As I read it, the QLD government receives "$3.22 billion [annually] in coal royalties". That is a whole lot of handout which can easily cover the flood costs. Since QLD coal is a big contributor to the problem on the world stage ("20% of world production"), dirty coal included, then it is only fair that the QLD gov reaps what it has helped sow - pay up for damages out of it's coal royalties. It would not be fair for them to socialise the cost of damages out to donators and keep it's 3 billion+ a year in royalties now, would it!? As for the quotes you pulled - they relate to the lack of climate change debate in the Aussie media - which is most certainly controlled by a handful of powerful players.
See my post here. Sympathy is well deserved for the poor innocent people killed and affected by this tragedy. What is not deserved is how the Queensland state is hell-bent on causing the same kind of environmental disaster on the world stage.
Wow. This reminds me of seeing the TV footage of people dancing in the streets when the twin towers came down. Do you really believe that the people affected by these floods deserved it? Is this God smiting the wicked people of the world?
I certainly believe that man causes climate change, but I put my feelings on this matter aside and feel sympathy for the thousands of people who have had their lives turned upside down. It is called being human.
Sympathy for the victims, yes. These people deserve all our sympathy + every cent of their own governments annual $3.22 billion in coal royalties (and then some) in financial aid to help them recover. The families of those who have lost their lives deserve our deepest condolences. However - What the the world does not deserve is climate denialist states like theirs blithely selling dirty coal (20% of world production) at massive profits - outspoken members of their parliament publicly ridiculing the worlds climate scientists so they can continue to avoid and suppress real climate change debate. Donation money is not required for a rich state like Queensland with $33.2 billion in yearly profits (and growing) - our money is much better donated to more needy third world countries that are not sitting on top of highly profitable, highly polluting cash cows.
"The coal industry is Queensland’s leading contributor to climate change, amounting to around 394 million tonnes (Mt) of greenhouse gas emissions per year. These emissions are 2.5 times the combined domestic emissions for the entire state, which stood at 160 Mt in 2008, including stationary energy, transport, fugitive emissions, industrial processes, agriculture, waste, and land use, land use change and forestry. Additionally, the mining, processing and transportation of coal contributes enormously to greenhouse gas production.
The Queensland Government’s commitment to coal expansion has the direct consequence of reducing our ability to prevent climate change. The 2010-11 budget, along with the current $700 million expansion of the coal industry, commits an extra $18 million for an "...exploration program to develop major new resource provinces". In comparison, it only provides $47 million for investment in renewable energy initiatives."
Perhaps Queensland voters need to vote in politicians with a more balanced view on climate change at the next elections, rather than siding with the coal industries take?
Apart from being a rich state within a rich country: Do they deserve donation money - or is this a classic case of reap what you sow - privatizing profits and socializing losses? Australia and especially conservative Queenslanders are amongst the staunchest climate change denialists out there (from link: "There's been a big swing back towards climate change denialists..."). Further, Queensland is a massive coal exporter - and more than happy to fuel dirty-coal burning both in Australia or at export sites the world over, all to make a quick buck. The costs of this flood will be minuscule compared to the Queensland coal industries profits:
In 2009, the [Queensland] state’s 52 coal mines produced a record 195 million tonnes of coal, generating $33.2 billion in export revenue. Queensland is a major player in the international coal market, exporting 168 Mt of coal in 2009 that accounted for 20% of the global trade. The industry generated $3.22 billion in coal royalties, accounting for 9% of the total income of the Queensland Government for the 2008-09 financial year.
Australian media is divided up amongst a few powerful players (Murdoch included) that don't want any meaningful public debate of climate change. For example most Australians are completely unaware of Australia complacency in the farce that is the "Copenhagen accord" on climate change as exposed by Wikileaks
What has particularly pissed off Spanish internet community is that the copyright laws the US is blackmailing through in Spain (via 301/trade sanctions) go way beyond what has ever been proposed here in the US - i.e. 3 strikes.
In a move that has only thrown more fuel on the fire, the US ambassador to Spain took an active role in discouraging democratic debate about the new laws - agreeing by Spanish request to "influence" elected representatives so that they did not to meet or discuss the new laws with their constituents:
"[Sebastian] I was particularly concerned that the regional government of Madrid had been organizing meetings with Internet users. (...) He said that would be helpful if the ambassador could encourage regional president [Esperanza Aguirre] to stop.'s Ambassador agreed to raise the issue when meeting with the regional president."
