Ok, maybe I've not been trolled, but you have managed to misunderstand every single one of my points. The define enemy and the arabic looking comments were attacks on the US/UK government and thier tendancy to treat everyone as the enemy, and the latent racism in US/UK security forces. Like I said, if you ask the government who the enemy is, they think its you (and me, and everyone else). I wasn't attacking you as a racist, I was attacking the absurdity of allowing people catagorise people into enemy groups, as there is always an element (namely those with power) who will try and push it one step further down the scale towards facism.
As far as the other points, in a war between NK and the US, maybe in that case the US winning would be better, in the case of Iran, I think the US winning would be no better, just like in Iraq. The US invaded Iraq, killed thousands, and it is still a brutal and oppressive regime in charge. Ditto Afghanistan, the US fought a bunch of oppressive Islamist warmongers, and replaced them with, a bunch of oppressive Islamist warmongers. If the US invades korea, and tortures and oppresses the people, how is that better that the koreans torturing and oppressing each other? It isn't a case of 'who people are rooting for' don't be so fucking childish, it's war, its killing hudreds of thousands of people, it's not a game of football. I find it strange you are so defensive of a persons privacy, yet you have no respect for a nations sovereignty. The US has no right to go into someone elses country bombing and killing, and then label the people who resist as terrorists. You think the world should be on the side of the US by default. Why? Cos the US is nice and lovely and doesn't oppress people? Well, recently this hasn't been the case, the US has been exposed as doing all kinds of oppressive things, and engaging in the worst kind of corrupt warmongering and exposing these things is what wikileaks is there for.
As for this privacy thig. Your accusing me of demanding wikileaks be some kind of judge who decides what gets exposed and what doesn't is the EXACT OPPOSITE of what I said, and exactly what you seem to be advocating. Maybe you didn't read my post, but I said "Who gets to decide? and why should they have the right?" now I don't know how you transformed that in your head into me saying wikileaks should decide, they have the right.
Let me spell this out to you: What wikileaks should do is publish everything they get sent, without judgement and without predudice.
As for this absurd notion of a leak being the same the police coming to search, all I can say is WTF? A document is discovered, in whatever way, by whoever, maybe someone did stick thier nose in where they shouldn't have, but the outcome is the document is discovered, and after being found, it is found to incriminate someone. This is in NO WAY the same of even similar to the police coming to your house and looking through all your stuff because they decided in advance you probly did it. When something is leaked, you have it right there in front of you, you don't need to find probable cause, cos someone already gave you the evidence, you don't need to speculate as to whether someone fiddle kiddies, cos you have a document showing that, yes, he does. At that point there are only 2 things you can do about it. Tell people or don't tell people. The choice of wheater to take the document has already been taken by someone else, you can't change that, you don't know if they broke in and stole it, or found it dropped in the street open on a page full of kid-rape, all you know is you have it, and it says he bangs kids. Are you genuinely saying that in that situation the right thing to do it to cover it up?
As for the morality of the leaker, imagine you go to you bosses office, the door is unlocked but he's not in, the report you came to get is sat on his desk, signed and ready for you to take, you go in to get it, as you reach across the desk to get hte report, you see the top
Wow, are you a retard or have I just been trolled?
Almost every single thing you have concluded from this is the exact opposite of what I was saying. I don't know whether to rebut or just quit, I'm gunna assume I've been trolled I think, and leave it at that.
When I said 'The US has plans?' that was a joke, I was mocking thier incompetence in Iraqganistan.
I aways find it unendingly funny when a Yank bleats about treason. yanks and irony eh? If a German in 1939 had leaked Hitlers plans on the invasion of Poland, or France, we would call them a hero, we would say 'wow, he defied evil and saved teh world!!!!111!' Of course he wpould be a traitor bastard as far as germany was concerned. Oops, I just realised that Godwinning was not needed. Here is a contempory example. Provided by you.
