenge, but i also know that it is a dish best served cold.
The current action sounds too much like that "crack suicide squad" from Monty Python's Life of Brian. Hurting your own position and then say "Zat showed 'em, huh?". I can only quote Brian at this point, who replied "Silly sods".
The same people who are complaining about the TSA doing exactly what the terrorists want them to do, react exacrtly the same way once they feel attacked. Don't they see they play into hands of those trying to silence Wikileaks?
CU, Martin
When someone who says "X is violating the freedom of speech rights" and tries to shut him/her/it up as punishment, than that person has not yet grasped the principle of "freedom of speech".
On the tactical level: Disrupting Amazon such a short time before christmas? Fox will have a field day.... At best it will convince the average man/woman on the street, that Wikileaks is evil (since they won't distinguish between Wikileaks and their anonymous supporters). It's like saying "We are facing a supperior enemy, let's make more of them". To mee it looks like some kind of Anti-Sun-Tzu or Clausewitz-in-reverse. Is there goal beyond "venting frustration"?
CU, Martin
Stick a needle in my eye ;-)
We, the sophisticated western people would never do such a thing. Take a web site like that nasty wikileaks that is publishing our diplomatic small talk. We would never ever dream of kicking them from their hosters, cancel their bank accounts, block/ddos their web sites or imprison their founder.
Cross my heart...
I agrre that it is much easier for a customer to take his money elsewhere (other than Mastercard) than it is for a shop owner...
I also agree that a lot of people only care for their own comfort when paying than whom they are giving control and/or private data.
CU, Martin
I had already typed the reply when i became unsure....
Julias Assange continued to make himself the center piece of Wikileaks after the accusations surfaced. By doing so (against counsel of other Wikileaks activists), he was pulling Wikileaks more than necessary into it. His "CIA conspiracy defense" is not helping neither. While i cannot rule out CIA involvement, other explanations (even favorable ones for Assange) seem to be a lot more likely. He is stylizing himself as martyr. This generates support but also damages credibility.
I do not believe Julian Assange to be guilty of rape (at least in the sense i would define it).
CU, Martin
What do you refer to? That the rape accusations are dubious or that Julias Assange handled those less than optimal?
I would agree with your remark, if at least a significant part of the cables would fall into that category. Most of the cables from/to Berlin were second hand gossip and venting frustration.
Actually i can't tell you. Not because i don't want to. But my agency name is written in charset not invented by humans yet. Sorry, Martin
History has shown that comfort is important enough to commit crimes for.
Unluckily you are 100% correct.
Could you please give us some convincing arguments for your statement?
The "should" in my statement was intended as expression of hope/optimism/moral appeal. Therefor any argument i could bring forward would only appeal to the alredy convinced :-).
CU, Martin
I know, but it will still hurt Wikileaks. That's why i call it stupid: Damaging the cause they want to support.
Nope.... European ;-) The "You don't need to pay everything by credit card" should be the crucial hint ;-)
Karma != Stupidty on both sides
Rather do something stupid than do nothing? Neither a good nor the right choice IMHO.
Please dfferentiate by action:
Wikileaks releases documents with insight into the Iceland bank scandal: + Credibility
Wikileaks releases documents/videos with Insight to Iraq: + Credibility
Wikileaks founder shows unmitigated ego and drives off supporters: - Credibility
Wikileaks releases diplomatic small talk: +/- Credibility
Wikileaks founders handling of dubious rape accusations: - Credibility
Wikileaks hangarounds launch DDOS attacks: -- Credibility
I think there is a strong need for Wikileaks (or something similar). While Julian Assange has done some great services, he is probably not the person to head such an organisation. I am highly critical of the release of the cables. It contained very little information for the damage done. I think the decision to release those cables was because they could release them and not due to the insight they provided. My impression is that ego and publicity had a lot to do with it.
CU, Martin
To quote Diablo 3: There is always a choice ;-)
Seriously: If the topic is not important enough for someone to accept some discomfort, it should not be important enough to comit crimes about...
CU, Martin
Such stupid actions will only serve to discredit Wikileaks further. The best and only response should be: take your own money elsewhere.
CU, Martin
First problem is:
- X$ statistícally safe Y1 lives when invested into in airport security
- X$ statistícally safe Y2 lives when invested into road safety (just an example)
For nearly any example Y2 is a lot bigger than Y1. Terrorist attacks are more spectacular than car accidents. Are my friends who died in car related accidents (several) less worthy to be saved than airline passengers? Nobody argues for no security at all. But safety dollars should be spent where they show the most effect, not where they generate just a show.
There are a lot of dead people who might disagree with the current spending of money on pat downs or body scanners. They would have wished the money to go into breast exams or mammography installations. So while i can understand your point of view, the argument is flawed.
Second problem is:
911 was so effective because (nearly) nobody seriously anticipated such an attack. The next big attack will be as un-anticipated as the last one. They just don't xerox their last op plans and try to pull them off again. All reasonable security measure against a re-occurrence has already been taken years ago. Is this a reason to start implementing the unreasonable ones?
CU, Martin
.... instead the NASA managed a "first post" on slashdot story. Sources are cited that chances for that are slightly lower than finding intelligent life on Mars or GOP convention.
Exactly: They admitted to the fact they were selling software maintenance they were not entitled to. So the damage for Oracle would be the list price of those maintenance contracts. Oracle put up a show that "american" jobs would be on the line if not every download was treated like a lost enterprise license.
I have even sympathy for the Oracle side: Having to sell maintenance against a competitor which has not the necesary rights to do so, is a real pain. I know that from my own history. But the damage awarded is only so high because Oracle blew the case out of proportions.
CU, Martin
Oracle was putting on a good show while SAP tried to counter with facts. Since a bored, clueless jury is a thankful audience, the showman wins...
I would love to do the same experiment with some Counterstrike gamer, just to dispell the myth of "kill training" in those games. While i noticed the virtual reality approaching the real stuff with cars over the years, shooting is still (and luckily) completely unrealistic.