I honestly don't understand the need for "citation" since its common knowledge and widely reported by every news media. Period. Such a statement simply means you don't know the most basic of information on the subject. Furthermore, the ONLY reason the second war leaks had redacted named is because media shook their fingers at him for releasing completely underacted materials the first time.
I'm completely amazed at how little people actually know about the people they are actively defending. The simple fact is, Assange is a weird propagandist and has no problems lying and using propaganda to further his personal agendas. Sadly, most of the most popular wikileaks videos released are half truths, lies, and pure propaganda.
If you go around a neighborhood stating I committed heresy against Allah in the Middle East, chances are extremely high I'll be murdered and/or arrested. There has even been recent stories of this exact thing taking place against Christians. And guess what, they were arrested. When finally released, the neighbors are still insisting they plan on murdering the Christians. The Christians say its not true and its a vendetta.
The simple fact is, if you make public that you are helping the the Americans, in many places, that alone is enough to result in the murder your family. Its factually happened MANY times. Its well documented. To then close your eyes and imagine what is a fairly high risk for informers and collaborators offered zero risk, and is therefore not hypocrisy, is delusion at best.
Your example is further made all the more ridicules because its not common for mob justice to take place in first world countries anymore. Whereas in the Middle East, its not uncommon at all.
Basically, there isn't a single point of contention which has any credibility here.
No, not according to international humanitarian law. Civilians are almost never a legitimate target, it is almost always illegal to fire with the intent of hitting a civilian.
But that's not what happened. Period.
People with guns around people who look like they have RPG (or some type of launcher), oddly and very suspiciously poking their head around corners are if attempting to acquire a target. Completely legal. Is it a tragedy? Absolutely! Was it horrible? Was it war? Absolutely! But everything that happened there was completely legal - contrary to the propaganda pushed by Julian Assange and Wikileaks. Now some of the other video's they've released, is violating not only US ROE but international law. Its just that the video which seems to get everyone so upset, is in fact, a completely legal example of the horrors of war.
As for the rest - being in direct proximity of people with weapons (as there was), who appear to be a collective group (as happened), absolutely does make you a completely legal target.
You're right. The reasonable expectation is for people to go out of their way to troll moderate and remain ignorant.
But considering its all in this thread, you'd have to be a really lazy piece of shit to not even bother. I wonder if this is the largest single troll moderation that has ever happened on slashdot before. The number of ignorant people who insist on remaining dumb and ignorant is amazing.
Put it back into original context. Its crazy how many people, like you, can't read and understand what they read. Its makes you all look completely fucking stupid. The fact your post was moderated, "insightful" for being completely off topic, is beyond stupid. Troll moderation of the completely stupid and ignorant. They'll do anything to maintain their illusion of knowledge - which is really lies and ignorance. Why facts scare the shit out of people like you is a complete mystery to me.
If you bother to place it back into proper context (which you attempt to destroy; as others have done - see other replies - all saying the exact same pointless and out of context thing), you have absolutely no point. Apology accepted.
The fact you can't be bothered to read the surrounding comments which all say the same off topic crap you say, only further casts you in an extremely poor light.
Revisionist history much? Obviously since you just did. Its is down right scary how many blind, ignorant followers he has despite not knowing anything he's actually said or done. Your ignorance and willingness to be used as a dumb tool, and others like you, is really scary. Seriously.
Place it back into original context. Does anyone actually fucking read?!?!?
THE ACTUAL CONTEXT IS: Its wrong to publish Julian's private information. There's a difference. Julian has posted massive private information which could have resulted in the deaths of others. When questioned about it, his response was, the means justify the ends. He then goes full circle, but doesn't seem to realize he's damning everyone for doing exactly what he, himself, is does and waving a finger at.
Look at my other posts and you'll find a link to a YouTube documentary. And its a very pro-wikileaks, pro-Assange documentary and yet if you watch it was a critical eye, he's a fucking hypocritical nut job.
Come back to reality and put it back into proper context; which you constantly insist on destroying.
Context: Its not right to divulge his private information. But Julian does it on a massive scale without any regard for their safety.
