"The Mercury News' Mike Cassidy reports that women are missing out on lucrative careers in computer science. 'The dearth of women in computing,' writes Cassidy, 'has the potential to slow the U.S. economy,
No they are not, there is no such thing, and I smell bullshit.
If you make up fairy tales, you can put any ending you want on them. That is what is happening here. Women are not missing out, they are choosing to not do certain things. Let's look at a very good reason for this to be the case.
Programmers tend to work horrible and long hours. Most women are choosing to manage life and work together, and not work 60+ hours a week. That is a choice, and I have no issues with them doing so. I used to work 60+ hours a week, and decided I was missing out on too much living to continue. I'm glad more women refuse to work 60 hour weeks, more men should do the same. Your average company does not reward you for the extra work, they simply take advantage of you for doing it.
This is similar to the myth that women on average make less money than men doing the same work. Sure, there is some of the good'ole boy network that does this intentionally, just like certain places won't hire minorities. Those places are extremely rare, and not "normal". If a man works 50 hours a week and a woman works 40, the man does and should make more money. Women on average choose not to do this for various reasons.
Reality is a real drag when you start to look at it, but it's reality. I don't buy this line of shit because that's what it is. It's a piece of trash intended to increase hostilities toward each other and ignore the bigger issues like corruption.
I find the sudo config file format confusing and indeed completely ass-backwards,
I don't think you have tried very hard then. The config file format for sudo is about as straight forward as they come. I would hate to hear what you think of named or sendmail macros. Details of sudo are not the same as the config format, and can be confusing. A little trial and error goes a long way, as does using "visudo" so that you can't make a silly syntax error.
but 30 minutes of googling will give you what like 90% of people using it need to know.
If you read the man page you would give you the same, or better. I think you touch on a bigger problem though, and that is that people depend on Google instead of knowledge today. I'm not blaming or accusing, because with some things I behave exactly the same. We simply have to support too much stuff to be an expert in anything today. Google a quick fix does not give a person any real knowledge.
A book on the subject doesn’t seem like a bad idea though. Sudo probably isn’t going to change much, and sometimes it’s nice to have everything together and consistently presented vice relying on random snippets around the web.
That part I agree with, but remember we are not reading the book to do what 90% of the people do (which is add people to the sudo group in Debian or wheel group in Redhat). I'm not sure he covers it, but I had a nice long write up a long time ago regarding sending X11 displays through sudo. Most users don't, so it's not an issue. We had a vended application that required a display to install, so had to run a display. That was mostly complex because of Xauthority, not sudo.
As stated previously, my position is the same as the legal process. I continue to believe that you simply ignore anything that might cause a threat to your opinion. Peace!
The Legal process is the Legal process. This is a defined process, go get a book and study. It's based primarily on the Scientific Method, but considers much broader parts of Philosophy called Justice and Morality. Your method does not match! As soon as you have to invent reasons to think your way, it should be obvious that something is wrong. I gave the legal logic and you claimed your imagination was better. To you, I'm sure it is.
The reasoning that you claim I need to provide is exactly the legal process. The process in most European countries (Sweden, UK, German, etc..) is identical to the US. The rule of law has been defined and refined over hundreds of years and is based on Logic and Reason. Your version of the world requires lots of imagination and make believe. You are claiming that your imagination supersedes facts and law. I already pointed out that C and D so not exist. No more conversation needed here, have fun in your fantasy.
You are quoting a person know to have committed perjury several times, because you believe them? Do you also think Bill Clinton is a great example of a person we should listen to about equality? You think GW Bush is a good guy to listen to about honesty? The people mentioned have all committed perjury. I don't give a rats ass that a corrupt court let Clinton off when he was brought to trial, which obviously set the precedent for Bush and Obama not having to face impeachment. Listen to the facts and ignore what a corrupt court said, and it's obvious that they are all liars.
Known liars don't magically or suddenly become honest folks. Sometimes on their death beds sure, but now while they are alive. There is no reason for me to comment beyond pointing out the fact that the person you claim to believe is a known liar. He has manipulated public trust on more than one occasion, lied to congress, lied to media, and lied to the citizens he is supposed to be working for and defending.
If you truly believe there are multiple definitions of "corruption" you should go get medication immediately. That level of delusion is worthy of scientific experimentation and probably a lobotomy. There is ONE definition of corruption and one definition for a Lie.
