I was kicked off of facebook about six months ago because someone complained to them about my chosen name... claimed that they owned the rights to it (they don't, they're just ignorant.)
Facebook without contacting me or explaining simply cut me off. I decided "fuck them," and haven't bothered to go to the trouble or expense of correctly asserting my right to use my chosen name... not worth it.
Being facebookless for half a year has only been slightly inconvenient on a handful of occasions. Mostly it's a timesaver not to use it.
I could, of course, create a new account, but decided I have no use for it.
I think the point is more that it's not that social networking sites aren't viable... it's that the web changes fast.
I'm telling you, and you can trust me on this one - the day will come when Infoseek is no longer the top search engine, something better, something we can't even imagine today, will come along and be more useful and replace it.
Seriously. Ten years from now you'll be happily networking on whatever the hell is the best/most popular/most innovative or at least most pervasive website (if we even CALL them websites in 10 years) and Facebook will probably be a nostalgic term... they MIGHT be able to innovate and be that "new site," it can and has happened... but the odds are at least slightly against it.
They are NOT responsible for what happens when they release information. And they ARE heroes for releasing it.
I haven't heard anyone claim they're heroes because they cause, for example, corrupt govts to reform, or criminals to be charged.
They are called heroes simply for the act of releasing the information. That's it. It's a heroic thing to do. Release it, and risk your life doing so. Period.
What happens AFTERWARD is the responsibility of the people and their governments. If the information causes criminals to go jail, that's the people and governments action, in response.
If what happens afterward is that the crimes are ignored and the criminals go free and the messenger is attacked, that's ALSO at the hands of and the responsibility of the people and their governments.
There is no contradiction. The good that Wikileaks is responsible for is freeing information to the people. That's all. We're responsible for the results.
Now all they have to do is crack the "having to buy an overpriced piece of proprietary hardware that merely replicates what the PC I own can already do" part of the equation.
Crack that, and I'll be all set. Otherwise I'm not spending several hundred dollars to buy a box to take up more space simply to play software that my PC would be able to play if it weren't for someone's desire to complete control and every last dollar.
Change from a hardware/software company to a software company, and I'll use your product.
well yeah, you might be more likley to get PTSD if before puberty (child abuse, molestation, that kind of thing) but combat veterans have gone through bad enough shit to fuck up ANYONE'S head.
Yes, supposedly PTSD can affect permanent change in the amygdala... causing a lifetime of stress, trouble coping in social situations, all that jazz.
I have PTSD and it's a struggle. Best of luck to you - get to a therapist, get an actual diagnosis - you might just have a garden-variety anxiety disorder, easier to treat maybe. PTSD is such a beast to treat most therapists can't handle it. Takes a trauma specialist with experience.
This makes sense because a clip showing police brutality could be part of a longer incident where the suspect resisted arrest and tried to hurt the officer. I understand that in the heat of the moment a person who feels their life is in jeopardy may use force which seems excessive out of context.
NO. If a guy is shooting at police they have a right and a responsibility to do everything to stop him including kill him.
Once he is disarmed, cuffed and on the ground, immobilized, rendered harmless, then any physical attack - kicking, punching, using a night club on him - IS POLICE BRUTALITY.
Police do NOT get to exact revenge, they do not get to punish. They do not get to hit a suspect to "blow off steam" or release their adrenaline or frustrations.
ANY video of an unarmed, restrained, immobile person UNDER CUSTODY being struck is a video of police brutality and IS IN CONTEXT. It doesn't matter what preceded it, even if the fucker just shot a baby in the head.
It certainly is understandable that a person who just had his life in danger might react that way and lash out at a subdued attacker, but it's not legal, and it should not be tolerated because otherwise cops have become judge and jury and warden.
It's called professionalism. It needs to be trained in, it needs come down from supervision, and cops who have undergone stressful situations need debriefing and even counseling. If a cop CAN'T handle that, and has to hit restrained person, then the job is not for them, period. They just don't have what it takes, or rather what we should demand it take.
