I'll tentatively agree with Rushkoff by asserting the internet has already been forked thanks to geography.
You see, we've luckily never created one world government. Indeed, the internet has helped prevent that by revealing the mind boggling & fundamentally alien stupidity of our fellow humans. It then follows the internet can stagnate in one country while flourishing elsewhere. You should therefore give donations to organizations that'll fight for net neutrality in Europe and Asia.
There are big advantages to starting companies inside the U.S. instead of Europe, well mostly access to capital. Yet, there are enormously successful European tech companies, like Skype. If Europe has net neutrality but the U.S. does not, well that'll create more such companies.
Otoh, mobile phone operators are completely out of control in Europe. Pay-as-you-go in France is over 50 cents per min, for example. Soo who knows how it'll turn out, but we know the next battle ground.
.. people don't buy N900s. So only GPL developers program for N900s. I don't mind, I've even used the text based youtube download client when my N900's CPU was overloaded, no worries. I wouldn't expect many people going that route however.
There are many small time commercial & crippleware developers reading slashdot. Android unseating the iPhone will have a big impact upon them.
I'll definitely buy myself an N9 once they've been out for a couple months, but I'm vaguely worried now. There are however some features for which I'm worried about Nokia falling behind the Android phones. In particular, there is now a dual core Android smartphone with dual SIMs. Dual SIMs is a killer feature for my lifestyle. And dual cores is a killer feature for a phone OS as multitasking oriented as the Maemo/MeeGo.
There are many other lifestyles and feature preferences of course, but Android's market diversity can deliver them all, while the iPhone has no chance.
In fact, Europeans don't even care about America's TSA crap*, largely because they don't mind walking around naked. So I doubt even they'd even find an audience.** Also, I'm doubtful that they'd understands American's well enough to mock our lowlifes successfully.
There is however one nationality that understands Americans throughly, does exceptional comedy, and isn't beholden to our social mores. That's right, Canada!:)
There is also the very real possibility of small time production by Americans. Anyone feel like pitching a webisode series to Micheal Moore?
* I donno if more business meetings take place in Europe now, but whatever.
** There might be some chance the British could accomplish this given their humorous take on bureaucracy, but I wouldn't count on it, plus they're too polite to mock low class foreigners so much.
Do you remember those police academy movies? Back then, Americans liked the plucky clever sympathetic character that wins in the end. Nowadays however Americans like Jack-ass, mockumentaries, and Snooki. We could therefore make a TSA comedy where TSA lowlifes interact with business flyers and middle class families.
Several possible characters :
Dom -- homeless, stinks, eats the food taken from passengers T-bone -- steals laptops and cash, he's been studying to get into credit card fraud, but keeps failing the 'exams' Sketch -- deals cocaine to the passengers, gets into fights with kids Joe -- supervisor, masturbates to the nudy scanner images, including kids Laquita -- just obnoxious, steals clothing, likes fucking Sketch while they watch the nudy scanner Carry -- transvestite, also steals clothing, likes feeling up the passengers who opt out of the nudy scanner Frank -- just plane crazy, he hides dog poop in passengers luggage for example
I'm not sure if I can support this. I think it perverts the process.
Not necessarily, but first all argue your case :
There is no fair voting system by Arrows impossibility theorem. It follows that if you manipulate the system indefinitely then you become a social ill. So you're correct in theory.
In reality though, our beyond stupid first past-the-post voting system has created an incredibly divisive two party system, leading the republicans to exploit human stupidity to create all manor of social problems, and thus freeing the democrats from any real pretension towards social progress. I'd therefore argue that exploiting the existing stupid system for positive change is justified.
Imagine for one moment that the Republican media machine will always create more Palins, i.e. insane morons who're popular enough for some poor shot at the presidency. In that situation, we should punish them for being so stupid by making them try to elect these morons. Yes, the whole country might suffer occasionally, but if that's possibly more like paralysis than damage, then progressives kinda still win.
In any case, I wouldn't worry about perverting a process that's already soo mind bogglingly stupid and perverted.
