Worries about safety, and actual danger are not the same thing.
"Worries about safety" is not the real issue. The real issue is control and money. Doctors see informed patients as a big threat, and are trying hard to position themselves as gatekeepers to treatment, so they can collect tolls.
To add to the OP, consider:
Brain-zapping devices are reasonably safe to use right now. There have been no highly-publicised reports of death or injury from using them, there's lots of anecdotal evidence for the benefits, and generally it's not a public health problem.
I would peg the danger level of these devices as about the same as supplements. You can destroy your liver or kidneys from supplements, and you might get side-effects (such as heart palpitations), but it's highly unlikely,
It took the FDA 30 years to ban antimicrobial additives to soaps, due to lack of evidence that they work and concerns about safety.
I agree that there is a modicum of risk when casual hackers build these devices, but given the lack of any evidence of danger, we could probably allow companies to sell these without a lot of regulation so long as they don't make any unsubstantiated claims and have appropriate warnings.
For example, cigarettes are still sold, with appropriate warnings and much research to show that they are dangerous.
And on the flip side, we are seeing an enormous amount of ad-hoc experimentation happening here.
Since there's no obvious danger, why bother regulating them?
The US 'formally' joining the Paris Accord is based on Obama's claim that it's not actually a treaty, and therefore doesn't actually require Congressional ratification, despite the fact that that it incorporates compulsory actions on the part of the signatory countries, and is therefore a treaty.
Well it doesn't have any penalties.
Is that the relevant point?
You don't think that agreements should be ratified when they don't have penalties?
You're saying it's okay for the president to speak for the country and make agreements without oversight?
Could there be any bad consequences down the road if we let it pass this one time?
He'll make sure that america stays on coal and gas, just so that the coal miners still have work and don't have to adapt to progress. Great, isn't it?
Trump will invent a new type of energy system to get us off of coal once and for all. That's pretty smart for a politician!
(For those following at home, I projected something wonderful onto my candidate, then praised him for it. The OP projected something stupid on my candidate, then scorned him for it.)
Instead of all this projection, shouldn't we stick to what the candidates actually say and do?
Tell me about *your* candidate. What has she actually done? No projection or words, what has she actually done that you can point to with pride and say "my candidate did *this*!!!"
The sooner robots replace the workforce, the more leisure time we will have to enjoy life.
Uh... no.
The measure of the US is its economy. So long as the corporations are making ever more profit, so long as GDP is on the rise, then we're doing great and nothing needs to be changed.
The people's needs count for nothing, it's the corporations and only the corporations that make our country great!
Much as you say, but I note that HRC has invested heavily in something called correct the record.
Looking at their about page, we find this helpful description:
Correct The Record is a strategic research and rapid response team designed to defend Hillary Clinton from baseless attacks.
The news article (first link, above) has some interesting sections, such as:
Citing “lessons learned from online engagement with ‘Bernie Bros,’” a pro-Hillary Clinton Super PAC is pledging to spend $1 million to “push back against” users on Twitter, Facebook, Reddit and Instagram.
Correct the Record’s “Barrier Breakers” project boasts in a press release that it has already “addressed more than 5,000 people that have personally attacked Hillary Clinton on Twitter.” The PAC released this on Thursday.
Some Bernie Sanders-supporting users on Reddit already started to notice the changes on Thursday afternoon.
“This explains why my inbox turned to cancer on Tuesday,” wrote user OKarizee. “Been a member of reddit for almost 4 years and never experienced anything like it. In fact, in all my years on the internet I’ve never experienced anything like it.”
Correct the Record, which has received $5 million this campaign season and has spent almost $4.5 million of it, according to OpenSecrets.org, outlined its strategy against “swarms of anonymous attackers” in a press release.
“While Hillary Clinton fights to break down barriers and bring America together, the Barrier Breakers 2016 digital task force will serve as a resource for supporters looking for positive content and push-back to share with their online progressive communities, as well as thanking prominent supporters and committed superdelegates on social media,” the statement read.
Due to FEC loopholes, the Sunlight Foundation’s Libby Watson found this year that Correct the Record can openly coordinate with Clinton’s campaign, despite rules that typically disallow political campaigns from working directly with PACs.
I suppose it's OK, because HRC only wants to "break down barriers and bring America together", because of course the ends justify any means. Right?
I wonder if any of these commisars^w um... partisans^w um... truth seekers have come to Slashdot?
