Please don't make light of Autism. It is deeply insensitive. You might try being positive instead. Find the cure, and enjoy your instant celebrity. But beating up on people searching for answers, for no other reason than to look cool in front of your peers, is just plain evil. Jenny McCarthy didn't ask for an Autistic child, but she got one anyway, and she's coping with that. Why on earth would you choose to make that harder than it already is? Your passions could be towards assisting the people under the weight of this condition, but instead you spend it on shadenfraude. And that's just sad.
The US has a long-standing executive order against assassinations.
False.
Not only has the US affirmed the ability to assassinate foreign nationals, they have recently decreed that this can be applied to American citizens without any sort of 'due process'.
What do you think those CIA drones are DOING? Do you think their missiles tickle?
3. He has an absolute obligation as a human being not to put other human beings in danger when there are other avenues to address the problem. This is especially pertinent, since his argument for releasing the information was that it shows his adversaries doing exactly that as well.
But again, he is actually going to wind up saving lives. Have you looked into what the documents actually SAY?
Start here, then come back to this post... I'll wait...
We have gone past the tipping point in Afghanistan, and any further actions on our part are more likely to lead to loss of life than to prevent it. Every time we act, we make our enemies stronger. We really ought to stop acting, but our government has been telling us the exact opposite thing. They say we're winning, that Afghanistan is safer, that the Taliban is on the run, etc. They're deliberately deceiving us, and WE HAVE EVERY RIGHT TO CALL THEM OUT ON IT. Just because of the label 'classified', are we to no longer be able to use logic to make our decisions? On what planet??
So tell me which obligation is greater:
1) Keep the secrets of your government's allies or 2) Allow the military to deliberately deceive their democratic populace into supporting a failed war
Some secrets, once known, are far to evil to keep.
Information is also classified when you want to perform atrocities or "its not good for morale", or its dissemination will cause the main plan not to work.
Let's be fair here. As far as anyone has gathered, there do not appear to be any atrocities in the "Afghan War Diaries" - or if there are any, I have yet to hear about them. What is in there, however, are clear examples of our government deliberately deceiving us into thinking that continuing this endeavor is a good idea.
The latter alone, the deceit, is enough to warrant a rebuttal in the form of the actual data. There's no human alive who can honestly oppose this use of the information. They lied, we can now prove it, so we should prove it. The end.
You're like the business-marketing major who walks into an IT shop, tells the admins that firewalls and anti-virus software are unnecessary and dumb because they slow down his computer, and then laughs when they try to explain the security implications. To anyone who understands the relevant fields you look like an ignorant, arrogant asshole, as you smugly stroll away, congratulating yourself on the clever rejoinders which you used to shut down those dumb computer dweebs.
You know what else we are? We're the owners, because we're the ones paying the bills. We're the board of directors, because we hold all the stock. Those experts you revere so much are OUR EMPLOYEES, and they'd damn well better do what we say, or we'll fire them.
Actually, the total dead (on all sides) is far more interesting. Estimates are putting the results of our intervention at over one million dead, and counting. We've caused someone or something to poison them for generations to come, as well. More war will come from our efforts even if we pulled out today, and those should be counted as well...
Who the fuck is the American here? Assange is Australian, and is in Sweden. All the US Govt did was put him on a watch list.
Do you believe, for even a moment, that Australia took action independently of the US? Really? Are you genuinely unaware of the impact the US dollar has on the world economy? Really??
If you think he's such a great guy, then why has the Australian government banned a site created by one of their own? The US hasn't done anything close to that, they just put him on a watch list (it was a private company that chose not to do business with him - frankly, I wouldn't either).
And even if the guy was pedobear himself, what would that have to do with the content of his website? You can elect not to do business with him if you'd like, and this is perfectly fine, but to collude to restrict his ability to utilize banks is an entirely different manner.
Bigjeff5, you're really opposed to this guy all up and down this thread, but there's almost no substance here. You don't seem to be thinking through the things you're saying. Do you have a Swedish sister, by any chance? Does your paycheck come postmarked from Virginia? What's your interest in this, if not to participate in a discussion??
you're obviously too dense to understand this but he was pointing out that editing is normal.
You're giving them too much credit, Hobo. These people are simply repeating the talking points that have been planted as a part of a counter-intelligence operation. They're not backed up by any fact, primarily because this has been found to REINFORCE belief in them. When the ignorant is outed for being so, particularly in a negative light, they cling even harder to their belief. There are at least two of these, and I'd not be the least bit surprised to discover that they were planted by the government's internet goons:
A) Wikileaks edited the video.
