Probably should\n't have been baiting them. If you are going to release documents, the release them. Don't wave them around going nyner nyner, looky what I got.
So if they review their documents before releasing them: they're taunting the authorities; if they release the documents quickly, they are recklessly endangering lives.
I can get behind Wikileaks, but not Assange. He is egotistical tool.
Character assassination: Done and done! Now instead of focusing on the issue, you will parrot out the "the spokesperson is bad, we must not listen" line every time wikileaks is mentioned. You don't even say why you believe what you say, you probably don't even know yourself that you only believe it because of a campaign of repetition in the media made you absorb this baseless meme.
They released documents that put Afghan civilians and US troops at risk.
No, they released documents that showed that US policy routinely massacres Afghan civilians and puts US troops at risk. The pentagon said "releasing these documents puts the lives of the people we bomb at risk", it's transparent bullshit, but the sheeple say "baaaa". Do you remember that lil' Vietnamese girl that got napalmed and then spectacularly photographed, and the pentagon spent over a decade saying she got burned in a kitchen mishap? Did you believe their kitchen mishap cover story as much as you believe their "the truth is the enemy" cover story? Remember how they told you Pat Tillman was shot by Taliban, and it turns out there were no Taliban there that day? Did you believe them when they told you a soldier in Afghanistan was shot by Taliban? Was it a believable lie? How about the cute little blonde soldier that got knocked out in an attack on her convoy and the pentagon said she had fought valiantly to the last bullet of her sidearm, they attacked a hospital that had been trying to hand her over to "rescue" her, made up stories about the Iraqis treating her badly... did you believe that too? Don't you think you should be less gullible and more informed?
This isn't protecting democracy, it's treason.
Yeah! Those Swedes are committing treason in the united states by letting that Aussie publish those documents! TREASON! And you don't sound like an idiot at all when you say that. Not at all.
Im not totally on Wikileaks side because they didn't take enough care to protect peoples names in the content they released.
They held back 15 thousand pages to protect people's names while they tried to sort through them. Google it. They asked the pentagon to tell them which name to remove, the pentagon told them to go to hell.
Its one thing to release content for the world to see but its another thing to get people killed by releasing it with out at least removing names.
They did remove names, and they got no one killed. Try to find someone they got killed: You can't. The people who said they were gonna get people killed are the people who actively do indeed actually kill real people, have been for years, plan on doing it for years still. They fed you FUD, and you ate it all up.
When I was a kid KTTV in LA broadcast the 1989 Rose Parade on New Years Day in 3D. All you needed was a cheap pair of glasses from 7-11 with one shaded lens (not colored.) They weren't electronic, they didn't have shutters, but the 3D worked. Whatever happened with that technology?
As well as the spectacular 3D Coronation footage, our 3D camera crew was invited to film Her Majesty at a very exclusive garden party at Buckingham Palace. Our 3D cameras were also there with Her Majesty to capture the magical moments on the recent royal tour. We were there as she reviewed an international flotilla in Bedford Basin to commemorate the centennial of the Canadian Navy.
We were there on Parliament Hill for Canada Day celebrations. And we were there for the glamour and excitement of the running of the Queen’s Plate at Woodbine Racetrack - all in fabulous 3D.
They aren't even standardized as far as blink rate synchronization goes, so many glasses, even if the sets of different makers use the same basic tech, aren't inter-compatible.
Everyone wants THEIR patent portfolio to be the standard, so it's a fight.
Though they probably didn't work as intended, after he died...
You know, he had his advisers killed and replaced with automatons... the guy was ingesting a lot of mercury by the end, maybe from his POV those clay soldiers had lots of adventures. Maybe the ghosts of his army stand around his ghost in the afterlife;-)
The chaff looked like an invasion fleet to the radar.
The chaff looked like "they're using that chaff to block our radar again", which means there's something they want to hide. It doesn't look like a fleet, it looks like an attempt at covering up a fleet.
The Confederates did something like this in the early days of the US Civil War--they painted logs to look like cannons, and they often succeeded in fooling Union surveillance. Why "Quaker" guns? Because the Quakers were (and are) avowed pacifists (except for the one who was elected President of the US).
The first emperor of china had a whole damn army of realistic clay figures (each with different facial features and painted to look alive). Put a couple units of real people alternating between atanding at attention and moving around in the mix, and any invader looking over the wall would shit his pants at the sight of the vast number of armed soldiers ready to fight.
Inflate them with poison gas. Then, it really is a weapon. Without, isnt really just an inflatable replica and not a weapon?
And why would it need to be a weapon when its purpose is to make it hard for the enemy to know real information about your asset's numbers and positions? Put down the comic books and pick up the Art of War.
This is not new. Back when I was in ROTC (the 1980's), I recall an article
There was an article in the Time in the 90s about Saddam's inflatable arsenal and how the U.S. was wasting expensive missiles shooting at inexpensive bouncy houses.
I do believe the science suggesting Marijuana can lead to mental illness, which is why I believe it should be a restricted substance.