Well more companies hiring Americans is a good thing. If these more companies do nothing but ship money overseas then they are nothing but leaches.
So what you're saying is, Americans can't be wealth builders any more, yes?
We'll be the worker class, while everyone else in the world comes in and builds wealth for themselves.
While there is a "slim positive view" you can put on the situation, the fact remains that it gives away opportunity to foreign people at the expense of Americans.
I'm all for bringing the talent to the US. If they have what it takes to start a successful company then fine, but their companies should employ local labor once started.
Why should Americans have to sacrifice their own opportunities for this?
And as others have pointed out, even voting for your congressperson wouldn't help.
One wonders what voting is for, or what benefit we get from paying taxes.
Point to a real technology and describe an actual scenario where the Russian military benefits, and then explain how the Russian benefit A) is a serious NATO concern, and B) wasn't going to happen anyway sooner rather than later.
Challenge accepted.
You're misdirecting the reader away from the important point. It's #17 in the Rules of disinformation.
The real point is that corporate cash flowed to the politician in return for favours.
A lot of the analysis of HRC as SoS shows that these decisions benefited companies while at the same time made the country less safe (by enriching and/or strengthening a potential enemy), did not benefit the people of the US in any way, and gave Hillary more cash to work with.
The point was cash => politician => favors, not the details of any one deal.
[Republicans are] all owned by corporations and do their bidding.
Have you been avoiding the news recently?
Google Clinton and "pay for play", or Clinton and "foundation", or Clinton and "Wikileaks". (Or just wait a week or so for that last one.)
Here's cash flowing into the Clinton Foundation from corporations benefiting from selling Uranium to Russia.
Here's cash flowing into the Clinton Foundation from corporations benefiting from selling dual use technology (private and military uses) to Russia.
Here's $17 million that disappeared from the Clinton Foundation.
We've complained for years that the political elite is owned by the corporations, and that there's no difference between having a D or R after a candidate's name.
Don't blame corruption on just the Republicans, it's not intellectually honest and distracts people from the true problems.
Sheesh. And here I thought it would take 5 years for self-driving vehicles to become common.
By my previous estimate, around 5 million jobs in the US alone could be replaced or severely curtailed by self-driving vehicles (about 3.5 million jobs are driving tractor-trailers). I now think that's a low estimate, considering delivery vehicles, taxis, US mail, school busses, and so on.
The first self-driving tractor trailer hit the road about 18 months ago. Yes, they probably won't work in snow. Yes, they probably won't work in some situations, such as finding and backing into the loading dock. You'll still need humans for those situations.
But for the vast majority of cases, they will work for the long-haul across the US. (If you've ever driven across the US at night, you know that the highways are a never-ending chain of tractor trailers in the right-hand lane.) They don't need down time, they don't get tired, they don't get distracted, they can work 24/7. They can learn from each others' mistakes. They don't need salary or benefits.
This is demonstrably better from a safety and cost point of view, and it takes away a lot of tedious work from humans--giving them more free time--but it'll wreck our current economic system.
We currently have about 170 million workers, and sitting at about 10% unemployment. This one technological advance could push that up to 15%. Economically speaking, 10% unemployment is the beginning of the "this is bad, we should do something" level. We only recently dropped below that number from the great(-est) depression.
(How we deal with illegal immigrants is another big chunk of potential workers that could affect unemployment. Not to make this a partisan argument, but if we *do* have amnesty, it should be done in a layered, progressive fashion with an eye on unemployment so as not to tank the economy. Refugees are too few in number to affect unemployment.)
the real tragedy here is not the crash, but the fact that 38000 cubic meters of a very rare gas used for everything from advanced medical diagnostics to research into superconductors and even nuclear fusion is squandered into a single aircraft that cant be bothered to run through a computational fluid thermodynamics simulation before enjoying public humiliation.
im sure it sounds callous, but i hope this thing takes a life next time because clearly no ones thought through the ramifications of such a wasteful endeavour.
Hypothetically speaking, suppose someone offered you a job at that company (and you lived near enough for an easy commute, and so on) for $100,00/yr. Would you take it?
Or would you refuse, knowing that the helium could be put to better use in other ways?
Now suppose you own an MRI company. Do you spend part of your profits purchasing stores of Helium for future use, or do you pocket the profits (or give it to shareholders) and hope that societal pressure will fix the problem sometime in the future?
Or that governments will step in and do something about the Helium supply?