Well, actually the US is winning. Successfully forcing the Spanish Gov to meet the three point US copyright lobby demands ("Spain will appear on the Watch List if it does not do three things by October 2008...") by holding the watch list over the Spanish (with all the trade sanctions that implies for non-compliance) - then the US being asked as you pointed out - to "deal" with all the opposition parties as well so they do not try to democratically debate the issue as it gets back-doored through congress.
Summary from above link: "Let’s be clear what this means; a US official apparently pressured the government [and opposition parties] of Spain to adopt novel and untested legislative measures that have never been proposed in the US Congress, and as the other cables published by El Pais show, did so at the request of US IP rightsholders.".
So winning, yes. Whether you consider that a good thing or not, is upto you...
Big news for nerds in Spain today has got Spanish "internautas"riled: The US pressured all major political parties to change Spanish laws regarding P2P downloads.
Specifically: these two cables (248887 and 213345) are revealing the backroom pressure to ignore the wishes of the Spanish people and slip the laws in without any debate. Even going as far as to tell elected representatives not to meet with the internet community to debate the issue.
This, right on the heels of a votation without public debate going on right now in congress to force through new laws giving the Spanish Gov the right to shutdown websites at will without so much as a court order...
Only a matter of time before someone smart will start pointing information tools like these at mainstream media, draw up some kind of influence chart. Like shining some sunlight into a dark, smelly infected place...
... 'course, I'm thinking they'll just turn around and complain that humanity should instead modify its own behavior.
I for one am ready to pay my air breathing tax to Monsanto.
How to use the Pay As You Breath (PAYB) Calculator:
To predict your monthly PAYE tax, please enter: "Total lung capacity (TLC) is measured by adding together Inspiratory Reserve Volume (IRV), Tidal Volume (Vt), Expiratory Reserve Volume (ERV), and Residual Volume (RV) to come up with the formula, TLC=IRV + Vt + ERV + RV. Tidal Volume is the amount of air normally inhaled or exhaled. Inspiratory Reserve Volume is the amount of additional air that could be inhaled in order to completely fill up the lungs." Please enter these values from you spirometer readings, along with your age, weight, and physical condition - then hit next.
What fails to come to light in this thread is any evidence of a conspiracy to lean on Wikileaks agents. Yet you've invoked all this as proof.
It all depends how trustworthy you think the nytimes reporting is. I admit, that can be shaky at the best of times... but they claim to have interviewed a source that was only suspected of being a Wikileaks agent - who was "leaned on" by the Army’s criminal division to rat out on Wikileaks (where leaned on in this case meant “a considerable amount of money"). If they do that with just a suspected wikileaks insider "agent" - it is not a far stretch to ask what are they trying to do with confirmed insiders like Domscheit-Berg. Especially when they know that his wife works as a Microsoft political lobbyist. Lots of pressure points to lean on there.
If you really believe that pulling together 120 spooks, propaganda specialists, FBI and military personal with (one) of the public aims:
to gather evidence about the workings of WikiLeaks that might someday be used by the Justice Department to prosecute Assange and others on espionage charges.
is not a "plot"/"plan" to get wikileaks - then I really don't know what would qualify as such in your books. Perhaps it is because you think that the Espionage Act of 1917 should apply to Wikileaks - so it is all legal and therefore not a plan/plot to get wikileaks in your books? Perhaps you do not understand how far fetched and ridiculous it is to even cite the Espionage Act against wikileaks. One favorite from that link:
Indeed, the very idea of criminalizing the mere receipt and transmission of classified information by non-government-employees is incredibly dangerous, as it would criminalize much of what investigative reporters do, which is why even harsh AIPAC critics -- such as myself -- found that AIPAC prosecution to be so chilling. There are countries (such as Britain) that criminalize all disclosures of classified information, but the U.S. is not one of them. In sum, anyone (such as Carroll) declaring that WikiLeaks clearly broke U.S. law -- as though there is no real dispute about it -- reveals that they have no idea what they're talking about.
If your still adamant that there is no plot to get wikileaks, then I hope at least that your also not Ok with the Pentagons double standards Vs Wikileaks when it comes to them leaking sensitive information.
