Uhuh. And profiting if possible. You know it's funny. Assange and Wikileaks are hailed as "whistle-blowers" but how much is done to expose government waste that goes ignored. It's covered in the media, 60 minutes does an expose', meh.
Then what? There will always be a seedy underbelly. But it's part of the infrastructure. Whistle-blowing is a way of picking at it and keeping people aware and occasionally bringing those to justice. But if you rip it apart, there is collateral damage. In the case of Wikileaks, it was the diplomatic cables, many of which had little to do with the dark evils of government. Then there are informants and other logistical people who did nothing wrong. All for what? "I told you so?" We're going to bring down world governments for what? What's in the vacuum? Anarchy? It's nice to think about the utopia to come but here's the bitter truth, there is no utopia. Assange can do this because he has no kids, no family, no one to worry about but himself. And now we're hearing reports of those with Wikileaks wanting money for their information!? That they STOLE!? Wikileaks deserves whatever they get and they haven't gotten nearly enough bag of hurt. Whistle-blowers? Hardly. Turns out they're just as prone to the dark side of human nature as those they look down their noses upon.
This could be interesting. It's one thing to piss off governments and having made yourself so public you are afforded some protection by your celebrity. Pissing off some private citizens with deep pockets could mean you're found floating in a river.
Either way, Wikileaks is out of control. I just hoped they're caught and stopped. There are ways of whistle-blowing but this sure isn't the most most ethical by any means. They're wielding their information not just as an offense weapon (as most whistle-blowing would be) but also as a defense and sometimes as a preempt simply because they can. Just because you know something doesn't mean you should say it. Obviously, few on the board are married.
I would agree about the ubiquity of H.264. And it certainly has become pervasive. I know little about working with such formats I just was pointing out the irony of the shoe being on the other foot.
How many "standards" has Microsoft tried to force upon the industry? Far more than Google. And it's not like you don't have a choice. That's what chaps Microsoft the most, choice. You shouldn't have a choice.
If Wikileaks is so brave have it post a cartoon of Muhammad. Even Seth McFarland won't do that. Just sayin'...if the government was smart it would hack their website and throw a pic up like that. My guess is the media and the radical Umams would have a holy war waging in not time.
The only brave person surrounding Wikileaks appears to Assnage. Hey, I disagree with him but he has the cajones to put his name out there, something none of the script kiddies in the Anonymous army has the guts to do.
I don't feel victimized at all. I was simply pointing out, as said above, that I was not "someone who obviously has no direct contact with anyone who actually consumes the stuff."
My exposure to drug was enough to teach me about them. What they can do to a person, family, a life. Look I, for one, think marijuana should probably be legal. It makes no sense to legalize alcohol and not marijuana. But the AC above presumed by a tongue-in-cheek comment that I didn't know what I was talking about when, in fact, I know all too well.
I don't feel victimized and my mother did a fine job raising us. She just couldn't be there all the time. She managed on a meager income not only to raise 6 kids but to maintain a phenomenal credit score in the process. She worked hard and that's what she passed on to her kids. Some, however, decided to get involved with drugs. It's not much different than many family across the country.
Okay, you are stoned. Each of you missed the point of the argument and by deflecting the point you've managed to pound your chest in some self-delusional feeling of victory. The previous author insinuated that I was "someone who obviously has no direct contact with anyone who actually consumes the stuff." I simply pointed out that he was wrong. It's human nature to turn the argument another way. You start with a misunderstanding (sorry, I make the assumption that I'm dealing with marginal intelligent something that "Anonymous Coward should have begged otherwise) then you move to argue with your understanding and ascribe that position to me...which wasn't my position in the first place. I suggest a book.
I've said it before. WikiLeaks lost the high ground when they started releasing the diplomatic cables for no other reason than retaliation. They decided to go to war. That Anonymous is supporting them is sad. The only thing I can say is that at least Julian Assange isn't hiding behind anonymity. Gotta give him props for that. I supported Anonymous' when they went after Scientology. But this time they're supporting a would-be journalist, attention whore who I hope gets what he deserves.
But when we did get involved we kicked his a$$. Which shows even a procrastinating American can kick the crap out of a highly motivated and prepared jackass.
Bob!? Is that you? Of course not. You have no idea who I am. Let me "learn ya." At the age of 7 I had already been exposed to marijuana. An older sibling who had traded joints for cigs and remained a user for some 40 years discovered that it was easier to babysit me, and thus fulfill his mandate from my single mother of taking me where ever he went so she could work to support 6 children, if I were stoned. Sitting me in front of the stereo stoned out of my mind, I was allowed to direct the party's music. (As a side I developed a keen sense what constitutes good music, but I digress.) Additionally, my brother-in-law by that time was a huge user and dealer as were many in my immediate and distant family. I'd seen more J in my first ten years than most would see in their life. So while you sit behind your keyboard smug in your anonymity, you might stop and at least check the "someone who" assumptions.
Apparently smoking a bong, while desensitizing you to pain and making you feel generally euphoric, still allows the absorption of leftist talking points. Interesting.
Eh, at least it keeps you from any job more technically challenging than filling a fry bag...or emptying a Doritos bag.
From the WSJ article:
A note filed by analyst Shaw Wu of Kaufman Bros in December said the carrier was "still excited" about launching Apple's iPhone early next year "to combat slowing Android momentum in the US."
Slashdot Mirror
Uhuh. And profiting if possible. You know it's funny. Assange and Wikileaks are hailed as "whistle-blowers" but how much is done to expose government waste that goes ignored. It's covered in the media, 60 minutes does an expose', meh.
Of course I'm a troll for not condoning Wikileaks behavior.
