Agreed. Figure out what you have to run on that laptop, figure out what kind of hardware that requires, then figure out what you're willing to pay. Core i3/i5, 4GB RAM, 720p or better graphics, and I'm sure she'll be (relatively) happy.
As for "discrete 256 MB or better video card", you need it for games, but I haven't seen a laptop with that perk that cost less than $900+.
Then hit techbargains.com or gotapex.com. If possible wait for a holiday sale. I'm pretty sure its the cheapest prices you're going to see, as long as you stay with a reliable vendor. Recently, I saw an i3 with the above specs going for $400. Figure another $50 for shipping/taxes. A slight sense of schadenfreude came over me, since I got a comparable performing i5 for $750 (total) a year ago.
While I do like Thinkpads and understand your sentiments towards "indestructibility", I have not experienced your woes with Dell hardware, particularly my Dell Inspiron 1464. Its an i5/2.27Ghz CPU, 720p (1366x768) , and 4GB of RAM, which I bought a year ago. I use it heavily and occasionally outside the house (but gingerly, and lovingly handled). Its obviously not a great game machine. I can go nitpick about shortcomings but it has not given me a shred of trouble and doesn't overheat (which I've noticed to be the leading cause for laptops trouble).
The problem with Lenovo hardware (and Panasonic toughbooks) is that you're paying quite a premium for that sense of sturdiness.
No, he's not considered a traitor in the eyes of the legal system until proven so in a court of law
In the court of public opinion and common sense, I can proclaim any accusation I believe and can demonstrate. This elusive concept (for you) is better known as free speech
Do not use the word there to define him unless it meets this:
No one made you President, Dictator, Lord Protector, or even a mere Authorized Censor of Slashdot. And given that obvious fact, I will continue to use the word traitor to define Bradley Manning.
[...] or this...
"Any person who--
(1) aids, or attempts to aid, the enemy with arms, ammunition, supplies, money, or other things; or
(2) without proper authority, knowingly harbors or protects or gives intelligence to or communicates or corresponds with or holds any intercourse with the enemy, either directly or indirectly;
And look at that, Bradley Manning, without proper authority, knowingly gave intelligence (Afghanistan military action reports and State Department cables) to the enemy, Al Queda/Taliban in an indirect manner (using Wikileaks to broadcast that information worldwide so that any insurgency/terror cell could obtain that information).
Lots of people bandy about the word without honestly understanding the term in question and that it's a SPECIFIC act-
Wow, that's f**king irony. You provide priceless amusing content to people who bother to read your pontifications...
which, so far, hasn't been proven.
...in a court of law or military tribuneral, and only because it hasn't been formally convened yet. Oh, and to ruin the suspense for you, its going to be a slam dunk conviction.
WikiLeaks wasn't going directly to the "enemy" with the information.
But you provided the framework for the refutation of your own position. You do not have to deliver intelligence directly to the enemy in order to be guilty of treason. Read what you regurgitated.
And in case you think this case lacks two witnesses to stick a treason charge, just realize that the guy who turned Manning in, Adrian Lamo, is one witness, and a single law enforcement agent, producing the phone/computer records demonstrating the transfer of information, satisfies the requirement of two witnesses. In Haupt v. United States, 330 U.S. 631 (1947), however, the Supreme Court found that two witnesses are not required to prove intent; nor are two witnesses required to prove that an overt act is treasonable. The two witnesses, according to the decision, are required to prove only that the overt act occurred (eyewitnesses and federal agents investigating the crime, for example)
Calling someone that doesn't hold your opinion (which isn't based in fact, mind...) that he's a traitor as "retarded" as you did in your caption is in fine/. style, but one wonders who's the 'tard in that transaction...
No, a person who disagrees with my opinion is not retarded. The person who mischaracterizes two factoids as ironic, when it is not, is retarded. As for who is the retard, I believe its quite apparent at this point.
'It's beyond ironic that leaked US State Department cables have contributed to revolution and revolt in the Middle East, yet an American may be executed, or at best face life in prison, for being the primary whistleblower.'"
There's nothing ironic at all about the situation. The State department cables may contribute to revolution and revolt in the Mid East BECAUSE a traitorous American RELEASED them. If the American wasn't a TRAITOR, then those cables would never have come out, and perhaps we would not be seeing this level of turmoil right now.