Debunked by the simple fact that absolutely none of the content of the video got changed by their editing. Nobody in the Pentagon is denying any of it. This is the 'catch' designed to make people cling to this idea and spread the word that Wikileaks cannot be trusted.
B) People were named, and are now dead
Debunked by the lack of even a single example of this being true. The 'catch' here is the logical loop that it COULD be true, so therefore it is only a matter of time before it IS true. Except no one has even verified that any of these named people were even still alive at the time the documents were published. Further, I have yet to see an actual list of any actual names. It seems that everyone agrees that they're in there, but if they are, everyone is suspiciously quiet about it. Were this true, would it not make a lot more sense to put these people on a plane to America, put them on TV, and really demonize Assange?
There are more, but these stink, stink, stink of counter-intelligence.
True. However, these were documents that put a large number of other American and Australian (and probably British and other nationalities) peoples in danger. Whether you agree that Americans defending themselves against Muslim radicals is right or not, what wikileaks did was an act against the United States of America
You might want to research what's actually in the data. For example:
To begin with, the data demonstrate an alarming rise in enemy activity. In 2004, the Taliban were averaging four attacks a day. By 2009, that figure had risen more than 15 times to 56 attacks per day. By comparison, U.S. actions over that time period rose only 9 times, from an average of 1.5 per day to 13.8.
...and...
Beginning in 2008, however, this deterrent effect had transformed into an escalatory effect. In 2009, this escalatory effect had reached a point where for every 2.5 actions the U.S. engaged in the Taliban committed one additional attack the next. U.S. actions are now making the Taliban more violent, not less.
This analysis demonstrates that disclosing the war diary information could potentially stop the escalation, failed policies, etc, and in effect SAVE THE LIVES of those same people you're claiming to care about. The 'support the troops' angle works both ways here. You want to safeguard their lives, and this should logically included not asking them to die for no reason whatsoever. The data shows we're making it worse, and had it not ever been released, we'd still think we were winning...
Why are the leak sources not going to the reporters to NY Times or BBC? It's just a symptom that they are failing in their eagerness to dig the truth, talk to possible informants, and take brave steps to guarantee that their sources would be protected. *That* would be journalism, instead of republishing bigcorp or government press releases.
You're close, but you've overlooked a crucial detail. Informants ARE going to the press, and the press is checking with the Whitehouse before they print anything. The free press has been completely supplanted with a new fealty-style system. Either you play ball with the government, or you can no longer make money as a news organization.
Remember Valerie Plame? Or how the New York Times sat on the wiretapping scandal for a YEAR? Obama has done his part, too, with selective media blackouts and blatant threats to the press( e.g. Gibbs's guffaw).
A truly free press would operate without getting the government's permission first. Wikileaks did that, and now you see the result.
so if you don't want it revealed or shared, DON'T PUT IT ON THE WEB.
Indeed. And if you don't want to be tracked, DON'T EVER LEAVE THE HOUSE. And if you don't want people to leer at your genitals, DON'T EVER REMOVE YOUR UNDERWEAR. And if you don't want to get screwed on price, DON'T EVER BUY ANYTHING. And if you don't want to think for yourself, DON'T EVER QUESTION ADVICE IN ALL CAPS.
We have a medium sized data center in wyoming and are working to build a large one. We cannot find qualified staff, no one will take the lower pay (no state income tax) or even move up here, it is a serious problem.
My dad lives out that way. Tell us who you are, and I just might apply...
FAIRFAX, VA – MAY 18, 2005...... “I have always been a big fan of Games Workshop and Warhammer and I am thrilled that we are now able to work on one of the world’s greatest and most enduring fantasy gaming brands,” said Mark Jacobs, CEO and President of Mythic Entertainment, Inc. “Our goal for this first of what we hope will be many Warhammer-based games is to create the single-greatest RvR-based MMORPGs in the industry.”
Consequently, this is why I avoided it as well. I did try to get into the beta, just to see how deep it would go, because 'based' could mean a lot of things. But they kept on saying things like, "There will be no 'kill ten rats quests', everything will support the war effort." Having played a lot of PvP-style RPGs, I know well that something as simple as selecting the wrong server or class can completely ruin any hopes of enjoying it.
The question is not an attack, nor is it rhetorical.
