Anonymous originated at 4chan, right? So is this 4channers ridiculing other 4channers? Themselves? Or is it just for the lulz, just like everything they do?
Why would a sat phone network care about silly regulations by individual countries? What are they going to do about it? Isn't the entire point that you're not dependent on ground-based infrastructure? That it works wherever you are? The sats are out in space. Make it work in one country, and it works everywhere, as long as you have enough satellites.
No they're not. At best a debit card is equally so, but cash is decidedly *inconvenient* since I need to plan ahead to have it on me, have to carry it around, and for large purchases may have to go into a branch to be able to withdraw enough.
Of course cash is inconvenient for large purchases, but it's incredibly convenient for small ones. And it's the credit card that's at best equally convenient to a debit card. Where I live, debit cards are accepted absolutely everywhere (except in places where they only accept cash), whereas credit cards are much more limited. Credit card transactions also cost more.
It's *substantially* easier to get credit card charges reversed should a card be stolen, than it is to get money put back into your checking account if a debit card goes astray.
But your credit card doesn't even need to be stolen for someone else to be able to use your money. You might not notice, and if you don't check your payments carefully, you might not realise you need to get a payment reversed. This risk is much smaller with debit cards that require a PIN in order to pay.
Decent credit cards will often include things like an additional year of warranty for goods purchased with them, complimentary travel insurance for trips booked with them, points/rewards schemes (though x% "cash back" seems to be more common in the US), airport lounge access and various other perks and bonuses.
Does the credit card company provide those things? If so, you're probably still paying for it through higher credit card costs. Credit cards aren't cheap.
Both associations mattered, or they would not have existed in the first place. The belief by the credit card companies that Wikileaks was breaking U.S. federal law is why Wikileaks was cut loose.
WikiLeaks is not even in US jurisdiction! And even if they were, it's highly questionable whether what they did would actually be illegal. Whether it really is illegal, is up to the judges, not up to credit card companies. By blocking their account, they're taking the law into their own hands.
It is not illegal to be racist.
Are you honestly saying the KKK never broke the law? Maybe you should google for "Ku Klux Klan crimes".
Because free speech isn't a right that racists have?
Because racism itself is anti-freedom, and the credit card companies choose to associate them with that. That wouldn't have been a problem if they'd simply considered themselves a neutral common carrier, but their actions make it clear they don't. So they explicitly support racism, and object to independent free press.
They can, but they're showing their colors by doing so, and a lot of people don't like what they see.
So, those people, how are a vast minority, are taking the law into their own hands, acting like a lynch mob.
It's the credit card companies who are taking the law into their own hands. Their actions directly hurt the free press. Most people who object to that are not doing anything illegal. It's not just the Anonymous script kiddies who object, you know (in fact, many of them seem to care more about the fight than the goal). Yes, that's a tiny and foolish minority, but the number of people who care about free press and censorship is much bigger than that.
And, isn't it "I am going to attack you because I can and you won't be able to retaliate or defend yourself"? As far as I am concerned, those that are doing the attacks are a bunch of cowards because they would never do this as a stand up fight.
I don't know about that. Several of the Anonymous kids have already been arrested. (They're not that anonymous, apparently.)
Sorry, but that argument went out the window when Wikileaks made it solely about the U.S.
WikiLeaks isn't solely about the US. They've published documents from lots of different countries. It's just that at the moment, the US seems to be leaking a lot of interesting stuff. Maybe you need to wonder why that is. I mean, it's not like the WikiLeaks guys break in and steal stuff. People send it to them.
And, let us not forget that Wikileaks is putting out intellectual property. They don't deserve any more payment than does the RIAA or the MPAA.
What the fuck does that have to do with anything?
I see, so Betty Jo in her mumu who has been interviewed 16 times about the various tornadoes that have leveled her town is the press too, right? They are not the press, any more than Betty Jo is.
Good god, man. Take that head out of your ass and turn on that brain for a change. Your Betty Jo is the subject of the news. WikiLeaks is the messenger of the news. That makes what they do journalism.