Wrong, sorry but you need to think in more reasonable terms. In order to get the extradition order there must be a valid case. You are putting the A and B in the wrong order.
Further, you have added C and D which simply do not exist. While it may suite your opinion, it does not suite rational thinking.
Which is exactly how it's organized. The NSA is spying on overseas comms. When it links to a date/time placed/received call stateside, they hand that information to the FBI, and say, "This phone number in the US is talking to some very bad people overseas." The FBI then starts the investigation.
If this was what was happening, people would not have so many problems with it. If you want to claim it _is_ this way then I expect to see people charged with criminal misconduct currently holding offices and not performing their duties as they should. Here are two words for you to review. "Parallel Construction".
Let's assume that everything is on the up and up, and we have nothing to worry about. The orifices in question are recommending to move to a 3 step system. If you call a store that has an employee that has a friend that called a "questionable" country you are within legal rights for monitoring. This is too vague of a definition, yet people think it will fix something. Play 6 degrees of Kevin Bacon and you quickly see that anyone can be associated with a "terrorist" pretty easily.
Second, calling overseas is not bad. "Overseas" is yet another overly broad term. Do they monitor K-mart officials because they do business? Wow, what a convenient term to use! Now if you shop at K-mart you are within 3 steps! Isn't that incredible? (no, don't answer that rhetorical question)
In a post following this one you claim "it's only metadata". Anyone that believes that metadata is "nothing" (or down plays it's significance) is either repeating propaganda or extremely ignorant. You will find few friends here repeating propaganda or making uneducated claims. You can't play down what it is, when we have studied what this data contains and can be used for. We also see the cases of IRS targeting certain groups which warrants a full open inspection of the system.
I get it, it's hard to believe your own government has become corrupt. The truth is that we have become very corrupt, and until we have open investigations and trials we won't know the extent of corruption. The days of arguing for the innocence of America are long gone (The Gulf of Tonkin is a bitch for that delusion, and just the first of many). The arguments we should be pushing today are how we fix the corruption, and how we open offices for inspection, and how we put criminals that have held (and perhaps are holding) public offices on trial.
It was not a criminal trial, so of course the case could not determine guilt. That does not discount or dismiss what was given in that case in the least. The same exact information would be given in a criminal trial if there was to be a trial.
You claimed that a person could not review that evidence to make a determination of guilt or innocence. That claim is invalid now, and was then. One _can_ review that evidence and make a good determination of guilt or innocence.
You keep confusing terminologies which could be the cause of your confusion. case != charge != summary != complete != filed != heard, etc.. All of those things are different legal terms and are not the same and can not be used interchangeably. The only case heard, regarding extradition, contained enough information to determine what the prosecutor "has" for evidence. It also contained the charges alleged by both women. Assange's attorneys filed responses/dispositions to those charges which contained his side. That is all public information. Events leading up to the charges are not "leaked", they were filed and have become public documents by Swedish law.
You don't need the remainder of the case heard, and Assange does not need to be on trial to begin to question the motives for the filed charges nor their authenticity.
I don't care if you want to do the work, or not. You made a false claim originally, and I still state it's false. Confusing terminology does not make it true, and claiming you have to see the exact evidence in order to know what the evidence is remains false.
If you choose to ignore that there are motives for his extradition that have nothing to do with these charges, that is further on you. Denial is a nice place to visit, but I personally don't want to live there.
What you don't see in the cost (why it's cheaper) is that you simply become a cog in the machine. You are tracked, what you see becomes someone else' data, and you lose control to at least some degree. More depending on who is using the data you are providing.
Look, I'm a nerd going way back. I spent lots of time building VR and HPC clusters that were simply mind blowing. Those are external things that are very purposeful. I can tell you that my designs for computation saved the lives of many US soldiers. Tweaking and massaging every part of the machine to get the best performance possible.
Having a pair of company sponsored tracking and monitoring devices on my head does no such good work. It can be used for horrible things as easy as me having a few minutes of feeling cool or sharing a funny view of a street corner. Do you plan to leave them behind when ever you are go into the street, or will you wear them out and potentially help someone monitor people that don't want anything to do with it?
