Yes, the difficulty to link to Wikileaks is annoying. However, googling the reference ID (ie. the document name in the URL) seems to work fairly well. Somebody should set up a tinyurl-like redirector: blablalba.com/#RefID redirects you to the correct cable document on a currently working server.
Dozens or hundreds of people are getting killed around the world every day either directly by or because of their association with Western forces. We're indirectly responsible for thousands of more deaths for various reasons. We'll sell guns to whoever the fuck wants them and don't give a shit when they shoot each other. And suddenly people discover their conscience because US human intelligence "assets" are involved? Yeah, right.
That's a judgment that changes over time. We had already solved the problem well enough when we used horse-drawn vehicles. Turns out our requirements changed and we came up with a new solution. Well, actually, the new solution (or technology) often comes first, and our requirements change along with the improvements it offers.
I agree that they should have released the unedited footage (and I don't know that they didn't). But the fact that Wikileaks released the video is the only reason we are having this discussion and that a large amount of people are a bit more aware of what the realities of fighting such an asymmetrical war are.
Like I said, his integrity (and all that shit) is relevant in so far as it affects the perception of validity of the documents. From what I can see, all of the major leaks have been universally regarded to be truthful. As long as the leaked documents are the real thing, Wikileaks' motivation for leaking them is irrelevant. Are you saying e.g. the war diaries were forgeries? I'll grant you that heavily editorialized releases like collateral murder are a different beast. Anyway, basing your judgement of the documents they release on the sexual conduct of Assange (as opposed to his political positions, etc.) seems particularly arbitrary and misguided.
I'd say Wikileaks is influential, as in able to reach a lot of people with information. But the influence is almost exclusively a result of the quality of the leaks. I'm sure Wikileaks in and out of itself has gained some influence, too, mostly in the form of mindshare and media contacts. But it isn't really able to do a whole lot with that influence besides publishing information. Wikileaks can only be influential as long as other people create secrets worth publishing. This is in no way comparable to the power of nations (and their governments) or even the influence of lobbyists and many big NGOs. Claiming that Wikileaks is "as important as a state" seems almost comical -- it'd certainly require an odd definition of "important" to be true.
Really? You're using a witty bon mot as an argument? Wow. Listen, you're not required to like the guy, whether you think he is open enough about his own (sex) life, has good morals or a nice face simply doesn't matter. Even his credibility is only relevant in so far as you think he is making shit up -- which, by all accounts, he (or rather, Wikileaks, which is far more than just JA) isn't. Think he's on a crusade and hates the West? Doesn't matter!
This isn't even really a matter of opinion, it's simply a logical fallacy. Attacking the guy because of the rape allegations is a simple ad hominem: "This tactic is logically fallacious because insults and even true negative facts about the opponent's personal character have nothing to do with the logical merits of the opponent's arguments or assertions."
Attacking him because of Wikileak's own secrecy is an ad hominem tu quoque, apparently: "A tu quoque argument attempts to discredit the opponent's position by asserting his failure to act consistently in accordance with that position; it attempts to show that a criticism or objection applies equally to the person making it. This dismisses someone's viewpoint on an issue on the argument that the person is inconsistent in that very thing."
If he really is for open access and information, he should start with his own organization.
Now, unlike the stuff so far, this is personal opinion: Maybe Wikileaks should open up. But (personal and primarily organisational) privacy should be inversely proportional to power. I'd prefer it if powerful entities had few or no secrets, simply because due to their power they have the ability to do much harm. Compared to regional or national governments and corporations, Wikileaks isn't a particularly powerful entity, although I agree that they are at a point where certain stuff won't fly anymore. It'd probably be easier for them to open up if they weren't already the object of state sanctions.
Wikileaks claims all information should be in the open, everyone deserves to be judged, and that no one is above the law.
What? No, they don't. I'll ignore the last two, which seem random and not really relevant to Wikileaks itself. The former is a snappy shorthand -- like the slogan "information wants to be free." Nevertheless, it does not appear to be the current or even past policy. The only organisation I know which makes serious claims about "all information" is Google, and they just want to organize it.
Their leader is currently under investigation for breaking the law.
Even if that were true, I don't see how it's relevant. Gratitude as a concept doesn't come into it, it's really not that kind of a relationship. Also not sure what kind of fate you're talking about. Really, your whole post is nonsensical.
Does that work for Google, too? In other words, can you simply use the session cookie sent when performing a Google search to log into a Gmail session? The former is typically http, the latter https. I'm aware that you can use https for searching, too, I'm just wondering. Isn't there some kind of policy that segregates https cookies from http cookies?