What would you call this then? - it was even linked to? You do know the meaning of the work "conspiracy", don't you? i.e. "a plot involving two or more actors to carry out some harmful or illegal act (especially a political plot)"
More on Domscheit-Bergs role in leaking details of the EU's OSS initiative to wikileaks (to the detriment of OSS and Microsofts gain. Probably to the Domscheit-Bergs financial gain as well, I would imagine...
My immediate reaction was "they've been leant on". I'd imagine the US government has been putting pressure directly on any individual involved in the hope of a) weakening Wikileaks and b) causing dissent and reducing their credibility.
NYT:'The civilian also said that the Army had offered him “a considerable amount of money if I were to keep my ear to the ground and be an in with them with WikiLeaks.” He said that he had turned the Army down'
So there is some precedence, there is a plan and a 120 strong department working around the clock to make it happen. Does not sound far fetched to me.
Skipping the wired (and poster "Americanos") spin at looking right at the chat logs they are basing it on (reproduced below), it is pretty clear that this Domscheit-Berg character keeps trying to weasel out of Assanges clear to the point question - did he run to Newsweek with this tabloid crap. When pressed to answer question he goes all childish in his answers and avoids the question. You'd be hard pressed not to fire an employee like that, in any organization. I guess the bags of money from the WWR is finally beginning to pay off dividends.
Domscheit-Berg: what are the agreements re iraq? i need to understand what the plan is there, and what the constraints are
Assange: "A person in close contact with other WikiLeaks activists around Europe, who asked for anonymity when discussing a sensitive topic, says that many of them were privately concerned that Assange has continued to spread allegations of dirty tricks and hint at conspiracies against him without justification. Insiders say that some people affiliated with the website are already
Assange: brainsorming whether ther e might be some way to persuade their front man to step aside, or failing that, even to oust him."
Domscheit-Berg: what does that have to do with me?
Domscheit-Berg: and where is this from?
Assange: Why do you think it has something to do with you?
Domscheit-Berg: probably because you alleg this was me
Domscheit-Berg: but other than that just about nothing
Domscheit-Berg: as discussed yesterday, this is an ongoing discussion that lots of people have voiced concern about
Domscheit-Berg: you should face this, rather than trying to shoot at the only person that even cares to be honest about it towards you
Assange: No, three people have "relayed" your messages already.
Domscheit-Berg: what messages?
Domscheit-Berg: and what three people?
Domscheit-Berg: this issue was discussed
Domscheit-Berg: [Redacted] and i talked about it, [Redacted] talked about it, [Redacted] talked about it, [Redacted] talked about it
Domscheit-Berg: lots of people that care for this project have issued that precise suggestion
Domscheit-Berg: its not me that is spreading this message
Domscheit-Berg: it would just be the natural step to take
Domscheit-Berg: and thats what pretty much anyone says
Assange: Was this you?
Domscheit-Berg: i didnt speak to newsweek or other media representatives about this
Domscheit-Berg: i spoke to people we work with and that have an interest in and care about this project
Domscheit-Berg: and there is nothing wrong about this
Domscheit-Berg: it'd actually be needed much more, and i can still only recommend you to finally start listening to such concerns
Domscheit-Berg: especially when one fuckup is happening after the other
Assange: who, exactly?
Domscheit-Berg: who exactly what?
Assange: Who have you spoken to about this issue?
Domscheit-Berg: i already told you up there
Assange: those are the only persons?
Domscheit-Berg: some folks from the club have asked me about it and i have issued that i think this would be the best behaviour
Domscheit-Berg: thats my opinion
Domscheit-Berg: and this is also in light to calm down the anger there about what happened in 2007
Assange: how many people at the club?
Domscheit-Berg: i dont have to answer to you on this j
Domscheit-Berg: this debate is fuckin all over the place, and no one understands why you go into denial, especially not the people that know about other incidents
Assange: How many people at the club?
Assange: In what venue?
Domscheit-Berg: in private chats
Domscheit-Berg: but i will not answe
So, now the demand is that Australian soldiers walk into private business and secure the network?
So, bad for US soldiers to take control over private networks, bad for AU soldiers not to take control over private networks?
Or maybe they should put up a firewall around Australia to protect business, but not to actually filter anything because an internet filter is bad?