I find it ironic how someone could totally misuse the word irony, and yet not perceive that it was a traitorous act that caused the situation to come about, NOT the mere existence of diplomatic cables, that have always had a Machiavellian nature since the dawn of statecraft.
USA Network is freakishly good about picking shows (that appeal to me). I think they're owned by NBC/Universal. I find it mindblowing that NBC passed on "Covert Affairs" and yet gave the green light on "Undercovers".
Actually, the "Help Fillion buy Firefly" campaign is a potential seed for a whole new means distribution, WITHOUT hugely parasitic studios.
Both Whedon and Fillion experimented with the notion with "Dr. Horrible". As for getting the cast together, "The Cape" is already cancelled (Summer Glau), and V (Morena Baccarin), Castle (Nathan Fillion), and Chuck (Adam Baldwin) aren't exactly doing well in the ratings. I predict all of those shows get cancelled in 2012. (Everyone else I presume are unemployed.)
If the cast, producer, and crew take payment in profit shares, that cuts out the lionshare of profits from a studio network.
1) That's not Eric Stoltz, that's Charlie Sheen. MJF never was slated for Caprica, but Charlie Sheen "could have" saved Caprica! (Yes, bad joke within a bad joke.)
2) I thought a variant theme in Caprica was stealing the crime family genre (with no beloved head mobster, but on a different planet, in an Earth 2010 technology timeframe). Oddly, the "cool" twist was how technology was driving the evolution of power groups/alliances. (An old story in history, but not well done in cinema, or with this show.)
3) But ultimately, it was a snorefest, probably with inferior acting, writing, and direction, so Caprica died a rapid death, on schedule.
It wasn't really even BSG. No relentless band of space robots after it. No worries about robot traitors looking like hot women. No sense of autonomy provided by space weapons (like Vipers).
No, sadly, none of Slashdot's audience gets it. It was a variation on Lost in Space. A gritty tale of survival beyond the help of anyone. The crew becomes the family. And Dr. Rush was an awesome wildcard. Its a total different genre of science fiction which you "kids" have never read (Pulp sci-fi of the '50's). And the scripts weren't written with smarm and lols of the military propaganda machine. It was internal political struggles, unique problems, and self-reflection. The show had RELATIVELY unique and creative themes. And of course, since it didn't resemble the predictable crap, it got rejected. (And it did have awful, writer induced flaws, like an defectively unconfident leader (something I can't imagine existing in real life, in the US military AT the Colonel level), and of course, the other flaw in not enough drop dead gorgeous babes.)
SG:1 & SG:A are for militant tools who want to kill things and believe they're making the world a better place. An utter load of propagandistic garbage.
(Don't get me wrong. I thought SG:1 had quality back in the early seasons being run by Showtime. It went off the rails after SciFi took it over.)
SG:U wasn't supposed to be a smarmy piece of predictable SG crap. That's why there wasn't "fun" & "wit". And that's why it failed. The network thought they could suck in you militant rah-rah fans into a different genre, and once the golden horde washed its hands of it, they killed the show.
In fact, I hate all you pretentious whiners claiming to pine away for the days of "real" sci-fi, when you just want to be spoon-fed the same PREDICTABLE crap. You're no better than the idiots buying Star Trek novels back in the 1980's. That wasn't science fiction literature, that was pre-digested pablum.
With my vendor (Cablevision), it makes a b-i-i-i-g difference what channel number its on. "Family" cable plan only goes up to channel 99, you have to pay another $13(?)/mo to get the "IO" package which will give you access to the channels under 200.
All I have to say is I'm pretty disgusted that SyFy would allow itself to get outbid on Firefly, and that a "Science" channel would be picking up a fictional program.
Angel (the series) was awesome. The series was built on a totally different structure than Buffy. Buffy was teen angst and adolescence. Angel was film noir. Angel was the down on his luck, private dick trying to do the right thing while MAKING A LIVING. Its a fictional fantasy for adults, with adult themes. Only the 2nd half of the 4th season of Angel sucked. Season 5 was brilliant. And it had a GOOD finale, unlike Buffy or BSG.
If you didn't like Angel, fine. But it was a significantly different show than Buffy.
Spike was always a combination of comic relief and a modern day perspective on villainy. Spike was too simple as a character to be a grand villain. He was the mental equivalent of the hired hitman. If Spike had his own spinoff series, it would flop like the Lone Gunmen.