If you're a phone rep and you get a complete obnoxious idiot on the line who drives you nuts for an hour, you do NOT get to swear and scream at them to let out your frustrations. You take a few minutes after the call to cool off.
Cops needs to be expected to be professionals held to a high standard, NOT just "the boys" who are basically OK hanging out playing with guns and protecting people but who get a little out of hand during stressful situations.
Might be why they're locating in Niagara Falls. Niagara Falls has (or at least had) tons of industry because plentiful cheap hydro energy. Businesses regularly get that cheap hydro at a discount to entice jobs.
Hasn't worked like it used to because the offshore production costs were so much cheaper it eliminated the advantage... but in this case, it might make sense... the main cost for this process is likely to be energy, and it wouldn't work to offshore this industry, I'd think.
Yep. I was illegally searched. When you refuse a search, what they do is search you anyway, then file a police report lying, saying you were "disturbing the peace" and that they arrested you THEN searched you after that.
I was sitting cuffed locked in the back seat of the car refusing to answer questions, and as a result they threatened to add "resisting arrest" to the charges.
Cops are little authoritarian asshole boys who wanted to play with guns when they grew up.
And before you protest that you're a cop or you have cops as family, so do I. Uncle was a Dept. Sheriff. Officious asshole who tried to run his own siblings lives.
3. Egomaniacs are about the only people who think that what they are doing is important enough to die for... to be assassinated for, to be sent to prison for decades for, to have the CIA spread nasty rumors about you for.
Seriously. You know who is arrogant? Every one of the stupid fuckers I've read complaining that the only thing wrong with Wikileaks is headed by a guy with an ego.
What's arrogant about that? It arrogant because these same people wouldn't risk their JOBS to do what wikileaks does, let alone their freedom of lives.
Fuck jobs - these people wouldn't risk their cars, their iPhones or their flat screens.
Shit, let's put it this way - if these people were asked "Will you run Wikileaks, helping transparency, freedom, and ending government and corporate corruption, knowing full well that if you are caught, you could face being banned from eating Doritos for the rest of your life?" - if they were asked to make THAT sacrifice, wikileaks would be shut down and the complainers would throw a Dorito party to celebrate.
I would be much more ok with a clearing house for whistleblowers to send their leaks to, which only members of the press had access to.
Which means that you want leaks to be divulged only to the members of the same press who saw the information which was NOT SECRET that contradicted everything Bush/Cheney had to say in the lead-up to the Iraq war, and chose, rather than reporting the truth, to cheerlead the war.
Brilliant strategy there. Take people who bury already open information that would hurt their corporate masters, and give THEM the even more dirty, secret information about their corporate masters.
I can understand your motivation - watching this wikileaks thing unfold is a bit uncomfortable, a bit messy and disturbing.
best to give the info to people who are proven to clean and sanitize it and bury it and turn it into laughable trivia that's not upsetting, not worrisome.
That way you can sit in front of the tube without the worry of suffering the stress of having a neuron or two actually fire - you can feel safe and warm and cozy stuffing your fat American face with the toxin-laced fried fat that they spend 15 minutes of every half hour telling you you need RIGHT NOW...
and you can continue stuffing you fat American head with the contrived infantile farcical idiocy they've convinced you are "reality" shows, and the contrived infantile farcical idiocy they've convinced you are "News" channels.
Wikileaks did just as you asked, released the information to professional reporters.
Right now those professional reporters are spending 99% of their time on the subject discussing NOT what was in the leaks, but rather calling Assange a terrorist, irresponsible, appearing on TV "news" shows talking about how terrible he is, how he's a criminal, a traitor, calling for his arrest, for wikileaks to be stopped, and in some cases even calling for his death.
Yeah, those professional reporters - a trustworthy lot.