And people wonder why politicians don't listen to their voters. Because it is IMPOSSIBLE. The very same voter will insist that the speed limit be dropped and mile high speed bumps be raised in front of the fire station to stop those devils from driving to fast. The same voter will want green power but no wind mills, tidal station, solar farm or hydro dams because they don't look nice.
We want cheap labor to pick fruit but no immigrants. Free markets to sell OUR goods, import tariffs on THEIR goods.
It is impossible and so politicians stop listening and listen to the lobbyist instead who at least know to be consistent within each single plea.
Or as Douglas Adams said: People are a problem.
I say we nuke them from orbit. It is the only way to be sure.
I think a lot of this cognitive dissidence is coming top down as troll stories trying to drum up support for minority lobby pressure, rather than from the population (or Slashdot readers minds) as you suggest. Take this news article that Slashdot has posted for instance: Complete crap, an obvious troll piece to try and pressure the Aussie government to toe the US line when it comes to it's invented "cyber warfare" rhetoric. Little more than a thin veil of fear to give itself permission to Secure, Clamp, Contain the internet against we the people. To SCC effectively of course you need to coordinate other countries at the same time, or it won't really work - so now the lobby pressure begins to reach us via these puff pieces - this article is asking if your on side with it? Read Most upratedcomments on the topic from Slashdot and people are calling it what it is - a farce. So how the Fsk did slashdot editors pick this drudge piece to get posted - Is Geeknet's policy to reeducate geeks... or perhaps the firehose full of lobbyist brigades?
Either way, where your seeing cognitive dissidence of individuals - I am seeing the divide widening between what lobbyists behind Gov policies want you to think, and what increasing number of people are actually thinking.
Slashdot Mirror
As I read it, the QLD government receives "$3.22 billion [annually] in coal royalties". That is a whole lot of handout which can easily cover the flood costs. Since QLD coal is a big contributor to the problem on the world stage ("20% of world production"), dirty coal included, then it is only fair that the QLD gov reaps what it has helped sow - pay up for damages out of it's coal royalties. It would not be fair for them to socialise the cost of damages out to donators and keep it's 3 billion+ a year in royalties now, would it!? As for the quotes you pulled - they relate to the lack of climate change debate in the Aussie media - which is most certainly controlled by a handful of powerful players.
Nice job trying to spin it, ya blow-in.
See my post here. Sympathy is well deserved for the poor innocent people killed and affected by this tragedy. What is not deserved is how the Queensland state is hell-bent on causing the same kind of environmental disaster on the world stage.
Wow. This reminds me of seeing the TV footage of people dancing in the streets when the twin towers came down. Do you really believe that the people affected by these floods deserved it? Is this God smiting the wicked people of the world?
I certainly believe that man causes climate change, but I put my feelings on this matter aside and feel sympathy for the thousands of people who have had their lives turned upside down. It is called being human.
Sympathy for the victims, yes. These people deserve all our sympathy + every cent of their own governments annual $3.22 billion in coal royalties (and then some) in financial aid to help them recover. The families of those who have lost their lives deserve our deepest condolences. However - What the the world does not deserve is climate denialist states like theirs blithely selling dirty coal (20% of world production) at massive profits - outspoken members of their parliament publicly ridiculing the worlds climate scientists so they can continue to avoid and suppress real climate change debate. Donation money is not required for a rich state like Queensland with $33.2 billion in yearly profits (and growing) - our money is much better donated to more needy third world countries that are not sitting on top of highly profitable, highly polluting cash cows.
"The coal industry is Queensland’s leading contributor to climate change, amounting to around 394 million tonnes (Mt) of greenhouse gas emissions per year. These emissions are 2.5 times the combined domestic emissions for the entire state, which stood at 160 Mt in 2008, including stationary energy, transport, fugitive emissions, industrial processes, agriculture, waste, and land use, land use change and forestry. Additionally, the mining, processing and transportation of coal contributes enormously to greenhouse gas production.
The Queensland Government’s commitment to coal expansion has the direct consequence of reducing our ability to prevent climate change. The 2010-11 budget, along with the current $700 million expansion of the coal industry, commits an extra $18 million for an "...exploration program to develop major new resource provinces". In comparison, it only provides $47 million for investment in renewable energy initiatives."
