and hated Ubuntu linux mostly due to her inability to figure out how to do basic tasks
OK, there's your problem. Let me fix that for you: "She hated Ubuntu linux mostly due to the fact that the software made it impossible to figure out how to do basic tasks". Saying that the user is the problem is sort of like running a company that makes giant gloves with six fingers, and then saying that the customers are at fault for having small, five-fingered hands. Start with what the customer needs and make your product fit that. Don't try to force your customer to fit the product.
Listen, you guys who intuitively understand software: you're freaks. I don't mean that in a bad way, after all without you guys we wouldn't have the internet doing its internet thing, taking down Middle Eastern dictatorships and delivering vast quantities of free porn. We owe you, and what you do is cool. But you need to understand that 95% of the world doesn't get machines the way you do, and we don't want to spend a lot of time learning how to write a computer. It's not that we're all idiots (although some of us are), it's that we just have things that we'd rather spend time on. A novelist wants to spend time writing his novel, a photographer wants to spend time editing photographs, a banker wants to spend time destroying the world's economy, and so on. Make a product we want to use, instead of cursing us for not finding your stuff usable. Recognize that different people have different ways of experiencing the world, and recognize that the people who use software are very different from the people who design software.
Google is really cutting edge in terms of their technology but the business model is really old school. Distribute information at below the cost of production, but make a profit by selling advertisements next to the information of interest. It's actually the same model that was used for newspapers, magazines, radio, and TV. They're now applying it to YouTube by putting ads in some of the clips, so here they're moving away from their core business of search but still doing the same "give away information, profit on the ads" model that they did with search.
Search is the command center and SCVs. Google Apps is the marines, Chrome is the bunker, and Android is the seige tanks.
I was just writing that to be a smartass, but after thinking about it, it actually makes a much better analogy. The whole "castle and moat" analogy is weak, because castles don't actually produce anything: they're defensive structures, just like the moat.
Yeah, nice white collar bribe leaks. No more of that anti warm/fuzzy US Afghanistan death squads and evidence of wiping out entire villages to artificially increase insurgent death counts.
[Citation needed]
If you're against U.S. military efforts in Afghanistan, fine. It's a pretty awful war. But there are plenty of incidents to point to without making things up. Try reading the newspaper regularly, or just do a quick search on Google news. Just a couple of days ago, an airstrike killed two children, and nine children were killed a couple of weeks ago, prompting outrage by Karzai (url:http://www.voanews.com/english/news/asia/NATO-to-Probe-New-Afghan-Civilian-Casualties-118084799.html). There are plenty of other well-publicized cases: an AC-130 gunship that took out a wedding party and killed 40 people (url:http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/06/world/asia/06afghan.html); a sociopathic officer who was directing his men to murder Afghan civilians; he and his men were arrested and are facing charges (url:http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/05/world/asia/05gibbs.html).
You're not under any obligation to support the war or the U.S. But in an age where you can get accurate facts to support your arguments in 10 seconds with a quick search of Google News, Wikipedia, or WikiLeaks, there's no excuse for running around and making stuff up. It's the information age, so there's no excuse for not having your information straight.
True, Gaddafi's primary advantage is that his ground forces are better trained and better armed, with tanks and artillery, so keeping his planes out of the air doesn't change the game that much. But what the U.N. signed off on isn't a no-fly zone, it's "all necessary measures short of an invasion to protect civilians and civilian-populated areas".
I'm not a military expert, and I haven't read the full text of the resolution, but from the articles at the BBC and New York Times, it sounds like this could mean damn near anything. Air strikes by aircraft and helicopter gunships. Cruise missile strikes. Artillery barrages from naval vessels. Arms to rebels, such as rifles and machine guns. Jamming of Libyan communications. Intel sharing. Military advisors. And back to that no-fly zone: while Gaddafi's planes aren't a game-changer, establishing a no-fly zone or other military air operations over Libya demands air superiority, and that requires attacks against Gaddafi's radar installations, surface-to-air missile batteries, and command bunkers. That many explosions going off in Tripoli is going to have a huge psychological impact.
"Their security policies prevent me from saying anything about the super sweet things I saw inside the building"
And when he says he can't say anything, he doesn't mean he signed some sort of agreement, he means he literally cannot say anything. A guy in a brown robe walked up, slowly waved a hand in front of his face, and said, "you cannot say anything about the things you saw inside of this building."