I was helping a startup in the next town over, who had a package that FedEx couldn't deliver, so I agreed to drive over to the local FedEx office to get the package.
While I was there, the person at the counter pointed out that the delivery person couldn't find the address, and I explained how to go into the parking lot, down and around the building, to the front door of the startup.
It was indeed a weird situation where you can't see the front door from the road, and you had to know beforehand where to go to make deliveries.
The point here is, the FedEx person at the counter typed in my instructions in the "notes" section of their database and then assured me that further deliveries should go through OK.
Will it *really* be that hard to do something similar with self-driving cars? By which I mean, report an error to the company along with the correct data, or manually direct the car to the correct destination and note the error, and similar work around.
I'm not sure this is a terribly important issue. I mean, it sure *seems* like there's a simple solution and the problem will quickly be self-correcting.
I seriously admire Bill for the passion he has for helping the world's most vulnerable -- and in that vein I'm surprised to see his stockpile of cash going UP and not down...
I seriously admire his talent for amassing huge sums of money by breaking the law, and getting away with a slap on the wrist.
I don't have that level of chutzpah - I'd have always been afraid of getting caught. He must have had a different upbringing from mine.
I refuse to support the N. Korean regime at any level. Any growth in their GDP will be redirected to their military. Purchasing the Manbang it tantamount to putting a down payment on a noose; one thread at a time.
Did you even read the article? These guys are trying to punish people who helped crack down on rapists. They're rapist sympathizers, which is quite the opposite of "SJWs".
I read all three articles, and it says nothing of the sort.
You're doing this site a disservice by being so intellectually dishonest.
This is Slashdot. Take your sock-puppetry elsewhere.
Why should everyone who uses Tor to protect their anonymity be punished because of Jacob Applebaum and the people who apparently didn't respond to his misconduct appropriately?
Because by setting this controversy in front of the world, they may generate more interest and scrutiny into the matter.
The linked text points out many potential injustices and red flags, such as the hiring of two possible CIA operatives to the TOR project. It's important that all of this gets scrutinized and possibly sorted out, so that we don't end up with an insecure TOR that the CIA can eavesdrop on.
And by inconveniencing people, it might start a paradigm that people can use in future situations. Punishing someone based on accusations; ie - getting away from "innocent until proven guilty", gives enormous power to your enemies. If your opponents want to wreck you, all they have to do is gin up some accusations.
Future situations may be able to look back on this moment and think "let's wait until we have something concrete", rather than knee-jerk react in the cause of Social Justice.
Doing this is a good thing. They should turn off TOR one day a week until it's sorted out.
Good does come out of Wikileaks. But Assange's primary purpose is to make Assange feel important and keep him in the news.
Is that something we care about?
You could say that about anyone doing good or trying to change the world. Hell, you could say that about Jesus.
The implication is that "he's not all that great", when in fact he's changed the political landscape a little, and for the better.
Yeah, right. He's not all that great, let's pick any complicated edifice anywhere and consider it from any one of myriad points of view and we'll come up with at least one thing that paints it in a negative light.
You weigh the good with the bad and if things come out overall good you say it's an improvement, not point out how it misses some sublime point of perfection.
Slashdot Mirror
Worries about safety, and actual danger are not the same thing.
"Worries about safety" is not the real issue. The real issue is control and money. Doctors see informed patients as a big threat, and are trying hard to position themselves as gatekeepers to treatment, so they can collect tolls.
To add to the OP, consider:
Brain-zapping devices are reasonably safe to use right now. There have been no highly-publicised reports of death or injury from using them, there's lots of anecdotal evidence for the benefits, and generally it's not a public health problem.
I would peg the danger level of these devices as about the same as supplements. You can destroy your liver or kidneys from supplements, and you might get side-effects (such as heart palpitations), but it's highly unlikely,
It took the FDA 30 years to ban antimicrobial additives to soaps, due to lack of evidence that they work and concerns about safety.
I agree that there is a modicum of risk when casual hackers build these devices, but given the lack of any evidence of danger, we could probably allow companies to sell these without a lot of regulation so long as they don't make any unsubstantiated claims and have appropriate warnings.
For example, cigarettes are still sold, with appropriate warnings and much research to show that they are dangerous.
And on the flip side, we are seeing an enormous amount of ad-hoc experimentation happening here.
Since there's no obvious danger, why bother regulating them?
The US 'formally' joining the Paris Accord is based on Obama's claim that it's not actually a treaty, and therefore doesn't actually require Congressional ratification, despite the fact that that it incorporates compulsory actions on the part of the signatory countries, and is therefore a treaty.