Ahh thanks! So this case merely extends the existing SCOTUS decisions for ISPs to message boards. To me, that sounds like exactly the sort of legal precedent that SCOTUS might never need to even consider, as many judges will simply accept the existing SCOTUS decisions plus these arguments. Otherwise, they'd need to justify why the SCOTUS decisions for ISPs don't apply to message boards, which doesn't sound easy.
There is a kind of 'soft power' that comes from various progressive and collaborative activities such as (1) educating foreigners here, (2) leading social reforms, (3) generally upholding the rule of law, (4) favoring shared interests over special national interests, etc. In the long run, soft power is far less expensive than hard power, plus many things can only be accomplished with soft power.
It is corruption pure & simple when officials favor short term benefits for themselves, or their future possible employers, over the long term interests of the nation. It's clear the listed activities mostly fall into this category of weakening the U.S. soft power for short term personal gain, although some, like the U.S. pushing Sweden to press rape charges against Assange, are perhaps merely stupidity bread of desperation.
Just fyi, people are definitely not yawning about the cables, not outside the U.S. especially. We've only scratched the surface so far, but we've had government officials fleeing their countries, major reenforcement of judicial systems, etc.
Precedent isn't exactly so black and white. If there is no contravening SCOTUS decision, then other lawyers will cite this decision and judges will evaluate it's relevance. Those other judges are always free to disagree, but they'll get slapped down if they're under any circuit court who's affirmed a similar decision.
There is also legal scholarship wherein this decision gets further analyzed, likely strengthening it. All that discussion can be brought to bear on future cases.
SCOTUS need not necessarily ever consider issues that lower courts have resolved satisfactorily & consistently. If however the circuit courts are split on an issue, then SCOTUS will invariably take up their favorite appeals, thus forcing all the lower courts into agreement.
There is one glaring difference between the Pentagon Papers and wikileaks, namely we've soo much information these days that small organizations could not possibly handle it, must less one loan leaker.
If our society is to continue to progress, then we need access to subtleties embedded in large data sets that obviously pertain to large scale wrongdoing. Wikileaks et al. are valuble aids to whistle blowers serving this need.
I'm afraid the alternative consists of large organizations who worsen the problems being the only ones with access to the data, and thus the only ones able to make informed decisions.
You can prevent leaks quite easily : pay your people very well, make sure your people are overall proud of their work, minimize the amount that you collect unnecessary data, and if you must ask people to do dirty things of which they won't be proud, then minimize the number of people involved in that activity.
Or more likely they'll damage the government's case against Manning.
Did you know the Rosenberg's were executed based upon falsified evidence? We don't know if Julius Rosenburg was actually spying, but Ethel almost surely wasn't involved
It wouldn't surprise me if all the evidence against Manning was falsified. They might've deduced his guilt through counter intelligence tools they don't want revealed. Or maybe they're aware of which base accessed the cables, and Manning was just disliked by the wrong general there.
(1) As Naomi Klein said, the reasons for prosecuting Assange are so transparently political that, even if he's guilty as sin, his case will do massive damage to rape prosecutions for decades to come. Are you a minority accused of rape? Great, just trot out the prosecutors racial statistics. etc. "Selective prosecution" has now become a dog whistle for jurors and journalists.
(2) Anna Ardin and Sofia Wilen's reasons for pressing charges are fairly clearly revenge. Assange may or may not have been rough with them, but they both apparently liked that when they thought he wanted a relationship. Again, the publicity here will impact rape prosecutions for decades by making the defense "she's just saying this for revenge" infinitely more believable.
Imho, we should get behind Assange's defense not because he's necessarily innocent, but because otherwise will damage huge numbers of rape cases all over the world for decades. If otoh we defend Assange, then rapists who don't get the same defense will not look so good.
An FBI study of the 10,000 rape cases referred to the FBI during the seven years between 1989 and 1996 concluded that the primary suspect was exonerated by forensic DNA evidence in about 25% of sexual assault cases in which results could be obtained.