No you don't, you believe the politically-motivated FUD that passes itself off as science. Hint: correlation != causation; The risk factors for illicit drug use correspond to the risk factors for mental illness. People already ill self-medicate with non-prescription drugs; don't confuse the chicken with the egg.
drug users in general, are people that are comfortable subsidizing the crimes against humanity being committed in Mexico and other regions with drug related violence.
I'm not sure I really understand why it is that this makes the prohibitionists bad and the users good.
Because the the prohibitionists are giving the criminals a monopoly on the product and it is the highest level of hypocrisy to pretend that the users are comfortable with this situation, especially in a thread about efforts to rectify this travesty of justice.
You might have a point, if the research on pot was completed. At this point, the idea that it's harmless is naive to say the least, it does have an impact on the rest of society, and we just don't know how bad yet.
The drug trade's pretty violent right now, and the theory is that legalizing marijuana will undercut the cartels, forcing them to calm down and act like legitimate businesspeople instead of terrorists.
Key word, of course, is "act". If it becomes bad for business to act like terrorists, they likely will cease doing so, even if they're the same sociopathic thugs they've always been. They're not ideologically or religiously motivated, after all; they're just in it for money.
The local gangsters stopped blowing each other up with car bombs after shrapnel killed a kid and the outrage forced the police to crack down on organized crime. Now they off each other with close-range gunshots, leaving the gun there when it's done. Much more tidy, people nearby complain less so the cops are less motivated to intervene.
And when the drug cartels, finding the pot business no longer lucrative, move on over to cocaine etc.. what then?
You then provide a legal and safely regulated way for people to get the cocaine they can't live without? It's the only rational and charitable thing to do.
My friend's all "I didn't tell you I had a new boyfriend?"; turns out she'd set her facebook status and had deemed that "telling everyone". Who's bedding who really is what it's all about.
Slashdot Mirror
Assange has done a severe disservice to WL with his emphasis on injecting over the top editorial into the stories on the site.
Like calling murder "murder", that kind of over the top editorializing? Or do you have a better example?
Probably should\n't have been baiting them. If you are going to release documents, the release them. Don't wave them around going nyner nyner, looky what I got.
So if they review their documents before releasing them: they're taunting the authorities; if they release the documents quickly, they are recklessly endangering lives.
Is that how it works?
I can get behind Wikileaks, but not Assange. He is egotistical tool.
Character assassination: Done and done!
Now instead of focusing on the issue, you will parrot out the "the spokesperson is bad, we must not listen" line every time wikileaks is mentioned. You don't even say why you believe what you say, you probably don't even know yourself that you only believe it because of a campaign of repetition in the media made you absorb this baseless meme.
They released documents that put Afghan civilians and US troops at risk.
No, they released documents that showed that US policy routinely massacres Afghan civilians and puts US troops at risk.
The pentagon said "releasing these documents puts the lives of the people we bomb at risk", it's transparent bullshit, but the sheeple say "baaaa". Do you remember that lil' Vietnamese girl that got napalmed and then spectacularly photographed, and the pentagon spent over a decade saying she got burned in a kitchen mishap? Did you believe their kitchen mishap cover story as much as you believe their "the truth is the enemy" cover story?
Remember how they told you Pat Tillman was shot by Taliban, and it turns out there were no Taliban there that day? Did you believe them when they told you a soldier in Afghanistan was shot by Taliban? Was it a believable lie?
How about the cute little blonde soldier that got knocked out in an attack on her convoy and the pentagon said she had fought valiantly to the last bullet of her sidearm, they attacked a hospital that had been trying to hand her over to "rescue" her, made up stories about the Iraqis treating her badly... did you believe that too?
Don't you think you should be less gullible and more informed?
This isn't protecting democracy, it's treason.
Yeah! Those Swedes are committing treason in the united states by letting that Aussie publish those documents! TREASON! And you don't sound like an idiot at all when you say that. Not at all.
Im not totally on Wikileaks side because they didn't take enough care to protect peoples names in the content they released.
They held back 15 thousand pages to protect people's names while they tried to sort through them. Google it.
They asked the pentagon to tell them which name to remove, the pentagon told them to go to hell.
Its one thing to release content for the world to see but its another thing to get people killed by releasing it with out at least removing names.
They did remove names, and they got no one killed. Try to find someone they got killed: You can't. The people who said they were gonna get people killed are the people who actively do indeed actually kill real people, have been for years, plan on doing it for years still. They fed you FUD, and you ate it all up.
That totally turned me off from Wikileaks.
Mission accomplished.
When I was a kid KTTV in LA broadcast the 1989 Rose Parade on New Years Day in 3D. All you needed was a cheap pair of glasses from 7-11 with one shaded lens (not colored.) They weren't electronic, they didn't have shutters, but the 3D worked. Whatever happened with that technology?
It went to Canada: Incorporating spectacular footage from Royal Review and through the magic of 3D you will be transported back in time and space to re-live the Coronation experience. You will see the Queen as the young, beautiful woman she was – so real and so close, it’s almost like being there.