I appreciate what you're trying to do, Beep, but you're barking up the wrong tree. There is sufficient material to be curious about the topic at hand, and the answer could well lead into interesting conversation.
If you doubt my sincerity, my posting history exists for your further research.
Actually, if you define 0.999... as having an infinite number of decimal points, then it is true. And that's how that ellipsis is defined! It means exactly infinite repeating decimals.
This is a logical short-circuit, then. If there are an infinite number of 9's, then you'll never measure the difference between this and '1'. So, for all intents and purposes, assume '1'.
This doesn't seem very impressive, when you look at it that way.
Yes, clearly recent events like the salmonella outbreak in eggs demonstrate how we don't need an HHS. And your posts don't indicate the desperate need for a much better Department of Education.
Even if you could demonstrate a clear, exigent need, that wouldn't put such power within the text of the law.
Oh, and thanks for the insult. Hope you enjoyed it, because we're done.
The best general defense against criminal activity is reduction of poverty (fewer desperate people), and well paid professional police.
This sentiment is what's leading to the erosion of our liberty at an alarming rate.
"reduction of poverty (fewer desperate people)" means a very specific thing - take money from those who have it, and give it those that don't. This behavior has always, always, always resulted in violence, and it amazes me every time I encounter someone who believes otherwise.
"well paid professional police" means tighter oversight by government into our private lives, which is rather what the article is about, is it not?
The end result of a genie granting your wish is the former Soviet Union. Worked out really well for them, didn't it?
Congress can pass laws without presidential approval provided enough of them vote together. Furthermore Congress does have the power to remove the president from office
You, like many of the other respondents, have illogically created a scenario where the People would elect a President with such an agenda, and would support a Congress that opposed him. Why?
Slashdot Mirror
Please don't make light of Autism. It is deeply insensitive. You might try being positive instead. Find the cure, and enjoy your instant celebrity. But beating up on people searching for answers, for no other reason than to look cool in front of your peers, is just plain evil. Jenny McCarthy didn't ask for an Autistic child, but she got one anyway, and she's coping with that. Why on earth would you choose to make that harder than it already is? Your passions could be towards assisting the people under the weight of this condition, but instead you spend it on shadenfraude. And that's just sad.
And it seems that the data backs you up, particularly recently:
http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/journal/docs-temp/532-osoriosullivan.pdf
The US has a long-standing executive order against assassinations.
False.
Not only has the US affirmed the ability to assassinate foreign nationals, they have recently decreed that this can be applied to American citizens without any sort of 'due process'.
What do you think those CIA drones are DOING? Do you think their missiles tickle?
3. He has an absolute obligation as a human being not to put other human beings in danger when there are other avenues to address the problem. This is especially pertinent, since his argument for releasing the information was that it shows his adversaries doing exactly that as well.
But again, he is actually going to wind up saving lives. Have you looked into what the documents actually SAY?
Start here, then come back to this post... I'll wait...
We have gone past the tipping point in Afghanistan, and any further actions on our part are more likely to lead to loss of life than to prevent it. Every time we act, we make our enemies stronger. We really ought to stop acting, but our government has been telling us the exact opposite thing. They say we're winning, that Afghanistan is safer, that the Taliban is on the run, etc. They're deliberately deceiving us, and WE HAVE EVERY RIGHT TO CALL THEM OUT ON IT. Just because of the label 'classified', are we to no longer be able to use logic to make our decisions? On what planet??
So tell me which obligation is greater:
1) Keep the secrets of your government's allies
or
2) Allow the military to deliberately deceive their democratic populace into supporting a failed war
Some secrets, once known, are far to evil to keep.
Information is also classified when you want to perform atrocities or "its not good for morale", or its dissemination will cause the main plan not to work.
Let's be fair here. As far as anyone has gathered, there do not appear to be any atrocities in the "Afghan War Diaries" - or if there are any, I have yet to hear about them. What is in there, however, are clear examples of our government deliberately deceiving us into thinking that continuing this endeavor is a good idea.
The latter alone, the deceit, is enough to warrant a rebuttal in the form of the actual data. There's no human alive who can honestly oppose this use of the information. They lied, we can now prove it, so we should prove it. The end.
Arguably though, the best way to avoid putting Afghan civilians and US troops out of harm is to have US troops go back to the US.
Unfortunately: You break it, you bought it.
Yeah, well, we're broke, so I hope you accept hot-checks.