I'm unsure about the parent comment's 33% statistic. I'm however also unsure how one should treat the assault cases where results could not be obtained, which represent like 20% of this data set. Validity of results will obviously not be statistically independent from the results themselves.
There is a further complication that rape cases referred to the FBI will usually be far more prosecutable, like perhaps more violent rapes. That suggests there will be fewer outright false accusations in this data set and more mistaken identities. It's also rule out all cases where the woman is transparently making a false accusation, btw.
You'd ideally want to restrict to cases involving acquaintances, thus ruling out the mistaken identities and focusing more upon women with ulterior motives. I'd imagine however that mistaken identities are actually quite rare in rape cases, suggesting outright false accusation rate is much higher than 25%, perhaps around 33% or so.
In any case, the FBI dataset firmly establishes the parent's overall point that false rape accusations are rampant.
Republicans never really think through their online grandstanding. There is an easy solution here, just build yourself a perl script that submits grant numbers, all grant numbers. Or maybe just target fields relevant to defense like engineering, cryptography, number theory, etc.
All those traditional botnet DDoS attacks are usually done for extortion, which sounds illegal regardless, plus the botnet owner actually controls the action. There are however three seperate activities in an LOIC attack : publishing the call to arms, participating in the LOIC attack, and directing the LOIC traffic on IRC. I'd imagine the third activity is illegal under fairly modern anti-DDoS laws, but the first two might not be. Or how illegal they are depends upon the jurisdiction. It'll be interesting.
There is a much more reasonable approach to gaining Assange and Manning publicity that even the U.S. government's PR machine cannot silence. You should send Amnesty International a donation together with a note saying they should name Julian Assange and Bradley Manning as prisoners of conscience. You might say roughly:
"I would be very appreciative if you'd consider spending this donation on evaluating more thoroughly the evidence against Julian Assange and Bradley Manning. I believe you will conclude that Assange is in-fact a prisoner of conscience once you've investigated the matter fully. We are all well aware that most regimes will go to great lengths to obfuscate their politically motivated criminal charges, but striping away that facade will naturally require more effort in the west.
Beyond this, there is an underlying truth that Assange's imprisonment sends a message of amoral support to repressive regimes the world over, especially those large enough to feel they have a popular mandate by virtue of economics, like China and Russia. The Bush administration has already provided these regimes with ample ammunition for acts of torture and coercion, assuming they can lie about any given prisoner seeming dangerous. Please take a stand against this further expanding this amoral support.
I recognize that Bradley Manning's case involves further subtleties surrounding his obligations to protect classified material, some of which must remain confidential to protect others. It is nevertheless clear that his actions were based on conscience and require detailed examination."
That'd be a shit storm if Amnesty deemed either one as prisoners of conscience.
Assange has been the one publicly articulating the philosophy that's finally motivating the leakers like Manning, the unnamed U.S. bank executives who's stuff comes out in January, etc. And he started articulating it long before the wikileaks site was founded.
.. Assange is the one articulating the philosophy that's motivating Manning and many others to leak documents.
Manning's presumed fours leaks may be remembered as an incredible act of daring self sacrifice and patriotism, but he's ultimately a guy who read someone else's philosophy and implemented it.
In fact, wikileaks has been around for four years. It's younger than facebook, yes, but four years is still significant. And the series of megaleaks of classified U.S. documents has been going on for the better part of one year, first the Afghanistan war log and then the Iraq war log.
There are however several differences in the past few weeks : First, wikileaks started leaking documents that jeopardize numerous interests of powerful political people. Second, Assange told Forbes their next megaleak in January or February would expose "an ecosystem of corruption" in a "major U.S. bank". Third, the U.S. responded to these two by pushing the Swedish into reestablishing some already dropped sex charges against him while pushing the British into locking him up for possible extradition.
Yes, obviously the diplomatic cables are big shit in that every country now has it's own little scandals based around them, but the underlying push towards transparency has been going on for four years, and the specific push against U.S. secrecy has been going on for over 6 months.
