Congress has the authority to coin money, but not the "sole" authority. States are forbidden from making money themselves, but I don't see anything in the Constitution that prevents individuals/businesses from creating their own money. In fact article 1, section 10 specifically allows states to accept (but not create) as legal tender "gold and silver Coin", presumably created by someone other than the US federal government.
the problem is that 'stamping out trolls' also ends up stamping out minority opinions as well as unpopular truth
Minority opinions will sometimes be stamped out no matter what type of system you have. I would argue that a moderation system is more supportive of minority opinions than an unmoderated system. An unmoderated system produces much more repetition and flame wars which are more harmful to minority opinions than a moderated system that sometimes mods down an unpopular, but valid, opinion.
The problem isn't Facebook, it's that people -- including Assange, actually -- have a binary idea of security and trust. They think something is either totally secret and revealing it would be a huge betrayal, or it's all out there in the wind open to everyone.
Citation needed. When has Assange ever said that? Wikileaks keeps some information private within the organization, they release some information to the major media outlets, and some information to the public. That shows there are at least three levels of security. What additional levels of security do you think they should have?
Trust is multilayered. I have stuff I only tell my close friends. I have stuff I only tell my Warcraft guild. I have stuff I only tell my wife. I have stuff I keep entirely inside my head.
Do you think that Assange doesn't have stuff he keeps to himself or things that he only tells to his closest friends?
The death and taxes site has a much better breakdown of how the money is spent, IMO. You can find the Drug Enforcement Agent (under the department of Justice) spends about 2 billion per year.
We don't learn science by doing science, we learn science by reading and memorizing. The same way we learn history.
I think these statement are false. You don't learn "science" by reading an memorizing facts, you learn science by practising the scientific method. Didn't the author have any "lab" classes growing up? Unfortunately, the problem is that many teachers don't seem to understand the scientific method very well, and therefore focus on the learning facts part instead of the important part which is the method. This is quite different from learning history, and I'd add that maybe this author has never heard of archaeology? Which is basically using scientific methods to make theories about history?
It's different for wifi because there is no opportunity for physical damage. A car or a gun can actually kill someone or cause damage to a person or physical property. A wifi connection cannot be used to cause any physical harm.
If I sublet my apartment, I am taking into account a risk of damage. And believe it or not, some people would be willing to accept the risk of property damage in order to help a fellow human being. If I want to help out my neighbours by sharing my wi-fi, why shouldn't I be able to do that without taking the full blame for anything they do.
As another example, let's say someone walks into my front yard and beats up another person. Should I be blamed for that because I didn't put a fence around my yard to keep them out? I don't have a problem with people walking through my front yard (to a certain extent), but I also don't think I should be blamed for their actions.
is all of this hyperventilating really all about protecting yourself from being wrongly accused of some not-very-important crime related to the transference of bits?
There are worse things that can be downloaded through open networks
LOL, you can download worse things than bits? Please give an example of something you can download other than 'bits'.
I think the RedLetterMedia/Plinkett Reviews are the best thing the come out of the Star Wars prequel trilogy. I found the review to be much more entertaining and higher quality than the films themselves.
Stop it, please! Why are you are giving the deletionists more suggestions about what to delete? I happen to like several of the pages you mentioned.
Note that I'm not even saying to delete those too. But the circle-jerk gang at Wiki needs to choose one or the other, really.
No, they need to just stop deleting, except for spam and possibly obvious vanity pages. Even those I would be hesitant to delete. It would be better to just hide them unless they are specifically requested.
I understand your hypocrisy argument, but honestly, I would rather they be hypocritical and delete only a few pages vs. being not hypocritical and deleting all the "non-notable" pages.
But IMO, actions speak louder than words. Israel has invaded several countries within the last 50 years, when was the last time Iran invaded anyone? More than 100 years ago? With that said, I don't believe Iran should have nuclear weapons, but I believe it's hypocritical of Isreal and the US to keep a large stockpile of long range nuclear missiles while beating the war drums about how "dangerous" Iran is and that we need to invade them, and expect them to not try to defend themselves.
That subpoena had originally been served but was then abandoned by the Bush DOJ, but its revitalization by the Obama administration was but one of many steps taken to dramatically expand the war on whistleblowers being waged by the current President
So WikiLeaks is angry that their former member stole 300,000 documents, and plans on leaking them to the world? That's the finest example of irony I've heard all week.