The response to Wikileaks demonstrates that governments ARE afraid of citizens. That's why they've done everything possible to keep us from having access to any information or tools to do anything about what we learn.
Fine. You are not neutral. And you don't like Wikileaks not taking your side. Fine. And you complain about that, as is your right. Fine.
What you are not getting is that though you have the right to complain, your complaint is stupid.
I am a liberal. I don't like that the dems don't support my views enough, and I complain about that. This is a reasonable complaint because the dems assert that they are on my side.
I can also complain that the GOP doesn't take my side, which is my right. But it would be fucking stupid to do so, that's not their agenda.
It would be stupid of me to complain that the multitude of politically neutral organizations out there don't endorse my choice of candidate.
And it's stupid to complain that a neutral organization, whose head isn't event fucking US citizen, doesn't support the US.
You can complain about it all you want, you can object to it all you want. What you can't do is make those objections sensible or reasonable.
Wikileaks does not have agents. Wikileaks is NOT pro-US, or anti-US.
Basically your complaint is that Wikileaks is not taking your side. You have bought into the position that "we are on the side of good." Maybe "we" are, maybe not.
But you cannot expect a TRULY neutral party to decide that one nation deserves its protect and support and their help keeping its secrets, and another doesn't merit it.
You would not complain if Wikileaks disseminated documents from North Korea, or Iran, or wherever else, if they got them - and Wikileaks WOULD release those.
Wikileaks owes your side nor any other side no loyalty.
Slashdot Mirror
ROFL LOL OMG UR so right! OMG my cat just did a stinky poop, have to clean it right now! LOL!
I was kicked off of facebook about six months ago because someone complained to them about my chosen name... claimed that they owned the rights to it (they don't, they're just ignorant.)
Facebook without contacting me or explaining simply cut me off. I decided "fuck them," and haven't bothered to go to the trouble or expense of correctly asserting my right to use my chosen name... not worth it.
Being facebookless for half a year has only been slightly inconvenient on a handful of occasions. Mostly it's a timesaver not to use it.
I could, of course, create a new account, but decided I have no use for it.
I think the point is more that it's not that social networking sites aren't viable... it's that the web changes fast.
I'm telling you, and you can trust me on this one - the day will come when Infoseek is no longer the top search engine, something better, something we can't even imagine today, will come along and be more useful and replace it.
Seriously. Ten years from now you'll be happily networking on whatever the hell is the best/most popular/most innovative or at least most pervasive website (if we even CALL them websites in 10 years) and Facebook will probably be a nostalgic term... they MIGHT be able to innovate and be that "new site," it can and has happened... but the odds are at least slightly against it.
I am not naive enough to think I'm immune to home invasion, especially since I had my home broken into once.
I'm also not naive enough to think that owning a gun is a good idea in light of that. Why?
Because I'm not ignorant of the fact that most people killed in home invasions are shot WITH THEIR OWN FUCKING GUNS.
yet
Micro is rated for more insertions (I believe 10,000) than mini.
I kept telling my GF that, she wouldn't buy it.
The invisible hand of the market has a propensity towards fisting.
They are NOT responsible for what happens when they release information. And they ARE heroes for releasing it.
I haven't heard anyone claim they're heroes because they cause, for example, corrupt govts to reform, or criminals to be charged.
They are called heroes simply for the act of releasing the information. That's it. It's a heroic thing to do. Release it, and risk your life doing so. Period.
What happens AFTERWARD is the responsibility of the people and their governments. If the information causes criminals to go jail, that's the people and governments action, in response.
If what happens afterward is that the crimes are ignored and the criminals go free and the messenger is attacked, that's ALSO at the hands of and the responsibility of the people and their governments.
There is no contradiction. The good that Wikileaks is responsible for is freeing information to the people. That's all. We're responsible for the results.
Now all they have to do is crack the "having to buy an overpriced piece of proprietary hardware that merely replicates what the PC I own can already do" part of the equation.