These things go well beyond being a traditional "nerd" who was a mechanic building a beefy roadster to race friends. It's not like transitioning to building a bus or train system where people have a choice to use it. This is like building a one way funnel trap, and you are potentially the sugar in the bottom.
You asked for opinions, and mine is to boycott all of the technology that is being abused or has the potential to be easily abused. Now if Google gave a default opt out and you could only view and track what gave people permission (I.E. Other GoogleGlass users that click a checkbox) my opinion would be different.
Your logic is so utterly broken that it can't be intentional. I doubt very much that you care, but so that others are not tainted by this distorted opinion I'll break things down. As Socrates stated, the goal of dialogue and discourse should be the truth and not manipulation of public opinion. You are a sophist, and I despise your kind.
Go read the Congressional authorization. It should help you through at least some of the fog.
I never mentioned Iraq or Afghanistan, so you intentionally missed the points of Yemen, Pakistan, etc... I'll get to more in a moment.
The war against al Qaida is both legal and Constitutional. If you think it is illegal, then please, where would the Constitution indicate that?
No, it is not legal or Constitutional. al Quaida is not a government or a country, and no war can be waged against non-entities such as this. By your distorted logic, Mexico should be able to kill members of the Hells Angels or Westboro Baptist Church if they felt that their ideology was a threat. Our Government is supposed to be sovereign, go look up the definition. If al Quaida kills someone in Yemen it is not any of our business, but the business of Yemen to capture and prosecute their own criminals. The US has jurisdiction on US soil, not where ever an executive order dictates. This _IS_ your constitution and Law.
The US isn't an imperialist power despite what you think of the current conflict. If it was, why did US troops withdraw from Iraq? Why is there a plan to withdraw from Afghanistan?
The main reason that the US withdrew from Iraq because Iraq demanded they withdraw. Enough US Contractors remain so that the US is still fighting there albeit illegally and not with US Military forces, but mercenary forces. Further, it is well known that the war in Iraq, while sanctioned by Congress, was absolutely based on false premises and fabricated information. Therefor illegal. That someone has not been brought up on charges does not change that statement.
I am not known as a "sock puppet and shill," I am called that by some, generally by the ideologue, the ignorant, the crank, the liar, the fool, and other fellow travelers.
You are absolutely known as a sock puppet and shill. Go read comments to your posts, which themselves are full of distortions just like this one. You have a history of manipulation of data to distort an opinion that backs the currently corrupt US Government. A large majority of the populace of the US understand the current corruption, corruption of media, and illegal actions of the people currently holding offices. A few, like you, try to present this corruption as a good thing which is utterly broken.
So we have a legally declared war being waged with Yemen? How about Pakistan? Ethiopia? Kenya?
We currently have no legally declared war with any of those places.
Pay attention to "Legal", and look up what the Constitution defines. Further, look up what the founders said about the US _NOT_ being an imperialist government.
You either have no knowledge of the Constitution or continually ignore it to promote an agenda, which is why you are known as a sock puppet and shill.
Nope, sadly it's not just EU propaganda. The US media talks about foreigners in the same way. You would think that every drone fired kills plague rats, not humans. Anyone defending this policy should explain a right to trial and jury, and why it does not pertain since due process is a "human right" in the US and not a "citizen right". Propaganda is not new, it's just that so much of it is now coming from places that used to above tyranny I think people are shocked when they see what's under the words.
I'm going to quote you out of order, but the context will remain.
Politics is ONLY about money. Oh, you mean somehow make it so that people can run for office without having any money. Really?
What it has become is not how it was intended, how it was designed, or how it was envisioned. Just like a Religion, people abuse everything to gain power and control. More on this shortly.
Oh, you say, "We'll have government paid for publicity for candidates. That'll get the money out of politics!" Wrong! All that does is let the government decide who can run for government.
Again, you are repeating propaganda and not looking at how we were intended to run.
Why do people even bother to say this?!? WTF does that even mean?
That is the easy question, but lets see if you are willing to do the work. Read Plato's "The Republic", then read the Federalist papers, the US Constitution and Bill of Rights, and study just a bit of history. Everything will become abundantly clear.
I am not going to rewrite several novels worth of material for you, but rather demand that you do the work. I will give a small piece of Plato's The Republic for you. I'm paraphrasing for time and space sake. Don't be lazy, read the _WHOLE_ book!