You should at least read the first sentence of the summary.
Former WikiLeaks programmer Daniel Domscheit-Berg sabotaged WikiLeaks in a manner that threatens the anonymity of leakers, according to a WikiLeaks spokesperson.
They are upset because they believe he jeopardized the anonymity of the sources.
On the one side, we have Assange acting like a pissed off idealistic teenager (not necessarily a bad thing) making comments about how it is his duty to end two wars in the world.
Citation needed. Maybe you are referring to the quote from Domscheit-Berg's book. Not exactly the most objective source. AFAIK, Assange never said this in public.
It was actually Madison who wrote this, although I can't find a definitive on-line source. It's worth reading the full essay. It's always surprising to me the depth of understanding the founders seemed to have in certain areas. A depth which seems completely lacking in most of today's politicians.
Okay let's look at the content of the releases. if there some damnable offenses in there then the opposite party will be jumping up and down and using that information againist the other party.
It sounds like you are not looking at the leaks. Instead you are looking at your political leaders to tell you whether the leaks are important. And I agree with you that the US political leaders are all (with a few exceptions like Ron Paul) saying there is nothing important in the leaks. That's probably what I would be saying as well if I were trying to protect myself.
You have to look, rather, at the information leaked, and its potential value to achieve certain aims. Did the Afghan war diaries have any relevant information that wasn't already in the American press? Not for anyone paying attention.
Ok, let's look at the Afghan war diaries. I find it "relevant" that there hundreds of civilians wounded or killed that were previously unreported in the media. The New York Times, Guardian, and Der Spiegel also believed that the documents had significant value.
The reason that the grudge Assange holds matters is that he's holding WikiLeaks up as if it's just a beam of light piercing through the darkness, exposing all corruption. It's not. Assange has a political agenda, and he's cloaking himself in journalism and free speech so that he can do as much damage as possible to his enemies (one of which is the United States, which I'm sort of partial to, I admit).
Ok, so let's agree that Wikileaks is not a beacon of light, and that Julian Assange is not a perfect human being. I honestly don't care that much about Julian Assange's personal life or what motives he has. I do care when my government actively tries to deceive me. And I think it's in the public's best interest to know about that when it occurs. In that respect, I think wikileaks has fulfilled an important role. And even though there were mistakes made in some of the releases, we are better off with the leaks, than without them.
I'll ask again: How are Assange's motives even a little altruistic, based on the evidence?
How about the fact that he is putting himself at great risk by exposing unethical and unlawful behaviour of the most powerful country in the world. There is a possibility that he will be locked up indefinitely in an American prison somewhere and not given a trial. Leading American politicians have called him a terrorist and/or called for his assassination. By making himself the face of Wikileaks, he's basically putting a big target on his head. And what does he get in return, fame? Maybe some money from a book deal which will likely be spent on legal fees. Would you trade places with him?
Assange leaked documents for the sole purpose not of informing people (because most of the information had come out), but to embarrass the U.S.
First, there's no way for you to know this, and it is counter to what he has said publicly. Second, even if his reason for leaking the documents was to "embarrass the U.S.", does it really matter? We should be looking at the content of the releases, not attacking the messenger for various grudges he may or may not hold.
Ellsberg, having an IQ above room temperature (Celsius) does not refute the idea that governments and institutions can and should have secrets, Assange, on the other hand, is apparently the oldest living patient to have been born entirely without a brain.
Can you please site somewhere that Assange has said that governments and institutions should have no secrets? The fact that the wikileaks releases were limited and redacted seems to demonstrate that Assange and the other members of Wikileaks do have an understanding that some information should be secret.
Slashdot Mirror
So liberty is basically legislated freedom?
Congress has the sole authority to coin money.
Congress has the authority to coin money, but not the "sole" authority. States are forbidden from making money themselves, but I don't see anything in the Constitution that prevents individuals/businesses from creating their own money. In fact article 1, section 10 specifically allows states to accept (but not create) as legal tender "gold and silver Coin", presumably created by someone other than the US federal government.
the problem is that 'stamping out trolls' also ends up stamping out minority opinions as well as unpopular truth
Minority opinions will sometimes be stamped out no matter what type of system you have. I would argue that a moderation system is more supportive of minority opinions than an unmoderated system. An unmoderated system produces much more repetition and flame wars which are more harmful to minority opinions than a moderated system that sometimes mods down an unpopular, but valid, opinion.