*** Bit with big point ***
Imagine a Chinese guy posted a plan by China to invade Taiwan. and it led to taiwan being saved, you would say 'yay'. Now the chinese would say 'traitor'. now the big point is. The big ol massive point that you fail to get is this. Wikileaks is global. Its not Yankeeleaks, there is no Chinkyleaks. Wikileaks releases stuff to all people everywhere. It does not divide based on country. It does not say, these people here and more important, so we can't leak thier stuff. It does not say 'this is from the government we cant release it'.
And there is a GOOD REASON (tm) for this:
If you start on the line of not giving out info that might help 'the enemy' firstly, who's enemy?, secondly who is hte enemy? thirdly, if you take the govenments opinion, its probably you,
Now if start to rate things like this, it soon gets you in a big ol' bucket of shit, is hte enemy other countrys? other country to who? In not a yank, hte US is another country to me, is it terrorists? what is a terrorist? who is a terrorist? are you a terrorist? you might be... Is it criminals? all criminals? pirates? suspected criminals? scallywags? does that guy look a bit arabic?
Fact is if you start placing limits, you are just covering stuff up. what if those invasion plans for Iran show that the US plans to bomb civilian hospitals and torture people. What if that Taiwan defence plan involved rounding up all the people who sympathise with China and rendering them to a piss filled bucket with electrodes on thier nipple in Pakistan? What if that CEO's diary tells about hte kids he raped? what if its about him sexualy harrassing his secratary? what about if he kicked a cute lil kitty? what if he sneezed on some guys salad and let him eat it? Where are you going to draw the line, when does his right to privacy over ride the rights of the raped kid, harrased secretary, or kicked kitty? What should be made public? and of course, this leads to hte final thing. Who get to decide? and why should they have the right?
**** end *****
do you really think that if someone posted your dairy online anyone would care, or even read it? Lol what an ego. If someone published the secret diary of the head of say Dell, no one would notice or care, cos whoever it is is just a faceless businessman. Maybe if it was Bill Gates, they would, tho I expect it would be pretty boring, because he has a big gob and puts himself in the news.
and warning people the pigs are coming is not obstructing justice. Lying to the pigs about where someone is, or lying in court is obstructing justice. Saying 'wotch out, rozzers!' is not.
When making a nuke, the design is not a major obstacle, a handful of smart guys n gals could come up with a design from scratch pretty easy. It is the refinement of the delicious weapons grade nuclear material that is the problem. I say: Lets all share the love, nukes all or for none. If you want to blame someone for nuclear proliferation, blame the US govenment, they've given away a lot more nuclear secrets.
wait, lets go thru those 1 by 1. New nuke design: I you have the resources to make it, getting a design for free is just a little bonus, so who cares. Plans to invade Iran/Korea: The US has plans when it invades places? seriously tho if the US invades Iran or North Korea, that would be bad and wrong, I hope any plans are exposed, the US shouldn't do it. Defense of Taiwan plans: lets be brualy honest, the plan is: fuck 'em, let the chinks take it.
ok ok, seriously, joking aside. The answer to all these is basiclly this: Do you not think that if someone can hand these to wikileaks, they could and would sell it the chinese just as easily? Wikileaks exposes not just the data, but the insecurity of the system.
What would you prefer: Scallywag gives Tiawan defence plans to wikileaks, controversy ensues, generals get kicked in the balls for poor security, plans are rewritten, security tightened. US happy. OR
Traitor gives Tiawan defence plan to Chinese, US doesn't know, wallows in self satisfaction, US gets pwned.
As for police roit control plans, they should be released, fact is if an angry mob is about to go on the rampage, some nerd isn't going to pop up his head in the middle and say 'quick everyone down this street, the police will be waiting if we go that way' and have the crowd follow. However, if the police plan to use it against a peaceful protest, then the people ought to know how the police plan on attacking them so they can avoid being oppressed. And if the plan involves beating down and teargassing people who aren't doing anything wrong, people ought to know.
As the a drug raid, two words: Legalise It.