This part of the article was particularly troubling, however: "Meanwhile there are signs that the Mugabe regime intends to increase its ability to spy on innocent civilians. As we reported on SW Radio Africa this week, the government is allegedly moving at a ‘very fast pace’ with the construction of a secret electronic eavesdropping complex just outside Harare. A trusted source said that the Chinese, who are building the complex, have a system that enables most security agencies to ‘spy at will’ on emails, website visits, social networking sessions, and telephone calls made over the internet on a massive scale."
So we have the United States producing and exporting technology like Facebook, Youtube, and Twitter that increase connectivity and the free flow of information, and with it, political dissent. And the Chinese taking the lead in trying to monitor, control and censor the flow of political ideas, and if the article is to be believed, they're now exporting this technology.
They don't want to hire more guards, there are no corporate profits in provide more government border agents. Think about 53 miles with with three shifts of guards spaced 100 yards apart, getting paid say $25,000 per year, that billion dollars would pay for 14 years worth of wildly excessive security.
I have to question the math on this one. $25,000/year isn't very much considering that these people are going to be dealing with rugged terrain, harsh desert conditions, and facing violent, heavily armed drug smugglers and human traffickers. It sounds like we're not even factoring in any sort of benefits like health care or retirement. In short, you're offering minimal pay and benefits for dangerous, difficult work. The obvious solution, of course, is that we fill these positions by hiring illegal immigrants.
. It turns out, the Arizona law was actually drafted by the prison industry, who hoped to make a bundle off of it. Yes, illegal immigration is a serious problem, but exploiting fear and hatred to make a profit, at enormous taxpayer expense, by locking up people who just want a better life for themselves and their families... how in the hell do these people even face themselves in the mirror when they wake up each morning?
There is no debate?! Didn't you read the article? The guy gets paid big bucks because he has a habit of correctly predicting weather
He predicts the weather, not the climate, and they're not the same thing. The weather is the temperature next Tuesday afternoon, the climate is the average temperature of the entire country over years, decades, and centuries. It's sort of like the difference between a blackjack game and the Las Vegas gambling industry. Somewhat counterintuitively, it's easier to figure out the big picture than the details. It's extremely difficult to predict the outcome of any given game but with some reasonable assumptions about the number of visitors each year, the amount they gamble, taxes and expenses, it's possible to project how the industry as a whole will fare. In short, understanding weather doesn't mean you understand the climate, any more than being able to win at cards means you can successfully run a casino.
Googling the phrase "Google is better than Bing" returns 2,130,000 results. "Bing is better than Google" returns 2,510,000 results. So the winner by a strong but not overwhelming margin is Bing, and Bing is the superior search engine.
Which raises the question: what would the same queries return if we type them into Bing? Well, "Bing is Better than Google" gives 644,000 results, while "Google is better than Bing" gives 678,000 results...
You must be new here. Karma whores responding to someone's insightful post by making basically the same point only shorter accounts for half the "+5" posts around here.
True. People summarize, condense and get modded up.
Decades behind bars is a horrible sentence. Almost as much as execution.
Well... that's the idea. Whether or not you agree with his actions, what Manning did was a crime, and a very serious one, and if he's convicted then he's likely to face a sentence that reflects that and serves as a strong deterrent. You may not agree with the conduct of the government or with the laws, but if you're someone whose end goal includes a society that's governed by the rule of law, then you have to be willing to pay the price when your attempts to change society violate the law.
Personally, I sympathize with the guy, which I didn't expect. Based on a few quotes in the media I had assumed he was some kind of arrogant, boastful jerk, but when I read the transcripts of his chats with Lamo ( http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/06/wikileaks-chat/ ) what emerges is someone who is deeply unhappy with the war in Iraq and his government, and perhaps himself. He makes fun of the government, but he's also self-deprecating. And in one rather telling moment he says, "...and god knows what happens now. Hopefully worldwide discussion, debates, and reforms. If not... than we're doomed. As a species. I will officially give up on the society we have if nothing happens." I don't agree with his actions but I can sympathize with his motives. That may help him, if his lawyers can show that he was motivated by his conscience... but somehow, I doubt it.
Why do you insist on looking at the US in such absolute, black and white terms? Isn't it possible that we are good in certain areas, but bad in others?
I think that black and right thinking is the problem on both sides. On the right we have wackos like Palin acting like Assange is a terrorist. After all, the U.S. is good, so anyone who goes against U.S. interests is bad. And on the left we have some people who seem to feel Assange is a hero using similar logic. The U.S. is evil, so anything that goes against U.S. interests is therefore good.
