Very good point, but if that were true it would mean someone or some group like Anon made this document up. However, I actually expect someone pretending to be a security professional to create a far more technical and competent looking presentation than what we see here, which is classic real "professional" work. A pretender from 4chan would probably pay more attention to details -- like not using Firefox icon for IE8, haha.
Talk about a role-reversal...the discreditors become the discredited. Alas, this is a great blow to the future of the Wikileaks conversation. Now all critics legitimate and otherwise can be lumped together as part of a coordinated effort against Wikileaks. It's now easier than ever to accuse someone who demands more self-scrutiny from WL and its supporters as a "shill" or "operative". And this time we have these 3 companies to blame.
I always try to find words of encouragement. Also, since have my previous laptop in the room, I tell the new one how much better it is than the old one when it does something right. You're so perfect I love you, and so sexy looking, unlike those desktop whales.... what, I wasn't staring at that tablet!
Name one of these laws that the government is using/abusing in order to keep people from accessing information, then tell me in what manner Anon has, with civility, disobeyed these laws in order to expose systemic injustice to the public. Only then can their actions be called civil disobedience. Until that time, we can only call it what it is: retributive attacks and vigilante justice.
Blacks in America sat in whites-only establishments in direct contravention of an unjust law -- they broke laws of segregation in order to highlight to the public the systemic injustices placed upon black Americans. What law is Anon directly disobeying to highlight its injustice? All they've broken are laws against computer fraud and abuse. What injustices within computer fraud laws does that highlight? I can understand if Wikileaks mirrors were shut down or reading WL material were made forbidden to the public, and individuals come together to help each other set up servers and to access them in defiance of government censorship. You could draw an equivalence if that were to happen, but what Anon is doing right now is NOT the same as civil rights era civil disobedience.
Rare cases of abuse notwithstanding, most ICE seizures are related to ip issues, i.e. stopping counterfeiters, or the online hosting of copyrighted material. You can of course take a fundamentalist view of freedom of expression and include protection for counterfeiters and copyright violators, but that brings with it an even larger can of worms. Your last sentence seems confused, as you seem to agree that censorship is indeed bad, yet you immediately fall to the "they do it too" fallacy. It's difficult to discern which you value more -- anti-censorship initiatives, or winning silly arguments.
But do we really need to do one thing at a time? Can't we make progress on both fronts -- encourage the US to be more accepting of WL, while also supporting this initiative? Like Obama once said, "it is not necessary for us to think we can do only one thing and suspend everything else." How about it, can this project get some words of encouragement from you?
I'm trying to understand you, unity100. I know you support Wikileaks as I do, but do you also support this initiative that targets Chinese people? Also, the appropriate word is "hypocritical". Of course, that would require the US to actively censor what its citizens can access in the name of "social harmony" as China does.
This isn't about pushing a point of view, it's about making tools available to those who want greater breadth of information.
The government report on the testing said the technology can carry news feeds as well as vital software applications like Tor, which helps Internet users stay anonymous online, and Freegate, which can be used to access blocked Internet content.
So the bad ones are going back for refurbishing while new ones are being pumped out? That means we can expect the mobo market to be flooded with supply soon? $50 sandy bridge motherboards in May oh please oh please oh please.
What was the point of your comment really? The worst of our media outlets do it therefor nothing needs to be said about this story? In a story about Chinese media's claims to their supposed leaps in space technology, someone brings up Chinese media's most recent fakes as a way of framing the conversation. As dubious as Fox and CNN are, they still have nothing to do with this story. Slashdot: Off-topic comments rated off-topic except comments critical of anything from the US, then it doesn't matter how off-topic they are. Mods don't waste your points on me.
Legitimate certainly, but not legal, and still nowhere close to picketing. And I wouldn't say an all out SEO effort to promote an opposing blog is weak. It takes more work than running a script, but it would communicate one's point to far more people merely because it is peaceful, reasoned, and respectful of others. DDoS doesn't work to promote a cause and the proof is here in all the posts mocking Anon.