Wikileaks is not the media, they are not the press. They have reduced themselves to an anti-American dissemination center for stolen classified information.
You mean just like the New York Times? Just like the people who published the Pentagon Papers? The Watergate scandal? It is the press's job to examine what governments do with a critical eye. It's not their job to only publish what the government approves of, their job is to inform the public about what's really going on. It's true that WikiLeaks is less selective than many others have been and would have been, but the core of what they do is a vital function of the press. WikiLeaks just does it on a larger scale, and with less funds.
They're both more convenient, and less in need of fraud protection (the entire reason credit cards need that is that fraud is ridiculously easy with them; and the protection is why they cost so much). Cash gives me a better feel for how fast I'm spending, whereas my checking account gives me better record keeping. I couldn't care less about point/reward schemes, and I've never heard of my credit card having anything like that anyway. I've never heard of extended warranties merely for using a different payment method either.
The only thing that credit cards make more convenient, is international payment. Especially online.
That's what I thought of when I saw the headline. They thought they could simply reuse Ariane 4 software for the new, bigger, faster Ariana 5 rocket. But some speed was higher, a value overflowed, and all of a sudden, there's nonsense values all over the place. Not good for such a big and expensive rocket.
As far as I can tell, it's just some really stupid brand of trolling by people who have way too much time on their hands. Or maybe they really think somebody out there will read beyond the first sentence and they get some kind of pleasure out of that idea.
Anyway of course it's more important to be prepared to raise kids than to have them at the optimum biological age but your comment about a 49 grand mother being irresponsibly too young is stupid.
Not to mention non-existent. Since I never said 49 was irresponsibly too young. That's just something you're making up. I merely said that if you ask me, 24 is (slightly) too young, because a lot of people aren't really ready for it yet, and by 30, most people are a lot better equipped to raise children. Not to mention that a study showed that late mothers tend to be happiers than early mothers.
TONS of people, actually the huge majority of people, have a job by the age of 24, they are not in college anymore (since most people don't even go to college...) and they can provide for their hypothetical child.
Financially maybe, but a lot of 20-somethings are still figuring out their place and direction in life, what they really want, and also like to have some fun, party, travel, learn, develop themselves, etc. A lot of that is cut short by having children.
Your comment that supposedly attacks the 49 y o grandma on her self-centeredness only points out your own.
You realise you're just making stuff up here, right?
I thought NASA's claim was that phosphor in the DNA was replaced by arsenic. If they only multiply when there's phosphor available, and they don't multiply when there's no phosphor, then how can you possibly deduce that the phosphor in the DNA has been replaced?
I only have mine for online purchases. It's not like they're good for anything else.
There are numerous reasons to prefer credit cards for (nearly) all purchases - convenience, safety, fraud protection, record keeping, points/rewards schemes, associated services (concierge services, extended warranties, etc) are a few.
For online purchases, yes. In other situations, there's always an alternative that's superior in these respects.
The companies are protecting themselves against being associated with a group that many consider to be anti-American. The only thing they are more vulnerable to is attack by groups such as the Wikileaks supporters who are now attacking them.
So instead, they show their association with a racist group to matter, and they show themselves to be anti-freedom. Is that honestly any better?
They would have been much safer if they had taken a neutral stance and only blocked accounts when ordered to do so by a court. By taking a political stance, they're making themselves vulnerable.
They can associate with whom they please.
They can, but they're showing their colors by doing so, and a lot of people don't like what they see. A neutral stance would have been much smarter. Well, unless there's some shady deal with the government behind it, and there probably is.
"This group that hates America is now attacking U.S. companies that have stopped doing business with the group."
It's not about the US, and the companies operate on a global scale. It is about press freedom and a reliable payment infrastructure.
Wikileaks is not the press
Of course they are press. Not conventional established press, but press nonetheless. Their long association with the NY Times and many other newspapers is pretty telling in that regard.
Speaking of which, why are Visa and MasterCard still doing business with those?
By what you call "canceling active services", the companies are protecting themselves.
Against what? They're only making the,selves more vulnerable.
The companies are exercising their freedom of association.