Personal secrets, now theres a lamo one. Do you think this stuff wouldn't be published by newspapers? If the government is going to stick thier noses into our lives they should expect the same. Don't want it to get out out you banged your secretary? shouldn't have banged her then. Personally, I like to hear about it when politicians fuck underage kids, or if they have a secret diary full of racist comments. I think its generally a good thing to know if the people who make our laws are liars, or racists or paedophiles.
Also, may I add, one final note, warning someone the pigs are after them is not obstructing justice.
wasn't your point that religious rules are great because they are accepted without reason? now you are telling us that we should use our heads and determine which ones are usefull to society? Great contradiction.
Most of battle bots was ridiculous show boating and playing to the camera, encouraged by the stupid commentators and in the first season a constant obsession with babes. It had the air of a lame wrestling show, I dunno about the later series, but thats how the first series was.
lol, almost! No, that's nowhere near. It can make some of it's own (non complex) parts, but the hard part is to assemble them into the copy, and to go out and collect the raw materials.
I remember the series "Seven Days" dealt with that problem, as the time machine had spacial travel apparatus to counter balance the earth's movement, where the pilot had to aim to rematerialise on the planets surface at the point in the past they were travelling to, but if they made a mistake the machine could end up in space which happened to some of the test pilots. Usually , they ended up hundred of miles away and had a crash landing from where they appeared up in the air. I think only once the chronosphere managed to land in the exact same spot. If I remember correctly the 7 day limit of the time machine was also because of being too far away from the earth in 7 days time.
I used to be on the executive committee of a student union, the rest of the exec could barely use MS office. In any vaguely technical issue, I basicly had to explain everything to them, did this mean they listened to a word I said? Nope, they just bleated like sheep and panic voted every reactionary piece of crap in, and voted down anything they didn't understand.
Sad fact is, most legislators don't want to learn new things, and when presented with something they don't understand will usually blindly follow their leader or lobbyists rather than try and understand the issue themselves. I predict this guy is going to get really frustrated by his fellow congressmonkeys whenever a technology related bill come up.
Actually a lot of turing test bots are designed so they will respond negatively to most things so they cut off the conversation and avoid having to elaborate. Try asking a turing test bot if it like Jews and see what it says.
So, what you are saying is, if someone takes most of your country and forces you into a tiny over crowded part of it, and then they take most of that too, then they offer you the shitty uninhabitable parts back, while keeping control of your infrastructure, they are being generous. Take a look at the map of Israel and Palestine today, all of that used to be Palestine, now it is almost all Israel, the coat the borders and the airspace are ll controlled by Israel, and this super greedy 100% that you talk about is just 100% of the land taken inside the west bank, how can you honestly say that the Palestinians didn't compromise?
If the Palestinians got what was fair, they would split the entire country 50/50 with equal access to the sea, and air, and equal rights to govern themselves and allow the right of return for Palestinians.
That still requires opportunity, especially if you want to make it look like an accident. You need to be in a hidden place where you are above them with the rock, at the right time, where you can't be seen by anyone else, you need to hit them, you need it to be a place where a rock might drop naturally, you need to leave no trace behind that you were up there.
With this, you need no vantage point, no hiding place, you don't need to wait till they are in some opportune location, there's no risk of detection, if you attempt and fail, they won't even know. Even with a sniper rife, you still need a window with line of sight. With this, you don't need to be in a book repository, or behind a grassy knoll, you could be stood in the front row of the crowd and no one would even know.
Killing people remotely is not hard, doing it without anyone knowing it was you, without any indication at the time that it was anything other than natural causes, requiring no opportunity other than being within wireless range and leaving no evidence behind whatsoever. That's the novel part.
Espionage and subversion against your own government used to be called treason, if a islamic or a socialist organisation had done the same thing they probably would still be in jail now and their organisation banned.
Slashdot Mirror
Ok, maybe I've not been trolled, but you have managed to misunderstand every single one of my points. The define enemy and the arabic looking comments were attacks on the US/UK government and thier tendancy to treat everyone as the enemy, and the latent racism in US/UK security forces. Like I said, if you ask the government who the enemy is, they think its you (and me, and everyone else). I wasn't attacking you as a racist, I was attacking the absurdity of allowing people catagorise people into enemy groups, as there is always an element (namely those with power) who will try and push it one step further down the scale towards facism.