I wouldn't say it's the same as picketing. When picketing, people who pass by are made aware of the protesters' dispute and their side of the story, but are still free to pass and conduct business. The picketers are there to dissuade rather than to physically impede. DDoS attacks are not like this, since it effectively puts a locked fence around the business. For a internet equivalent to picketing one could consider a concerted effort into SEO for a website that tells the story of injustice, so that when a potential customer searches for "amazon" online he/she would see in the first or second link an appeal from those who oppose.
I figured you were making a snide quip which was cool, but now that your post has been modded "+5 Insightful" I feel the need to respond, not to your comment (I have no problems with it) but to the general attitude here that would see a joke not as a joke but as an elucidation of some conspiracy by the NYT author to smear Assange.
In an article about personal dealings with Assange and not about Wikileaks, describing the man through someone's eyes helps to ground the scene of the story, making it more vivid and engaging. Did he not appear disheveled, did he not look tired? If indeed, then it's a vivid way of describing a man who had prioritized his work above even his own hygiene and upkeep, which gives you a sense of how involved and single-minded Assange was in pursuing his ideals -- it gives you the sense that he truly believes Wikileaks is important, more so perhaps than even himself. The short description can say all that without being tiresomely explicit. This kind of story-telling is what makes an article a captivating read, a veiled attempt to make Assange look bad is really the last thing it could be.
Just throwing some sense out hoping to dilute the deep cynicism and paranoia I see here. I kindly ask everyone to read the entire article first before judging it as an attempt to discredit. I think it's a captivating story worth reading.
President Barack Obama - Law Vice President Joe Biden - Law Speaker of House John Boehner - Business President pro tempore Daniel Inouye - Law Secretary of State Hillary Clinton - Law Secretary of the Treasury (Timothy Geithner) - Asian Studies/Economics Secretary of Defense (Robert Gates) - History Attorney General (Eric Holder) - Law Secretary of the Interior (Ken Salazar) - Law Secretary of Agriculture (Tom Vilsack) - Law Secretary of Commerce (Gary Locke) - Law Secretary of Labor (Hilda Solis) - Public Policy Secretary of Health and Human Services (Kathleen Sebelius) - Public Policy Secretary of Housing and Urban Development (Shaun Donovan) - Public Policy Secretary of Transportation (Ray LaHood) - Education/Sociology Secretary of Energy (Steven Chu) - Physics Secretary of Education (Arne Duncan) - Sociology Secretary of Veterans Affairs (Eric Shinseki) - Science/Literature Secretary of Homeland Security (Janet Napolitano) - Law
The top posts are held by those who have been educated in law, and Cabinet members mostly educated in fields related to their positions.
You want to talk about the decay of culture and values? That's nothing new, every aging generation in every society in the history of humanity has fretted, writhed, and screamed about it. The fact that American media prefers a self-deprecating sense of humor doesn't mean we embody those caricatures of ourselves.
"In China, eight of the top nine political posts are held by engineers" Well, those politicians, like my father, were born, raised, and educated in a system that made that decision for them - they were assigned to study engineering by the government to fulfill quotas demanded by the planned economy. It was only in the 80's when the planned economy was abolished and economic reforms were instituted that this practice came to an end. Scientists at the time were indeed looked up to for their intelligence and social contributions, but so too were they looked up to because graduating from a top science school and joining the Communist Party was the only path to political power and thus wealth in those days. Nowadays in China, people no longer have such respect for scientists because they see that even middle school drop-outs can start factories or businesses and strike immense fortunes. They have greater respect (and disgust) for those who wield guile and personal connections, like everyone else in the world.
Slashdot Mirror
Very good point, but if that were true it would mean someone or some group like Anon made this document up. However, I actually expect someone pretending to be a security professional to create a far more technical and competent looking presentation than what we see here, which is classic real "professional" work. A pretender from 4chan would probably pay more attention to details -- like not using Firefox icon for IE8, haha.
Talk about a role-reversal...the discreditors become the discredited. Alas, this is a great blow to the future of the Wikileaks conversation. Now all critics legitimate and otherwise can be lumped together as part of a coordinated effort against Wikileaks. It's now easier than ever to accuse someone who demands more self-scrutiny from WL and its supporters as a "shill" or "operative". And this time we have these 3 companies to blame.