Well it doesn't have any penalties.
Is that the relevant point?
You don't think that agreements should be ratified when they don't have penalties?
You're saying it's okay for the president to speak for the country and make agreements without oversight?
Could there be any bad consequences down the road if we let it pass this one time?
He'll make sure that america stays on coal and gas, just so that the coal miners still have work and don't have to adapt to progress. Great, isn't it?
Trump will invent a new type of energy system to get us off of coal once and for all. That's pretty smart for a politician!
(For those following at home, I projected something wonderful onto my candidate, then praised him for it. The OP projected something stupid on my candidate, then scorned him for it.)
Instead of all this projection, shouldn't we stick to what the candidates actually say and do?
Tell me about *your* candidate. What has she actually done? No projection or words, what has she actually done that you can point to with pride and say "my candidate did *this*!!!"
The sooner robots replace the workforce, the more leisure time we will have to enjoy life.
Uh... no.
The measure of the US is its economy. So long as the corporations are making ever more profit, so long as GDP is on the rise, then we're doing great and nothing needs to be changed.
The people's needs count for nothing, it's the corporations and only the corporations that make our country great!
Much as you say, but I note that HRC has invested heavily in something called correct the record.
Looking at their about page, we find this helpful description:
Correct The Record is a strategic research and rapid response team designed to defend Hillary Clinton from baseless attacks.
The news article (first link, above) has some interesting sections, such as:
Citing “lessons learned from online engagement with ‘Bernie Bros,’” a pro-Hillary Clinton Super PAC is pledging to spend $1 million to “push back against” users on Twitter, Facebook, Reddit and Instagram.
Correct the Record’s “Barrier Breakers” project boasts in a press release that it has already “addressed more than 5,000 people that have personally attacked Hillary Clinton on Twitter.” The PAC released this on Thursday.
Some Bernie Sanders-supporting users on Reddit already started to notice the changes on Thursday afternoon.
“This explains why my inbox turned to cancer on Tuesday,” wrote user OKarizee. “Been a member of reddit for almost 4 years and never experienced anything like it. In fact, in all my years on the internet I’ve never experienced anything like it.”
Correct the Record, which has received $5 million this campaign season and has spent almost $4.5 million of it, according to OpenSecrets.org, outlined its strategy against “swarms of anonymous attackers” in a press release.
“While Hillary Clinton fights to break down barriers and bring America together, the Barrier Breakers 2016 digital task force will serve as a resource for supporters looking for positive content and push-back to share with their online progressive communities, as well as thanking prominent supporters and committed superdelegates on social media,” the statement read.
Due to FEC loopholes, the Sunlight Foundation’s Libby Watson found this year that Correct the Record can openly coordinate with Clinton’s campaign, despite rules that typically disallow political campaigns from working directly with PACs.
I suppose it's OK, because HRC only wants to "break down barriers and bring America together", because of course the ends justify any means. Right?
I wonder if any of these commisars^w um... partisans^w um... truth seekers have come to Slashdot?
(Also relevant This XKCD comic.)
Guccifer exposes Hillary's illegal email server and goes to jail for it.
Hilary gets off Scott Free.
BTW, Comey said "Leeeeave Hillary Alllloneeee" because there were more appropriate administrative punishments available.
And? What were they? Were the ever applied?
It's 'kinda worse than that.
Hillary Clinton sent classified E-mails after leaving the state department, after the FBI concluded its investigation more deleted E-mails turned up that they should have been given, even more E-mails turned up that should have matched the FBI search terms Hillary was given.
(Also, Bill Clinton used tax dollars to subsidize the private E-mail server and pay for employees at the Clinton foundation.)
Looking at the media reports, things like Sigh. Yet Another Non-Scandal at the Clinton Foundation come up.
Nothing to see here, no smoking gun. She wasn't indicted, so let's leave her alone.
I couldn't find a video of the actual explosion, but the Mirror has some footage and pics of the aftermath:
This guy was selling stuff stolen from US companies, and he doesn't think he should have to answer charges in the US?
Was he selling stolen things? Or did he make illegal copies and sell those?
Did he actually copy and sell things? Or was it the users who sold the illegal copies?
Did the users actually sell stolen copies? Or did they just give them away to others?
Did he have a DMCA-style takedown process?
What did he do different from DropBox and other online storage sites?