I'd hope they'd seriously consider naming him if the U.S. actually charges him & attempts extradition, or simply kidnaps him of course. It would likely depend upon the consequences form the leaks otherwise, including other projects and disconnected leaks that seem inspired by wikileaks.
Or they might name him just to avoid naming another who angers China, Russia, etc. There were many people who claimed the committee picked Obama just to avoid picking a Chinese dissident, like Liu Xiaobo, or accidentally endorsing Bush's foreign policy by picking an Iranian dissident. Assange might provide a nice 'apology' to the Chinese and Russians before they name some more Chinese and Russians.
I'd rock if he won both the Pulitzer and the Nobel Peace Prize though, obviously those send a far more important message, they are just not as quite as timely. lol
In any case, wikileaks will "expose an ecosystem of corruption" in a "major U.S. bank" early next year, while presumably continuing to work their way through the U.S. embassy cables. So I'd imagine he'll get another shot.:)
Amnesty International declare him a prisoner of conscience once more details emerge about the rape accusations.
I've a quick question for all the network gurus out there. The JS LOIC stops sending packets once the currently open connections without responses reaches a preset limit, which happens to be 1000.
Is that really how one should approach a DDoS? Would doing otherwise be a SYN flood which kernels now block fairly effectively? Or are they perhaps doing this to make it more like a virtual sit-in, i.e. all the computers play nice but still suck up time?
You'll notice for example that verified.visa.com:80 hangs around 1001 for several seconds.
Sorry if the question is stupid. I've never cared too much about networking details, especially related to silly DDoS attacks, but all the media talk about wikileaks made me curious just what people were doing.
Slashdot Mirror
I'll tentatively agree with Rushkoff by asserting the internet has already been forked thanks to geography.
You see, we've luckily never created one world government. Indeed, the internet has helped prevent that by revealing the mind boggling & fundamentally alien stupidity of our fellow humans. It then follows the internet can stagnate in one country while flourishing elsewhere. You should therefore give donations to organizations that'll fight for net neutrality in Europe and Asia.
There are big advantages to starting companies inside the U.S. instead of Europe, well mostly access to capital. Yet, there are enormously successful European tech companies, like Skype. If Europe has net neutrality but the U.S. does not, well that'll create more such companies.
Otoh, mobile phone operators are completely out of control in Europe. Pay-as-you-go in France is over 50 cents per min, for example. Soo who knows how it'll turn out, but we know the next battle ground.
.. people don't buy N900s. So only GPL developers program for N900s. I don't mind, I've even used the text based youtube download client when my N900's CPU was overloaded, no worries. I wouldn't expect many people going that route however.
There are many small time commercial & crippleware developers reading slashdot. Android unseating the iPhone will have a big impact upon them.
I'll definitely buy myself an N9 once they've been out for a couple months, but I'm vaguely worried now. There are however some features for which I'm worried about Nokia falling behind the Android phones. In particular, there is now a dual core Android smartphone with dual SIMs. Dual SIMs is a killer feature for my lifestyle. And dual cores is a killer feature for a phone OS as multitasking oriented as the Maemo/MeeGo.
There are many other lifestyles and feature preferences of course, but Android's market diversity can deliver them all, while the iPhone has no chance.
A personal appeal from the outlaw Josey Wales.
In fact, Europeans don't even care about America's TSA crap*, largely because they don't mind walking around naked. So I doubt even they'd even find an audience.** Also, I'm doubtful that they'd understands American's well enough to mock our lowlifes successfully.
There is however one nationality that understands Americans throughly, does exceptional comedy, and isn't beholden to our social mores. That's right, Canada! :)
There is also the very real possibility of small time production by Americans. Anyone feel like pitching a webisode series to Micheal Moore?
* I donno if more business meetings take place in Europe now, but whatever.
** There might be some chance the British could accomplish this given their humorous take on bureaucracy, but I wouldn't count on it, plus they're too polite to mock low class foreigners so much.
