Assange also claimed he had a "poison pill" file he'd release if he were arrested.
No he didn't. I challenge you to find a single quote from him saying anything even remotely like that. All the "poison pill" stuff has been speculation by commentators and pundits regarding the insurance.aes256 file - but Assange hasn't said one word about what that file is or what anyone might do with it.
I disagree with a lot -maybe most- of what he's saying, but he does have a brain, and he uses actual arguments, with premises and statements and conclusions and all that stuff. He's fluent in the English language, well read, and rather eloquent.
Newt is clearly a smart guy. But he's also one of the most manipulative, pandering assholes in politics.
For example, he recently wrote, "There should be no mosque near Ground Zero in New York so long as there are no churches or synagogues in Saudi Arabia." Which suggests that he believes American civil rights should be no better than one of the worst regimes in the world. Either he believes that, or he believes enough of the electorate are stupid enough to believe that. Whichever it is, neither is a position worthy of even a shred of respect.
What's needed is gourmet warfare. Set up a bunch of korean restaurants near the dmz, set them to cooking the most tantalizing smelling food and then fire up some kilohorsepower fans to waft the smell over the border and just watch as all of the starving NKs desert for dessert.
Considering you don't watch her or the channel, your opinion is even less meaningful than mine.
Ah, but I have been witness to exactly the same claims like you made from both groups of fans - even message boards where each group of fans "debunks" picayune points from the other show - I am eminently qualified to point out the similarity of random unsupported claims like yours.
Well, guess what sport? You can fact-check Maddow and compare her accuracy to Beck. Guess who will win?
Again, exactly what Glen Beck fans say too, just vice-versa.
This isn't about equivalency between their programs, its about the equivalency of making unsupported statements. It's no more meaningful for you to say Maddow is accurate than it is for some other random nobody to say Beck is accurate.
Of course reality isn't biased. It's a pithy, inflammatory statement, that implies that on average, people leaning to the left are more aware of the world around them.
No, it is more of a poke at the people who use "left" and "liberal" as epithets. Whether the unquantifiable "left" is more in tune with reality or not is unprovable. But the frothing-at-the-mouth types who profess various degrees of contempt for whatever they label as left are, pretty much by definition, less in tune with reality.
It's backwards that they force ACs to always preview before posting. I'd rather the other way around - ACs have an easier chance of looking stupid, but logged in users get a preview. Hell, they could actually use javascript for something useful and auto-preview everytime you pause in your typing.
Either we agree to play by the rules and hold a protest that is respectful of its audience and all the other users of public property, or we participate in civil disobedience to show how serious we are. What we do NOT do, unless we are assholes, is claim a right to disrupt other people's lives without consequence.
Nice philosophy, but that's not the way the law is typically written. You either need a permit within city limits or you don't.
Word processors that remember your name and fill in author metadata for you are sure helpful, aren't they?
That's why I always use suitably generic 'names' for those sorts of things, like:
"Windows User" or "Apple User" or "MSOffice User"
It satisfies the software (some of which absolutely insist that you give them something in order to use it) but if the 'name' ever leaks out it doesn't draw attention to itself and is yet totally generic.
For being too pussy to admit Assange has had greater impact, as noted by the reader vote.
When the runner-up is the leader of Turkey who is only really known for slightly reducing their separation between church and state, you have to take those results with a grain of salt.
You aren't so far off the mark. The idea is precisely to keep secrets from getting in.
The problem is that the security regime is designed for only two kinds of documents "classified" and "not classified" -- there is no concept of "classified but now public knowledge." So their entire playbook is limited to one basic rule: "keep classified information off of unclassified systems." It doesn't matter how it gets there, but if it does get there they have massively annoying procedures they must follow to contain and delete the classified information.
Somebody has gone a little overboard in blocking the entire websites of regular newspapers - but they are probably the same people who have to go through the massive "decontamination" procedure when a classified document ends up on an unclassified system so at the very least they probably see it has saving them a metric fuckton of extra pointless work.
Like I said, his goal is fighting conspiracies. You appear to think he wants 100% transparency, that's a strawman. His goal is improved transparency by forcing organisations to make a choice - make the price of enabling conspiracies through secrecy high enough that organisations will choose the low-overhead of reduced secrecy and thus reduced opportunity for conspiracy.
One would assume that you would hardcode it so if the user loses his password, he can call the company. And trust me, they WILL lose their password.
They should have done something that at least has a chance of verifying physical access to the machine - like making the password a derivative of the serial number. As in luser admin calls HP says he's locked out, HP asks for serial number, runs it through some algorithm only known to HP that outputs the password for that system. That's not perfect either, but it would be a big improvement over harcoding the same damn password for all units.