You're like the business-marketing major who walks into an IT shop, tells the admins that firewalls and anti-virus software are unnecessary and dumb because they slow down his computer, and then laughs when they try to explain the security implications. To anyone who understands the relevant fields you look like an ignorant, arrogant asshole, as you smugly stroll away, congratulating yourself on the clever rejoinders which you used to shut down those dumb computer dweebs.
You know what else we are? We're the owners, because we're the ones paying the bills. We're the board of directors, because we hold all the stock. Those experts you revere so much are OUR EMPLOYEES, and they'd damn well better do what we say, or we'll fire them.
Democracy. It's as easy as that.
Actually, the total dead (on all sides) is far more interesting. Estimates are putting the results of our intervention at over one million dead, and counting. We've caused someone or something to poison them for generations to come, as well. More war will come from our efforts even if we pulled out today, and those should be counted as well...
Who the fuck is the American here? Assange is Australian, and is in Sweden. All the US Govt did was put him on a watch list.
Do you believe, for even a moment, that Australia took action independently of the US? Really? Are you genuinely unaware of the impact the US dollar has on the world economy? Really??
If you think he's such a great guy, then why has the Australian government banned a site created by one of their own? The US hasn't done anything close to that, they just put him on a watch list (it was a private company that chose not to do business with him - frankly, I wouldn't either).
And even if the guy was pedobear himself, what would that have to do with the content of his website? You can elect not to do business with him if you'd like, and this is perfectly fine, but to collude to restrict his ability to utilize banks is an entirely different manner.
Bigjeff5, you're really opposed to this guy all up and down this thread, but there's almost no substance here. You don't seem to be thinking through the things you're saying. Do you have a Swedish sister, by any chance? Does your paycheck come postmarked from Virginia? What's your interest in this, if not to participate in a discussion??
To avoid a repost: http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1821554&cid=33908390
you're obviously too dense to understand this but he was pointing out that editing is normal.
You're giving them too much credit, Hobo. These people are simply repeating the talking points that have been planted as a part of a counter-intelligence operation. They're not backed up by any fact, primarily because this has been found to REINFORCE belief in them. When the ignorant is outed for being so, particularly in a negative light, they cling even harder to their belief. There are at least two of these, and I'd not be the least bit surprised to discover that they were planted by the government's internet goons:
A) Wikileaks edited the video.
Debunked by the simple fact that absolutely none of the content of the video got changed by their editing. Nobody in the Pentagon is denying any of it. This is the 'catch' designed to make people cling to this idea and spread the word that Wikileaks cannot be trusted.
B) People were named, and are now dead
Debunked by the lack of even a single example of this being true. The 'catch' here is the logical loop that it COULD be true, so therefore it is only a matter of time before it IS true. Except no one has even verified that any of these named people were even still alive at the time the documents were published. Further, I have yet to see an actual list of any actual names. It seems that everyone agrees that they're in there, but if they are, everyone is suspiciously quiet about it. Were this true, would it not make a lot more sense to put these people on a plane to America, put them on TV, and really demonize Assange?
There are more, but these stink, stink, stink of counter-intelligence.
True. However, these were documents that put a large number of other American and Australian (and probably British and other nationalities) peoples in danger. Whether you agree that Americans defending themselves against Muslim radicals is right or not, what wikileaks did was an act against the United States of America
You might want to research what's actually in the data. For example:
To begin with, the data demonstrate an alarming rise in enemy activity. In 2004, the Taliban were averaging four attacks a day. By 2009, that figure had risen more than 15 times to 56 attacks per day. By comparison, U.S. actions over that time period rose only 9 times, from an average of 1.5 per day to 13.8.
...and...
Beginning in 2008, however, this deterrent effect had transformed into an escalatory effect. In 2009, this escalatory effect had reached a point where for every 2.5 actions the U.S. engaged in the Taliban committed one additional attack the next. U.S. actions are now making the Taliban more violent, not less.
This analysis demonstrates that disclosing the war diary information could potentially stop the escalation, failed policies, etc, and in effect SAVE THE LIVES of those same people you're claiming to care about. The 'support the troops' angle works both ways here. You want to safeguard their lives, and this should logically included not asking them to die for no reason whatsoever. The data shows we're making it worse, and had it not ever been released, we'd still think we were winning...
Why are the leak sources not going to the reporters to NY Times or BBC? It's just a symptom that they are failing in their eagerness to dig the truth, talk to possible informants, and take brave steps to guarantee that their sources would be protected. *That* would be journalism, instead of republishing bigcorp or government press releases.