As far as the other points, in a war between NK and the US, maybe in that case the US winning would be better, in the case of Iran, I think the US winning would be no better, just like in Iraq. The US invaded Iraq, killed thousands, and it is still a brutal and oppressive regime in charge. Ditto Afghanistan, the US fought a bunch of oppressive Islamist warmongers, and replaced them with, a bunch of oppressive Islamist warmongers. If the US invades korea, and tortures and oppresses the people, how is that better that the koreans torturing and oppressing each other? It isn't a case of 'who people are rooting for' don't be so fucking childish, it's war, its killing hudreds of thousands of people, it's not a game of football. I find it strange you are so defensive of a persons privacy, yet you have no respect for a nations sovereignty. The US has no right to go into someone elses country bombing and killing, and then label the people who resist as terrorists. You think the world should be on the side of the US by default. Why? Cos the US is nice and lovely and doesn't oppress people? Well, recently this hasn't been the case, the US has been exposed as doing all kinds of oppressive things, and engaging in the worst kind of corrupt warmongering and exposing these things is what wikileaks is there for. As for this privacy thig. Your accusing me of demanding wikileaks be some kind of judge who decides what gets exposed and what doesn't is the EXACT OPPOSITE of what I said, and exactly what you seem to be advocating. Maybe you didn't read my post, but I said "Who gets to decide? and why should they have the right?" now I don't know how you transformed that in your head into me saying wikileaks should decide, they have the right.
Let me spell this out to you: What wikileaks should do is publish everything they get sent, without judgement and without predudice.
As for this absurd notion of a leak being the same the police coming to search, all I can say is WTF? A document is discovered, in whatever way, by whoever, maybe someone did stick thier nose in where they shouldn't have, but the outcome is the document is discovered, and after being found, it is found to incriminate someone. This is in NO WAY the same of even similar to the police coming to your house and looking through all your stuff because they decided in advance you probly did it. When something is leaked, you have it right there in front of you, you don't need to find probable cause, cos someone already gave you the evidence, you don't need to speculate as to whether someone fiddle kiddies, cos you have a document showing that, yes, he does. At that point there are only 2 things you can do about it. Tell people or don't tell people. The choice of wheater to take the document has already been taken by someone else, you can't change that, you don't know if they broke in and stole it, or found it dropped in the street open on a page full of kid-rape, all you know is you have it, and it says he bangs kids. Are you genuinely saying that in that situation the right thing to do it to cover it up?
As for the morality of the leaker, imagine you go to you bosses office, the door is unlocked but he's not in, the report you came to get is sat on his desk, signed and ready for you to take, you go in to get it, as you reach across the desk to get hte report, you see the top
Wow, are you a retard or have I just been trolled?
Almost every single thing you have concluded from this is the exact opposite of what I was saying. I don't know whether to rebut or just quit, I'm gunna assume I've been trolled I think, and leave it at that.
Oh look, thoses gene match my mum, I can't find the ones that match my dad those. There's some that match your dad tho...
and drown the terrorists in pussy juice?
When I said 'The US has plans?' that was a joke, I was mocking thier incompetence in Iraqganistan.
I aways find it unendingly funny when a Yank bleats about treason. yanks and irony eh? If a German in 1939 had leaked Hitlers plans on the invasion of Poland, or France, we would call them a hero, we would say 'wow, he defied evil and saved teh world!!!!111!' Of course he wpould be a traitor bastard as far as germany was concerned. Oops, I just realised that Godwinning was not needed. Here is a contempory example. Provided by you.
*** Bit with big point ***
Imagine a Chinese guy posted a plan by China to invade Taiwan. and it led to taiwan being saved, you would say 'yay'. Now the chinese would say 'traitor'. now the big point is. The big ol massive point that you fail to get is this. Wikileaks is global. Its not Yankeeleaks, there is no Chinkyleaks. Wikileaks releases stuff to all people everywhere. It does not divide based on country. It does not say, these people here and more important, so we can't leak thier stuff. It does not say 'this is from the government we cant release it'.