And of course the reality is that some of what the U.S. has done is good and some of what we've done is shameful. We created a new model of democratic government following the American Revolution and we've subverted democracy in places like Iran when it's suited us. We've been a champion of human rights and more recently, an abuser of them at Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib. We've worked to end conflict in the Balkans and to start it in Iraq. Some of our foreign policy is self-serving; the first Gulf War was entirely about ensuring the U.S. oil supply, but it's hard to see how relief efforts in Haiti are self-serving when Haiti is such a dirt-poor country with no economy, no resources, no strategic value. The U.S. isn't always the villain and it isn't always the hero. Sometimes U.S. actions are in the best interest of the world, and too often they're not. Sometimes we live up to our values, sometimes we don't.
And the same goes for Assange. Some of what he's done is unquestionably good. He's helped publicize genuine evidence of abuses of power, crime, and corruption, and the tragedies of war. But I don't think everything he's done is positive. I'm not sure that revealing details of U.S. peaceful diplomatic relations is making the world a safer place. I don't think that the release of the climate change emails was terribly helpful, since it seems to have created a popular "debate" about the reality of climate change when the overwhelming scientific consensus says that it's real. I'm not sure that releasing the communications of Robert Mugabe's opponent in Zimbabwe is a good thing. There are bound to be unintended consequences in releasing that much information.
We like to simplify things and put them into a narrative where there are good guys who are entirely good, and bad guys, who are entirely bad, but the reality is a lot more complicated. And I think it will be a long time before we fully understand what's happening here.
And Mugabe doesn't need Wikileaks for this, it was merely convenient. Do you think that someone who shoots people because they bother him has any issues lying about people?
You can't have it both ways. Either Wikileaks and Assange are responsible for what happens when they release information, or they aren't. You can't say that they're heroes when a leak promotes democracy, but that when a leak sets it back, they're off the hook. If Wikileaks wants the credit when good things happen, then they also get the blame when bad stuff happens.
If the shoe fits. Are you saying it was wrong of wikileaks to expose a western attempt to manipulate a people into overthrowing their leader?
If that's what was going on, sure. But that's NOT what was happening. First Mugabe isn't even the legitimate leader of Zimbabwe, he's a dictator who used violence and fraud to steal the election from Tsvangarai's party and appoint himself president. Second, Tsvangirai isn't trying to promote a popular uprising or a coup, he's trying to have the West pressure Mugabe's party to implement political reforms.
But nice job trying to distort the facts to make Assange into some kind of a hero here.
What I wonder is, why is the reaction so different this time around? I can think of a couple of possibilities, not mutually exclusive.
One possibility is that Wikileaks and Assange are losing public support. Interfering with a war is one thing, interfering with diplomacy- the attempt to settle issues without military action- is harder to justify. Reports that Wikileaks released the names of Afghan informants hasn't helped, and even setting aside the controversial charges against him, profiles of Assange (such as the one in the New York Times) don't paint him in a very flattering light. My understanding from the Times article is that even within Wikileaks, there is a lot of controversy about how Assange has acted.
Another possibility is that the response represents an escalation. This is far and away the largest leak by Wikileaks, with twice as many documents as the Afghan war logs. As Assange has continued and intensified the release of documents, the U.S. government has stepped up and intensified its response by pressuring people to stop dealings with Wikileaks.
The third possibility is that the diplomatic cables had a deterrent effect. As long as Assange had the cables, the U.S. was unwilling to openly move to shut down Wikileaks for fear that he would respond by leaking those cables. However, once the cables are released, the damage is done, and the U.S. no longer has any reason not to exert pressure on Wikileaks.
This is definitely a "correlation does not imply causation" moment.
As other people have noted, people attending top schools may be more successful financially and professionally, but they also tend to be smart, hardworking, and come from affluent backgrounds. Those qualities are probably more important predictors of success than the education itself. The article mentions a Princeton economist who found that kids who were admitted to elite schools, but who turned them down to to attend other institutions, did about as well as those actually attending.
That being said, don't discount the importance of the name. A prof once told me "the name will help you get in the door for the interview, but once you're inside, it's all about you". He meant to emphasize that it's ultimately about the person, not the institution. True, but if you can't solve the immediate problem of getting that interview, your qualifications don't really matter, and in a lot of fields its difficult to even get an interview. Simply being able to get into a good school implies that you have a lot of the qualities- motivation, work ethic, intelligence- that people want. They're more likely to read your application carefully and call you. Maybe that's not fair, but that's the way it is. The name opens doors.