Socrates: Imagine a government that keeps all of their citizens in a cave. They work all day and come back to a common room at night. A marionette show plays on the wall to entertain them, and their needs are met. Glaucon: To them, life would seem normal. They have no idea that the outside exists so they have nothing to compare their current life with. Socrates: Now imagine a slave gets free one day, and slips out of the cave. What would they feel? Glaucon: I imagine they would be ill. The light would hurt their eyes, but also their astonishment at seeing the world would create a hatred for the people that kept them in a cave. Socrates: The would surely feel pity on those in the cave and try to help them escape. How many would leave the cave? Glaucon: Very few, they have their needs met and some form of entertainment. They would fear the unknown, and would not be easily convinced to leave what they know.
For as long as I have been alive, which probably has you beat, my time has been spent trying to stay out of the cave. People holding power want us in the cave, which is why so few have actually read or studied this brilliant piece of Philosophy from over 2,400 years ago. Most people that claim to have read the book have only read a piece and simply believe what others tell them about the whole work.
The US plunged to 46th on press freedom because they intentionally censor themselves to get favor with the government.
Providing the reason is irrational and illogical, but many people are challenged with critical thinking. Claiming that the media does this voluntarily is one of numerous possible reasons, and not the best by even a long shot. Considering that the government has brought numerous cases against whistle blowers, media outlets, detained and abused protesters, created "free speech zones" so that nobody can hear or see protests, etc... it is a foolish assumption to claim 'they wanted favor' (paraphrased).
This is what happens when media gets monopolized, and why every tyranny in history has controlled media. I remember a speech by commentators long before Murdoch started buying every outlet possible stating the obvious. "What happens when his interests no longer match yours?". If you Google "media monopoly" you will see why this is so bad.
The issue is that people don't want to admit it happened "here" and we are in deep shit. Here is the UK, US, etc... Change is frightening to most of us so we continue a delusion for comfort. Welcome to the cave!
The evidence is explained in the briefs, and no I won't provide it. Search the Swedish court systems and you will, I read the summary probably back a year and a half ago. As mentioned, this is not "the" evidence but a summary of what the prosecutor had to pursue the case as well as the allegations.
i) the case has not been presented;
The case had to be presented in order to get an extradition order. Yes, there is an extradition order which is why he can't leave the embassy.
ii) there has been no "filing" in the criminal case against him;
There are absolutely allegations which have a case filed in courts. See above.
iii) the case - such as exists at the moment - is not open for public inspection (if it were, it would be a bit odd for the pro-Assange websites to be trumpeting leaked documents, surely?)
Swedish courts don't operate like the USSR, but you need to do enough translation to find the case. If you search Slashdot there have been links posted to translated documents in the past (over a year ago?).
I think that if you post a link to the fully presented case it will probably clear things up.
If you want knowledge, go get it! A bit of research will go a long way. To translate and find year(s) old sources requires more energy than I'm willing to give up. I gave a few hints for how to search out the case which is sufficient to get you started. Your choice is to either gain knowledge or argue from ignorance. Hopefully you choose the former, but the later is unfortunately more common.
It is not me that does not understand. The case has been presented, the filing holds the claims and summary of evidence. Assange may not have been interviewed, but the "case" is open for public inspection. You don't need the legal briefs to understand the case, you need the case to understand the case. You don't need to "see" the evidence to know what is being presented.
You don't need to see a railroad to know a train is coming, which is why Assange refuses to return.
Then your logic skills are extremely poor. Not much more I can say, except that perhaps you are simply ignorant of the case and facts in the case.
There are surely circumstances where it "might" have been rape, but not very many that I can think of without inventing scenarios that did not exist. She broke up with him the night before, they were never intimate prior, she refused to have sex with him a few hours earlier, she was mentally handicapped in some way and he was taking advantage of that mental handicap, she was drugged or drunk (and even this is questionable given other factors). None of those things were the case, so it is obviously questionable at best that she was actually raped.
Further, she found out he had sex with another woman while they were in a sexual relationship. This would indicate a motive for revenge/spite further discounting the claim of rape.
Slashdot Mirror
"The Mercury News' Mike Cassidy reports that women are missing out on lucrative careers in computer science. 'The dearth of women in computing,' writes Cassidy, 'has the potential to slow the U.S. economy,
No they are not, there is no such thing, and I smell bullshit.