The option's been in MS Powertoys since the beginning.
I always try to find words of encouragement. Also, since have my previous laptop in the room, I tell the new one how much better it is than the old one when it does something right. You're so perfect I love you, and so sexy looking, unlike those desktop whales. ... what, I wasn't staring at that tablet!
Name one of these laws that the government is using/abusing in order to keep people from accessing information, then tell me in what manner Anon has, with civility, disobeyed these laws in order to expose systemic injustice to the public. Only then can their actions be called civil disobedience. Until that time, we can only call it what it is: retributive attacks and vigilante justice.
You're mostly right, but you didn't factor in the power of fame.
Blacks in America sat in whites-only establishments in direct contravention of an unjust law -- they broke laws of segregation in order to highlight to the public the systemic injustices placed upon black Americans. What law is Anon directly disobeying to highlight its injustice? All they've broken are laws against computer fraud and abuse. What injustices within computer fraud laws does that highlight? I can understand if Wikileaks mirrors were shut down or reading WL material were made forbidden to the public, and individuals come together to help each other set up servers and to access them in defiance of government censorship. You could draw an equivalence if that were to happen, but what Anon is doing right now is NOT the same as civil rights era civil disobedience.
*wipes away tear* I wish I had mod points today.
Oh goodness, let's make some for Slashdot. Here, I'll get the ball rolling.
http://memegenerator.net/come-hither-nerd-malda/ImageMacro/5585341/new-slashdot-format-break-everything
Rare cases of abuse notwithstanding, most ICE seizures are related to ip issues, i.e. stopping counterfeiters, or the online hosting of copyrighted material.
You can of course take a fundamentalist view of freedom of expression and include protection for counterfeiters and copyright violators, but that brings with it an even larger can of worms.
Your last sentence seems confused, as you seem to agree that censorship is indeed bad, yet you immediately fall to the "they do it too" fallacy. It's difficult to discern which you value more -- anti-censorship initiatives, or winning silly arguments.
But do we really need to do one thing at a time? Can't we make progress on both fronts -- encourage the US to be more accepting of WL, while also supporting this initiative? Like Obama once said, "it is not necessary for us to think we can do only one thing and suspend everything else." How about it, can this project get some words of encouragement from you?
I'm trying to understand you, unity100. I know you support Wikileaks as I do, but do you also support this initiative that targets Chinese people?
Also, the appropriate word is "hypocritical". Of course, that would require the US to actively censor what its citizens can access in the name of "social harmony" as China does.
This isn't about pushing a point of view, it's about making tools available to those who want greater breadth of information.
The government report on the testing said the technology can carry news feeds as well as vital software applications like Tor, which helps Internet users stay anonymous online, and Freegate, which can be used to access blocked Internet content.
So the bad ones are going back for refurbishing while new ones are being pumped out?
That means we can expect the mobo market to be flooded with supply soon?
$50 sandy bridge motherboards in May oh please oh please oh please.
What was the point of your comment really? The worst of our media outlets do it therefor nothing needs to be said about this story? In a story about Chinese media's claims to their supposed leaps in space technology, someone brings up Chinese media's most recent fakes as a way of framing the conversation. As dubious as Fox and CNN are, they still have nothing to do with this story.
Slashdot: Off-topic comments rated off-topic except comments critical of anything from the US, then it doesn't matter how off-topic they are.
Mods don't waste your points on me.
I think you've been "debating" (read: flamewarring) online too much. People are much more nuanced in their opinion offline.
Actually, I was wrong. I guess that was a hoax too? Damn you Slashrumor.org
http://slashdot.org/story/10/12/01/206200/Wikileaks-DDoS-Attacker-Arrested-Equipment-Seized
So some people want to try their own hands at helping.
I hope they fail hard.
You want them to fail because they're not helping in the way you want them to.
Rush Limbaugh, is that you again?
Haha what a sweet story!