Personally, I think good schools really are worth it; the top institutions really are different. But keep in mind that the "best" school according to U.S. News and World Report is not necessarily the "best" school for you. Different schools have different cultures and you might find yourself fitting in perfectly at one, and miserable at the other. Maybe you prefer a school where people are passing out drunk and vomiting in the halls, or maybe you want a school where people hang out in the halls arguing about programming languages. Maybe you want a school with an amazing English program, maybe you want one with an amazing philosophy program. Maybe you want to go to a huge school in New York City, maybe you want to go to a small college in a college town. It's more important to go to the school that's best for you, than the one that's ranked #1 this year.
But the most important thing to keep in mind is this: you can get a good education anywhere, if you work hard, and a lousy education anywhere, if you don't.
Whether you agree with DADT or not, it's hard to argue that it's a priority. Shut down Guantanamo Bay, get us out of Afghanistan and Iraq, and do something about the economy and deficit. Then I won't view this debate as an utter waste of congress' time.
You could make the same argument about any number of rights issues: "Whether or not you agree with civil rights, it's hard to argue that allowing blacks to vote and ending segregation is a priority when we have the Vietnam War and Soviet imperialism to worry about. Until we do something about that, civil rights is an utter waste of time" Or how about:"Whether or not you agree with the suffrage movement or not, it's hard to argue that it's a priority. After all we have the Great War to worry about. Until we win against Germany, debating about an amendment to give women the vote is an utter waste of time"
How can we say that basic civil rights aren't a priority? How can we say that ending discrimination is a waste of time? That justice is just too inconvenient right now? Because that's exactly what you're arguing. Our society is fundamentally about rights and liberties. The right to speak and assemble, the right to worship as we choose, the right to privacy, the right to a just trial, the right to pursue happiness- to live your life. Those rights aren't an inconvenient afterthought, they're the entire point of the country. It's critical that gays and lesbians are allowed to serve in the military, because it's defending the rights of everybody, including and especially those who are different, that makes the country worth fighting for in the first place. If we aren't doing that, then everything else becomes just a waste of time.
The repeal of "don't ask, don't tell" is a disaster from a military standpoint. Just when we finally developed the ability to make our planes invisible to radar, our enemies will be able to track them using gaydar.
"Wikileaks/Assange" is not good terminology: Wikileaks is not synonymous with Julian Assange and the constant identification of the two with each other is a symptom of our media which simplifies everything to Hollywood plot-lines
Julian Assange might disagree with you here:
"In an online exchange with one volunteer, a transcript of which was obtained by The Times, he warned that WikiLeaks would disintegrate without him. 'We’ve been in a Unity or Death situation for a few months now,' he said. When Herbert Snorrason, a 25-year-old political activist in Iceland, questioned Mr. Assange’s judgment over a number of issues in an online exchange last month, Mr. Assange was uncompromising. 'I don’t like your tone,' he said, according to a transcript. 'If it continues, you’re out.'
Mr. Assange cast himself as indispensable. 'I am the heart and soul of this organization, its founder, philosopher, spokesperson, original coder, organizer, financier, and all the rest,' he said. “If you have a problem with me,' he told Mr. Snorrason, using an expletive, he should quit."
Slashdot Mirror
OK, there's your problem. Let me fix that for you: "She hated Ubuntu linux mostly due to the fact that the software made it impossible to figure out how to do basic tasks". Saying that the user is the problem is sort of like running a company that makes giant gloves with six fingers, and then saying that the customers are at fault for having small, five-fingered hands. Start with what the customer needs and make your product fit that. Don't try to force your customer to fit the product.
Listen, you guys who intuitively understand software: you're freaks. I don't mean that in a bad way, after all without you guys we wouldn't have the internet doing its internet thing, taking down Middle Eastern dictatorships and delivering vast quantities of free porn. We owe you, and what you do is cool. But you need to understand that 95% of the world doesn't get machines the way you do, and we don't want to spend a lot of time learning how to write a computer. It's not that we're all idiots (although some of us are), it's that we just have things that we'd rather spend time on. A novelist wants to spend time writing his novel, a photographer wants to spend time editing photographs, a banker wants to spend time destroying the world's economy, and so on. Make a product we want to use, instead of cursing us for not finding your stuff usable. Recognize that different people have different ways of experiencing the world, and recognize that the people who use software are very different from the people who design software.