If you make up fairy tales, you can put any ending you want on them. That is what is happening here. Women are not missing out, they are choosing to not do certain things. Let's look at a very good reason for this to be the case.
Programmers tend to work horrible and long hours. Most women are choosing to manage life and work together, and not work 60+ hours a week. That is a choice, and I have no issues with them doing so. I used to work 60+ hours a week, and decided I was missing out on too much living to continue. I'm glad more women refuse to work 60 hour weeks, more men should do the same. Your average company does not reward you for the extra work, they simply take advantage of you for doing it.
This is similar to the myth that women on average make less money than men doing the same work. Sure, there is some of the good'ole boy network that does this intentionally, just like certain places won't hire minorities. Those places are extremely rare, and not "normal". If a man works 50 hours a week and a woman works 40, the man does and should make more money. Women on average choose not to do this for various reasons.
Reality is a real drag when you start to look at it, but it's reality. I don't buy this line of shit because that's what it is. It's a piece of trash intended to increase hostilities toward each other and ignore the bigger issues like corruption.
I find the sudo config file format confusing and indeed completely ass-backwards,
I don't think you have tried very hard then. The config file format for sudo is about as straight forward as they come. I would hate to hear what you think of named or sendmail macros. Details of sudo are not the same as the config format, and can be confusing. A little trial and error goes a long way, as does using "visudo" so that you can't make a silly syntax error.
but 30 minutes of googling will give you what like 90% of people using it need to know.
If you read the man page you would give you the same, or better. I think you touch on a bigger problem though, and that is that people depend on Google instead of knowledge today. I'm not blaming or accusing, because with some things I behave exactly the same. We simply have to support too much stuff to be an expert in anything today. Google a quick fix does not give a person any real knowledge.
A book on the subject doesn’t seem like a bad idea though. Sudo probably isn’t going to change much, and sometimes it’s nice to have everything together and consistently presented vice relying on random snippets around the web.
That part I agree with, but remember we are not reading the book to do what 90% of the people do (which is add people to the sudo group in Debian or wheel group in Redhat). I'm not sure he covers it, but I had a nice long write up a long time ago regarding sending X11 displays through sudo. Most users don't, so it's not an issue. We had a vended application that required a display to install, so had to run a display. That was mostly complex because of Xauthority, not sudo.
As stated previously, my position is the same as the legal process. I continue to believe that you simply ignore anything that might cause a threat to your opinion. Peace!
The Legal process is the Legal process. This is a defined process, go get a book and study. It's based primarily on the Scientific Method, but considers much broader parts of Philosophy called Justice and Morality. Your method does not match! As soon as you have to invent reasons to think your way, it should be obvious that something is wrong. I gave the legal logic and you claimed your imagination was better. To you, I'm sure it is.
Cya buh bye
The reasoning that you claim I need to provide is exactly the legal process. The process in most European countries (Sweden, UK, German, etc..) is identical to the US. The rule of law has been defined and refined over hundreds of years and is based on Logic and Reason. Your version of the world requires lots of imagination and make believe. You are claiming that your imagination supersedes facts and law. I already pointed out that C and D so not exist. No more conversation needed here, have fun in your fantasy.
You are quoting a person know to have committed perjury several times, because you believe them? Do you also think Bill Clinton is a great example of a person we should listen to about equality? You think GW Bush is a good guy to listen to about honesty? The people mentioned have all committed perjury. I don't give a rats ass that a corrupt court let Clinton off when he was brought to trial, which obviously set the precedent for Bush and Obama not having to face impeachment. Listen to the facts and ignore what a corrupt court said, and it's obvious that they are all liars.
Known liars don't magically or suddenly become honest folks. Sometimes on their death beds sure, but now while they are alive. There is no reason for me to comment beyond pointing out the fact that the person you claim to believe is a known liar. He has manipulated public trust on more than one occasion, lied to congress, lied to media, and lied to the citizens he is supposed to be working for and defending.
If you truly believe there are multiple definitions of "corruption" you should go get medication immediately. That level of delusion is worthy of scientific experimentation and probably a lobotomy. There is ONE definition of corruption and one definition for a Lie.
Wrong, sorry but you need to think in more reasonable terms. In order to get the extradition order there must be a valid case. You are putting the A and B in the wrong order.