You're close, but you've overlooked a crucial detail. Informants ARE going to the press, and the press is checking with the Whitehouse before they print anything. The free press has been completely supplanted with a new fealty-style system. Either you play ball with the government, or you can no longer make money as a news organization.
Remember Valerie Plame? Or how the New York Times sat on the wiretapping scandal for a YEAR? Obama has done his part, too, with selective media blackouts and blatant threats to the press( e.g. Gibbs's guffaw).
A truly free press would operate without getting the government's permission first. Wikileaks did that, and now you see the result.
so if you don't want it revealed or shared, DON'T PUT IT ON THE WEB.
Indeed. And if you don't want to be tracked, DON'T EVER LEAVE THE HOUSE. And if you don't want people to leer at your genitals, DON'T EVER REMOVE YOUR UNDERWEAR. And if you don't want to get screwed on price, DON'T EVER BUY ANYTHING. And if you don't want to think for yourself, DON'T EVER QUESTION ADVICE IN ALL CAPS.
We have a medium sized data center in wyoming and are working to build a large one. We cannot find qualified staff, no one will take the lower pay (no state income tax) or even move up here, it is a serious problem.
My dad lives out that way. Tell us who you are, and I just might apply...
Sounds like an issue with their marketing, then. They did say it, though, e.g.:
FAIRFAX, VA – MAY 18, 2005... ...
“I have always been a big fan of Games Workshop and Warhammer and I am thrilled that we are now able to work on one of the world’s greatest and most enduring fantasy gaming brands,” said Mark Jacobs, CEO and President of Mythic Entertainment, Inc. “Our goal for this first of what we hope will be many Warhammer-based games is to create the single-greatest RvR-based MMORPGs in the industry.”
Consequently, this is why I avoided it as well. I did try to get into the beta, just to see how deep it would go, because 'based' could mean a lot of things. But they kept on saying things like, "There will be no 'kill ten rats quests', everything will support the war effort." Having played a lot of PvP-style RPGs, I know well that something as simple as selecting the wrong server or class can completely ruin any hopes of enjoying it.
The question is not an attack, nor is it rhetorical.
I appreciate what you're trying to do, Beep, but you're barking up the wrong tree. There is sufficient material to be curious about the topic at hand, and the answer could well lead into interesting conversation.
If you doubt my sincerity, my posting history exists for your further research.
This particular use of rigorous logic serves no useful purpose.
Judge me however you wish, but the question is valid on it's face:
Knowing the two features you hated were amongst the only distinctions of this title, why did you attempt it?
Answers could include:
A) Lack of research
B) Hopefulness that they'd change their minds
C) Peer pressure
Lots of things, really.
Why'd you buy it in the first place? Weren't they pretty up front with both of these facts from the get-go?
Yep. Less cluttered and faster.
Is busybox also just a 'less cluttered and faster' Linux, then?
Actually, if you define 0.999... as having an infinite number of decimal points, then it is true. And that's how that ellipsis is defined! It means exactly infinite repeating decimals.
This is a logical short-circuit, then. If there are an infinite number of 9's, then you'll never measure the difference between this and '1'. So, for all intents and purposes, assume '1'.
This doesn't seem very impressive, when you look at it that way.
Yes, clearly recent events like the salmonella outbreak in eggs demonstrate how we don't need an HHS. And your posts don't indicate the desperate need for a much better Department of Education.
Even if you could demonstrate a clear, exigent need, that wouldn't put such power within the text of the law.
Oh, and thanks for the insult. Hope you enjoyed it, because we're done.
The best general defense against criminal activity is reduction of poverty (fewer desperate people), and well paid professional police.
This sentiment is what's leading to the erosion of our liberty at an alarming rate.
"reduction of poverty (fewer desperate people)" means a very specific thing - take money from those who have it, and give it those that don't. This behavior has always, always, always resulted in violence, and it amazes me every time I encounter someone who believes otherwise.
"well paid professional police" means tighter oversight by government into our private lives, which is rather what the article is about, is it not?
The end result of a genie granting your wish is the former Soviet Union. Worked out really well for them, didn't it?
Congress can pass laws without presidential approval provided enough of them vote together. Furthermore Congress does have the power to remove the president from office
You, like many of the other respondents, have illogically created a scenario where the People would elect a President with such an agenda, and would support a Congress that opposed him. Why?