Buffy's last two seasons were difficult because they really sucked. The previous seasons had well constructed plot arcs, excellent dialogue and character development, and most important, underlying themes relating to adolescence, right & wrong, etc. The last two seasons were aimless, the dialogue and character development sucked, and boy, did the villains suck. The last season of Buffy was worse than the last season of Battlestar Galactica. It was only the finale of BSG that really sucked, every episode of season 7 Buffy were clunkers. The lack of Joss showed.
I always look at Farscape as the '90's version of American cultural propaganda.
The archetype of American cultural propaganda was Star Trek (The Original Series). It portrayed a world (galaxy) of the future, free from the fear of atomic weapons wiping out humanity. Where the Earth was united, racial differences irrelevant, the guy in charge was a handsome white guy, reminiscent of JFK, leading an interracial crew, who zipped through the universe, boffing females of every species, kicking the asses of their (evil) enemies with superior weaponry, spreading democracy (the federation) throughout the galaxy, solving every problem with technology and "The American Way". People throughout the Earth ate it up, hook, line and sinker.
But that storyline became tired and incongruous in a post-Soviet world. Hence, American cultural propaganda program 2.0, Farscape. Instead of pushing American military imperialism, it was American economic imperialism. Moya's crew now consisted of interspecie free-agents, a group of (H1-B) aliens led by a handsome white guy, reminiscent of JFK. Since its post-AIDS, great white leader now sticks to a monogamous relationship. Instead of a grand Federation uniting the galaxy fighting evil empires, its now the big Peacekeeper gov't that's the bad guy, while the plucky entrepreneurial startup who are the good guys. And now all these alien factions are struggling to seize control of Critchton's technology (wormholes), while the crew, at various times, scheme to backstab each other when its to their advantage and struggle to take control of the ship (startup).
The problem is that Assange is not the figurehead. He's autocratically calling the shots for what supposed to be a volunteer group effort. He's the one who's releasing tons of unedited Afghanistan war logs potentially jeopardizing the lives of Afghani "collaborators" with the US military. Assange didn't put that to a vote.
Some people believe an autocratic cult is a good thing, with the right dictator on top. I'll take a pass.
For "desirable" effect, the information supplied needs to be vetted (for veracity), and presented in a manner that does NOT burn the whistleblower, or create unintended victims by release of the information. You don't achieve that with a bunch of UNPAID volunteers, of wildly varying competence, and no way of providing quality control OR security. Its INEVITABLE you're going to need news media organizations to provide those functions.
There is nothing in the openleaks model that indicates it will EXCLUSIVELY award information to a single journalist or agency. If the news is a bombshell, it will get released, in fear of being "scooped" by some other competitor. Worst case scenario, openleaks could release the information by itself, or other websites, including wikileaks. WL only releases information it wants to release; its known to be holding a large backlog of leaks.
Common sense. If I were a potential whistleblower who put job security as a priority, there's NO WAY I would deal with either organization. But I'd probably put more faith into openleaks, based upon what I've seen with wikileaks so far.
Assange understands that he needs volunteers and teamwork in order for wikileaks to run. He has no problem with that, as long as everyone understands he is the "Great Leader", he gets all the attention, everything he decrees goes, and everyone working for wikileaks makes sure his ass is licked clean every day. What problem? Its only these troublemaking saboteurs like Domscheit-Berg who must be silenced.
I don't think you get it. Everyone in America fails "US Gov't" even when they get a passing grade. They didn't have a "civics" class when I was in high school. Classes are basically ground up, spoon fed propaganda. You spout slogans, you are not taught what they mean.
And I don't see the point of being an AC over such innocuous, uncontroversial comments.
Well then, you'd be a gullible, unemployed, and potentially dead fool. What makes you think the whole wikileaks system was secure in the first place? Which I believe was part of Domscheit-Berg's point. Wikileaks is not taking in new leaks, because they have to re-engineer their whole system. In other words, the original setup was suspect even before DB's "sabotage".
Slashdot Mirror
Agreed. Figure out what you have to run on that laptop, figure out what kind of hardware that requires, then figure out what you're willing to pay. Core i3/i5, 4GB RAM, 720p or better graphics, and I'm sure she'll be (relatively) happy.
As for "discrete 256 MB or better video card", you need it for games, but I haven't seen a laptop with that perk that cost less than $900+.