Google is really cutting edge in terms of their technology but the business model is really old school. Distribute information at below the cost of production, but make a profit by selling advertisements next to the information of interest. It's actually the same model that was used for newspapers, magazines, radio, and TV. They're now applying it to YouTube by putting ads in some of the clips, so here they're moving away from their core business of search but still doing the same "give away information, profit on the ads" model that they did with search.
I was just writing that to be a smartass, but after thinking about it, it actually makes a much better analogy. The whole "castle and moat" analogy is weak, because castles don't actually produce anything: they're defensive structures, just like the moat.
The four domains of life are as follows: eukaryotes, bacteria, archaea, William Shatner.
Stupid iPhone...
[Citation needed]
If you're against U.S. military efforts in Afghanistan, fine. It's a pretty awful war. But there are plenty of incidents to point to without making things up. Try reading the newspaper regularly, or just do a quick search on Google news. Just a couple of days ago, an airstrike killed two children, and nine children were killed a couple of weeks ago, prompting outrage by Karzai (url:http://www.voanews.com/english/news/asia/NATO-to-Probe-New-Afghan-Civilian-Casualties-118084799.html). There are plenty of other well-publicized cases: an AC-130 gunship that took out a wedding party and killed 40 people (url:http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/06/world/asia/06afghan.html); a sociopathic officer who was directing his men to murder Afghan civilians; he and his men were arrested and are facing charges (url:http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/05/world/asia/05gibbs.html).
You're not under any obligation to support the war or the U.S. But in an age where you can get accurate facts to support your arguments in 10 seconds with a quick search of Google News, Wikipedia, or WikiLeaks, there's no excuse for running around and making stuff up. It's the information age, so there's no excuse for not having your information straight.
I'm not a military expert, and I haven't read the full text of the resolution, but from the articles at the BBC and New York Times, it sounds like this could mean damn near anything. Air strikes by aircraft and helicopter gunships. Cruise missile strikes. Artillery barrages from naval vessels. Arms to rebels, such as rifles and machine guns. Jamming of Libyan communications. Intel sharing. Military advisors. And back to that no-fly zone: while Gaddafi's planes aren't a game-changer, establishing a no-fly zone or other military air operations over Libya demands air superiority, and that requires attacks against Gaddafi's radar installations, surface-to-air missile batteries, and command bunkers. That many explosions going off in Tripoli is going to have a huge psychological impact.
And when he says he can't say anything, he doesn't mean he signed some sort of agreement, he means he literally cannot say anything. A guy in a brown robe walked up, slowly waved a hand in front of his face, and said, "you cannot say anything about the things you saw inside of this building."
So we have the United States producing and exporting technology like Facebook, Youtube, and Twitter that increase connectivity and the free flow of information, and with it, political dissent. And the Chinese taking the lead in trying to monitor, control and censor the flow of political ideas, and if the article is to be believed, they're now exporting this technology.
I have to question the math on this one. $25,000/year isn't very much considering that these people are going to be dealing with rugged terrain, harsh desert conditions, and facing violent, heavily armed drug smugglers and human traffickers. It sounds like we're not even factoring in any sort of benefits like health care or retirement. In short, you're offering minimal pay and benefits for dangerous, difficult work. The obvious solution, of course, is that we fill these positions by hiring illegal immigrants.
. It turns out, the Arizona law was actually drafted by the prison industry, who hoped to make a bundle off of it. Yes, illegal immigration is a serious problem, but exploiting fear and hatred to make a profit, at enormous taxpayer expense, by locking up people who just want a better life for themselves and their families... how in the hell do these people even face themselves in the mirror when they wake up each morning?
He predicts the weather, not the climate, and they're not the same thing. The weather is the temperature next Tuesday afternoon, the climate is the average temperature of the entire country over years, decades, and centuries. It's sort of like the difference between a blackjack game and the Las Vegas gambling industry. Somewhat counterintuitively, it's easier to figure out the big picture than the details. It's extremely difficult to predict the outcome of any given game but with some reasonable assumptions about the number of visitors each year, the amount they gamble, taxes and expenses, it's possible to project how the industry as a whole will fare. In short, understanding weather doesn't mean you understand the climate, any more than being able to win at cards means you can successfully run a casino.