The problem isn't Facebook, it's that people -- including Assange, actually -- have a binary idea of security and trust. They think something is either totally secret and revealing it would be a huge betrayal, or it's all out there in the wind open to everyone.
Citation needed. When has Assange ever said that? Wikileaks keeps some information private within the organization, they release some information to the major media outlets, and some information to the public. That shows there are at least three levels of security. What additional levels of security do you think they should have?
Trust is multilayered. I have stuff I only tell my close friends. I have stuff I only tell my Warcraft guild. I have stuff I only tell my wife. I have stuff I keep entirely inside my head.
Do you think that Assange doesn't have stuff he keeps to himself or things that he only tells to his closest friends?
The death and taxes site has a much better breakdown of how the money is spent, IMO. You can find the Drug Enforcement Agent (under the department of Justice) spends about 2 billion per year.
We don't learn science by doing science, we learn science by reading and memorizing. The same way we learn history.
I think these statement are false. You don't learn "science" by reading an memorizing facts, you learn science by practising the scientific method. Didn't the author have any "lab" classes growing up? Unfortunately, the problem is that many teachers don't seem to understand the scientific method very well, and therefore focus on the learning facts part instead of the important part which is the method.
This is quite different from learning history, and I'd add that maybe this author has never heard of archaeology? Which is basically using scientific methods to make theories about history?
Why do you expect it to be so different for wifi?
It's different for wifi because there is no opportunity for physical damage. A car or a gun can actually kill someone or cause damage to a person or physical property. A wifi connection cannot be used to cause any physical harm.
If I sublet my apartment, I am taking into account a risk of damage. And believe it or not, some people would be willing to accept the risk of property damage in order to help a fellow human being. If I want to help out my neighbours by sharing my wi-fi, why shouldn't I be able to do that without taking the full blame for anything they do.
As another example, let's say someone walks into my front yard and beats up another person. Should I be blamed for that because I didn't put a fence around my yard to keep them out? I don't have a problem with people walking through my front yard (to a certain extent), but I also don't think I should be blamed for their actions.
is all of this hyperventilating really all about protecting yourself from being wrongly accused of some not-very-important crime related to the transference of bits?
There are worse things that can be downloaded through open networks
LOL, you can download worse things than bits? Please give an example of something you can download other than 'bits'.
I think the RedLetterMedia/Plinkett Reviews are the best thing the come out of the Star Wars prequel trilogy. I found the review to be much more entertaining and higher quality than the films themselves.
Stop it, please! Why are you are giving the deletionists more suggestions about what to delete? I happen to like several of the pages you mentioned.
Note that I'm not even saying to delete those too. But the circle-jerk gang at Wiki needs to choose one or the other, really.
No, they need to just stop deleting, except for spam and possibly obvious vanity pages. Even those I would be hesitant to delete. It would be better to just hide them unless they are specifically requested.
I understand your hypocrisy argument, but honestly, I would rather they be hypocritical and delete only a few pages vs. being not hypocritical and deleting all the "non-notable" pages.
They certainly should be. Since they made the recommendation to BofA to use Hunton & Williams, which started this whole thing.
http://hbgary.anonleaks.ch/aaron_hbgary_com/2374.html
Yeah, I was just joking. Thinking of Christopher Tolkien creating a child and marketing it.
It's not like anyone else can create a tolkien and market it.
Christopher Tolkien could.
Israel has never threatened to destroy Iran
You sure about that?
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,133899,00.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7440472.stm
http://peoplesworld.org/coincidence-israeli-palestinian-talks-to-open-israel-threatens-iran-attack/
And of course the US has made similar threats against Iran:
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/06/05/hunter-giuliani-on-using-nukes-against-iran/
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/06/10/ftn/main2908476.shtml
But IMO, actions speak louder than words. Israel has invaded several countries within the last 50 years, when was the last time Iran invaded anyone? More than 100 years ago? With that said, I don't believe Iran should have nuclear weapons, but I believe it's hypocritical of Isreal and the US to keep a large stockpile of long range nuclear missiles while beating the war drums about how "dangerous" Iran is and that we need to invade them, and expect them to not try to defend themselves.