Perhaps Queensland voters need to vote in politicians with a more balanced view on climate change at the next elections, rather than siding with the coal industries take?
Apart from being a rich state within a rich country: Do they deserve donation money - or is this a classic case of reap what you sow - privatizing profits and socializing losses? Australia and especially conservative Queenslanders are amongst the staunchest climate change denialists out there (from link: "There's been a big swing back towards climate change denialists..."). Further, Queensland is a massive coal exporter - and more than happy to fuel dirty-coal burning both in Australia or at export sites the world over, all to make a quick buck. The costs of this flood will be minuscule compared to the Queensland coal industries profits:
In 2009, the [Queensland] state’s 52 coal mines produced a record 195 million tonnes of coal, generating $33.2 billion in export revenue. Queensland is a major player in the international coal market, exporting 168 Mt of coal in 2009 that accounted for 20% of the global trade. The industry generated $3.22 billion in coal royalties, accounting for 9% of the total income of the Queensland Government for the 2008-09 financial year.
Australian media is divided up amongst a few powerful players (Murdoch included) that don't want any meaningful public debate of climate change. For example most Australians are completely unaware of Australia complacency in the farce that is the "Copenhagen accord" on climate change as exposed by Wikileaks
...increase in UFO activity in exceptionally hot summers. They must be out to trophy Kakapo sculls...
What has particularly pissed off Spanish internet community is that the copyright laws the US is blackmailing through in Spain (via 301/trade sanctions) go way beyond what has ever been proposed here in the US - i.e. 3 strikes.
In a move that has only thrown more fuel on the fire, the US ambassador to Spain took an active role in discouraging democratic debate about the new laws - agreeing by Spanish request to "influence" elected representatives so that they did not to meet or discuss the new laws with their constituents:
"[Sebastian] I was particularly concerned that the regional government of Madrid had been organizing meetings with Internet users. (...) He said that would be helpful if the ambassador could encourage regional president [Esperanza Aguirre] to stop.'s Ambassador agreed to raise the issue when meeting with the regional president."
"Spreading Democracy" in action, anyone.
Well, actually the US is winning. Successfully forcing the Spanish Gov to meet the three point US copyright lobby demands ("Spain will appear on the Watch List if it does not do three things by October 2008...") by holding the watch list over the Spanish (with all the trade sanctions that implies for non-compliance) - then the US being asked as you pointed out - to "deal" with all the opposition parties as well so they do not try to democratically debate the issue as it gets back-doored through congress.
Summary from above link: "Let’s be clear what this means; a US official apparently pressured the government [and opposition parties] of Spain to adopt novel and untested legislative measures that have never been proposed in the US Congress, and as the other cables published by El Pais show, did so at the request of US IP rightsholders.".
So winning, yes. Whether you consider that a good thing or not, is upto you...
See under "Priority Watch List" and "Special 301 review" - two big sticks used to beat countries into compliance. Or to make it even clearer in case your not understanding the cables, see: "Not-So-Gentle Persuasion: US Bullies Spain into Proposed Website Blocking Law"
Big news for nerds in Spain today has got Spanish "internautas"riled: The US pressured all major political parties to change Spanish laws regarding P2P downloads.
Specifically: these two cables (248887 and 213345) are revealing the backroom pressure to ignore the wishes of the Spanish people and slip the laws in without any debate. Even going as far as to tell elected representatives not to meet with the internet community to debate the issue.
This, right on the heels of a votation without public debate going on right now in congress to force through new laws giving the Spanish Gov the right to shutdown websites at will without so much as a court order...
Slashdot censorship at it's worst - nothing to see here move along.
Only a matter of time before someone smart will start pointing information tools like these at mainstream media, draw up some kind of influence chart. Like shining some sunlight into a dark, smelly infected place...
... 'course, I'm thinking they'll just turn around and complain that humanity should instead modify its own behavior.
I for one am ready to pay my air breathing tax to Monsanto.
How to use the Pay As You Breath (PAYB) Calculator:
To predict your monthly PAYE tax, please enter: "Total lung capacity (TLC) is measured by adding together Inspiratory Reserve Volume (IRV), Tidal Volume (Vt), Expiratory Reserve Volume (ERV), and Residual Volume (RV) to come up with the formula, TLC=IRV + Vt + ERV + RV. Tidal Volume is the amount of air normally inhaled or exhaled. Inspiratory Reserve Volume is the amount of additional air that could be inhaled in order to completely fill up the lungs." Please enter these values from you spirometer readings, along with your age, weight, and physical condition - then hit next.