Googling the phrase "Google is better than Bing" returns 2,130,000 results. "Bing is better than Google" returns 2,510,000 results. So the winner by a strong but not overwhelming margin is Bing, and Bing is the superior search engine.
Which raises the question: what would the same queries return if we type them into Bing? Well, "Bing is Better than Google" gives 644,000 results, while "Google is better than Bing" gives 678,000 results...
True. People summarize, condense and get modded up.
Well... that's the idea. Whether or not you agree with his actions, what Manning did was a crime, and a very serious one, and if he's convicted then he's likely to face a sentence that reflects that and serves as a strong deterrent. You may not agree with the conduct of the government or with the laws, but if you're someone whose end goal includes a society that's governed by the rule of law, then you have to be willing to pay the price when your attempts to change society violate the law.
Personally, I sympathize with the guy, which I didn't expect. Based on a few quotes in the media I had assumed he was some kind of arrogant, boastful jerk, but when I read the transcripts of his chats with Lamo ( http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/06/wikileaks-chat/ ) what emerges is someone who is deeply unhappy with the war in Iraq and his government, and perhaps himself. He makes fun of the government, but he's also self-deprecating. And in one rather telling moment he says, "...and god knows what happens now. Hopefully worldwide discussion, debates, and reforms. If not... than we're doomed. As a species. I will officially give up on the society we have if nothing happens." I don't agree with his actions but I can sympathize with his motives. That may help him, if his lawyers can show that he was motivated by his conscience... but somehow, I doubt it.
Wait, what's this "real guitar" thing everyone keeps talking about?
I think that black and right thinking is the problem on both sides. On the right we have wackos like Palin acting like Assange is a terrorist. After all, the U.S. is good, so anyone who goes against U.S. interests is bad. And on the left we have some people who seem to feel Assange is a hero using similar logic. The U.S. is evil, so anything that goes against U.S. interests is therefore good.
And of course the reality is that some of what the U.S. has done is good and some of what we've done is shameful. We created a new model of democratic government following the American Revolution and we've subverted democracy in places like Iran when it's suited us. We've been a champion of human rights and more recently, an abuser of them at Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib. We've worked to end conflict in the Balkans and to start it in Iraq. Some of our foreign policy is self-serving; the first Gulf War was entirely about ensuring the U.S. oil supply, but it's hard to see how relief efforts in Haiti are self-serving when Haiti is such a dirt-poor country with no economy, no resources, no strategic value. The U.S. isn't always the villain and it isn't always the hero. Sometimes U.S. actions are in the best interest of the world, and too often they're not. Sometimes we live up to our values, sometimes we don't.
And the same goes for Assange. Some of what he's done is unquestionably good. He's helped publicize genuine evidence of abuses of power, crime, and corruption, and the tragedies of war. But I don't think everything he's done is positive. I'm not sure that revealing details of U.S. peaceful diplomatic relations is making the world a safer place. I don't think that the release of the climate change emails was terribly helpful, since it seems to have created a popular "debate" about the reality of climate change when the overwhelming scientific consensus says that it's real. I'm not sure that releasing the communications of Robert Mugabe's opponent in Zimbabwe is a good thing. There are bound to be unintended consequences in releasing that much information.
We like to simplify things and put them into a narrative where there are good guys who are entirely good, and bad guys, who are entirely bad, but the reality is a lot more complicated. And I think it will be a long time before we fully understand what's happening here.
You can't have it both ways. Either Wikileaks and Assange are responsible for what happens when they release information, or they aren't. You can't say that they're heroes when a leak promotes democracy, but that when a leak sets it back, they're off the hook. If Wikileaks wants the credit when good things happen, then they also get the blame when bad stuff happens.
If that's what was going on, sure. But that's NOT what was happening. First Mugabe isn't even the legitimate leader of Zimbabwe, he's a dictator who used violence and fraud to steal the election from Tsvangarai's party and appoint himself president. Second, Tsvangirai isn't trying to promote a popular uprising or a coup, he's trying to have the West pressure Mugabe's party to implement political reforms.
But nice job trying to distort the facts to make Assange into some kind of a hero here.
One possibility is that Wikileaks and Assange are losing public support. Interfering with a war is one thing, interfering with diplomacy- the attempt to settle issues without military action- is harder to justify. Reports that Wikileaks released the names of Afghan informants hasn't helped, and even setting aside the controversial charges against him, profiles of Assange (such as the one in the New York Times) don't paint him in a very flattering light. My understanding from the Times article is that even within Wikileaks, there is a lot of controversy about how Assange has acted.
