It just goes to support the idea that dodgy things are afoot on the Swedish end of all this and that Assange has tried multiple times to comply with the prosecutors.
>Gingerbread Man or something similar would actually be a decent name for a new P2P system
You clearly don't remember the end of the tale, then:
A sly fox came out from behind a tree. 'I can help you cross the river,' said the fox. 'Jump on to my tail and I will swim across.' 'You won't eat me, will you?' said the gingerbread man. 'Of course not,' said the fox. 'I just want to help.' The gingerbread man climbed on the fox's tail. Soon the gingerbread man began to get wet. 'Climb onto my back,' said the fox. So the gingerbread man did. As he swam the fox said, 'You are too heavy. I am tired. Jump onto my nose.' So the gingerbread man did as he was told. No sooner had they reached the other side, than the fox tossed the gingerbread man up in the air. He opened his mouth and 'Snap!' that was the end of the gingerbread man.
There's no 'cover up' because there's no truth the the summary's statement that " In 1980, the news program 20/20 posted a report all about how "home taping is killing music," with various recording industry execs insisting the industry was on its last legs unless something was done."
I watched the video and it does no such thing. It mentions home taping once and mentions that sales had 'levelled' but the substance of the programme is the new development of video and music, specifically laser discs, and the music industy's hopes that this would allow them to gain ever greater profits.
This is a bogus/. story. I wish I could say it was the first. Utterly misleading and a waste of your time, dear reader.
>The rampant Murdoch hatred is just so irrational.
Ahem, your ignorance is showing.
If only it was irrational, however his desire and ambition to dominate the various maouthpieces of the media plus his willingness to laud the politicians who chime with his views, and their subsequent fear of him (outlined rather concisely in the current UK issue of him taking over BskyB and politicians openly admitting their fear of pissing him off) make him a king-maker and fundementally a threat to the democratic process.
He and his ilk are a blight and an opposition to democracy because the power they wield far outweighs their number. They are not elected, merely rich. And whilst Murdoch is not the only evil in town in this regard, he, with his penchant for buying up media channels is a particular threat than many others can't hold a candle to.
You only have to look at the situation in the Uk with the Murdoch ownded News of the World and the influence it wielded with thMetropolitan Police in them delibertaely limiting the scope of an investigation into illegal phone hacking by the NotW to the NotW's advantage.
Murdoch and his organs are scourges on Western democracy the world over.
You would murder someone becasue of a little trespass? Snuff out their life, all the good things they may do, all the time they may spend with their friends and family, all the love they may give and recieve, just because of a little trespass?
Is that the only weapon in your armoury? You could wait until they left and inspect your vehicle and remove the device. And then the father or mother could go home to their children, their wife or husband. The son or daughter that they are could see their parents or siblings, their friends again.
But you would rather just shoot them? Because they strayed on your property a while. How noble you are. How powerful you must feel.
Theoretically it could be something as innoccuous as a photo of his 16 year old girfriend's boobs (not to mention all sorts of other stuff, like diaries, etc)
The Labour party when it was in power and creating laws out its wazoo (including the RIP Act deployed here) made it an offence to have photos of persons under the age of 18 engaged in sexual acts. To put that in context, you can have a gangbang with a 16 year old (assuming that's her thing) and it's perfectly legal. But if you have a photo of the same girl with her boobs out, taken while you weren't there (!) or if you aren't in a government-sanctioned relationship, ie, long-term or stable (I shit you not) you're a dirty sex criminal.
And that means your life could be destroyed: sex offender's register (probably just for 5 years for a photo of the boobs of a legal to fuck, but not photograph girl) and a bar on any career you might want or develop in all sorts of areas to do with children and 'vulnerable adults'. And maybe any chance of decent employment.
Compared to any of that, even 16 months in prison, after which you at least get to rebuild your life, is probably a price well worth paying. Even for something as trivial as legal-to-touch teen boobs. Or a bit of manga. Or a sexualized stick-figure srawing that some prosecutor might say was 15.