And there is a GOOD REASON (tm) for this:
If you start on the line of not giving out info that might help 'the enemy' firstly, who's enemy?, secondly who is hte enemy? thirdly, if you take the govenments opinion, its probably you,
Now if start to rate things like this, it soon gets you in a big ol' bucket of shit, is hte enemy other countrys? other country to who? In not a yank, hte US is another country to me, is it terrorists? what is a terrorist? who is a terrorist? are you a terrorist? you might be... Is it criminals? all criminals? pirates? suspected criminals? scallywags? does that guy look a bit arabic?
Fact is if you start placing limits, you are just covering stuff up. what if those invasion plans for Iran show that the US plans to bomb civilian hospitals and torture people. What if that Taiwan defence plan involved rounding up all the people who sympathise with China and rendering them to a piss filled bucket with electrodes on thier nipple in Pakistan? What if that CEO's diary tells about hte kids he raped? what if its about him sexualy harrassing his secratary? what about if he kicked a cute lil kitty? what if he sneezed on some guys salad and let him eat it? Where are you going to draw the line, when does his right to privacy over ride the rights of the raped kid, harrased secretary, or kicked kitty? What should be made public? and of course, this leads to hte final thing. Who get to decide? and why should they have the right?
**** end *****
do you really think that if someone posted your dairy online anyone would care, or even read it? Lol what an ego. If someone published the secret diary of the head of say Dell, no one would notice or care, cos whoever it is is just a faceless businessman. Maybe if it was Bill Gates, they would, tho I expect it would be pretty boring, because he has a big gob and puts himself in the news.
and warning people the pigs are coming is not obstructing justice. Lying to the pigs about where someone is, or lying in court is obstructing justice. Saying 'wotch out, rozzers!' is not.
Yea, you can top up with cash at either machines or shops.
When making a nuke, the design is not a major obstacle, a handful of smart guys n gals could come up with a design from scratch pretty easy. It is the refinement of the delicious weapons grade nuclear material that is the problem. I say: Lets all share the love, nukes all or for none. If you want to blame someone for nuclear proliferation, blame the US govenment, they've given away a lot more nuclear secrets.
wait, lets go thru those 1 by 1. New nuke design: I you have the resources to make it, getting a design for free is just a little bonus, so who cares. Plans to invade Iran/Korea: The US has plans when it invades places? seriously tho if the US invades Iran or North Korea, that would be bad and wrong, I hope any plans are exposed, the US shouldn't do it. Defense of Taiwan plans: lets be brualy honest, the plan is: fuck 'em, let the chinks take it.
ok ok, seriously, joking aside. The answer to all these is basiclly this: Do you not think that if someone can hand these to wikileaks, they could and would sell it the chinese just as easily? Wikileaks exposes not just the data, but the insecurity of the system.
What would you prefer:
Scallywag gives Tiawan defence plans to wikileaks, controversy ensues, generals get kicked in the balls for poor security, plans are rewritten, security tightened. US happy.
OR
Traitor gives Tiawan defence plan to Chinese, US doesn't know, wallows in self satisfaction, US gets pwned.
As for police roit control plans, they should be released, fact is if an angry mob is about to go on the rampage, some nerd isn't going to pop up his head in the middle and say 'quick everyone down this street, the police will be waiting if we go that way' and have the crowd follow. However, if the police plan to use it against a peaceful protest, then the people ought to know how the police plan on attacking them so they can avoid being oppressed. And if the plan involves beating down and teargassing people who aren't doing anything wrong, people ought to know.
As the a drug raid, two words: Legalise It.
Personal secrets, now theres a lamo one. Do you think this stuff wouldn't be published by newspapers? If the government is going to stick thier noses into our lives they should expect the same. Don't want it to get out out you banged your secretary? shouldn't have banged her then. Personally, I like to hear about it when politicians fuck underage kids, or if they have a secret diary full of racist comments. I think its generally a good thing to know if the people who make our laws are liars, or racists or paedophiles.