Not exactly. Obama seems to be kicking it up a notch in the war against whistle-blowers.
That subpoena had originally been served but was then abandoned by the Bush DOJ, but its revitalization by the Obama administration was but one of many steps taken to dramatically expand the war on whistleblowers being waged by the current President
So WikiLeaks is angry that their former member stole 300,000 documents, and plans on leaking them to the world? That's the finest example of irony I've heard all week.
You should at least read the first sentence of the summary.
Former WikiLeaks programmer Daniel Domscheit-Berg sabotaged WikiLeaks in a manner that threatens the anonymity of leakers, according to a WikiLeaks spokesperson.
They are upset because they believe he jeopardized the anonymity of the sources.
On the one side, we have Assange acting like a pissed off idealistic teenager (not necessarily a bad thing) making comments about how it is his duty to end two wars in the world.
Citation needed. Maybe you are referring to the quote from Domscheit-Berg's book. Not exactly the most objective source. AFAIK, Assange never said this in public.
It was actually Madison who wrote this, although I can't find a definitive on-line source. It's worth reading the full essay. It's always surprising to me the depth of understanding the founders seemed to have in certain areas. A depth which seems completely lacking in most of today's politicians.
Which Linksys router are you using? There is a good chance you can use IPv6.
http://www.dd-wrt.com/site/support/router-database
Click on Account, then Discussions, then choose "Classic Discussion System".
Article Summary: They switched facebook to use https in Tunisia.
I wish facebook would consider just switching all traffic to https.
Okay let's look at the content of the releases. if there some damnable offenses in there then the opposite party will be jumping up and down and using that information againist the other party.
It sounds like you are not looking at the leaks. Instead you are looking at your political leaders to tell you whether the leaks are important. And I agree with you that the US political leaders are all (with a few exceptions like Ron Paul) saying there is nothing important in the leaks. That's probably what I would be saying as well if I were trying to protect myself.
You have to look, rather, at the information leaked, and its potential value to achieve certain aims. Did the Afghan war diaries have any relevant information that wasn't already in the American press? Not for anyone paying attention.
Ok, let's look at the Afghan war diaries. I find it "relevant" that there hundreds of civilians wounded or killed that were previously unreported in the media. The New York Times, Guardian, and Der Spiegel also believed that the documents had significant value.
The reason that the grudge Assange holds matters is that he's holding WikiLeaks up as if it's just a beam of light piercing through the darkness, exposing all corruption. It's not. Assange has a political agenda, and he's cloaking himself in journalism and free speech so that he can do as much damage as possible to his enemies (one of which is the United States, which I'm sort of partial to, I admit).
Ok, so let's agree that Wikileaks is not a beacon of light, and that Julian Assange is not a perfect human being. I honestly don't care that much about Julian Assange's personal life or what motives he has. I do care when my government actively tries to deceive me. And I think it's in the public's best interest to know about that when it occurs. In that respect, I think wikileaks has fulfilled an important role. And even though there were mistakes made in some of the releases, we are better off with the leaks, than without them.
I'll ask again: How are Assange's motives even a little altruistic, based on the evidence?
How about the fact that he is putting himself at great risk by exposing unethical and unlawful behaviour of the most powerful country in the world. There is a possibility that he will be locked up indefinitely in an American prison somewhere and not given a trial. Leading American politicians have called him a terrorist and/or called for his assassination. By making himself the face of Wikileaks, he's basically putting a big target on his head. And what does he get in return, fame? Maybe some money from a book deal which will likely be spent on legal fees. Would you trade places with him?
Assange leaked documents for the sole purpose not of informing people (because most of the information had come out), but to embarrass the U.S.
First, there's no way for you to know this, and it is counter to what he has said publicly. Second, even if his reason for leaking the documents was to "embarrass the U.S.", does it really matter? We should be looking at the content of the releases, not attacking the messenger for various grudges he may or may not hold.
Ellsberg, having an IQ above room temperature (Celsius) does not refute the idea that governments and institutions can and should have secrets, Assange, on the other hand, is apparently the oldest living patient to have been born entirely without a brain.
Can you please site somewhere that Assange has said that governments and institutions should have no secrets? The fact that the wikileaks releases were limited and redacted seems to demonstrate that Assange and the other members of Wikileaks do have an understanding that some information should be secret.