Further, you have added C and D which simply do not exist. While it may suite your opinion, it does not suite rational thinking.
Since you did comment, I'm guessing communication skills are not your forte.
Did you choose not to read the whole statement that you quoted and just pick out the piece you wanted?
If A then B, this is very basic reasoning.
Which is exactly how it's organized. The NSA is spying on overseas comms. When it links to a date/time placed/received call stateside, they hand that information to the FBI, and say, "This phone number in the US is talking to some very bad people overseas." The FBI then starts the investigation.
If this was what was happening, people would not have so many problems with it. If you want to claim it _is_ this way then I expect to see people charged with criminal misconduct currently holding offices and not performing their duties as they should. Here are two words for you to review. "Parallel Construction".
Let's assume that everything is on the up and up, and we have nothing to worry about. The orifices in question are recommending to move to a 3 step system. If you call a store that has an employee that has a friend that called a "questionable" country you are within legal rights for monitoring. This is too vague of a definition, yet people think it will fix something. Play 6 degrees of Kevin Bacon and you quickly see that anyone can be associated with a "terrorist" pretty easily.
Second, calling overseas is not bad. "Overseas" is yet another overly broad term. Do they monitor K-mart officials because they do business? Wow, what a convenient term to use! Now if you shop at K-mart you are within 3 steps! Isn't that incredible? (no, don't answer that rhetorical question)
In a post following this one you claim "it's only metadata". Anyone that believes that metadata is "nothing" (or down plays it's significance) is either repeating propaganda or extremely ignorant. You will find few friends here repeating propaganda or making uneducated claims. You can't play down what it is, when we have studied what this data contains and can be used for. We also see the cases of IRS targeting certain groups which warrants a full open inspection of the system.
I get it, it's hard to believe your own government has become corrupt. The truth is that we have become very corrupt, and until we have open investigations and trials we won't know the extent of corruption. The days of arguing for the innocence of America are long gone (The Gulf of Tonkin is a bitch for that delusion, and just the first of many). The arguments we should be pushing today are how we fix the corruption, and how we open offices for inspection, and how we put criminals that have held (and perhaps are holding) public offices on trial.
It was not a criminal trial, so of course the case could not determine guilt. That does not discount or dismiss what was given in that case in the least. The same exact information would be given in a criminal trial if there was to be a trial.
You claimed that a person could not review that evidence to make a determination of guilt or innocence. That claim is invalid now, and was then. One _can_ review that evidence and make a good determination of guilt or innocence.
You keep confusing terminologies which could be the cause of your confusion. case != charge != summary != complete != filed != heard, etc.. All of those things are different legal terms and are not the same and can not be used interchangeably. The only case heard, regarding extradition, contained enough information to determine what the prosecutor "has" for evidence. It also contained the charges alleged by both women. Assange's attorneys filed responses/dispositions to those charges which contained his side. That is all public information. Events leading up to the charges are not "leaked", they were filed and have become public documents by Swedish law.
You don't need the remainder of the case heard, and Assange does not need to be on trial to begin to question the motives for the filed charges nor their authenticity.
I don't care if you want to do the work, or not. You made a false claim originally, and I still state it's false. Confusing terminology does not make it true, and claiming you have to see the exact evidence in order to know what the evidence is remains false.
If you choose to ignore that there are motives for his extradition that have nothing to do with these charges, that is further on you. Denial is a nice place to visit, but I personally don't want to live there.
What you don't see in the cost (why it's cheaper) is that you simply become a cog in the machine. You are tracked, what you see becomes someone else' data, and you lose control to at least some degree. More depending on who is using the data you are providing.
Look, I'm a nerd going way back. I spent lots of time building VR and HPC clusters that were simply mind blowing. Those are external things that are very purposeful. I can tell you that my designs for computation saved the lives of many US soldiers. Tweaking and massaging every part of the machine to get the best performance possible.
Having a pair of company sponsored tracking and monitoring devices on my head does no such good work. It can be used for horrible things as easy as me having a few minutes of feeling cool or sharing a funny view of a street corner. Do you plan to leave them behind when ever you are go into the street, or will you wear them out and potentially help someone monitor people that don't want anything to do with it?