Then what? There will always be a seedy underbelly. But it's part of the infrastructure. Whistle-blowing is a way of picking at it and keeping people aware and occasionally bringing those to justice. But if you rip it apart, there is collateral damage. In the case of Wikileaks, it was the diplomatic cables, many of which had little to do with the dark evils of government. Then there are informants and other logistical people who did nothing wrong. All for what? "I told you so?" We're going to bring down world governments for what? What's in the vacuum? Anarchy? It's nice to think about the utopia to come but here's the bitter truth, there is no utopia. Assange can do this because he has no kids, no family, no one to worry about but himself. And now we're hearing reports of those with Wikileaks wanting money for their information!? That they STOLE!? Wikileaks deserves whatever they get and they haven't gotten nearly enough bag of hurt. Whistle-blowers? Hardly. Turns out they're just as prone to the dark side of human nature as those they look down their noses upon.
This could be interesting. It's one thing to piss off governments and having made yourself so public you are afforded some protection by your celebrity. Pissing off some private citizens with deep pockets could mean you're found floating in a river.
Either way, Wikileaks is out of control. I just hoped they're caught and stopped. There are ways of whistle-blowing but this sure isn't the most most ethical by any means. They're wielding their information not just as an offense weapon (as most whistle-blowing would be) but also as a defense and sometimes as a preempt simply because they can. Just because you know something doesn't mean you should say it. Obviously, few on the board are married.
And when it starts cooling, which many scientists contend is happening now, "climate change" will fit better.
It's not called "global warming" anymore. Didn't you get the memo? It's "climate change" that way they're always right! ;)
Nice...:p
Like?
I would agree about the ubiquity of H.264. And it certainly has become pervasive. I know little about working with such formats I just was pointing out the irony of the shoe being on the other foot.
How many "standards" has Microsoft tried to force upon the industry? Far more than Google. And it's not like you don't have a choice. That's what chaps Microsoft the most, choice. You shouldn't have a choice.
Yeah, we call it the Internet.
If he's responsible for the "cloud" moniker, good riddance.
Miss the point much?
I'll bite, what's a foetusus?
If Wikileaks is so brave have it post a cartoon of Muhammad. Even Seth McFarland won't do that. Just sayin'...if the government was smart it would hack their website and throw a pic up like that. My guess is the media and the radical Umams would have a holy war waging in not time.
The only brave person surrounding Wikileaks appears to Assnage. Hey, I disagree with him but he has the cajones to put his name out there, something none of the script kiddies in the Anonymous army has the guts to do.
Can't take a joke, can we? Who's the one traumatized here?
I don't feel victimized at all. I was simply pointing out, as said above, that I was not "someone who obviously has no direct contact with anyone who actually consumes the stuff." My exposure to drug was enough to teach me about them. What they can do to a person, family, a life. Look I, for one, think marijuana should probably be legal. It makes no sense to legalize alcohol and not marijuana. But the AC above presumed by a tongue-in-cheek comment that I didn't know what I was talking about when, in fact, I know all too well. I don't feel victimized and my mother did a fine job raising us. She just couldn't be there all the time. She managed on a meager income not only to raise 6 kids but to maintain a phenomenal credit score in the process. She worked hard and that's what she passed on to her kids. Some, however, decided to get involved with drugs. It's not much different than many family across the country.
So now you make it personal. The last bastion of the defeated. If you can't argue, don't get in the ring, Son.
Okay, you are stoned. Each of you missed the point of the argument and by deflecting the point you've managed to pound your chest in some self-delusional feeling of victory. The previous author insinuated that I was "someone who obviously has no direct contact with anyone who actually consumes the stuff." I simply pointed out that he was wrong. It's human nature to turn the argument another way. You start with a misunderstanding (sorry, I make the assumption that I'm dealing with marginal intelligent something that "Anonymous Coward should have begged otherwise) then you move to argue with your understanding and ascribe that position to me...which wasn't my position in the first place. I suggest a book.
I've said it before. WikiLeaks lost the high ground when they started releasing the diplomatic cables for no other reason than retaliation. They decided to go to war. That Anonymous is supporting them is sad. The only thing I can say is that at least Julian Assange isn't hiding behind anonymity. Gotta give him props for that. I supported Anonymous' when they went after Scientology. But this time they're supporting a would-be journalist, attention whore who I hope gets what he deserves.
But when we did get involved we kicked his a$$. Which shows even a procrastinating American can kick the crap out of a highly motivated and prepared jackass.
Welcome to three days ago. BTW: Seattle's going to beat New Orleans. Seriously!
Bob!? Is that you? Of course not. You have no idea who I am. Let me "learn ya." At the age of 7 I had already been exposed to marijuana. An older sibling who had traded joints for cigs and remained a user for some 40 years discovered that it was easier to babysit me, and thus fulfill his mandate from my single mother of taking me where ever he went so she could work to support 6 children, if I were stoned. Sitting me in front of the stereo stoned out of my mind, I was allowed to direct the party's music. (As a side I developed a keen sense what constitutes good music, but I digress.) Additionally, my brother-in-law by that time was a huge user and dealer as were many in my immediate and distant family. I'd seen more J in my first ten years than most would see in their life. So while you sit behind your keyboard smug in your anonymity, you might stop and at least check the "someone who" assumptions.
Apparently smoking a bong, while desensitizing you to pain and making you feel generally euphoric, still allows the absorption of leftist talking points. Interesting.
Eh, at least it keeps you from any job more technically challenging than filling a fry bag...or emptying a Doritos bag.
From the WSJ article: A note filed by analyst Shaw Wu of Kaufman Bros in December said the carrier was "still excited" about launching Apple's iPhone early next year "to combat slowing Android momentum in the US."
I read that and thought, What!?