Next time either a) try updating LTS to LTS or b) simply install the new distribution over the existing install. With a dedicated home partition, the latter is incredibly easy, and if offers a nice middle ground between a clean install (losing all your settings) and an upgrade (keeping all those crufty packages you installed but didn't use). Even without a dedicated home partition, it's possible, just make sure you don't format the drive you install to (and maybe manually rm everything except/home).
Just like the Nazis. first they were only sending political criminals, then capitalists, and when the guards were well trained (and up to their eyeballs in murder too) they rounded up the women and children like cattle.
They put socialists and social democrats into concentration camps, although referring to those people as criminals (at least without quotes) seems bizarre. They didn't persecute capitalists at all, not sure what gave you that idea.
I'm thinking about getting a FiiO E7. It's both a USB DAC and a headphone amp. The internal battery is charged via USB, so you can use it as a (biggish) headphone amp while mobile. Audio quality is reportedly quite good for a "budget-fi" component. It's also cheap (< 100 USD). One review is at http://www.trustedreviews.com/mp3/review/2010/08/28/FiiO-E7/p1, many more at head-fi.
Not sure if you're right about trains. I guess that in a modern rail network, the driver could be made superfluous as long as things are running normal. Normal might even include most everyday delays, minor hardware malfunctions, speed limits (e.g. right now due to lots of leafy mush on the tracks). But you need the driver for extraordinary occurrences.
If you were dealing with an isolated vehicle, having an automated system that simply failed safe might be ok, but I have a feeling that the interconnected nature of rail makes that a lot more problematic both in terms of safety and in terms of spreading the effects of a single incidents. The characteristics of those railway systems that do use automated drivers (we've got one at my university) seem to confirm this -- comparatively small scale, controlled access to the tracks, few possibilities of an incident spreading.
What are you talking about? The problem with computer network attacks is that they don't leave much usable evidence; or at least we have no ways of using the evidence they leave. It's often referred to as the attribution problem.
Apparently it's not just the title that's misleading. From TFA:
Wow. That story got a few thing completely wrong:
* We are not thinking about blocking 67 million customers, but 67 million IPs.
* Verizon is not the only ISP in the range. It also includes some Comcast and AOL ranges, as well as a few smaller ISPs.
* The article makes it sound like Zsfgseg made the threads and revealed the phone numbers. That was Grawp (who is actually not one person but a large group of people with the same mindset as JarlaxleArtemis, who is the real Grawp).
Access Denied – talk to me 04:03, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Regarding the cultural output: I don't know if the output really is a 100 times higher: a lot of the output back then was probably lost, because it was never published. But then again, I don't know how exactly one would measure cultural output. Creating stuff is easier today (or at least it should be), storing it is trivial and so is distributing. That means, all other things being equal, more stuff is being made, less of it is lost, and more of it is shared with more people. And of course, the population is much higher.
I don't care about the other features either way, but god damn the keyboard navigation is annoying. Particularly on my netbook where scrolling with the keys is more comfortable than using the simulated mouse wheel. (Anybody get two finger scrolling to work reliably and comfortably on an Atom netbook? It should be possible but it's usually more of a pain than an improvement.)
At 8+ pounds with a tiny battery, it's not a laptop that's going to be used on laps very often, and when it is, I'd be more worried about blunt crushing damage than heat. Also I don't think you have to spend multi-k USD to get a relatively cool running device if you're willing to live with it being the size and weight of a briefcase. It's the sleek, portable ones that have trouble getting rid of the excess heat, no matter the price.
I have literally no idea how to view and change url handlers in Gnome, either. I suppose it's a weird mix between Firefox settings, Gnome settings and maybe some other stuff thrown in for good measure.
There is a "Preferred Applications" preferences panel, which handles the frankly bizarre mix of default web browser, mail app, multimedia player, terminal app (?!) and two accessibility apps. I guess this strange mix of protocol handlers and handlers of other stuff is one of those things that is convenient for new users but really unintuitive to more experienced people. To its credit, the browser setting does display all three installed browsers, including the Firefox 4 Alpha. The multimedia panel, on the other hand, says my default player is Rhythmbox (which I never use) instead of Banshee (which is use for music) or smplayer (which I use for video). The latter two aren't even listed, neither is VLC or any of the many other players I have installed, in fact, the only option beside Rhythmbox is Totem.
I'm sure it'll be better in the next Gnome release, which I hear focuses on fixing all those little interface issues instead of going for a full-on revamping -- oh wait...