Then you go off down a false path, attempting to not see the hypocrisy here. It doesn't matter one bit if anyone was actually harmed. The FACTS are, Julian has twice released massive information which has outed people where the potential stakes are much, much higher. Furthermore, Julian's reaction was basically, the end justifies the means.
Check my other post for the link to YouTube where a critical eye can easily spot is hypocrisy. Not hard to see why so many are distancing themselves from him.
Not only was the video misrepresented, it was edited.
The facts are: o Children are not uncommonly shooting at soldiers. Children commonly have weapons in hand by the age or six.
o Vans are commonly used to take terrorists and weapons from the scene. All too often, "civilian deaths" are misreported because their weapons were taken before soldiers can arrive to secure the area. That's why the had to obtain permission to engage the van - and got it.
o The reaction you saw is in fact, the common reaction of morale people forced to kill others. Its extremely well documented. Those who don't act as such, commonly have extreme mental health issues as a result of not venting with such bravado.
o In a war zone, if you are seen with others who have weapons, YOU ARE A LEGAL TARGET. In this case, HE WAS A LEGAL TARGET.
o The screens in the Apache are actually fairly small. Contrary to comments by others, the resolution is actually fairly poor. Cobra's actually have far better resolution - especially at night (not a factor here). Poor resolution in combination with a small screen in combination with the footage which was specifically edited out means Wikileaks was purposely pushing an anti-war, anti-American agenda via world class propaganda.
The above combined with the Average ignorance for war, editing, lies, so on and so on, they created a massive reaction. The simple fact is, if you believe the story provided by Julian Assange, for that specific video, you are now a propagandist's tool. The fact is, he lied to you and used you.
Bullshit. That's a complete lie. Informant's names were absolutely not redacted in the first massive release. The names were redacted in the second release ONLY because everyone believed it was wrong to do what he did the first time. And for the record, after the second release, in an interview, he was unrepentant about the disclosures on the first release, basically saying the end justifies the means.
At what point are you going to stop being a propagandists tool? Right back at you, sir.
So now stating the COMPLETE facts makes me a propagandist tool? What an ignorant tool you are.
Read my other post, which provides a link to the source material. But I'm sure you'll still refuse to apologize, or even admit you're a tool, even though the source is Julian Assange himself.
Please re-read. You clearly didn't not understand what you read. The context is that private information should not be disclosed, but only when it pertains to Julian Assanage. Where I said:
They DO divulge personal private information which can get informants and their families killed.
You then go on about idiotic stuff which was never said in an attempt to completely ignore the fact that Julian Assanage, himself, proves he's hypocritical - as well as others who blindly support his hypocrisy by such statements that his privacy is somehow different from other's privacy, whereby it actually matters far, far more.
My source is Mr. Julian Assange. Check out my other post which links to anther post, which has a link to a YouTube documentary in which Julian talks in detail. "Killing people is fun." - Jullian Assange My other post properly frames the context.
Wikileaks doesn't divulge personal private information of an individual's sex affairs.
Get a grip on reality. They DO divulge personal private information which can get informants and their families killed. Wikileaks, to date, has done so TWICE ON A MASSIVE SCALE. Given an option, I'm sure the informants would rather have their bedroom secretes released rather than the fact they informed on murderers.
Do you seriously not see any difference between the privacy of an individual and the transparency of government/corporate dealings?
You mean like the privacy of the people who are known as informants? And embassies and embassidors where transparency is absolutely not possible to do their job? Or how about the the willful misrepresentation of leaked military videos?
At what point are you going to stop being a propagandists tool?
Recently watched a documentary about Wikileaks and Julian Assange. My favorite Julian Assange quote is now, "Why do it? Killing people is fun." While he said it talking about the only possible motive for military people (soldiers on the ground), the fact is, he honestly believes, "killing people is fun." That's a seriously sick person. The fact is, those in the mental health community will tell you Julian's assessment has absolutely no basis is fact or reality; which further stresses he is projecting his own mentality that, "kill is fun." I also enjoyed the part where he hypocritically states that governments are wrong for doing exactly what he's doing, but its okay because he's not them (paraphrasing) and that furthermore, the means justify the end - so long as its him and not soldiers or the military. Again, a seriously hypocritical, deranged person.