Then hit techbargains.com or gotapex.com. If possible wait for a holiday sale. I'm pretty sure its the cheapest prices you're going to see, as long as you stay with a reliable vendor. Recently, I saw an i3 with the above specs going for $400. Figure another $50 for shipping/taxes. A slight sense of schadenfreude came over me, since I got a comparable performing i5 for $750 (total) a year ago.
While I do like Thinkpads and understand your sentiments towards "indestructibility", I have not experienced your woes with Dell hardware, particularly my Dell Inspiron 1464. Its an i5/2.27Ghz CPU, 720p (1366x768) , and 4GB of RAM, which I bought a year ago. I use it heavily and occasionally outside the house (but gingerly, and lovingly handled). Its obviously not a great game machine. I can go nitpick about shortcomings but it has not given me a shred of trouble and doesn't overheat (which I've noticed to be the leading cause for laptops trouble).
The problem with Lenovo hardware (and Panasonic toughbooks) is that you're paying quite a premium for that sense of sturdiness.
"I can tell that everyone suggesting you just put Windows on the Mac has never been married, or probably had a LT girlfriend"
On Slashdot? You think?
Captain Obvious: My job here is done.
You can change the Macbook to run Windoze, but Apple's problem has always been overpriced hardware.
BETTER, buy the best performing, value priced Windoze laptop, and hackintosh it!
(The difference in price and performance on desktop's are stunning.)
He's not a Traitor until proven so.
No, he's not considered a traitor in the eyes of the legal system until proven so in a court of law
In the court of public opinion and common sense, I can proclaim any accusation I believe and can demonstrate. This elusive concept (for you) is better known as free speech
Do not use the word there to define him unless it meets this:
No one made you President, Dictator, Lord Protector, or even a mere Authorized Censor of Slashdot. And given that obvious fact, I will continue to use the word traitor to define Bradley Manning.
[...] or this...
"Any person who--
(1) aids, or attempts to aid, the enemy with arms, ammunition, supplies, money, or other things; or
(2) without proper authority, knowingly harbors or protects or gives intelligence to or communicates or corresponds with or holds any intercourse with the enemy, either directly or indirectly;
And look at that, Bradley Manning, without proper authority, knowingly gave intelligence (Afghanistan military action reports and State Department cables) to the enemy, Al Queda/Taliban in an indirect manner (using Wikileaks to broadcast that information worldwide so that any insurgency/terror cell could obtain that information).
Lots of people bandy about the word without honestly understanding the term in question and that it's a SPECIFIC act-
Wow, that's f**king irony. You provide priceless amusing content to people who bother to read your pontifications...
which, so far, hasn't been proven.
...in a court of law or military tribuneral, and only because it hasn't been formally convened yet. Oh, and to ruin the suspense for you, its going to be a slam dunk conviction.
WikiLeaks wasn't going directly to the "enemy" with the information.
But you provided the framework for the refutation of your own position. You do not have to deliver intelligence directly to the enemy in order to be guilty of treason. Read what you regurgitated.
And in case you think this case lacks two witnesses to stick a treason charge, just realize that the guy who turned Manning in, Adrian Lamo, is one witness, and a single law enforcement agent, producing the phone/computer records demonstrating the transfer of information, satisfies the requirement of two witnesses. In Haupt v. United States, 330 U.S. 631 (1947), however, the Supreme Court found that two witnesses are not required to prove intent; nor are two witnesses required to prove that an overt act is treasonable. The two witnesses, according to the decision, are required to prove only that the overt act occurred (eyewitnesses and federal agents investigating the crime, for example)
Calling someone that doesn't hold your opinion (which isn't based in fact, mind...) that he's a traitor as "retarded" as you did in your caption is in fine /. style, but one wonders who's the 'tard in that transaction...
No, a person who disagrees with my opinion is not retarded. The person who mischaracterizes two factoids as ironic, when it is not, is retarded. As for who is the retard, I believe its quite apparent at this point.
'It's beyond ironic that leaked US State Department cables have contributed to revolution and revolt in the Middle East, yet an American may be executed, or at best face life in prison, for being the primary whistleblower.'"
There's nothing ironic at all about the situation. The State department cables may contribute to revolution and revolt in the Mid East BECAUSE a traitorous American RELEASED them. If the American wasn't a TRAITOR, then those cables would never have come out, and perhaps we would not be seeing this level of turmoil right now.