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, the difficulty to link to Wikileaks is annoying. However, googling the reference ID (ie. the document name in the URL) seems to work fairly well. Somebody should set up a tinyurl-like redirector: blablalba.com/#RefID redirects you to the correct cable document on a currently working server.
Dozens or hundreds of people are getting killed around the world every day either directly by or because of their association with Western forces. We're indirectly responsible for thousands of more deaths for various reasons. We'll sell guns to whoever the fuck wants them and don't give a shit when they shoot each other. And suddenly people discover their conscience because US human intelligence "assets" are involved? Yeah, right.
That's a judgment that changes over time. We had already solved the problem well enough when we used horse-drawn vehicles. Turns out our requirements changed and we came up with a new solution. Well, actually, the new solution (or technology) often comes first, and our requirements change along with the improvements it offers.
I agree that they should have released the unedited footage (and I don't know that they didn't). But the fact that Wikileaks released the video is the only reason we are having this discussion and that a large amount of people are a bit more aware of what the realities of fighting such an asymmetrical war are.
So is Castro.
Like I said, his integrity (and all that shit) is relevant in so far as it affects the perception of validity of the documents. From what I can see, all of the major leaks have been universally regarded to be truthful. As long as the leaked documents are the real thing, Wikileaks' motivation for leaking them is irrelevant. Are you saying e.g. the war diaries were forgeries? I'll grant you that heavily editorialized releases like collateral murder are a different beast. Anyway, basing your judgement of the documents they release on the sexual conduct of Assange (as opposed to his political positions, etc.) seems particularly arbitrary and misguided.
I'd say Wikileaks is influential, as in able to reach a lot of people with information. But the influence is almost exclusively a result of the quality of the leaks. I'm sure Wikileaks in and out of itself has gained some influence, too, mostly in the form of mindshare and media contacts. But it isn't really able to do a whole lot with that influence besides publishing information. Wikileaks can only be influential as long as other people create secrets worth publishing. This is in no way comparable to the power of nations (and their governments) or even the influence of lobbyists and many big NGOs. Claiming that Wikileaks is "as important as a state" seems almost comical -- it'd certainly require an odd definition of "important" to be true.
A picture says more than a thousand words? From TFA:
http://everydaylht.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/snapshot1.png
People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.
Really? You're using a witty bon mot as an argument? Wow. Listen, you're not required to like the guy, whether you think he is open enough about his own (sex) life, has good morals or a nice face simply doesn't matter. Even his credibility is only relevant in so far as you think he is making shit up -- which, by all accounts, he (or rather, Wikileaks, which is far more than just JA) isn't. Think he's on a crusade and hates the West? Doesn't matter!
This isn't even really a matter of opinion, it's simply a logical fallacy. Attacking the guy because of the rape allegations is a simple ad hominem: "This tactic is logically fallacious because insults and even true negative facts about the opponent's personal character have nothing to do with the logical merits of the opponent's arguments or assertions."
Attacking him because of Wikileak's own secrecy is an ad hominem tu quoque, apparently: "A tu quoque argument attempts to discredit the opponent's position by asserting his failure to act consistently in accordance with that position; it attempts to show that a criticism or objection applies equally to the person making it. This dismisses someone's viewpoint on an issue on the argument that the person is inconsistent in that very thing."
If he really is for open access and information, he should start with his own organization.
Now, unlike the stuff so far, this is personal opinion: Maybe Wikileaks should open up. But (personal and primarily organisational) privacy should be inversely proportional to power. I'd prefer it if powerful entities had few or no secrets, simply because due to their power they have the ability to do much harm. Compared to regional or national governments and corporations, Wikileaks isn't a particularly powerful entity, although I agree that they are at a point where certain stuff won't fly anymore. It'd probably be easier for them to open up if they weren't already the object of state sanctions.
Wikileaks claims all information should be in the open, everyone deserves to be judged, and that no one is above the law.
What? No, they don't. I'll ignore the last two, which seem random and not really relevant to Wikileaks itself. The former is a snappy shorthand -- like the slogan "information wants to be free." Nevertheless, it does not appear to be the current or even past policy. The only organisation I know which makes serious claims about "all information" is Google, and they just want to organize it.
Their leader is currently under investigation for breaking the law.
How on Earth is that relevant?
Even if that were true, I don't see how it's relevant. Gratitude as a concept doesn't come into it, it's really not that kind of a relationship. Also not sure what kind of fate you're talking about. Really, your whole post is nonsensical.