And that's the point. They prefer association with the KKK. That's a political choice, and that deserves to be publicized.
If Wikileaks takes a controversial political stand or makes a very public controversial move, "they should expect repercussions."
Are you somehow trying to suggest that WikiLeaks is not suffering repercussions?
I understand that free press and transparent government are more controversial than racism in China, but why are they considered more controversial in the US?
OpenLeaks is looking to provide information to interested parties, e.g., journalists, whereas WikiLeaks is there to disseminate the information to everyone.
So OpenLeaks is actually less open than WikiLeaks.
Neelie Kroes is simultaneously the only Euro Commissioner that seems to be doing a consistently good job, and one of the few good VVDers that I regularly hear from (VVD the Dutch conservative liberal party; more conservative than liberal lately).
I would caution, though, that the logical extension of that is the famous line, "If you've done nothing wrong, you have nothing to hide," which is patently false when applied to an individual except in very narrow circumstances where it intersects with the rights of other people.
I agree with you there. Regular people are not accountable for all of their actions to the government, but the government is accountable to the people.
It's not so much that all companies are required to do business with WikiLeaks, it's that by canceling active services, they're taking a political stand. And a stand against freedom at that. Consider all the organisations they apparently do approve of in order to do business with them (MasterCard and the KKK is the well-publicised example here).
If a company takes a controversial political stand, they should expect repercussions. I agree that DDoS attacks are stupid. Getting it in the news and boycotting them is much better (but the DDoS attack, even if unsuccessful, will help to get the point in the news).
It's not about hatred of the US, it's about hatred of censorship. Amazon actively supports censorship of the free press. This upsets people who like a free press.
Although to be honest, Amazon isn't nearly as much of a bad guy here as the payment providers: MasterCard, Visa and PayPal. Money should be neutral infrastructure, and on the Net, money means MasterCard, Visa or PayPal.
I'm left to ask: Why Wikileaks? Why not fight for the stack of equally as good social causes and try to stop the mountain of injustice we have? Oh, yeah, cuz this is the hot topic du jour.
Anonymous doesn't fight for stuff. They fight against stuff. Usually oppressive stuff, like Scientology, and in this case it's corporations that hurt free press on behalf of the US government.
There's a known effect causing increased temperatures, and there are observed increased temperatures, and still the burden of proof is on the people who claim the two are related?
If you want to claim these two are not related at all, you need to come up with some pretty strong evidence. If you claim that there are other factors that also play a role, then sure, we can talk.
The "deniers" are claiming there's no relation at all, whereas the scientists are trying to get to the point where they can discuss the various factors that also play a role.
Er Isn't "Sinterklaas" called Santa Claus in English?
Santa Claus certainly draws a lot of inspiration (including his name) from Sinterklaas, but they're notably distinct in several ways: Sinterklaas is celebrated on 5 December, he's dressed as a catholic bishop, and he lives in Spain (not that the historical St Nicolas has ever been there, as he was from Asia Minor, but who cares). He's assisted by a bunch of Zwarte Pieten (Black Petes), which every year results in a discussion about racism and political correctness, which is practically becoming part of the folklore now. Also he's not fat and jolly, but tall and stately. Though he's getting a bit forgetful lately.
Read what I wrote. Yes, science existed long before that, but Popper formalised the scientific method that's currently accepted as such: that theories need to be falsifiable, that supporting evidence doesn't mean much, and that you should be trying to refute the theory in order to support it.
No doubt many of the great scientists of the past did basically just that, but Popper was the guy who wrote it down. And that enables more people to use and apply it.
Simply pushing stuff to the web is not the definition of a journalist. By your definition, EVERYONE who has access to pen/pencil and paper, and especially anyone with a blog, is a journalist. Total bullshit.
Why is that total bullshit? Do you need some sort of certification from the US government before you're a journalist? That would make the entire notion of free press meaningless.
Slashdot Mirror
Anonymous originated at 4chan, right? So is this 4channers ridiculing other 4channers? Themselves? Or is it just for the lulz, just like everything they do?