Maybe they think that bikini shot of that cute girl is over-sexualized, and she was only 17 when it was taken...
Maybe it's just regular porn. Or you think so. But get this: you own one picture from a series, which you've never seen. That series of photos contains 'extreme pornography'. Even though your photo doesn't, you still may be guilty of an offence! And stuck on the sex offender's register.
You'd have to be an idiot, assuming the most, er, innocent of porn collections to want to take that risk, hand over your password and place your entire life in the hands of the Criminal Prosecution Service.
Yeah, I ditched Zone Alarm for Comodo some time ago after ZA got bought out by Checkpoint. I think it was that the newer post-buy-out versions of the software kept re-ckecking the "automatic updates" option in the preferences and kept giving itself permission to access the internet, despite me explicitly blocking it. Several instances of this and I thought, 'crikey, the new owners are a bit dodgy' and jumped ship to Comodo.
Can't say I'm surprised to see them plumet down the 'sacrifice integrity to serve our bottom line' route. (That's also why I ditched AVG).
Maybe. But Fox News seems to be doing awfully well.
I think you're right, but then I wonder about what happens when there's not a significant majority who can pick apart and ridicule the hate. Or, like a number of political movements in the US (and elesewhere of course) the people espousing those views seem entirely immune to reason, debate, logic, facts and so on.
It frequesntly seems to come down to left-leaning people who think ideas are key and that truth and reason should win the day, and (significantly) more right-wing people who are playing a different game entirely, where it's all actually about red vs blu, warring monkey tribes striving for dominance at any cost.
Not just our 'political' genes, but our actual genes.
Every simian species* has a hirarchical social structure whereby those at the top dominate and control those at the bottom, often extremely viciously. Humans are little different in that respect.
*Except Bonobos, who settling disputes by fucking, and spend most of their spare time doing the same. Man, I wish we were more like Bonobos.
It has other uses too: dissuading casual pirates from ever jumping ship and buying into the medium.
A friend of mine couldn't play a couple of Blu Ray discs he'd bought because of various compatibilty issues to do with updated keys or whatever. It convinced me that Blu Ray just wasn't ready for the living room. Why would I want to give these fools my money when it results in a crapshoot? No Blu Ray player for me, no discs either. I decided to spend my money on something that's not so flaky.
I agree, but the thing that worries me is that I don't really understand WHY the EU has been making such seemingly rational and sound decisions.
I worry that someone will trip up a janitor somehwhere and a chain of events will be set in motion that will result in the EU parliament insisting that black people wear flashing LED hats and women can only breathe every second minute of the day. And that dogs can only bark on Tuesdays.
I just wish there was a sound basis for their soundness of behaviour.
It's not that 'everybody' thinks the wikileaks case *IS* some kind of CIA attack, just that the CIA has done a LOT, LOT worse to people who the government have decided are enemies of the US state and its interests. Such acts by the CIA are credible. The idea that the US state is above smearing its enemies is ludicrous. That means it is *POSSIBLE* that this is a case of character assasination and black propaganda - not that it's PROBABLE - just POSSIBLE.
It's also *possible* that the women are behaving for any number of ignorant, deluded, malicious or screwed up reasons, as it is that Mr. Assange did the things he's said to have done. But then, if this were a smear, that's exactly what they'd like you to think!;)
Slashdot Mirror
Let's not forget CitiBank who apparently didn't give a shit that someone fraudulently closed the woman's disputed charge.
I have an account run by CitiBank, and this has made me decide to close it - before I get subjected to their don't care approach.
...just because you disagree with something, does not make it "flamebait".
The sandbox idea is great.
Adobe couldn't fix all the security flaws in their program, so they wrote another program to put their program in.
Fortunately the new porogram has no security flaws.
Dear mods, there is currently no "cynical" moderation.
"Flamebait" is not an adequate substitute.
Wow - mod this up!
It just goes to support the idea that dodgy things are afoot on the Swedish end of all this and that Assange has tried multiple times to comply with the prosecutors.