The WWWar has begun - and we have no cyber soldiers!? Quick, raise the budget or we'll be sucking you-know-what in the playpen!
What fails to come to light in this thread is any evidence of a conspiracy to lean on Wikileaks agents. Yet you've invoked all this as proof.
It all depends how trustworthy you think the nytimes reporting is. I admit, that can be shaky at the best of times... but they claim to have interviewed a source that was only suspected of being a Wikileaks agent - who was "leaned on" by the Army’s criminal division to rat out on Wikileaks (where leaned on in this case meant “a considerable amount of money"). If they do that with just a suspected wikileaks insider "agent" - it is not a far stretch to ask what are they trying to do with confirmed insiders like Domscheit-Berg. Especially when they know that his wife works as a Microsoft political lobbyist. Lots of pressure points to lean on there.
If you really believe that pulling together 120 spooks, propaganda specialists, FBI and military personal with (one) of the public aims:
to gather evidence about the workings of WikiLeaks that might someday be used by the Justice Department to prosecute Assange and others on espionage charges.
is not a "plot"/"plan" to get wikileaks - then I really don't know what would qualify as such in your books. Perhaps it is because you think that the Espionage Act of 1917 should apply to Wikileaks - so it is all legal and therefore not a plan/plot to get wikileaks in your books? Perhaps you do not understand how far fetched and ridiculous it is to even cite the Espionage Act against wikileaks. One favorite from that link:
Indeed, the very idea of criminalizing the mere receipt and transmission of classified information by non-government-employees is incredibly dangerous, as it would criminalize much of what investigative reporters do, which is why even harsh AIPAC critics -- such as myself -- found that AIPAC prosecution to be so chilling. There are countries (such as Britain) that criminalize all disclosures of classified information, but the U.S. is not one of them. In sum, anyone (such as Carroll) declaring that WikiLeaks clearly broke U.S. law -- as though there is no real dispute about it -- reveals that they have no idea what they're talking about.
If your still adamant that there is no plot to get wikileaks, then I hope at least that your also not Ok with the Pentagons double standards Vs Wikileaks when it comes to them leaking sensitive information.
What Everyone Needs to Know About Wikileaks and Microsoft Lobbyists Like Anke Domscheit-Berg, Zuck, and Maybe Florian Müller
What would you call this then? - it was even linked to? You do know the meaning of the work "conspiracy", don't you? i.e. "a plot involving two or more actors to carry out some harmful or illegal act (especially a political plot)"
More on Domscheit-Bergs role in leaking details of the EU's OSS initiative to wikileaks (to the detriment of OSS and Microsofts gain. Probably to the Domscheit-Bergs financial gain as well, I would imagine...
Very Interesting stuff, from the point of view of the wikileaks surrounding EU's Open Source Initiative. This AC post below point out that the wife of Domscheit-Berg works in the political department of Microsoft Germany. The plot thickens...
A picture and article on the Anke and Daniel Domscheit-Berg at end of this interview
My immediate reaction was "they've been leant on". I'd imagine the US government has been putting pressure directly on any individual involved in the hope of a) weakening Wikileaks and b) causing dissent and reducing their credibility.
NYT:'The civilian also said that the Army had offered him “a considerable amount of money if I were to keep my ear to the ground and be an in with them with WikiLeaks.” He said that he had turned the Army down'
So there is some precedence, there is a plan and a 120 strong department working around the clock to make it happen. Does not sound far fetched to me.