Not hard to see why Wikileaks has discarded him and why some are so willing to get distance between themselves and the fucked up person known as Julian Assange. Some are even starting whole new leak organizations so as to completely cut ties between themselves and the deranged and mentally imbalanced Julian Assange.
Julian Assange is likely the best propagandist machine known to the world since the rise of the third reich. No joke. One of the videos which really catapulted him/them into fame is completely out of context and provided by absolutely no back story to properly stage it. In doing so, they provided propaganda (less than half of the actual story) and no meaningful information or facts. Basically this is what is called lies by omission. You can argue it was the media's job to properly collect facts and back story, but it doesn't help that he purposely paints and factually false picture to the world. This is what is called propaganda. So where are the leaks about wikileaks lying at worst and misleading at best?
Meanwhile, some of the lessor known videos (also viewable in the documentary above) should have taken center stage. Contrary to the propaganda and massive ignorance associated with one of the well known videos (reporter/helicopter gunships), some of the others actually do depict war crimes and violations of the Geneva Convention. And yet what got people upset was war ignorantly framed for purely propaganda's sake.
Wikileaks has no credibility at this point for anyone who believes otherwise is ignorantly working as a tool for propaganda and Assange's agenda. Basically, anyone who still believes Assange has credibility is a tool.
I very much hope replacements for Wikileaks become visible very soon and that they are capable of doing what Assange managed to completely destroy and discredit in a matter of months.
The studies did not conflate piracy with free software.
Android is now, or will very soon be, the best selling smartphone platform, and it already beats Apple's iOS (or whatever its called) in adoption.
Right, but it doesn't change anything.
In fact, Android phones appeal to a larger market segment than Apple's offering.
You're confusing accessibility with desirability.
The rest of your comments are strictly fictional. The facts are, Linux has LOTS of pirates. The facts are, Android and even more pirates. The facts are, its widely believed those pirates largely interesect with the core Linux group. Early Android statistics indicate the first to take up and champion Android were in fact, highly technical Linux users. So nothing here is really surprising.
Lastly, increases or numbers doesn't change percentages.
I've read three studies over the last several years which more or less (slight variance in each study) which support the numbers given. Roughly, up to 50% piracy on Windows. Up to 80% piracy on Linux. And up to 20% piracy on OSX.
So its easy to see why Linux has a reputation of being associated with socialistic, anti-capitalistic, freeloading, people. For what its worth, Android (which is Linux based and attracts the same people largely because it is Linux), has once again vindicated these studies. Piracy is through the roof on Android and about the only way, by far, most developers can make money is by embedded ads. Where as in stark contrast, the iPhone/OSX ecosystem is thriving and growing; largely without ads.
The incompetence of pirates is actually making Google cream their pants.
With the civilians its perhaps excusable because they would be there strictly for their expertise but would likely still have had some screening. Even with the civilians there would be the exception; meaning they would do well under survival pressures. Furthermore only the most competent military people would be there with perhaps only a tiny minority as the exception (inverse of the civilians). But the show seems to have nothing but inept people who crumble under pressure and can't even follow the most basic of military training or doctrine.
You've hit the nail on the head but failed to realize that this is probably EXACTLY how real humans would act in this situation.
Maybe the civilians, but not for the military people. For the military people to be there likely means they would be there for exactly the reasons they are not like the civilians.
Don't tell me you have never been faced with a situation where you had a right and wrong decision and you chose the wrong decision for personal/emotional reasons.
Never? I dunno. The vast majority of the time? Absolutely I would do what needed to be done. Then again, that's also my personality. I tend to be the type that can separate emotion from duty; as would the military leaders in this situation.
Smokers do this every day.
Not really. Smokers are not in a situation where they are saying, if I smoke this, I might die a few minutes later. That's basically Russian Roulette and you might have noticed its not very popular.
I must admit I was off-put by the first season but the recent episodes are starting to gel better and they actually have a "mission" even if it is chasing after ancient static noise.
I agree. I realize most shows have a pretty rough first season; with trying to work out characters and plot and get some feedback. That's the only reason I've checked out season two. Just the same, while season two has much more merit, they've been unable to address any of their core flaws, which consistently destroy the show for the reasons I previously outlined.