Do you remember those police academy movies? Back then, Americans liked the plucky clever sympathetic character that wins in the end. Nowadays however Americans like Jack-ass, mockumentaries, and Snooki. We could therefore make a TSA comedy where TSA lowlifes interact with business flyers and middle class families.
Several possible characters :
Dom -- homeless, stinks, eats the food taken from passengers
T-bone -- steals laptops and cash, he's been studying to get into credit card fraud, but keeps failing the 'exams'
Sketch -- deals cocaine to the passengers, gets into fights with kids
Joe -- supervisor, masturbates to the nudy scanner images, including kids
Laquita -- just obnoxious, steals clothing, likes fucking Sketch while they watch the nudy scanner
Carry -- transvestite, also steals clothing, likes feeling up the passengers who opt out of the nudy scanner
Frank -- just plane crazy, he hides dog poop in passengers luggage for example
I'm not sure if I can support this. I think it perverts the process.
Not necessarily, but first all argue your case :
There is no fair voting system by Arrows impossibility theorem. It follows that if you manipulate the system indefinitely then you become a social ill. So you're correct in theory.
In reality though, our beyond stupid first past-the-post voting system has created an incredibly divisive two party system, leading the republicans to exploit human stupidity to create all manor of social problems, and thus freeing the democrats from any real pretension towards social progress. I'd therefore argue that exploiting the existing stupid system for positive change is justified.
Imagine for one moment that the Republican media machine will always create more Palins, i.e. insane morons who're popular enough for some poor shot at the presidency. In that situation, we should punish them for being so stupid by making them try to elect these morons. Yes, the whole country might suffer occasionally, but if that's possibly more like paralysis than damage, then progressives kinda still win.
In any case, I wouldn't worry about perverting a process that's already soo mind bogglingly stupid and perverted.
These charges are mostly just to distract the media from Mugabe's involvment with blood diamonds, but it's not obviously working.
We've also got lovely summaries of Mugabe's criminality by U.S. ambassadors.
Btw, the 'sanctions' being discussed don't hurt people beyond Mugabe's immediate circle.
Ahh thanks! So this case merely extends the existing SCOTUS decisions for ISPs to message boards. To me, that sounds like exactly the sort of legal precedent that SCOTUS might never need to even consider, as many judges will simply accept the existing SCOTUS decisions plus these arguments. Otherwise, they'd need to justify why the SCOTUS decisions for ISPs don't apply to message boards, which doesn't sound easy.
There is a kind of 'soft power' that comes from various progressive and collaborative activities such as (1) educating foreigners here, (2) leading social reforms, (3) generally upholding the rule of law, (4) favoring shared interests over special national interests, etc. In the long run, soft power is far less expensive than hard power, plus many things can only be accomplished with soft power.
It is corruption pure & simple when officials favor short term benefits for themselves, or their future possible employers, over the long term interests of the nation. It's clear the listed activities mostly fall into this category of weakening the U.S. soft power for short term personal gain, although some, like the U.S. pushing Sweden to press rape charges against Assange, are perhaps merely stupidity bread of desperation.
Just fyi, people are definitely not yawning about the cables, not outside the U.S. especially. We've only scratched the surface so far, but we've had government officials fleeing their countries, major reenforcement of judicial systems, etc.
Precedent isn't exactly so black and white. If there is no contravening SCOTUS decision, then other lawyers will cite this decision and judges will evaluate it's relevance. Those other judges are always free to disagree, but they'll get slapped down if they're under any circuit court who's affirmed a similar decision.
There is also legal scholarship wherein this decision gets further analyzed, likely strengthening it. All that discussion can be brought to bear on future cases.
SCOTUS need not necessarily ever consider issues that lower courts have resolved satisfactorily & consistently. If however the circuit courts are split on an issue, then SCOTUS will invariably take up their favorite appeals, thus forcing all the lower courts into agreement.
There is one glaring difference between the Pentagon Papers and wikileaks, namely we've soo much information these days that small organizations could not possibly handle it, must less one loan leaker.