Why would a sat phone network care about silly regulations by individual countries? What are they going to do about it? Isn't the entire point that you're not dependent on ground-based infrastructure? That it works wherever you are? The sats are out in space. Make it work in one country, and it works everywhere, as long as you have enough satellites.
They're both more convenient, [...]
No they're not. At best a debit card is equally so, but cash is decidedly *inconvenient* since I need to plan ahead to have it on me, have to carry it around, and for large purchases may have to go into a branch to be able to withdraw enough.
Of course cash is inconvenient for large purchases, but it's incredibly convenient for small ones. And it's the credit card that's at best equally convenient to a debit card. Where I live, debit cards are accepted absolutely everywhere (except in places where they only accept cash), whereas credit cards are much more limited. Credit card transactions also cost more.
It's *substantially* easier to get credit card charges reversed should a card be stolen, than it is to get money put back into your checking account if a debit card goes astray.
But your credit card doesn't even need to be stolen for someone else to be able to use your money. You might not notice, and if you don't check your payments carefully, you might not realise you need to get a payment reversed. This risk is much smaller with debit cards that require a PIN in order to pay.
Decent credit cards will often include things like an additional year of warranty for goods purchased with them, complimentary travel insurance for trips booked with them, points/rewards schemes (though x% "cash back" seems to be more common in the US), airport lounge access and various other perks and bonuses.
Does the credit card company provide those things? If so, you're probably still paying for it through higher credit card costs. Credit cards aren't cheap.
Both associations mattered, or they would not have existed in the first place. The belief by the credit card companies that Wikileaks was breaking U.S. federal law is why Wikileaks was cut loose.
WikiLeaks is not even in US jurisdiction! And even if they were, it's highly questionable whether what they did would actually be illegal. Whether it really is illegal, is up to the judges, not up to credit card companies. By blocking their account, they're taking the law into their own hands.
It is not illegal to be racist.
Are you honestly saying the KKK never broke the law? Maybe you should google for "Ku Klux Klan crimes".
Because free speech isn't a right that racists have?
Because racism itself is anti-freedom, and the credit card companies choose to associate them with that. That wouldn't have been a problem if they'd simply considered themselves a neutral common carrier, but their actions make it clear they don't. So they explicitly support racism, and object to independent free press.
So, those people, how are a vast minority, are taking the law into their own hands, acting like a lynch mob.
It's the credit card companies who are taking the law into their own hands. Their actions directly hurt the free press. Most people who object to that are not doing anything illegal. It's not just the Anonymous script kiddies who object, you know (in fact, many of them seem to care more about the fight than the goal). Yes, that's a tiny and foolish minority, but the number of people who care about free press and censorship is much bigger than that.
And, isn't it "I am going to attack you because I can and you won't be able to retaliate or defend yourself"? As far as I am concerned, those that are doing the attacks are a bunch of cowards because they would never do this as a stand up fight.
I don't know about that. Several of the Anonymous kids have already been arrested. (They're not that anonymous, apparently.)
Sorry, but that argument went out the window when Wikileaks made it solely about the U.S.
WikiLeaks isn't solely about the US. They've published documents from lots of different countries. It's just that at the moment, the US seems to be leaking a lot of interesting stuff. Maybe you need to wonder why that is. I mean, it's not like the WikiLeaks guys break in and steal stuff. People send it to them.
And, let us not forget that Wikileaks is putting out intellectual property. They don't deserve any more payment than does the RIAA or the MPAA.
What the fuck does that have to do with anything?
I see, so Betty Jo in her mumu who has been interviewed 16 times about the various tornadoes that have leveled her town is the press too, right? They are not the press, any more than Betty Jo is.
Good god, man. Take that head out of your ass and turn on that brain for a change. Your Betty Jo is the subject of the news. WikiLeaks is the messenger of the news. That makes what they do journalism.
Wikileaks is not the media, they are not the press. They have reduced themselves to an anti-American dissemination center for stolen classified information.