I think they should give it at least one more season to flesh out all of the plot elements they've set in motion to see if they can improve viewership.
They probably would have if the first season hadn't been such a complete flop. They've basically chased away everyone but the die-hards, such as you and me. And getting those viewers back would require several more seasons with really good material. And at this rate, there is absolutely nothing which suggests they have, "really good material." Which means a huge gamble on an unknown from the studio. By both of our own admission, we're basically hoping they can pull it off even though realistically, there isn't much reason to assume they can.
That's a great premise to defend some of the horrible writing, but it quickly breaks down once you apply even a modest amount of critical review.
He's such a wrong leader that he's been selected to travel to one of the most important events within a super secret, most important project known to man kind. Really? In such a situation, even the worst would still be far better than average - and most here border of flat out ineptitude.
In that situation you might have people make decisions which seemed bad after the fact, but these are bad decisions both before and after for absolutely no reason other than to create a poor story in hopes of hiding a poor writing style.
I actually believe most of the acting is okay. The primary problems I've seen is when the actors have had problems choking out some of the horrible lines and idiotic sub plots.
Universe could have worked if they had decided that details such as plot and story arch mattered. But rather than do that, they decided that they'd be dumb and trendy and follow JJ Abram's poor plot style; which fails to deliver almost every time. Ultimately, the "just make shit up every episode and the viewers will believe you're really fucking deep and mysterious", is what ultimately doomed Universe.
Slashdot Mirror
I honestly don't understand the need for "citation" since its common knowledge and widely reported by every news media. Period. Such a statement simply means you don't know the most basic of information on the subject. Furthermore, the ONLY reason the second war leaks had redacted named is because media shook their fingers at him for releasing completely underacted materials the first time.
But if every news outlet in the world isn't enough for you, you can hear Assange comment on the fact that he really doesn't care if he put people in danger because the ends justify the means.
I'm completely amazed at how little people actually know about the people they are actively defending. The simple fact is, Assange is a weird propagandist and has no problems lying and using propaganda to further his personal agendas. Sadly, most of the most popular wikileaks videos released are half truths, lies, and pure propaganda.
"Killing people is fun." - Julian Assange
Another example of massive stupidity.
If you go around a neighborhood stating I committed heresy against Allah in the Middle East, chances are extremely high I'll be murdered and/or arrested. There has even been recent stories of this exact thing taking place against Christians. And guess what, they were arrested. When finally released, the neighbors are still insisting they plan on murdering the Christians. The Christians say its not true and its a vendetta.
The simple fact is, if you make public that you are helping the the Americans, in many places, that alone is enough to result in the murder your family. Its factually happened MANY times. Its well documented. To then close your eyes and imagine what is a fairly high risk for informers and collaborators offered zero risk, and is therefore not hypocrisy, is delusion at best.
Your example is further made all the more ridicules because its not common for mob justice to take place in first world countries anymore. Whereas in the Middle East, its not uncommon at all.
Basically, there isn't a single point of contention which has any credibility here.
No, not according to international humanitarian law. Civilians are almost never a legitimate target, it is almost always illegal to fire with the intent of hitting a civilian.
But that's not what happened. Period.
People with guns around people who look like they have RPG (or some type of launcher), oddly and very suspiciously poking their head around corners are if attempting to acquire a target. Completely legal. Is it a tragedy? Absolutely! Was it horrible? Was it war? Absolutely! But everything that happened there was completely legal - contrary to the propaganda pushed by Julian Assange and Wikileaks. Now some of the other video's they've released, is violating not only US ROE but international law. Its just that the video which seems to get everyone so upset, is in fact, a completely legal example of the horrors of war.
As for the rest - being in direct proximity of people with weapons (as there was), who appear to be a collective group (as happened), absolutely does make you a completely legal target.
You're right. The reasonable expectation is for people to go out of their way to troll moderate and remain ignorant.
But considering its all in this thread, you'd have to be a really lazy piece of shit to not even bother. I wonder if this is the largest single troll moderation that has ever happened on slashdot before. The number of ignorant people who insist on remaining dumb and ignorant is amazing.