Another possibility is that the response represents an escalation. This is far and away the largest leak by Wikileaks, with twice as many documents as the Afghan war logs. As Assange has continued and intensified the release of documents, the U.S. government has stepped up and intensified its response by pressuring people to stop dealings with Wikileaks.
The third possibility is that the diplomatic cables had a deterrent effect. As long as Assange had the cables, the U.S. was unwilling to openly move to shut down Wikileaks for fear that he would respond by leaking those cables. However, once the cables are released, the damage is done, and the U.S. no longer has any reason not to exert pressure on Wikileaks.
You know who I want to run for Senate? Jon Stewart.
As other people have noted, people attending top schools may be more successful financially and professionally, but they also tend to be smart, hardworking, and come from affluent backgrounds. Those qualities are probably more important predictors of success than the education itself. The article mentions a Princeton economist who found that kids who were admitted to elite schools, but who turned them down to to attend other institutions, did about as well as those actually attending.
That being said, don't discount the importance of the name. A prof once told me "the name will help you get in the door for the interview, but once you're inside, it's all about you". He meant to emphasize that it's ultimately about the person, not the institution. True, but if you can't solve the immediate problem of getting that interview, your qualifications don't really matter, and in a lot of fields its difficult to even get an interview. Simply being able to get into a good school implies that you have a lot of the qualities- motivation, work ethic, intelligence- that people want. They're more likely to read your application carefully and call you. Maybe that's not fair, but that's the way it is. The name opens doors.
Personally, I think good schools really are worth it; the top institutions really are different. But keep in mind that the "best" school according to U.S. News and World Report is not necessarily the "best" school for you. Different schools have different cultures and you might find yourself fitting in perfectly at one, and miserable at the other. Maybe you prefer a school where people are passing out drunk and vomiting in the halls, or maybe you want a school where people hang out in the halls arguing about programming languages. Maybe you want a school with an amazing English program, maybe you want one with an amazing philosophy program. Maybe you want to go to a huge school in New York City, maybe you want to go to a small college in a college town. It's more important to go to the school that's best for you, than the one that's ranked #1 this year.
But the most important thing to keep in mind is this: you can get a good education anywhere, if you work hard, and a lousy education anywhere, if you don't.
You could make the same argument about any number of rights issues: "Whether or not you agree with civil rights, it's hard to argue that allowing blacks to vote and ending segregation is a priority when we have the Vietnam War and Soviet imperialism to worry about. Until we do something about that, civil rights is an utter waste of time" Or how about:"Whether or not you agree with the suffrage movement or not, it's hard to argue that it's a priority. After all we have the Great War to worry about. Until we win against Germany, debating about an amendment to give women the vote is an utter waste of time"
How can we say that basic civil rights aren't a priority? How can we say that ending discrimination is a waste of time? That justice is just too inconvenient right now? Because that's exactly what you're arguing. Our society is fundamentally about rights and liberties. The right to speak and assemble, the right to worship as we choose, the right to privacy, the right to a just trial, the right to pursue happiness- to live your life. Those rights aren't an inconvenient afterthought, they're the entire point of the country. It's critical that gays and lesbians are allowed to serve in the military, because it's defending the rights of everybody, including and especially those who are different, that makes the country worth fighting for in the first place. If we aren't doing that, then everything else becomes just a waste of time.
The repeal of "don't ask, don't tell" is a disaster from a military standpoint. Just when we finally developed the ability to make our planes invisible to radar, our enemies will be able to track them using gaydar.
Julian Assange might disagree with you here:
"In an online exchange with one volunteer, a transcript of which was obtained by The Times, he warned that WikiLeaks would disintegrate without him. 'We’ve been in a Unity or Death situation for a few months now,' he said. When Herbert Snorrason, a 25-year-old political activist in Iceland, questioned Mr. Assange’s judgment over a number of issues in an online exchange last month, Mr. Assange was uncompromising. 'I don’t like your tone,' he said, according to a transcript. 'If it continues, you’re out.'
Mr. Assange cast himself as indispensable. 'I am the heart and soul of this organization, its founder, philosopher, spokesperson, original coder, organizer, financier, and all the rest,' he said. “If you have a problem with me,' he told Mr. Snorrason, using an expletive, he should quit."
---from the New York Times