These things go well beyond being a traditional "nerd" who was a mechanic building a beefy roadster to race friends. It's not like transitioning to building a bus or train system where people have a choice to use it. This is like building a one way funnel trap, and you are potentially the sugar in the bottom.
You asked for opinions, and mine is to boycott all of the technology that is being abused or has the potential to be easily abused. Now if Google gave a default opt out and you could only view and track what gave people permission (I.E. Other GoogleGlass users that click a checkbox) my opinion would be different.
Your logic is so utterly broken that it can't be intentional. I doubt very much that you care, but so that others are not tainted by this distorted opinion I'll break things down. As Socrates stated, the goal of dialogue and discourse should be the truth and not manipulation of public opinion. You are a sophist, and I despise your kind.
Go read the Congressional authorization. It should help you through at least some of the fog.
I never mentioned Iraq or Afghanistan, so you intentionally missed the points of Yemen, Pakistan, etc... I'll get to more in a moment.
The war against al Qaida is both legal and Constitutional. If you think it is illegal, then please, where would the Constitution indicate that?
No, it is not legal or Constitutional. al Quaida is not a government or a country, and no war can be waged against non-entities such as this. By your distorted logic, Mexico should be able to kill members of the Hells Angels or Westboro Baptist Church if they felt that their ideology was a threat. Our Government is supposed to be sovereign, go look up the definition. If al Quaida kills someone in Yemen it is not any of our business, but the business of Yemen to capture and prosecute their own criminals. The US has jurisdiction on US soil, not where ever an executive order dictates. This _IS_ your constitution and Law.
The US isn't an imperialist power despite what you think of the current conflict. If it was, why did US troops withdraw from Iraq? Why is there a plan to withdraw from Afghanistan?
The main reason that the US withdrew from Iraq because Iraq demanded they withdraw. Enough US Contractors remain so that the US is still fighting there albeit illegally and not with US Military forces, but mercenary forces. Further, it is well known that the war in Iraq, while sanctioned by Congress, was absolutely based on false premises and fabricated information. Therefor illegal. That someone has not been brought up on charges does not change that statement.
I am not known as a "sock puppet and shill," I am called that by some, generally by the ideologue, the ignorant, the crank, the liar, the fool, and other fellow travelers.
You are absolutely known as a sock puppet and shill. Go read comments to your posts, which themselves are full of distortions just like this one. You have a history of manipulation of data to distort an opinion that backs the currently corrupt US Government. A large majority of the populace of the US understand the current corruption, corruption of media, and illegal actions of the people currently holding offices. A few, like you, try to present this corruption as a good thing which is utterly broken.
So we have a legally declared war being waged with Yemen? How about Pakistan? Ethiopia? Kenya?
We currently have no legally declared war with any of those places.
Pay attention to "Legal", and look up what the Constitution defines. Further, look up what the founders said about the US _NOT_ being an imperialist government.
You either have no knowledge of the Constitution or continually ignore it to promote an agenda, which is why you are known as a sock puppet and shill.
Nope, sadly it's not just EU propaganda. The US media talks about foreigners in the same way. You would think that every drone fired kills plague rats, not humans. Anyone defending this policy should explain a right to trial and jury, and why it does not pertain since due process is a "human right" in the US and not a "citizen right". Propaganda is not new, it's just that so much of it is now coming from places that used to above tyranny I think people are shocked when they see what's under the words.
Oh Noes!! the appeals to emotion are running wild today!!
I'm going to quote you out of order, but the context will remain.
Politics is ONLY about money. Oh, you mean somehow make it so that people can run for office without having any money. Really?
What it has become is not how it was intended, how it was designed, or how it was envisioned. Just like a Religion, people abuse everything to gain power and control. More on this shortly.
Oh, you say, "We'll have government paid for publicity for candidates. That'll get the money out of politics!" Wrong! All that does is let the government decide who can run for government.
Again, you are repeating propaganda and not looking at how we were intended to run.
Why do people even bother to say this?!? WTF does that even mean?
That is the easy question, but lets see if you are willing to do the work. Read Plato's "The Republic", then read the Federalist papers, the US Constitution and Bill of Rights, and study just a bit of history. Everything will become abundantly clear.
I am not going to rewrite several novels worth of material for you, but rather demand that you do the work. I will give a small piece of Plato's The Republic for you. I'm paraphrasing for time and space sake. Don't be lazy, read the _WHOLE_ book!