Umm...how about EVERY NEWS MEDIA OUTLET? THIS IS FACT AND EXTREMELY, WIDELY DOCUMENTED AND PUBLISHED. THIS IS COMMON KNOWLEDGE.
Or you can listen Assange comment on it and basically state the ends justify the means, while being complete cold and indifferent to the people he potentially put in harms way.
Put it back into original context. Its crazy how many people, like you, can't read and understand what they read. Its makes you all look completely fucking stupid. The fact your post was moderated, "insightful" for being completely off topic, is beyond stupid. Troll moderation of the completely stupid and ignorant. They'll do anything to maintain their illusion of knowledge - which is really lies and ignorance. Why facts scare the shit out of people like you is a complete mystery to me.
If you bother to place it back into proper context (which you attempt to destroy; as others have done - see other replies - all saying the exact same pointless and out of context thing), you have absolutely no point. Apology accepted.
The fact you can't be bothered to read the surrounding comments which all say the same off topic crap you say, only further casts you in an extremely poor light.
This is a great example of propaganda and massive troll moderation. FACT IS POSTED. TROLLS ATTEMPT TO CENSOR AND MANIPULATE.
Revisionist history much? Obviously since you just did. Its is down right scary how many blind, ignorant followers he has despite not knowing anything he's actually said or done. Your ignorance and willingness to be used as a dumb tool, and others like you, is really scary. Seriously.
Place it back into original context. Does anyone actually fucking read?!?!?
THE ACTUAL CONTEXT IS:
Its wrong to publish Julian's private information. There's a difference.
Julian has posted massive private information which could have resulted in the deaths of others. When questioned about it, his response was, the means justify the ends. He then goes full circle, but doesn't seem to realize he's damning everyone for doing exactly what he, himself, is does and waving a finger at.
Look at my other posts and you'll find a link to a YouTube documentary. And its a very pro-wikileaks, pro-Assange documentary and yet if you watch it was a critical eye, he's a fucking hypocritical nut job.
"Killing people is fun" - Julian Assange.
Come back to reality and put it back into proper context; which you constantly insist on destroying.
Context:
Its not right to divulge his private information.
But Julian does it on a massive scale without any regard for their safety.
Then you go off down a false path, attempting to not see the hypocrisy here. It doesn't matter one bit if anyone was actually harmed. The FACTS are, Julian has twice released massive information which has outed people where the potential stakes are much, much higher. Furthermore, Julian's reaction was basically, the end justifies the means.
Check my other post for the link to YouTube where a critical eye can easily spot is hypocrisy. Not hard to see why so many are distancing themselves from him.
Not only was the video misrepresented, it was edited.
The facts are:
o Children are not uncommonly shooting at soldiers. Children commonly have weapons in hand by the age or six.
o Vans are commonly used to take terrorists and weapons from the scene. All too often, "civilian deaths" are misreported because their weapons were taken before soldiers can arrive to secure the area. That's why the had to obtain permission to engage the van - and got it.
o The reaction you saw is in fact, the common reaction of morale people forced to kill others. Its extremely well documented. Those who don't act as such, commonly have extreme mental health issues as a result of not venting with such bravado.
o In a war zone, if you are seen with others who have weapons, YOU ARE A LEGAL TARGET. In this case, HE WAS A LEGAL TARGET.
o The screens in the Apache are actually fairly small. Contrary to comments by others, the resolution is actually fairly poor. Cobra's actually have far better resolution - especially at night (not a factor here). Poor resolution in combination with a small screen in combination with the footage which was specifically edited out means Wikileaks was purposely pushing an anti-war, anti-American agenda via world class propaganda.
The above combined with the Average ignorance for war, editing, lies, so on and so on, they created a massive reaction. The simple fact is, if you believe the story provided by Julian Assange, for that specific video, you are now a propagandist's tool. The fact is, he lied to you and used you.
Informants names are redacted.
Bullshit. That's a complete lie. Informant's names were absolutely not redacted in the first massive release. The names were redacted in the second release ONLY because everyone believed it was wrong to do what he did the first time. And for the record, after the second release, in an interview, he was unrepentant about the disclosures on the first release, basically saying the end justifies the means.