And moreover, he's unaware that for all his leaks, at least as far as government leaks are concerned, it's all for not. What's going to change? Security protocols and the methods by which they select who has access to data, where and when.
No, that is precisely his goal.
Ultimately wikileaks is not about leaking information. It's about fighting conspiracies. Back in 2006 Assange wrote some essays that explain the motivation for the creation of wikileaks. Assange's operational plan is a form of jiu-jitsu.
He has two core assumptions. First is that authoritarian organisations need secrecy to thrive. Second is that secrecy is a barrier to effective communication. He believes that demonstrating leaks to an authoritarian organisation will cause it to increase its secrecy. Pushed far enough, that secrecy makes the organisation cumbersome and inflexible, allowing opponents to easily get inside its OODA loop. The end result is that the organisation must choose between curbing its authoritarian tendencies or collapse.
You may not agree with his assessments but to say he's unaware of the kind of response wikileaks will provoke is just a total misread of the situation. Understandable since so little of the news coverage bothers to do any better, but still totally off the mark.
Poppycock you whippersnapper. I am 61 years old and...
You'd have to be totally disconnected from reality to think that you and your father are a representative sample. You might as well argue that young people don't like current pop music. Sure there is a minority that don't match the profile, but the OP said "most likely" not "always."
What sucks is that I'd actually like to support the sites I frequently visit, and ad views clearly have a significant effect on their various bottom lines,
Ad views have become the defacto micropayment system. If we had an alternative, sites wouldn't have to be dependent on privacy-invasive and security-breaking ad systems. I'm sure that many would anyway, but they would at least have other options.
but that same responsible part is also well aware that any kind of commercial interaction with said pornographers has a suspicious way of going horribly wrong.
Micropayments could solve that problem too - anonymous microcash would be almost completely immune to the kind of abuses that you are avoiding.
Slashdot Mirror
Assange also claimed he had a "poison pill" file he'd release if he were arrested.
No he didn't. I challenge you to find a single quote from him saying anything even remotely like that.
All the "poison pill" stuff has been speculation by commentators and pundits regarding the insurance.aes256 file - but Assange hasn't said one word about what that file is or what anyone might do with it.
I disagree with a lot -maybe most- of what he's saying, but he does have a brain, and he uses actual arguments, with premises and statements and conclusions and all that stuff. He's fluent in the English language, well read, and rather eloquent.
Newt is clearly a smart guy. But he's also one of the most manipulative, pandering assholes in politics.
For example, he recently wrote, "There should be no mosque near Ground Zero in New York so long as there are no churches or synagogues in Saudi Arabia." Which suggests that he believes American civil rights should be no better than one of the worst regimes in the world. Either he believes that, or he believes enough of the electorate are stupid enough to believe that. Whichever it is, neither is a position worthy of even a shred of respect.
What's needed is gourmet warfare. Set up a bunch of korean restaurants near the dmz, set them to cooking the most tantalizing smelling food and then fire up some kilohorsepower fans to waft the smell over the border and just watch as all of the starving NKs desert for dessert.
7) Hurricane force WOOOOOSH!
Considering you don't watch her or the channel, your opinion is even less meaningful than mine.
Ah, but I have been witness to exactly the same claims like you made from both groups of fans - even message boards where each group of fans "debunks" picayune points from the other show - I am eminently qualified to point out the similarity of random unsupported claims like yours.
Well, guess what sport? You can fact-check Maddow and compare her accuracy to Beck. Guess who will win?
Again, exactly what Glen Beck fans say too, just vice-versa.
This isn't about equivalency between their programs, its about the equivalency of making unsupported statements.
It's no more meaningful for you to say Maddow is accurate than it is for some other random nobody to say Beck is accurate.
Of course reality isn't biased. It's a pithy, inflammatory statement, that implies that on average, people leaning to the left are more aware of the world around them.
No, it is more of a poke at the people who use "left" and "liberal" as epithets. Whether the unquantifiable "left" is more in tune with reality or not is unprovable. But the frothing-at-the-mouth types who profess various degrees of contempt for whatever they label as left are, pretty much by definition, less in tune with reality.
Pay... cash... $20,000... What planet do you live on?
That's nearly the total annual cost of health care insurance for a family of four.
If you agree with Maddow or not her show is impeccably researched, which must be why she always gets the right-wingers frothing at the mouth.
I don't watch her or even the channel, but that's exactly what Glenn Beck fans say about his show too.
we do have a preview button you know.
It's backwards that they force ACs to always preview before posting.
I'd rather the other way around - ACs have an easier chance of looking stupid, but logged in users get a preview.
Hell, they could actually use javascript for something useful and auto-preview everytime you pause in your typing.
By 2020 or something like that 2/3 of all military vehicles will be autonomously driven, have fun blowing up empty vehicles though.
...
WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOSH!
Either we agree to play by the rules and hold a protest that is respectful of its audience and all the other users of public property, or we participate in civil disobedience to show how serious we are. What we do NOT do, unless we are assholes, is claim a right to disrupt other people's lives without consequence.
Nice philosophy, but that's not the way the law is typically written. You either need a permit within city limits or you don't.
Word processors that remember your name and fill in author metadata for you are sure helpful, aren't they?
That's why I always use suitably generic 'names' for those sorts of things, like:
"Windows User" or "Apple User" or "MSOffice User"
It satisfies the software (some of which absolutely insist that you give them something in order to use it) but if the 'name' ever leaks out it doesn't draw attention to itself and is yet totally generic.
Something fishy about that. If the problem is lack of a permit, how are two of those three alternatives any different?
For being too pussy to admit Assange has had greater impact, as noted by the reader vote.
When the runner-up is the leader of Turkey who is only really known for slightly reducing their separation between church and state, you have to take those results with a grain of salt.
I know this is thinking waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay out of the box, but how about DEclassifying them ?
Even that requires a long convoluted process carried out by a completely different set of people and they would remain classified until its finished.
Forgot to mention that such rigid over-reactions are exactly the kind of jiu-jitsu that Assange is looking for.
You aren't so far off the mark. The idea is precisely to keep secrets from getting in.
The problem is that the security regime is designed for only two kinds of documents "classified" and "not classified" -- there is no concept of "classified but now public knowledge."
So their entire playbook is limited to one basic rule: "keep classified information off of unclassified systems." It doesn't matter how it gets there, but if it does get there they have massively annoying procedures they must follow to contain and delete the classified information.
Somebody has gone a little overboard in blocking the entire websites of regular newspapers - but they are probably the same people who have to go through the massive "decontamination" procedure when a classified document ends up on an unclassified system so at the very least they probably see it has saving them a metric fuckton of extra pointless work.
No, there is NOT a conspiracy to keep down information. There is NO conspiracy to oppress people.
You watch too many movies. A conspiracy doesn't have to be grandiose. But just because its not grandiose doesn't mean its not harmful.
Like I said, his goal is fighting conspiracies. You appear to think he wants 100% transparency, that's a strawman. His goal is improved transparency by forcing organisations to make a choice - make the price of enabling conspiracies through secrecy high enough that organisations will choose the low-overhead of reduced secrecy and thus reduced opportunity for conspiracy.
One would assume that you would hardcode it so if the user loses his password, he can call the company. And trust me, they WILL lose their password.
They should have done something that at least has a chance of verifying physical access to the machine - like making the password a derivative of the serial number.
As in luser admin calls HP says he's locked out, HP asks for serial number, runs it through some algorithm only known to HP that outputs the password for that system.
That's not perfect either, but it would be a big improvement over harcoding the same damn password for all units.
And moreover, he's unaware that for all his leaks, at least as far as government leaks are concerned, it's all for not. What's going to change? Security protocols and the methods by which they select who has access to data, where and when.
No, that is precisely his goal.
Ultimately wikileaks is not about leaking information. It's about fighting conspiracies. Back in 2006 Assange wrote some essays that explain the motivation for the creation of wikileaks. Assange's operational plan is a form of jiu-jitsu.
He has two core assumptions. First is that authoritarian organisations need secrecy to thrive. Second is that secrecy is a barrier to effective communication. He believes that demonstrating leaks to an authoritarian organisation will cause it to increase its secrecy. Pushed far enough, that secrecy makes the organisation cumbersome and inflexible, allowing opponents to easily get inside its OODA loop. The end result is that the organisation must choose between curbing its authoritarian tendencies or collapse.
You may not agree with his assessments but to say he's unaware of the kind of response wikileaks will provoke is just a total misread of the situation. Understandable since so little of the news coverage bothers to do any better, but still totally off the mark.
The truth is,
A claim like followed by nothing but invective only reveals truth about the person making the claim.
Poppycock you whippersnapper. I am 61 years old and...
You'd have to be totally disconnected from reality to think that you and your father are a representative sample. You might as well argue that young people don't like current pop music. Sure there is a minority that don't match the profile, but the OP said "most likely" not "always."
What sucks is that I'd actually like to support the sites I frequently visit, and ad views clearly have a significant effect on their various bottom lines,
Ad views have become the defacto micropayment system. If we had an alternative, sites wouldn't have to be dependent on privacy-invasive and security-breaking ad systems. I'm sure that many would anyway, but they would at least have other options.
but that same responsible part is also well aware that any kind of commercial interaction with said pornographers has a suspicious way of going horribly wrong.
Micropayments could solve that problem too - anonymous microcash would be almost completely immune to the kind of abuses that you are avoiding.