Crack that, and I'll be all set. Otherwise I'm not spending several hundred dollars to buy a box to take up more space simply to play software that my PC would be able to play if it weren't for someone's desire to complete control and every last dollar.
Change from a hardware/software company to a software company, and I'll use your product.
well yeah, you might be more likley to get PTSD if before puberty (child abuse, molestation, that kind of thing) but combat veterans have gone through bad enough shit to fuck up ANYONE'S head.
Well, it is supposed to be more likely to result in PTSD if the trauma begins before puberty.
Yes, supposedly PTSD can affect permanent change in the amygdala... causing a lifetime of stress, trouble coping in social situations, all that jazz.
I have PTSD and it's a struggle. Best of luck to you - get to a therapist, get an actual diagnosis - you might just have a garden-variety anxiety disorder, easier to treat maybe. PTSD is such a beast to treat most therapists can't handle it. Takes a trauma specialist with experience.
Hmmm. Isn't the amygdala the part of the brain fucked up by PTSD? Maybe that would explain why I scare off all my friends.
OK, by friends, I mean "the cashier at the supermarket" and such.
the word realistic is superfluous here.
This makes sense because a clip showing police brutality could be part of a longer incident where the suspect resisted arrest and tried to hurt the officer. I understand that in the heat of the moment a person who feels their life is in jeopardy may use force which seems excessive out of context.
NO. If a guy is shooting at police they have a right and a responsibility to do everything to stop him including kill him.
Once he is disarmed, cuffed and on the ground, immobilized, rendered harmless, then any physical attack - kicking, punching, using a night club on him - IS POLICE BRUTALITY.
Police do NOT get to exact revenge, they do not get to punish. They do not get to hit a suspect to "blow off steam" or release their adrenaline or frustrations.
ANY video of an unarmed, restrained, immobile person UNDER CUSTODY being struck is a video of police brutality and IS IN CONTEXT. It doesn't matter what preceded it, even if the fucker just shot a baby in the head.
It certainly is understandable that a person who just had his life in danger might react that way and lash out at a subdued attacker, but it's not legal, and it should not be tolerated because otherwise cops have become judge and jury and warden.
It's called professionalism. It needs to be trained in, it needs come down from supervision, and cops who have undergone stressful situations need debriefing and even counseling. If a cop CAN'T handle that, and has to hit restrained person, then the job is not for them, period. They just don't have what it takes, or rather what we should demand it take.
If you're a phone rep and you get a complete obnoxious idiot on the line who drives you nuts for an hour, you do NOT get to swear and scream at them to let out your frustrations. You take a few minutes after the call to cool off.
Cops needs to be expected to be professionals held to a high standard, NOT just "the boys" who are basically OK hanging out playing with guns and protecting people but who get a little out of hand during stressful situations.
Sometimes looking around at society, opting out of the gene pool seems like the only responsible choice.
Might be why they're locating in Niagara Falls.
Niagara Falls has (or at least had) tons of industry because plentiful cheap hydro energy.
Businesses regularly get that cheap hydro at a discount to entice jobs.
Hasn't worked like it used to because the offshore production costs were so much cheaper it eliminated the advantage... but in this case, it might make sense... the main cost for this process is likely to be energy, and it wouldn't work to offshore this industry, I'd think.
Yep. I was illegally searched.
When you refuse a search, what they do is search you anyway, then file a police report lying, saying you were "disturbing the peace" and that they arrested you THEN searched you after that.
I was sitting cuffed locked in the back seat of the car refusing to answer questions, and as a result they threatened to add "resisting arrest" to the charges.
Cops are little authoritarian asshole boys who wanted to play with guns when they grew up.
And before you protest that you're a cop or you have cops as family, so do I. Uncle was a Dept. Sheriff. Officious asshole who tried to run his own siblings lives.
3. Egomaniacs are about the only people who think that what they are doing is important enough to die for... to be assassinated for, to be sent to prison for decades for, to have the CIA spread nasty rumors about you for.