You mean just like the New York Times? Just like the people who published the Pentagon Papers? The Watergate scandal? It is the press's job to examine what governments do with a critical eye. It's not their job to only publish what the government approves of, their job is to inform the public about what's really going on. It's true that WikiLeaks is less selective than many others have been and would have been, but the core of what they do is a vital function of the press. WikiLeaks just does it on a larger scale, and with less funds.
They're both more convenient, and less in need of fraud protection (the entire reason credit cards need that is that fraud is ridiculously easy with them; and the protection is why they cost so much). Cash gives me a better feel for how fast I'm spending, whereas my checking account gives me better record keeping. I couldn't care less about point/reward schemes, and I've never heard of my credit card having anything like that anyway. I've never heard of extended warranties merely for using a different payment method either.
The only thing that credit cards make more convenient, is international payment. Especially online.
Cash, or the debet card for your regular checking account.
Ariane rocket buffer overflow: http://www.ima.umn.edu/~arnold/disasters/ariane.html
That's what I thought of when I saw the headline. They thought they could simply reuse Ariane 4 software for the new, bigger, faster Ariana 5 rocket. But some speed was higher, a value overflowed, and all of a sudden, there's nonsense values all over the place. Not good for such a big and expensive rocket.
As far as I can tell, it's just some really stupid brand of trolling by people who have way too much time on their hands. Or maybe they really think somebody out there will read beyond the first sentence and they get some kind of pleasure out of that idea.
Anyway of course it's more important to be prepared to raise kids than to have them at the optimum biological age but your comment about a 49 grand mother being irresponsibly too young is stupid.
Not to mention non-existent. Since I never said 49 was irresponsibly too young. That's just something you're making up. I merely said that if you ask me, 24 is (slightly) too young, because a lot of people aren't really ready for it yet, and by 30, most people are a lot better equipped to raise children. Not to mention that a study showed that late mothers tend to be happiers than early mothers.
TONS of people, actually the huge majority of people, have a job by the age of 24, they are not in college anymore (since most people don't even go to college...) and they can provide for their hypothetical child.
Financially maybe, but a lot of 20-somethings are still figuring out their place and direction in life, what they really want, and also like to have some fun, party, travel, learn, develop themselves, etc. A lot of that is cut short by having children.
Your comment that supposedly attacks the 49 y o grandma on her self-centeredness only points out your own.
You realise you're just making stuff up here, right?
I thought NASA's claim was that phosphor in the DNA was replaced by arsenic. If they only multiply when there's phosphor available, and they don't multiply when there's no phosphor, then how can you possibly deduce that the phosphor in the DNA has been replaced?
I only have mine for online purchases. It's not like they're good for anything else.
There are numerous reasons to prefer credit cards for (nearly) all purchases - convenience, safety, fraud protection, record keeping, points/rewards schemes, associated services (concierge services, extended warranties, etc) are a few.
For online purchases, yes. In other situations, there's always an alternative that's superior in these respects.
The companies are protecting themselves against being associated with a group that many consider to be anti-American. The only thing they are more vulnerable to is attack by groups such as the Wikileaks supporters who are now attacking them.
So instead, they show their association with a racist group to matter, and they show themselves to be anti-freedom. Is that honestly any better?
They would have been much safer if they had taken a neutral stance and only blocked accounts when ordered to do so by a court. By taking a political stance, they're making themselves vulnerable.
They can associate with whom they please.
They can, but they're showing their colors by doing so, and a lot of people don't like what they see. A neutral stance would have been much smarter. Well, unless there's some shady deal with the government behind it, and there probably is.
"This group that hates America is now attacking U.S. companies that have stopped doing business with the group."
It's not about the US, and the companies operate on a global scale. It is about press freedom and a reliable payment infrastructure.
Wikileaks is not the press
Of course they are press. Not conventional established press, but press nonetheless. Their long association with the NY Times and many other newspapers is pretty telling in that regard.
Speaking of which, why are Visa and MasterCard still doing business with those?
By what you call "canceling active services", the companies are protecting themselves.
Against what? They're only making the,selves more vulnerable.
The companies are exercising their freedom of association.
And that's the point. They prefer association with the KKK. That's a political choice, and that deserves to be publicized.