I find it ironic how someone could totally misuse the word irony, and yet not perceive that it was a traitorous act that caused the situation to come about, NOT the mere existence of diplomatic cables, that have always had a Machiavellian nature since the dawn of statecraft.
Agreed. I thought H was for the "Holy-roller" Channel.
USA Network is freakishly good about picking shows (that appeal to me). I think they're owned by NBC/Universal. I find it mindblowing that NBC passed on "Covert Affairs" and yet gave the green light on "Undercovers".
Actually, the "Help Fillion buy Firefly" campaign is a potential seed for a whole new means distribution, WITHOUT hugely parasitic studios.
Both Whedon and Fillion experimented with the notion with "Dr. Horrible". As for getting the cast together, "The Cape" is already cancelled (Summer Glau), and V (Morena Baccarin), Castle (Nathan Fillion), and Chuck (Adam Baldwin) aren't exactly doing well in the ratings. I predict all of those shows get cancelled in 2012. (Everyone else I presume are unemployed.)
If the cast, producer, and crew take payment in profit shares, that cuts out the lionshare of profits from a studio network.
Being Human is a good timekiller, though its in the fantasy genre.
I keep telling you youngsters, SG:U wasn't ripping off BSG, it was ripping off Lost in Space (season 1).
1) That's not Eric Stoltz, that's Charlie Sheen. MJF never was slated for Caprica, but Charlie Sheen "could have" saved Caprica! (Yes, bad joke within a bad joke.)
2) I thought a variant theme in Caprica was stealing the crime family genre (with no beloved head mobster, but on a different planet, in an Earth 2010 technology timeframe). Oddly, the "cool" twist was how technology was driving the evolution of power groups/alliances. (An old story in history, but not well done in cinema, or with this show.)
3) But ultimately, it was a snorefest, probably with inferior acting, writing, and direction, so Caprica died a rapid death, on schedule.
No. Wrestling: Soap operas for manchildren living in their parent's basement.
You think Don Draper would be caught dead watching the WWE?
It wasn't really even BSG. No relentless band of space robots after it. No worries about robot traitors looking like hot women. No sense of autonomy provided by space weapons (like Vipers).
No, sadly, none of Slashdot's audience gets it. It was a variation on Lost in Space. A gritty tale of survival beyond the help of anyone. The crew becomes the family. And Dr. Rush was an awesome wildcard. Its a total different genre of science fiction which you "kids" have never read (Pulp sci-fi of the '50's). And the scripts weren't written with smarm and lols of the military propaganda machine. It was internal political struggles, unique problems, and self-reflection. The show had RELATIVELY unique and creative themes. And of course, since it didn't resemble the predictable crap, it got rejected. (And it did have awful, writer induced flaws, like an defectively unconfident leader (something I can't imagine existing in real life, in the US military AT the Colonel level), and of course, the other flaw in not enough drop dead gorgeous babes.)
SG:1 & SG:A are for militant tools who want to kill things and believe they're making the world a better place. An utter load of propagandistic garbage.
(Don't get me wrong. I thought SG:1 had quality back in the early seasons being run by Showtime. It went off the rails after SciFi took it over.)
SG:U wasn't supposed to be a smarmy piece of predictable SG crap. That's why there wasn't "fun" & "wit". And that's why it failed. The network thought they could suck in you militant rah-rah fans into a different genre, and once the golden horde washed its hands of it, they killed the show.
In fact, I hate all you pretentious whiners claiming to pine away for the days of "real" sci-fi, when you just want to be spoon-fed the same PREDICTABLE crap. You're no better than the idiots buying Star Trek novels back in the 1980's. That wasn't science fiction literature, that was pre-digested pablum.
With my vendor (Cablevision), it makes a b-i-i-i-g difference what channel number its on. "Family" cable plan only goes up to channel 99, you have to pay another $13(?)/mo to get the "IO" package which will give you access to the channels under 200.
All I have to say is I'm pretty disgusted that SyFy would allow itself to get outbid on Firefly, and that a "Science" channel would be picking up a fictional program.
Have to add The Cape to that list as well. (River Tam Orwell)
Angel (the series) was awesome. The series was built on a totally different structure than Buffy. Buffy was teen angst and adolescence. Angel was film noir. Angel was the down on his luck, private dick trying to do the right thing while MAKING A LIVING. Its a fictional fantasy for adults, with adult themes. Only the 2nd half of the 4th season of Angel sucked. Season 5 was brilliant. And it had a GOOD finale, unlike Buffy or BSG.