At what point are you going to stop being a propagandists tool?
Right back at you, sir.
So now stating the COMPLETE facts makes me a propagandist tool? What an ignorant tool you are.
Read my other post, which provides a link to the source material. But I'm sure you'll still refuse to apologize, or even admit you're a tool, even though the source is Julian Assange himself.
Please re-read. You clearly didn't not understand what you read. The context is that private information should not be disclosed, but only when it pertains to Julian Assanage. Where I said:
They DO divulge personal private information which can get informants and their families killed.
You then go on about idiotic stuff which was never said in an attempt to completely ignore the fact that Julian Assanage, himself, proves he's hypocritical - as well as others who blindly support his hypocrisy by such statements that his privacy is somehow different from other's privacy, whereby it actually matters far, far more.
Clearly some time before you, Mr Fox News.
My source is Mr. Julian Assange. Check out my other post which links to anther post, which has a link to a YouTube documentary in which Julian talks in detail. "Killing people is fun." - Jullian Assange My other post properly frames the context.
And here's more of my rant talking about Assange's lack of credibility and his propaganda machine. Remember, according to Julian Assange, "Killing people is fun."
Wikileaks doesn't divulge personal private information of an individual's sex affairs.
Get a grip on reality. They DO divulge personal private information which can get informants and their families killed. Wikileaks, to date, has done so TWICE ON A MASSIVE SCALE. Given an option, I'm sure the informants would rather have their bedroom secretes released rather than the fact they informed on murderers.
Do you seriously not see any difference between the privacy of an individual and the transparency of government/corporate dealings?
You mean like the privacy of the people who are known as informants? And embassies and embassidors where transparency is absolutely not possible to do their job? Or how about the the willful misrepresentation of leaked military videos?
At what point are you going to stop being a propagandists tool?
Recently watched a documentary about Wikileaks and Julian Assange. My favorite Julian Assange quote is now, "Why do it? Killing people is fun." While he said it talking about the only possible motive for military people (soldiers on the ground), the fact is, he honestly believes, "killing people is fun." That's a seriously sick person. The fact is, those in the mental health community will tell you Julian's assessment has absolutely no basis is fact or reality; which further stresses he is projecting his own mentality that, "kill is fun." I also enjoyed the part where he hypocritically states that governments are wrong for doing exactly what he's doing, but its okay because he's not them (paraphrasing) and that furthermore, the means justify the end - so long as its him and not soldiers or the military. Again, a seriously hypocritical, deranged person.
Not hard to see why Wikileaks has discarded him and why some are so willing to get distance between themselves and the fucked up person known as Julian Assange. Some are even starting whole new leak organizations so as to completely cut ties between themselves and the deranged and mentally imbalanced Julian Assange.
Julian Assange is likely the best propagandist machine known to the world since the rise of the third reich. No joke. One of the videos which really catapulted him/them into fame is completely out of context and provided by absolutely no back story to properly stage it. In doing so, they provided propaganda (less than half of the actual story) and no meaningful information or facts. Basically this is what is called lies by omission. You can argue it was the media's job to properly collect facts and back story, but it doesn't help that he purposely paints and factually false picture to the world. This is what is called propaganda. So where are the leaks about wikileaks lying at worst and misleading at best?
Meanwhile, some of the lessor known videos (also viewable in the documentary above) should have taken center stage. Contrary to the propaganda and massive ignorance associated with one of the well known videos (reporter/helicopter gunships), some of the others actually do depict war crimes and violations of the Geneva Convention. And yet what got people upset was war ignorantly framed for purely propaganda's sake.
Wikileaks has no credibility at this point for anyone who believes otherwise is ignorantly working as a tool for propaganda and Assange's agenda. Basically, anyone who still believes Assange has credibility is a tool.
I very much hope replacements for Wikileaks become visible very soon and that they are capable of doing what Assange managed to completely destroy and discredit in a matter of months.
The studies did not conflate piracy with free software.
Android is now, or will very soon be, the best selling smartphone platform, and it already beats Apple's iOS (or whatever its called) in adoption.
Right, but it doesn't change anything.