If Wikileaks takes a controversial political stand or makes a very public controversial move, "they should expect repercussions."
Are you somehow trying to suggest that WikiLeaks is not suffering repercussions?
I understand that free press and transparent government are more controversial than racism in China, but why are they considered more controversial in the US?
OpenLeaks is looking to provide information to interested parties, e.g., journalists, whereas WikiLeaks is there to disseminate the information to everyone.
So OpenLeaks is actually less open than WikiLeaks.
Neelie Kroes is simultaneously the only Euro Commissioner that seems to be doing a consistently good job, and one of the few good VVDers that I regularly hear from (VVD the Dutch conservative liberal party; more conservative than liberal lately).
I would caution, though, that the logical extension of that is the famous line, "If you've done nothing wrong, you have nothing to hide," which is patently false when applied to an individual except in very narrow circumstances where it intersects with the rights of other people.
I agree with you there. Regular people are not accountable for all of their actions to the government, but the government is accountable to the people.
It's not so much that all companies are required to do business with WikiLeaks, it's that by canceling active services, they're taking a political stand. And a stand against freedom at that. Consider all the organisations they apparently do approve of in order to do business with them (MasterCard and the KKK is the well-publicised example here).
If a company takes a controversial political stand, they should expect repercussions. I agree that DDoS attacks are stupid. Getting it in the news and boycotting them is much better (but the DDoS attack, even if unsuccessful, will help to get the point in the news).
It's not about hatred of the US, it's about hatred of censorship. Amazon actively supports censorship of the free press. This upsets people who like a free press.
Although to be honest, Amazon isn't nearly as much of a bad guy here as the payment providers: MasterCard, Visa and PayPal. Money should be neutral infrastructure, and on the Net, money means MasterCard, Visa or PayPal.
I'm left to ask: Why Wikileaks? Why not fight for the stack of equally as good social causes and try to stop the mountain of injustice we have? Oh, yeah, cuz this is the hot topic du jour.
Anonymous doesn't fight for stuff. They fight against stuff. Usually oppressive stuff, like Scientology, and in this case it's corporations that hurt free press on behalf of the US government.
No, this sonic screwdriver will not help you pick up chicks.
It might help you undo their bra, though.
There's a known effect causing increased temperatures, and there are observed increased temperatures, and still the burden of proof is on the people who claim the two are related?
If you want to claim these two are not related at all, you need to come up with some pretty strong evidence. If you claim that there are other factors that also play a role, then sure, we can talk.
The "deniers" are claiming there's no relation at all, whereas the scientists are trying to get to the point where they can discuss the various factors that also play a role.
Er Isn't "Sinterklaas" called Santa Claus in English?
Santa Claus certainly draws a lot of inspiration (including his name) from Sinterklaas, but they're notably distinct in several ways: Sinterklaas is celebrated on 5 December, he's dressed as a catholic bishop, and he lives in Spain (not that the historical St Nicolas has ever been there, as he was from Asia Minor, but who cares). He's assisted by a bunch of Zwarte Pieten (Black Petes), which every year results in a discussion about racism and political correctness, which is practically becoming part of the folklore now. Also he's not fat and jolly, but tall and stately. Though he's getting a bit forgetful lately.
Read what I wrote. Yes, science existed long before that, but Popper formalised the scientific method that's currently accepted as such: that theories need to be falsifiable, that supporting evidence doesn't mean much, and that you should be trying to refute the theory in order to support it.
No doubt many of the great scientists of the past did basically just that, but Popper was the guy who wrote it down. And that enables more people to use and apply it.
What are those legal definitions, and by whom have they been accepted?
Honestly, I think anyone who dedicates his life to gathering and publishing news that he wasn't personally involved in, counts as a journalist.
Which journalists?
Simply pushing stuff to the web is not the definition of a journalist. By your definition, EVERYONE who has access to pen/pencil and paper, and especially anyone with a blog, is a journalist. Total bullshit.
Why is that total bullshit? Do you need some sort of certification from the US government before you're a journalist? That would make the entire notion of free press meaningless.