Legitimate certainly, but not legal, and still nowhere close to picketing.
And I wouldn't say an all out SEO effort to promote an opposing blog is weak. It takes more work than running a script, but it would communicate one's point to far more people merely because it is peaceful, reasoned, and respectful of others.
DDoS doesn't work to promote a cause and the proof is here in all the posts mocking Anon.
I wouldn't say it's the same as picketing. When picketing, people who pass by are made aware of the protesters' dispute and their side of the story, but are still free to pass and conduct business. The picketers are there to dissuade rather than to physically impede. DDoS attacks are not like this, since it effectively puts a locked fence around the business. For a internet equivalent to picketing one could consider a concerted effort into SEO for a website that tells the story of injustice, so that when a potential customer searches for "amazon" online he/she would see in the first or second link an appeal from those who oppose.
I figured you were making a snide quip which was cool, but now that your post has been modded "+5 Insightful" I feel the need to respond, not to your comment (I have no problems with it) but to the general attitude here that would see a joke not as a joke but as an elucidation of some conspiracy by the NYT author to smear Assange.
In an article about personal dealings with Assange and not about Wikileaks, describing the man through someone's eyes helps to ground the scene of the story, making it more vivid and engaging. Did he not appear disheveled, did he not look tired? If indeed, then it's a vivid way of describing a man who had prioritized his work above even his own hygiene and upkeep, which gives you a sense of how involved and single-minded Assange was in pursuing his ideals -- it gives you the sense that he truly believes Wikileaks is important, more so perhaps than even himself. The short description can say all that without being tiresomely explicit. This kind of story-telling is what makes an article a captivating read, a veiled attempt to make Assange look bad is really the last thing it could be.
Just throwing some sense out hoping to dilute the deep cynicism and paranoia I see here.
I kindly ask everyone to read the entire article first before judging it as an attempt to discredit. I think it's a captivating story worth reading.
President Barack Obama - Law
Vice President Joe Biden - Law
Speaker of House John Boehner - Business
President pro tempore Daniel Inouye - Law
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton - Law
Secretary of the Treasury (Timothy Geithner) - Asian Studies/Economics
Secretary of Defense (Robert Gates) - History
Attorney General (Eric Holder) - Law
Secretary of the Interior (Ken Salazar) - Law
Secretary of Agriculture (Tom Vilsack) - Law
Secretary of Commerce (Gary Locke) - Law
Secretary of Labor (Hilda Solis) - Public Policy
Secretary of Health and Human Services (Kathleen Sebelius) - Public Policy
Secretary of Housing and Urban Development (Shaun Donovan) - Public Policy
Secretary of Transportation (Ray LaHood) - Education/Sociology
Secretary of Energy (Steven Chu) - Physics
Secretary of Education (Arne Duncan) - Sociology
Secretary of Veterans Affairs (Eric Shinseki) - Science/Literature
Secretary of Homeland Security (Janet Napolitano) - Law
The top posts are held by those who have been educated in law, and Cabinet members mostly educated in fields related to their positions.
You want to talk about the decay of culture and values? That's nothing new, every aging generation in every society in the history of humanity has fretted, writhed, and screamed about it.
The fact that American media prefers a self-deprecating sense of humor doesn't mean we embody those caricatures of ourselves.
"In China, eight of the top nine political posts are held by engineers"
Well, those politicians, like my father, were born, raised, and educated in a system that made that decision for them - they were assigned to study engineering by the government to fulfill quotas demanded by the planned economy. It was only in the 80's when the planned economy was abolished and economic reforms were instituted that this practice came to an end. Scientists at the time were indeed looked up to for their intelligence and social contributions, but so too were they looked up to because graduating from a top science school and joining the Communist Party was the only path to political power and thus wealth in those days. Nowadays in China, people no longer have such respect for scientists because they see that even middle school drop-outs can start factories or businesses and strike immense fortunes. They have greater respect (and disgust) for those who wield guile and personal connections, like everyone else in the world.
I don't get it, how is charging premium prices a breach of morals? Do they have a soap monopoly?