In fact, Android phones appeal to a larger market segment than Apple's offering.
You're confusing accessibility with desirability.
The rest of your comments are strictly fictional. The facts are, Linux has LOTS of pirates. The facts are, Android and even more pirates. The facts are, its widely believed those pirates largely interesect with the core Linux group. Early Android statistics indicate the first to take up and champion Android were in fact, highly technical Linux users. So nothing here is really surprising.
Lastly, increases or numbers doesn't change percentages.
How is Linux correlated with piracy?
I've read three studies over the last several years which more or less (slight variance in each study) which support the numbers given. Roughly, up to 50% piracy on Windows. Up to 80% piracy on Linux. And up to 20% piracy on OSX.
So its easy to see why Linux has a reputation of being associated with socialistic, anti-capitalistic, freeloading, people. For what its worth, Android (which is Linux based and attracts the same people largely because it is Linux), has once again vindicated these studies. Piracy is through the roof on Android and about the only way, by far, most developers can make money is by embedded ads. Where as in stark contrast, the iPhone/OSX ecosystem is thriving and growing; largely without ads.
The incompetence of pirates is actually making Google cream their pants.
Exactly!
With the civilians its perhaps excusable because they would be there strictly for their expertise but would likely still have had some screening. Even with the civilians there would be the exception; meaning they would do well under survival pressures. Furthermore only the most competent military people would be there with perhaps only a tiny minority as the exception (inverse of the civilians). But the show seems to have nothing but inept people who crumble under pressure and can't even follow the most basic of military training or doctrine.
I missed a whole seasons and no...I didn't notice.
And here is your geek card!
Stand proud!
You've hit the nail on the head but failed to realize that this is probably EXACTLY how real humans would act in this situation.
Maybe the civilians, but not for the military people. For the military people to be there likely means they would be there for exactly the reasons they are not like the civilians.
Don't tell me you have never been faced with a situation where you had a right and wrong decision and you chose the wrong decision for personal/emotional reasons.
Never? I dunno. The vast majority of the time? Absolutely I would do what needed to be done. Then again, that's also my personality. I tend to be the type that can separate emotion from duty; as would the military leaders in this situation.
Smokers do this every day.
Not really. Smokers are not in a situation where they are saying, if I smoke this, I might die a few minutes later. That's basically Russian Roulette and you might have noticed its not very popular.
I must admit I was off-put by the first season but the recent episodes are starting to gel better and they actually have a "mission" even if it is chasing after ancient static noise.
I agree. I realize most shows have a pretty rough first season; with trying to work out characters and plot and get some feedback. That's the only reason I've checked out season two. Just the same, while season two has much more merit, they've been unable to address any of their core flaws, which consistently destroy the show for the reasons I previously outlined.
I think they should give it at least one more season to flesh out all of the plot elements they've set in motion to see if they can improve viewership.
They probably would have if the first season hadn't been such a complete flop. They've basically chased away everyone but the die-hards, such as you and me. And getting those viewers back would require several more seasons with really good material. And at this rate, there is absolutely nothing which suggests they have, "really good material." Which means a huge gamble on an unknown from the studio. By both of our own admission, we're basically hoping they can pull it off even though realistically, there isn't much reason to assume they can.
That's a great premise to defend some of the horrible writing, but it quickly breaks down once you apply even a modest amount of critical review.
He's such a wrong leader that he's been selected to travel to one of the most important events within a super secret, most important project known to man kind. Really? In such a situation, even the worst would still be far better than average - and most here border of flat out ineptitude.
In that situation you might have people make decisions which seemed bad after the fact, but these are bad decisions both before and after for absolutely no reason other than to create a poor story in hopes of hiding a poor writing style.
I actually believe most of the acting is okay. The primary problems I've seen is when the actors have had problems choking out some of the horrible lines and idiotic sub plots.
Universe could have worked if they had decided that details such as plot and story arch mattered. But rather than do that, they decided that they'd be dumb and trendy and follow JJ Abram's poor plot style; which fails to deliver almost every time. Ultimately, the "just make shit up every episode and the viewers will believe you're really fucking deep and mysterious", is what ultimately doomed Universe.