Also, may I add, one final note, warning someone the pigs are after them is not obstructing justice.
wasn't your point that religious rules are great because they are accepted without reason? now you are telling us that we should use our heads and determine which ones are usefull to society? Great contradiction.
The case of wacko Jacko supports the Nation of Islam belief that white people were created from black people by a mad scientist.
Most of battle bots was ridiculous show boating and playing to the camera, encouraged by the stupid commentators and in the first season a constant obsession with babes. It had the air of a lame wrestling show, I dunno about the later series, but thats how the first series was.
Last timed I checked, they were 0.
lol, almost! No, that's nowhere near. It can make some of it's own (non complex) parts, but the hard part is to assemble them into the copy, and to go out and collect the raw materials.
Another is to assume that cos they have a head start they will keep the lead, Apple had the head start on MS with PCs, but who won that one?
I remember the series "Seven Days" dealt with that problem, as the time machine had spacial travel apparatus to counter balance the earth's movement, where the pilot had to aim to rematerialise on the planets surface at the point in the past they were travelling to, but if they made a mistake the machine could end up in space which happened to some of the test pilots. Usually , they ended up hundred of miles away and had a crash landing from where they appeared up in the air. I think only once the chronosphere managed to land in the exact same spot. If I remember correctly the 7 day limit of the time machine was also because of being too far away from the earth in 7 days time.
Interfaces with the human nervous system? Try Meningitis.
I used to be on the executive committee of a student union, the rest of the exec could barely use MS office. In any vaguely technical issue, I basicly had to explain everything to them, did this mean they listened to a word I said? Nope, they just bleated like sheep and panic voted every reactionary piece of crap in, and voted down anything they didn't understand.
Sad fact is, most legislators don't want to learn new things, and when presented with something they don't understand will usually blindly follow their leader or lobbyists rather than try and understand the issue themselves.
I predict this guy is going to get really frustrated by his fellow congressmonkeys whenever a technology related bill come up.
Actually a lot of turing test bots are designed so they will respond negatively to most things so they cut off the conversation and avoid having to elaborate. Try asking a turing test bot if it like Jews and see what it says.
So, what you are saying is, if someone takes most of your country and forces you into a tiny over crowded part of it, and then they take most of that too, then they offer you the shitty uninhabitable parts back, while keeping control of your infrastructure, they are being generous. Take a look at the map of Israel and Palestine today, all of that used to be Palestine, now it is almost all Israel, the coat the borders and the airspace are ll controlled by Israel, and this super greedy 100% that you talk about is just 100% of the land taken inside the west bank, how can you honestly say that the Palestinians didn't compromise?
If the Palestinians got what was fair, they would split the entire country 50/50 with equal access to the sea, and air, and equal rights to govern themselves and allow the right of return for Palestinians.
why? Just cos I have 160 GB of storage doesn't mean I want to read/write the entire of it at once.
So the cops could then go and harass them after they post bad reviews?
That still requires opportunity, especially if you want to make it look like an accident. You need to be in a hidden place where you are above them with the rock, at the right time, where you can't be seen by anyone else, you need to hit them, you need it to be a place where a rock might drop naturally, you need to leave no trace behind that you were up there.
With this, you need no vantage point, no hiding place, you don't need to wait till they are in some opportune location, there's no risk of detection, if you attempt and fail, they won't even know. Even with a sniper rife, you still need a window with line of sight. With this, you don't need to be in a book repository, or behind a grassy knoll, you could be stood in the front row of the crowd and no one would even know.
Killing people remotely is not hard, doing it without anyone knowing it was you, without any indication at the time that it was anything other than natural causes, requiring no opportunity other than being within wireless range and leaving no evidence behind whatsoever. That's the novel part.
If it did, It would be an improvement.
Espionage and subversion against your own government used to be called treason, if a islamic or a socialist organisation had done the same thing they probably would still be in jail now and their organisation banned.