Socrates: Imagine a government that keeps all of their citizens in a cave. They work all day and come back to a common room at night. A marionette show plays on the wall to entertain them, and their needs are met. Glaucon: To them, life would seem normal. They have no idea that the outside exists so they have nothing to compare their current life with. Socrates: Now imagine a slave gets free one day, and slips out of the cave. What would they feel? Glaucon: I imagine they would be ill. The light would hurt their eyes, but also their astonishment at seeing the world would create a hatred for the people that kept them in a cave. Socrates: The would surely feel pity on those in the cave and try to help them escape. How many would leave the cave? Glaucon: Very few, they have their needs met and some form of entertainment. They would fear the unknown, and would not be easily convinced to leave what they know.
For as long as I have been alive, which probably has you beat, my time has been spent trying to stay out of the cave. People holding power want us in the cave, which is why so few have actually read or studied this brilliant piece of Philosophy from over 2,400 years ago. Most people that claim to have read the book have only read a piece and simply believe what others tell them about the whole work.
The US plunged to 46th on press freedom because they intentionally censor themselves to get favor with the government.
Providing the reason is irrational and illogical, but many people are challenged with critical thinking. Claiming that the media does this voluntarily is one of numerous possible reasons, and not the best by even a long shot. Considering that the government has brought numerous cases against whistle blowers, media outlets, detained and abused protesters, created "free speech zones" so that nobody can hear or see protests, etc... it is a foolish assumption to claim 'they wanted favor' (paraphrased).
This is what happens when media gets monopolized, and why every tyranny in history has controlled media. I remember a speech by commentators long before Murdoch started buying every outlet possible stating the obvious. "What happens when his interests no longer match yours?". If you Google "media monopoly" you will see why this is so bad.
The issue is that people don't want to admit it happened "here" and we are in deep shit. Here is the UK, US, etc... Change is frightening to most of us so we continue a delusion for comfort. Welcome to the cave!
The evidence is explained in the briefs, and no I won't provide it. Search the Swedish court systems and you will, I read the summary probably back a year and a half ago. As mentioned, this is not "the" evidence but a summary of what the prosecutor had to pursue the case as well as the allegations.
i) the case has not been presented;
The case had to be presented in order to get an extradition order. Yes, there is an extradition order which is why he can't leave the embassy.
ii) there has been no "filing" in the criminal case against him;
There are absolutely allegations which have a case filed in courts. See above.
iii) the case - such as exists at the moment - is not open for public inspection (if it were, it would be a bit odd for the pro-Assange websites to be trumpeting leaked documents, surely?)
Swedish courts don't operate like the USSR, but you need to do enough translation to find the case. If you search Slashdot there have been links posted to translated documents in the past (over a year ago?).
I think that if you post a link to the fully presented case it will probably clear things up.
If you want knowledge, go get it! A bit of research will go a long way. To translate and find year(s) old sources requires more energy than I'm willing to give up. I gave a few hints for how to search out the case which is sufficient to get you started. Your choice is to either gain knowledge or argue from ignorance. Hopefully you choose the former, but the later is unfortunately more common.
It is not me that does not understand. The case has been presented, the filing holds the claims and summary of evidence. Assange may not have been interviewed, but the "case" is open for public inspection. You don't need the legal briefs to understand the case, you need the case to understand the case. You don't need to "see" the evidence to know what is being presented.
You don't need to see a railroad to know a train is coming, which is why Assange refuses to return.
You can go read the case and claims just like I did, there is no magic involved in a public case sorry.
Then your logic skills are extremely poor. Not much more I can say, except that perhaps you are simply ignorant of the case and facts in the case.
There are surely circumstances where it "might" have been rape, but not very many that I can think of without inventing scenarios that did not exist. She broke up with him the night before, they were never intimate prior, she refused to have sex with him a few hours earlier, she was mentally handicapped in some way and he was taking advantage of that mental handicap, she was drugged or drunk (and even this is questionable given other factors). None of those things were the case, so it is obviously questionable at best that she was actually raped.
Further, she found out he had sex with another woman while they were in a sexual relationship. This would indicate a motive for revenge/spite further discounting the claim of rape.
You are correct, I confused upstart with systemd in my comment.