Domscheit-Berg: what are the agreements re iraq? i need to understand what the plan is there, and what the constraints are Assange: "A person in close contact with other WikiLeaks activists around Europe, who asked for anonymity when discussing a sensitive topic, says that many of them were privately concerned that Assange has continued to spread allegations of dirty tricks and hint at conspiracies against him without justification. Insiders say that some people affiliated with the website are already Assange: brainsorming whether ther e might be some way to persuade their front man to step aside, or failing that, even to oust him." Domscheit-Berg: what does that have to do with me? Domscheit-Berg: and where is this from? Assange: Why do you think it has something to do with you? Domscheit-Berg: probably because you alleg this was me Domscheit-Berg: but other than that just about nothing Domscheit-Berg: as discussed yesterday, this is an ongoing discussion that lots of people have voiced concern about Domscheit-Berg: you should face this, rather than trying to shoot at the only person that even cares to be honest about it towards you Assange: No, three people have "relayed" your messages already. Domscheit-Berg: what messages? Domscheit-Berg: and what three people? Domscheit-Berg: this issue was discussed Domscheit-Berg: [Redacted] and i talked about it, [Redacted] talked about it, [Redacted] talked about it, [Redacted] talked about it Domscheit-Berg: lots of people that care for this project have issued that precise suggestion Domscheit-Berg: its not me that is spreading this message Domscheit-Berg: it would just be the natural step to take Domscheit-Berg: and thats what pretty much anyone says Assange: Was this you? Domscheit-Berg: i didnt speak to newsweek or other media representatives about this Domscheit-Berg: i spoke to people we work with and that have an interest in and care about this project Domscheit-Berg: and there is nothing wrong about this Domscheit-Berg: it'd actually be needed much more, and i can still only recommend you to finally start listening to such concerns Domscheit-Berg: especially when one fuckup is happening after the other Assange: who, exactly? Domscheit-Berg: who exactly what? Assange: Who have you spoken to about this issue? Domscheit-Berg: i already told you up there Assange: those are the only persons? Domscheit-Berg: some folks from the club have asked me about it and i have issued that i think this would be the best behaviour Domscheit-Berg: thats my opinion Domscheit-Berg: and this is also in light to calm down the anger there about what happened in 2007 Assange: how many people at the club? Domscheit-Berg: i dont have to answer to you on this j Domscheit-Berg: this debate is fuckin all over the place, and no one understands why you go into denial, especially not the people that know about other incidents Assange: How many people at the club? Assange: In what venue? Domscheit-Berg: in private chats Domscheit-Berg: but i will not answe
, that's to most common-sensical message I saw lately coming from the Australian government!!!
I think they should receive some congrats.
Common sense answers are not what the US is looking for - so they are being ridiculed for not jumping on the fear bandwagon. Now they want all NAT members to implement "blanket of security over our networks" in order to Secure Clamp and Contain the internet... a wwwar against we the people.
So, now the demand is that Australian soldiers walk into private business and secure the network?
So, bad for US soldiers to take control over private networks, bad for AU soldiers not to take control over private networks?
Or maybe they should put up a firewall around Australia to protect business, but not to actually filter anything because an internet filter is bad?
And people wonder why politicians don't listen to their voters. Because it is IMPOSSIBLE. The very same voter will insist that the speed limit be dropped and mile high speed bumps be raised in front of the fire station to stop those devils from driving to fast. The same voter will want green power but no wind mills, tidal station, solar farm or hydro dams because they don't look nice.
We want cheap labor to pick fruit but no immigrants. Free markets to sell OUR goods, import tariffs on THEIR goods.
It is impossible and so politicians stop listening and listen to the lobbyist instead who at least know to be consistent within each single plea.
Or as Douglas Adams said: People are a problem.
I say we nuke them from orbit. It is the only way to be sure.
I think a lot of this cognitive dissidence is coming top down as troll stories trying to drum up support for minority lobby pressure, rather than from the population (or Slashdot readers minds) as you suggest. Take this news article that Slashdot has posted for instance: Complete crap, an obvious troll piece to try and pressure the Aussie government to toe the US line when it comes to it's invented "cyber warfare" rhetoric. Little more than a thin veil of fear to give itself permission to Secure, Clamp, Contain the internet against we the people. To SCC effectively of course you need to coordinate other countries at the same time, or it won't really work - so now the lobby pressure begins to reach us via these puff pieces - this article is asking if your on side with it? Read Most uprated comments on the topic from Slashdot and people are calling it what it is - a farce. So how the Fsk did slashdot editors pick this drudge piece to get posted - Is Geeknet's policy to reeducate geeks... or perhaps the firehose full of lobbyist brigades?
Either way, where your seeing cognitive dissidence of individuals - I am seeing the divide widening between what lobbyists behind Gov policies want you to think, and what increasing number of people are actually thinking.