>Gingerbread Man or something similar would actually be a decent name for a new P2P system
You clearly don't remember the end of the tale, then:
A sly fox came out from behind a tree. 'I can help you cross the river,' said the fox. 'Jump on to my tail and I will swim across.'
'You won't eat me, will you?' said the gingerbread man.
'Of course not,' said the fox. 'I just want to help.'
The gingerbread man climbed on the fox's tail. Soon the gingerbread man began to get wet. 'Climb onto my back,' said the fox. So the gingerbread man did. As he swam the fox said, 'You are too heavy. I am tired. Jump onto my nose.' So the gingerbread man did as he was told.
No sooner had they reached the other side, than the fox tossed the gingerbread man up in the air. He opened his mouth and 'Snap!' that was the end of the gingerbread man.
There's no 'cover up' because there's no truth the the summary's statement that " In 1980, the news program 20/20 posted a report all about how "home taping is killing music," with various recording industry execs insisting the industry was on its last legs unless something was done."
I watched the video and it does no such thing. It mentions home taping once and mentions that sales had 'levelled' but the substance of the programme is the new development of video and music, specifically laser discs, and the music industy's hopes that this would allow them to gain ever greater profits.
This is a bogus /. story. I wish I could say it was the first. Utterly misleading and a waste of your time, dear reader.
>The rampant Murdoch hatred is just so irrational.
Ahem, your ignorance is showing.
If only it was irrational, however his desire and ambition to dominate the various maouthpieces of the media plus his willingness to laud the politicians who chime with his views, and their subsequent fear of him (outlined rather concisely in the current UK issue of him taking over BskyB and politicians openly admitting their fear of pissing him off) make him a king-maker and fundementally a threat to the democratic process.
He and his ilk are a blight and an opposition to democracy because the power they wield far outweighs their number. They are not elected, merely rich. And whilst Murdoch is not the only evil in town in this regard, he, with his penchant for buying up media channels is a particular threat than many others can't hold a candle to.
You only have to look at the situation in the Uk with the Murdoch ownded News of the World and the influence it wielded with thMetropolitan Police in them delibertaely limiting the scope of an investigation into illegal phone hacking by the NotW to the NotW's advantage.
Murdoch and his organs are scourges on Western democracy the world over.
The real question that bugs me is how much does this have to do with the President's wife being a recording artist?
No subsidies? No blowjobs for you!
>I can get behind Wikileaks, but not Assange. He is egotistical tool.
Citation needed.
The solution is: disable it; dispose of it wisely; act dumb.
>if you saw somebody tampering with your car at night you would be justified in using lethal force to stop them in many cases.
"Justified" in this context, presumably being a legal term rather than an ethical one.
You would murder someone becasue of a little trespass? Snuff out their life, all the good things they may do, all the time they may spend with their friends and family, all the love they may give and recieve, just because of a little trespass?
Is that the only weapon in your armoury? You could wait until they left and inspect your vehicle and remove the device. And then the father or mother could go home to their children, their wife or husband. The son or daughter that they are could see their parents or siblings, their friends again.
But you would rather just shoot them? Because they strayed on your property a while. How noble you are. How powerful you must feel.
How despicable a human being you are.
Theoretically it could be something as innoccuous as a photo of his 16 year old girfriend's boobs (not to mention all sorts of other stuff, like diaries, etc)
The Labour party when it was in power and creating laws out its wazoo (including the RIP Act deployed here) made it an offence to have photos of persons under the age of 18 engaged in sexual acts. To put that in context, you can have a gangbang with a 16 year old (assuming that's her thing) and it's perfectly legal. But if you have a photo of the same girl with her boobs out, taken while you weren't there (!) or if you aren't in a government-sanctioned relationship, ie, long-term or stable (I shit you not) you're a dirty sex criminal.
And that means your life could be destroyed: sex offender's register (probably just for 5 years for a photo of the boobs of a legal to fuck, but not photograph girl) and a bar on any career you might want or develop in all sorts of areas to do with children and 'vulnerable adults'. And maybe any chance of decent employment.