Was he a US citizen, or ever been to the US? Did his company operate in the US?
Were his crimes violent and criminal in nature, which would warrant extradition, or is this essentially a civil case?
Is anyone actually listening to anything this fat fuck says anymore?
Dude, WTF?
Are you so intellectually dishonest that you can't separate the person from the issue?
Well more companies hiring Americans is a good thing. If these more companies do nothing but ship money overseas then they are nothing but leaches.
So what you're saying is, Americans can't be wealth builders any more, yes?
We'll be the worker class, while everyone else in the world comes in and builds wealth for themselves.
While there is a "slim positive view" you can put on the situation, the fact remains that it gives away opportunity to foreign people at the expense of Americans.
I'm all for bringing the talent to the US. If they have what it takes to start a successful company then fine, but their companies should employ local labor once started.
Why should Americans have to sacrifice their own opportunities for this?
And as others have pointed out, even voting for your congressperson wouldn't help.
One wonders what voting is for, or what benefit we get from paying taxes.
Point to a real technology and describe an actual scenario where the Russian military benefits, and then explain how the Russian benefit A) is a serious NATO concern, and B) wasn't going to happen anyway sooner rather than later.
Challenge accepted.
You're misdirecting the reader away from the important point. It's #17 in the Rules of disinformation.
The real point is that corporate cash flowed to the politician in return for favours.
A lot of the analysis of HRC as SoS shows that these decisions benefited companies while at the same time made the country less safe (by enriching and/or strengthening a potential enemy), did not benefit the people of the US in any way, and gave Hillary more cash to work with.
The point was cash => politician => favors, not the details of any one deal.
Which was the actual point.
[Republicans are] all owned by corporations and do their bidding.
Have you been avoiding the news recently?
Google Clinton and "pay for play", or Clinton and "foundation", or Clinton and "Wikileaks". (Or just wait a week or so for that last one.)
Here's cash flowing into the Clinton Foundation from corporations benefiting from selling Uranium to Russia.
Here's cash flowing into the Clinton Foundation from corporations benefiting from selling dual use technology (private and military uses) to Russia.
Here's $17 million that disappeared from the Clinton Foundation.
We've complained for years that the political elite is owned by the corporations, and that there's no difference between having a D or R after a candidate's name.
Don't blame corruption on just the Republicans, it's not intellectually honest and distracts people from the true problems.
Sheesh. And here I thought it would take 5 years for self-driving vehicles to become common.
By my previous estimate, around 5 million jobs in the US alone could be replaced or severely curtailed by self-driving vehicles (about 3.5 million jobs are driving tractor-trailers). I now think that's a low estimate, considering delivery vehicles, taxis, US mail, school busses, and so on.
The first self-driving tractor trailer hit the road about 18 months ago. Yes, they probably won't work in snow. Yes, they probably won't work in some situations, such as finding and backing into the loading dock. You'll still need humans for those situations.
But for the vast majority of cases, they will work for the long-haul across the US. (If you've ever driven across the US at night, you know that the highways are a never-ending chain of tractor trailers in the right-hand lane.) They don't need down time, they don't get tired, they don't get distracted, they can work 24/7. They can learn from each others' mistakes. They don't need salary or benefits.
This is demonstrably better from a safety and cost point of view, and it takes away a lot of tedious work from humans--giving them more free time--but it'll wreck our current economic system.
We currently have about 170 million workers, and sitting at about 10% unemployment. This one technological advance could push that up to 15%. Economically speaking, 10% unemployment is the beginning of the "this is bad, we should do something" level. We only recently dropped below that number from the great(-est) depression.
(How we deal with illegal immigrants is another big chunk of potential workers that could affect unemployment. Not to make this a partisan argument, but if we *do* have amnesty, it should be done in a layered, progressive fashion with an eye on unemployment so as not to tank the economy. Refugees are too few in number to affect unemployment.)
You know what is an easier solution? Be prepared to walk the last few yards.
You do realize that these anonymous responses, which have cropped up fairly recently, give me a chuckle and charge of energy, yes?
I must be doing something right :-)
the real tragedy here is not the crash, but the fact that 38000 cubic meters of a very rare gas used for everything from advanced medical diagnostics to research into superconductors and even nuclear fusion is squandered into a single aircraft that cant be bothered to run through a computational fluid thermodynamics simulation before enjoying public humiliation.
im sure it sounds callous, but i hope this thing takes a life next time because clearly no ones thought through the ramifications of such a wasteful endeavour.