If our society is to continue to progress, then we need access to subtleties embedded in large data sets that obviously pertain to large scale wrongdoing. Wikileaks et al. are valuble aids to whistle blowers serving this need.
I'm afraid the alternative consists of large organizations who worsen the problems being the only ones with access to the data, and thus the only ones able to make informed decisions.
You can prevent leaks quite easily : pay your people very well, make sure your people are overall proud of their work, minimize the amount that you collect unnecessary data, and if you must ask people to do dirty things of which they won't be proud, then minimize the number of people involved in that activity.
Or more likely they'll damage the government's case against Manning.
Did you know the Rosenberg's were executed based upon falsified evidence? We don't know if Julius Rosenburg was actually spying, but Ethel almost surely wasn't involved
It wouldn't surprise me if all the evidence against Manning was falsified. They might've deduced his guilt through counter intelligence tools they don't want revealed. Or maybe they're aware of which base accessed the cables, and Manning was just disliked by the wrong general there.
There are two problems with your analysis :
(1) As Naomi Klein said, the reasons for prosecuting Assange are so transparently political that, even if he's guilty as sin, his case will do massive damage to rape prosecutions for decades to come. Are you a minority accused of rape? Great, just trot out the prosecutors racial statistics. etc. "Selective prosecution" has now become a dog whistle for jurors and journalists.
(2) Anna Ardin and Sofia Wilen's reasons for pressing charges are fairly clearly revenge. Assange may or may not have been rough with them, but they both apparently liked that when they thought he wanted a relationship. Again, the publicity here will impact rape prosecutions for decades by making the defense "she's just saying this for revenge" infinitely more believable.
Imho, we should get behind Assange's defense not because he's necessarily innocent, but because otherwise will damage huge numbers of rape cases all over the world for decades. If otoh we defend Assange, then rapists who don't get the same defense will not look so good.
An FBI study of the 10,000 rape cases referred to the FBI during the seven years between 1989 and 1996 concluded that the primary suspect was exonerated by forensic DNA evidence in about 25% of sexual assault cases in which results could be obtained.
I'm unsure about the parent comment's 33% statistic. I'm however also unsure how one should treat the assault cases where results could not be obtained, which represent like 20% of this data set. Validity of results will obviously not be statistically independent from the results themselves.
There is a further complication that rape cases referred to the FBI will usually be far more prosecutable, like perhaps more violent rapes. That suggests there will be fewer outright false accusations in this data set and more mistaken identities. It's also rule out all cases where the woman is transparently making a false accusation, btw.
You'd ideally want to restrict to cases involving acquaintances, thus ruling out the mistaken identities and focusing more upon women with ulterior motives. I'd imagine however that mistaken identities are actually quite rare in rape cases, suggesting outright false accusation rate is much higher than 25%, perhaps around 33% or so.
In any case, the FBI dataset firmly establishes the parent's overall point that false rape accusations are rampant.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,194032,00.html
I'd like to see them break up both Comcast and NBC into smaller regional outfits. :P
Republicans never really think through their online grandstanding. There is an easy solution here, just build yourself a perl script that submits grant numbers, all grant numbers. Or maybe just target fields relevant to defense like engineering, cryptography, number theory, etc.
All those traditional botnet DDoS attacks are usually done for extortion, which sounds illegal regardless, plus the botnet owner actually controls the action. There are however three seperate activities in an LOIC attack : publishing the call to arms, participating in the LOIC attack, and directing the LOIC traffic on IRC. I'd imagine the third activity is illegal under fairly modern anti-DDoS laws, but the first two might not be. Or how illegal they are depends upon the jurisdiction. It'll be interesting.