Seriously. You know who is arrogant? Every one of the stupid fuckers I've read complaining that the only thing wrong with Wikileaks is headed by a guy with an ego.
What's arrogant about that? It arrogant because these same people wouldn't risk their JOBS to do what wikileaks does, let alone their freedom of lives.
Fuck jobs - these people wouldn't risk their cars, their iPhones or their flat screens.
Shit, let's put it this way - if these people were asked "Will you run Wikileaks, helping transparency, freedom, and ending government and corporate corruption, knowing full well that if you are caught, you could face being banned from eating Doritos for the rest of your life?" - if they were asked to make THAT sacrifice, wikileaks would be shut down and the complainers would throw a Dorito party to celebrate.
I would be much more ok with a clearing house for whistleblowers to send their leaks to, which only members of the press had access to.
Which means that you want leaks to be divulged only to the members of the same press who saw the information which was NOT SECRET that contradicted everything Bush/Cheney had to say in the lead-up to the Iraq war, and chose, rather than reporting the truth, to cheerlead the war.
Brilliant strategy there. Take people who bury already open information that would hurt their corporate masters, and give THEM the even more dirty, secret information about their corporate masters.
I can understand your motivation - watching this wikileaks thing unfold is a bit uncomfortable, a bit messy and disturbing.
best to give the info to people who are proven to clean and sanitize it and bury it and turn it into laughable trivia that's not upsetting, not worrisome.
That way you can sit in front of the tube without the worry of suffering the stress of having a neuron or two actually fire - you can feel safe and warm and cozy stuffing your fat American face with the toxin-laced fried fat that they spend 15 minutes of every half hour telling you you need RIGHT NOW...
and you can continue stuffing you fat American head with the contrived infantile farcical idiocy they've convinced you are "reality" shows, and the contrived infantile farcical idiocy they've convinced you are "News" channels.
Wikileaks did just as you asked, released the information to professional reporters.
Right now those professional reporters are spending 99% of their time on the subject discussing NOT what was in the leaks, but rather calling Assange a terrorist, irresponsible, appearing on TV "news" shows talking about how terrible he is, how he's a criminal, a traitor, calling for his arrest, for wikileaks to be stopped, and in some cases even calling for his death.
Yeah, those professional reporters - a trustworthy lot.
The response to Wikileaks demonstrates that governments ARE afraid of citizens. That's why they've done everything possible to keep us from having access to any information or tools to do anything about what we learn.
You mean it's not on your list already?
Have you been asleep?
Fine. You are not neutral.
And you don't like Wikileaks not taking your side. Fine. And you complain about that, as is your right. Fine.
What you are not getting is that though you have the right to complain, your complaint is stupid.
I am a liberal. I don't like that the dems don't support my views enough, and I complain about that. This is a reasonable complaint because the dems assert that they are on my side.
I can also complain that the GOP doesn't take my side, which is my right. But it would be fucking stupid to do so, that's not their agenda.
It would be stupid of me to complain that the multitude of politically neutral organizations out there don't endorse my choice of candidate.
And it's stupid to complain that a neutral organization, whose head isn't event fucking US citizen, doesn't support the US.
You can complain about it all you want, you can object to it all you want. What you can't do is make those objections sensible or reasonable.
You keep talking about "our agents."
Wikileaks does not have agents. Wikileaks is NOT pro-US, or anti-US.
Basically your complaint is that Wikileaks is not taking your side. You have bought into the position that "we are on the side of good." Maybe "we" are, maybe not.
But you cannot expect a TRULY neutral party to decide that one nation deserves its protect and support and their help keeping its secrets, and another doesn't merit it.
You would not complain if Wikileaks disseminated documents from North Korea, or Iran, or wherever else, if they got them - and Wikileaks WOULD release those.
Wikileaks owes your side nor any other side no loyalty.