As well as the spectacular 3D Coronation footage, our 3D camera crew was invited to film Her Majesty at a very exclusive garden party at Buckingham Palace. Our 3D cameras were also there with Her Majesty to capture the magical moments on the recent royal tour. We were there as she reviewed an international flotilla in Bedford Basin to commemorate the centennial of the Canadian Navy.
We were there on Parliament Hill for Canada Day celebrations. And we were there for the glamour and excitement of the running of the Queen’s Plate at Woodbine Racetrack - all in fabulous 3D.
They aren't even standardized as far as blink rate synchronization goes, so many glasses, even if the sets of different makers use the same basic tech, aren't inter-compatible.
Everyone wants THEIR patent portfolio to be the standard, so it's a fight.
maybe it's because there's no 3d standard yet.
Maybe it's because its an expensive device that delivers a sub-par viewing experience in exchange for a gimmick that people are already fed up with.
Though they probably didn't work as intended, after he died...
You know, he had his advisers killed and replaced with automatons... the guy was ingesting a lot of mercury by the end, maybe from his POV those clay soldiers had lots of adventures. Maybe the ghosts of his army stand around his ghost in the afterlife ;-)
The chaff looked like an invasion fleet to the radar.
The chaff looked like "they're using that chaff to block our radar again", which means there's something they want to hide. It doesn't look like a fleet, it looks like an attempt at covering up a fleet.
The Confederates did something like this in the early days of the US Civil War--they painted logs to look like cannons, and they often succeeded in fooling Union surveillance. Why "Quaker" guns? Because the Quakers were (and are) avowed pacifists (except for the one who was elected President of the US).
The first emperor of china had a whole damn army of realistic clay figures (each with different facial features and painted to look alive). Put a couple units of real people alternating between atanding at attention and moving around in the mix, and any invader looking over the wall would shit his pants at the sight of the vast number of armed soldiers ready to fight.
Inflate them with poison gas. Then, it really is a weapon. Without, isnt really just an inflatable replica and not a weapon?
And why would it need to be a weapon when its purpose is to make it hard for the enemy to know real information about your asset's numbers and positions?
Put down the comic books and pick up the Art of War.
This is not new.
Back when I was in ROTC (the 1980's), I recall an article
There was an article in the Time in the 90s about Saddam's inflatable arsenal and how the U.S. was wasting expensive missiles shooting at inexpensive bouncy houses.
I don't use Twitter as any kind of social network, but when I tweet
I don't use words or any kind of typing machine.
I think it's better to educate than to advocate self-immolation.
I agree, in theory. In practice it's hard to educate the willfully ignorant.
I do believe the science suggesting Marijuana can lead to mental illness, which is why I believe it should be a restricted substance.
No you don't, you believe the politically-motivated FUD that passes itself off as science.
Hint: correlation != causation; The risk factors for illicit drug use correspond to the risk factors for mental illness. People already ill self-medicate with non-prescription drugs; don't confuse the chicken with the egg.
I don't mind people smoking pot but do not want my children to buy a pack on the streets.
Then you should want the business of pot to move indoors, away from the streets.
no parties.
You sound like a fun, easygoing person with lots of friends.
drug users in general, are people that are comfortable subsidizing the crimes against humanity being committed in Mexico and other regions with drug related violence.
I'm not sure I really understand why it is that this makes the prohibitionists bad and the users good.
Because the the prohibitionists are giving the criminals a monopoly on the product and it is the highest level of hypocrisy to pretend that the users are comfortable with this situation, especially in a thread about efforts to rectify this travesty of justice.
You might have a point, if the research on pot was completed. At this point, the idea that it's harmless is naive to say the least, it does have an impact on the rest of society, and we just don't know how bad yet.
Fear Uncertainty and Doubt? DIAF.
have illegal aliens living in your nearby forests dumping pesticides
What? They, like, come over illegally, buy pesticides, and go dump them in the forest?
Key word, of course, is "act". If it becomes bad for business to act like terrorists, they likely will cease doing so, even if they're the same sociopathic thugs they've always been. They're not ideologically or religiously motivated, after all; they're just in it for money.
The local gangsters stopped blowing each other up with car bombs after shrapnel killed a kid and the outrage forced the police to crack down on organized crime. Now they off each other with close-range gunshots, leaving the gun there when it's done. Much more tidy, people nearby complain less so the cops are less motivated to intervene.
And when the drug cartels, finding the pot business no longer lucrative, move on over to cocaine etc.. what then?
You then provide a legal and safely regulated way for people to get the cocaine they can't live without? It's the only rational and charitable thing to do.
Methinks they modded me flamebait because I neglected to format my post into a paragraph using html tags. D'oh.
You are so charitable. They modded you flamebait because they want to hurt hippies.
"That's what the Facebook is going to be about!"
My friend's all "I didn't tell you I had a new boyfriend?"; turns out she'd set her facebook status and had deemed that "telling everyone". Who's bedding who really is what it's all about.