If you didn't like Angel, fine. But it was a significantly different show than Buffy.
Spike was always a combination of comic relief and a modern day perspective on villainy. Spike was too simple as a character to be a grand villain. He was the mental equivalent of the hired hitman. If Spike had his own spinoff series, it would flop like the Lone Gunmen.
Buffy's last two seasons were difficult because they really sucked. The previous seasons had well constructed plot arcs, excellent dialogue and character development, and most important, underlying themes relating to adolescence, right & wrong, etc. The last two seasons were aimless, the dialogue and character development sucked, and boy, did the villains suck. The last season of Buffy was worse than the last season of Battlestar Galactica. It was only the finale of BSG that really sucked, every episode of season 7 Buffy were clunkers. The lack of Joss showed.
I always look at Farscape as the '90's version of American cultural propaganda.
The archetype of American cultural propaganda was Star Trek (The Original Series). It portrayed a world (galaxy) of the future, free from the fear of atomic weapons wiping out humanity. Where the Earth was united, racial differences irrelevant, the guy in charge was a handsome white guy, reminiscent of JFK, leading an interracial crew, who zipped through the universe, boffing females of every species, kicking the asses of their (evil) enemies with superior weaponry, spreading democracy (the federation) throughout the galaxy, solving every problem with technology and "The American Way". People throughout the Earth ate it up, hook, line and sinker.
But that storyline became tired and incongruous in a post-Soviet world. Hence, American cultural propaganda program 2.0, Farscape. Instead of pushing American military imperialism, it was American economic imperialism. Moya's crew now consisted of interspecie free-agents, a group of (H1-B) aliens led by a handsome white guy, reminiscent of JFK. Since its post-AIDS, great white leader now sticks to a monogamous relationship. Instead of a grand Federation uniting the galaxy fighting evil empires, its now the big Peacekeeper gov't that's the bad guy, while the plucky entrepreneurial startup who are the good guys. And now all these alien factions are struggling to seize control of Critchton's technology (wormholes), while the crew, at various times, scheme to backstab each other when its to their advantage and struggle to take control of the ship (startup).
The problem is that Assange is not the figurehead. He's autocratically calling the shots for what supposed to be a volunteer group effort. He's the one who's releasing tons of unedited Afghanistan war logs potentially jeopardizing the lives of Afghani "collaborators" with the US military. Assange didn't put that to a vote.
Some people believe an autocratic cult is a good thing, with the right dictator on top. I'll take a pass.
For "desirable" effect, the information supplied needs to be vetted (for veracity), and presented in a manner that does NOT burn the whistleblower, or create unintended victims by release of the information. You don't achieve that with a bunch of UNPAID volunteers, of wildly varying competence, and no way of providing quality control OR security. Its INEVITABLE you're going to need news media organizations to provide those functions.
There is nothing in the openleaks model that indicates it will EXCLUSIVELY award information to a single journalist or agency. If the news is a bombshell, it will get released, in fear of being "scooped" by some other competitor. Worst case scenario, openleaks could release the information by itself, or other websites, including wikileaks. WL only releases information it wants to release; its known to be holding a large backlog of leaks.
Common sense. If I were a potential whistleblower who put job security as a priority, there's NO WAY I would deal with either organization. But I'd probably put more faith into openleaks, based upon what I've seen with wikileaks so far.
Assange understands that he needs volunteers and teamwork in order for wikileaks to run. He has no problem with that, as long as everyone understands he is the "Great Leader", he gets all the attention, everything he decrees goes, and everyone working for wikileaks makes sure his ass is licked clean every day. What problem? Its only these troublemaking saboteurs like Domscheit-Berg who must be silenced.
I don't think you get it. Everyone in America fails "US Gov't" even when they get a passing grade. They didn't have a "civics" class when I was in high school. Classes are basically ground up, spoon fed propaganda. You spout slogans, you are not taught what they mean.
And I don't see the point of being an AC over such innocuous, uncontroversial comments.
Well then, you'd be a gullible, unemployed, and potentially dead fool. What makes you think the whole wikileaks system was secure in the first place? Which I believe was part of Domscheit-Berg's point. Wikileaks is not taking in new leaks, because they have to re-engineer their whole system. In other words, the original setup was suspect even before DB's "sabotage".