Does that work for Google, too? In other words, can you simply use the session cookie sent when performing a Google search to log into a Gmail session? The former is typically http, the latter https. I'm aware that you can use https for searching, too, I'm just wondering. Isn't there some kind of policy that segregates https cookies from http cookies?
Next time either a) try updating LTS to LTS or b) simply install the new distribution over the existing install. With a dedicated home partition, the latter is incredibly easy, and if offers a nice middle ground between a clean install (losing all your settings) and an upgrade (keeping all those crufty packages you installed but didn't use). Even without a dedicated home partition, it's possible, just make sure you don't format the drive you install to (and maybe manually rm everything except /home).
Just like the Nazis. first they were only sending political criminals, then capitalists, and when the guards were well trained (and up to their eyeballs in murder too) they rounded up the women and children like cattle.
They put socialists and social democrats into concentration camps, although referring to those people as criminals (at least without quotes) seems bizarre. They didn't persecute capitalists at all, not sure what gave you that idea.
I'm thinking about getting a FiiO E7. It's both a USB DAC and a headphone amp. The internal battery is charged via USB, so you can use it as a (biggish) headphone amp while mobile. Audio quality is reportedly quite good for a "budget-fi" component. It's also cheap (< 100 USD). One review is at http://www.trustedreviews.com/mp3/review/2010/08/28/FiiO-E7/p1, many more at head-fi.
Not sure if you're right about trains. I guess that in a modern rail network, the driver could be made superfluous as long as things are running normal. Normal might even include most everyday delays, minor hardware malfunctions, speed limits (e.g. right now due to lots of leafy mush on the tracks). But you need the driver for extraordinary occurrences.
If you were dealing with an isolated vehicle, having an automated system that simply failed safe might be ok, but I have a feeling that the interconnected nature of rail makes that a lot more problematic both in terms of safety and in terms of spreading the effects of a single incidents. The characteristics of those railway systems that do use automated drivers (we've got one at my university) seem to confirm this -- comparatively small scale, controlled access to the tracks, few possibilities of an incident spreading.
Yeah, Qt is great. I'm surprised nobody has tried building a decent desktop environment with it.
What are you talking about? The problem with computer network attacks is that they don't leave much usable evidence; or at least we have no ways of using the evidence they leave. It's often referred to as the attribution problem.
Apparently it's not just the title that's misleading. From TFA:
parenthesis fail.
Man, now I badly want my compilers to say that when I mess up the syntax.
Regarding the cultural output: I don't know if the output really is a 100 times higher: a lot of the output back then was probably lost, because it was never published. But then again, I don't know how exactly one would measure cultural output. Creating stuff is easier today (or at least it should be), storing it is trivial and so is distributing. That means, all other things being equal, more stuff is being made, less of it is lost, and more of it is shared with more people. And of course, the population is much higher.
I don't care about the other features either way, but god damn the keyboard navigation is annoying. Particularly on my netbook where scrolling with the keys is more comfortable than using the simulated mouse wheel. (Anybody get two finger scrolling to work reliably and comfortably on an Atom netbook? It should be possible but it's usually more of a pain than an improvement.)
"Obama would already be on his way back"
Uh...in other news, he is.
... on his way back... to South Korea?
Like I said, you could offer an option to disable the popup on a protocol and/or site basis.
At 8+ pounds with a tiny battery, it's not a laptop that's going to be used on laps very often, and when it is, I'd be more worried about blunt crushing damage than heat. Also I don't think you have to spend multi-k USD to get a relatively cool running device if you're willing to live with it being the size and weight of a briefcase. It's the sleek, portable ones that have trouble getting rid of the excess heat, no matter the price.
I have literally no idea how to view and change url handlers in Gnome, either. I suppose it's a weird mix between Firefox settings, Gnome settings and maybe some other stuff thrown in for good measure.
There is a "Preferred Applications" preferences panel, which handles the frankly bizarre mix of default web browser, mail app, multimedia player, terminal app (?!) and two accessibility apps. I guess this strange mix of protocol handlers and handlers of other stuff is one of those things that is convenient for new users but really unintuitive to more experienced people. To its credit, the browser setting does display all three installed browsers, including the Firefox 4 Alpha. The multimedia panel, on the other hand, says my default player is Rhythmbox (which I never use) instead of Banshee (which is use for music) or smplayer (which I use for video). The latter two aren't even listed, neither is VLC or any of the many other players I have installed, in fact, the only option beside Rhythmbox is Totem.
I'm sure it'll be better in the next Gnome release, which I hear focuses on fixing all those little interface issues instead of going for a full-on revamping -- oh wait...