Compared to any of that, even 16 months in prison, after which you at least get to rebuild your life, is probably a price well worth paying. Even for something as trivial as legal-to-touch teen boobs. Or a bit of manga. Or a sexualized stick-figure srawing that some prosecutor might say was 15.
Maybe they think that bikini shot of that cute girl is over-sexualized, and she was only 17 when it was taken...
Maybe it's just regular porn. Or you think so. But get this: you own one picture from a series, which you've never seen. That series of photos contains 'extreme pornography'. Even though your photo doesn't, you still may be guilty of an offence! And stuck on the sex offender's register.
You'd have to be an idiot, assuming the most, er, innocent of porn collections to want to take that risk, hand over your password and place your entire life in the hands of the Criminal Prosecution Service.
I hear George Lucas has patented '2 Girls 1 Cup' as a business method.
Yeah, I ditched Zone Alarm for Comodo some time ago after ZA got bought out by Checkpoint. I think it was that the newer post-buy-out versions of the software kept re-ckecking the "automatic updates" option in the preferences and kept giving itself permission to access the internet, despite me explicitly blocking it. Several instances of this and I thought, 'crikey, the new owners are a bit dodgy' and jumped ship to Comodo.
Can't say I'm surprised to see them plumet down the 'sacrifice integrity to serve our bottom line' route. (That's also why I ditched AVG).
I don't think you can call rape a way of settling a dispute.
I can be wrong without it meaning I'm part of some tribe you know! :)
Maybe. But Fox News seems to be doing awfully well.
I think you're right, but then I wonder about what happens when there's not a significant majority who can pick apart and ridicule the hate. Or, like a number of political movements in the US (and elesewhere of course) the people espousing those views seem entirely immune to reason, debate, logic, facts and so on.
It frequesntly seems to come down to left-leaning people who think ideas are key and that truth and reason should win the day, and (significantly) more right-wing people who are playing a different game entirely, where it's all actually about red vs blu, warring monkey tribes striving for dominance at any cost.
Not just our 'political' genes, but our actual genes.
Every simian species* has a hirarchical social structure whereby those at the top dominate and control those at the bottom, often extremely viciously. Humans are little different in that respect.
*Except Bonobos, who settling disputes by fucking, and spend most of their spare time doing the same. Man, I wish we were more like Bonobos.
And how are they dealing with the 100% Peregrine Falcon packet loss problem?
It has other uses too: dissuading casual pirates from ever jumping ship and buying into the medium.
A friend of mine couldn't play a couple of Blu Ray discs he'd bought because of various compatibilty issues to do with updated keys or whatever. It convinced me that Blu Ray just wasn't ready for the living room. Why would I want to give these fools my money when it results in a crapshoot? No Blu Ray player for me, no discs either. I decided to spend my money on something that's not so flaky.
I agree, but the thing that worries me is that I don't really understand WHY the EU has been making such seemingly rational and sound decisions.
I worry that someone will trip up a janitor somehwhere and a chain of events will be set in motion that will result in the EU parliament insisting that black people wear flashing LED hats and women can only breathe every second minute of the day. And that dogs can only bark on Tuesdays.
I just wish there was a sound basis for their soundness of behaviour.
It's not that 'everybody' thinks the wikileaks case *IS* some kind of CIA attack, just that the CIA has done a LOT, LOT worse to people who the government have decided are enemies of the US state and its interests. Such acts by the CIA are credible. The idea that the US state is above smearing its enemies is ludicrous. That means it is *POSSIBLE* that this is a case of character assasination and black propaganda - not that it's PROBABLE - just POSSIBLE.
It's also *possible* that the women are behaving for any number of ignorant, deluded, malicious or screwed up reasons, as it is that Mr. Assange did the things he's said to have done. But then, if this were a smear, that's exactly what they'd like you to think! ;)
Experienced wine tasters can't even tell the difference between red wine and white wine that's had red food colouring added to it.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-11044090