There is a much more reasonable approach to gaining Assange and Manning publicity that even the U.S. government's PR machine cannot silence. You should send Amnesty International a donation together with a note saying they should name Julian Assange and Bradley Manning as prisoners of conscience. You might say roughly :
"I would be very appreciative if you'd consider spending this donation on evaluating more thoroughly the evidence against Julian Assange and Bradley Manning. I believe you will conclude that Assange is in-fact a prisoner of conscience once you've investigated the matter fully. We are all well aware that most regimes will go to great lengths to obfuscate their politically motivated criminal charges, but striping away that facade will naturally require more effort in the west.
Beyond this, there is an underlying truth that Assange's imprisonment sends a message of amoral support to repressive regimes the world over, especially those large enough to feel they have a popular mandate by virtue of economics, like China and Russia. The Bush administration has already provided these regimes with ample ammunition for acts of torture and coercion, assuming they can lie about any given prisoner seeming dangerous. Please take a stand against this further expanding this amoral support.
I recognize that Bradley Manning's case involves further subtleties surrounding his obligations to protect classified material, some of which must remain confidential to protect others. It is nevertheless clear that his actions were based on conscience and require detailed examination."
That'd be a shit storm if Amnesty deemed either one as prisoners of conscience.
Assange has been the one publicly articulating the philosophy that's finally motivating the leakers like Manning, the unnamed U.S. bank executives who's stuff comes out in January, etc. And he started articulating it long before the wikileaks site was founded.
.. Assange is the one articulating the philosophy that's motivating Manning and many others to leak documents.
Manning's presumed fours leaks may be remembered as an incredible act of daring self sacrifice and patriotism, but he's ultimately a guy who read someone else's philosophy and implemented it.
In fact, wikileaks has been around for four years. It's younger than facebook, yes, but four years is still significant. And the series of megaleaks of classified U.S. documents has been going on for the better part of one year, first the Afghanistan war log and then the Iraq war log.
There are however several differences in the past few weeks : First, wikileaks started leaking documents that jeopardize numerous interests of powerful political people. Second, Assange told Forbes their next megaleak in January or February would expose "an ecosystem of corruption" in a "major U.S. bank". Third, the U.S. responded to these two by pushing the Swedish into reestablishing some already dropped sex charges against him while pushing the British into locking him up for possible extradition.
Yes, obviously the diplomatic cables are big shit in that every country now has it's own little scandals based around them, but the underlying push towards transparency has been going on for four years, and the specific push against U.S. secrecy has been going on for over 6 months.
I'd hope they'd seriously consider naming him if the U.S. actually charges him & attempts extradition, or simply kidnaps him of course. It would likely depend upon the consequences form the leaks otherwise, including other projects and disconnected leaks that seem inspired by wikileaks.
Or they might name him just to avoid naming another who angers China, Russia, etc. There were many people who claimed the committee picked Obama just to avoid picking a Chinese dissident, like Liu Xiaobo, or accidentally endorsing Bush's foreign policy by picking an Iranian dissident. Assange might provide a nice 'apology' to the Chinese and Russians before they name some more Chinese and Russians.
I'd rock if he won both the Pulitzer and the Nobel Peace Prize though, obviously those send a far more important message, they are just not as quite as timely. lol
In any case, wikileaks will "expose an ecosystem of corruption" in a "major U.S. bank" early next year, while presumably continuing to work their way through the U.S. embassy cables. So I'd imagine he'll get another shot. :)
Amnesty International declare him a prisoner of conscience once more details emerge about the rape accusations.
It obviously should have been Julian Assange, duh.
Amazon is currently hosting wikileaks for a Danish media group, just not for wikileaks themselves.
I've a quick question for all the network gurus out there. The JS LOIC stops sending packets once the currently open connections without responses reaches a preset limit, which happens to be 1000.
Is that really how one should approach a DDoS? Would doing otherwise be a SYN flood which kernels now block fairly effectively? Or are they perhaps doing this to make it more like a virtual sit-in, i.e. all the computers play nice but still suck up time?
You'll notice for example that verified.visa.com:80 hangs around 1001 for several seconds.
Sorry if the question is stupid. I've never cared too much about networking details, especially related to silly DDoS attacks, but all the media talk about wikileaks made me curious just what people were doing.