Hypothetically speaking, suppose someone offered you a job at that company (and you lived near enough for an easy commute, and so on) for $100,00/yr. Would you take it?
Or would you refuse, knowing that the helium could be put to better use in other ways?
Now suppose you own an MRI company. Do you spend part of your profits purchasing stores of Helium for future use, or do you pocket the profits (or give it to shareholders) and hope that societal pressure will fix the problem sometime in the future?
Or that governments will step in and do something about the Helium supply?
Welcome to capitalism.
I was helping a startup in the next town over, who had a package that FedEx couldn't deliver, so I agreed to drive over to the local FedEx office to get the package.
While I was there, the person at the counter pointed out that the delivery person couldn't find the address, and I explained how to go into the parking lot, down and around the building, to the front door of the startup.
It was indeed a weird situation where you can't see the front door from the road, and you had to know beforehand where to go to make deliveries.
The point here is, the FedEx person at the counter typed in my instructions in the "notes" section of their database and then assured me that further deliveries should go through OK.
Will it *really* be that hard to do something similar with self-driving cars? By which I mean, report an error to the company along with the correct data, or manually direct the car to the correct destination and note the error, and similar work around.
I'm not sure this is a terribly important issue. I mean, it sure *seems* like there's a simple solution and the problem will quickly be self-correcting.
I seriously admire Bill for the passion he has for helping the world's most vulnerable -- and in that vein I'm surprised to see his stockpile of cash going UP and not down...
I seriously admire his talent for amassing huge sums of money by breaking the law, and getting away with a slap on the wrist.
I don't have that level of chutzpah - I'd have always been afraid of getting caught. He must have had a different upbringing from mine.
Don't hate the ultra-rich person, hate the world that created them.
I can go one better!
These ultra-rich persons only exist in a universe that allows matter to interact.
Don't hate the world that created the ultra rich, hate the universe that creates such worlds!
(Not that I'm not trying to deflect blame or anything. I'm sure you weren't either.)
I refuse to support the N. Korean regime at any level. Any growth in their GDP will be redirected to their military. Purchasing the Manbang it tantamount to putting a down payment on a noose; one thread at a time.
I have some bad news for you.
Meanwhile Hillary broke the law...
No, she didn't. She was careless. Being careless is not illegal.
Wait... you mean she *didn't* lie to congress?
That damn mainstream media, always distorting the truth!
Next I suppose you'll be telling me she didn't come under sniper fire in Bosnia!
Did you even read the article? These guys are trying to punish people who helped crack down on rapists. They're rapist sympathizers, which is quite the opposite of "SJWs".
I read all three articles, and it says nothing of the sort.
You're doing this site a disservice by being so intellectually dishonest.
This is Slashdot. Take your sock-puppetry elsewhere.
Why should everyone who uses Tor to protect their anonymity be punished because of Jacob Applebaum and the people who apparently didn't respond to his misconduct appropriately?
Because by setting this controversy in front of the world, they may generate more interest and scrutiny into the matter.
The linked text points out many potential injustices and red flags, such as the hiring of two possible CIA operatives to the TOR project. It's important that all of this gets scrutinized and possibly sorted out, so that we don't end up with an insecure TOR that the CIA can eavesdrop on.
And by inconveniencing people, it might start a paradigm that people can use in future situations. Punishing someone based on accusations; ie - getting away from "innocent until proven guilty", gives enormous power to your enemies. If your opponents want to wreck you, all they have to do is gin up some accusations.
Future situations may be able to look back on this moment and think "let's wait until we have something concrete", rather than knee-jerk react in the cause of Social Justice.
Doing this is a good thing. They should turn off TOR one day a week until it's sorted out.
Basically Wikileaks has nobody there who is competent enough to actually implement a security framework for the site.
Quick question: When you say that there is no security framework on the wikileaks site, what are you referring to?
Good does come out of Wikileaks. But Assange's primary purpose is to make Assange feel important and keep him in the news.
Is that something we care about?
You could say that about anyone doing good or trying to change the world. Hell, you could say that about Jesus.
The implication is that "he's not all that great", when in fact he's changed the political landscape a little, and for the better.
Yeah, right. He's not all that great, let's pick any complicated edifice anywhere and consider it from any one of myriad points of view and we'll come up with at least one thing that paints it in a negative light.
You weigh the good with the bad and if things come out overall good you say it's an improvement, not point out how it misses some sublime point of perfection.