Your understanding of how the Constitution works is shameful.
The Constitution is designed to protect freedoms. Here a private business has the right to refuse or offer service as they see fit. You would suggest that they be obligated to provide service to anyone against their will because it fits your wishes.
Whether or not PayPal offers a financial service to a website doesn't change whether or not he will receive a fair trial.
I work for PayPal, but don't have any knowledge of why this decision was made first hand.
I can say that in many past cases where a non-profit's funds were frozen, and everyone makes a stink about how evil PayPal is, it comes down to the fact that after the Patriot Act, PayPal is obligated by law to make sure non-profits file extra paperwork to prove their status. I think Xorg's funds were frozen for a while and everyone interpreted as PayPal hating open source, when in reality they just forgot to file paperwork.
This certainly could be PayPal refusing to do business with anyone associated with WikiLeaks after Anonymous tried a DDoS attack on api.paypal.com, but it could also be another technicality.
That is what I've been saying ever since ChromeOS has been announced. Everyone said it was crazy to ship an OS that was only a browser, and basically couldn't run anything.
Consider now that the entire OS is locked down and fairly secure. Consider how the browser also keeps NaCl in a sandbox. And now you have perhaps a very simple and secure way to run all kinds of apps with the OS that no one was taking seriously.
There isn't a firm release date for the Wifi one, but we only learned a hard date for the 3G/4G model until about a week before it ships. All the pundits have been saying the wifi model will ship in March or April at the latest. It won't require a dataplan. If you're opposed to paying for 3G data, then why pay $200 more for the 3G model?
Do I believe that the testimony of two women alleging the same thing is enough to get someone in convicted in Sweden with particularly liberal rape laws?
The CIA has a track record of being a terrible organization. I'm sure they would be willing to trump up charges.
Do I believe that Sweden listens to the CIA? Do I believe that Sweden issues warrants for people we don't like? Do I believe that Amnesty International (who rips the CIA on a regular basis) acts on the behalf of the CIA? Do I believe his fellow-CIA-hating-former-colleague cares what the CIA wants?
No, no, no and no.
And I didn't say it is proved he is guilty. I'm saying you can't say definitively he is innocent, which is what the OP said. I've explained that a few times now.
The OP suggested that Assange has to be innocent because any charges MUST be trumped up. I'm suggesting that there is a lot of smoke, and where there is smoke there is often fire. Assuming Assange has to be innocent against all evidence otherwise isn't prudent.
No one really knows other than Assange and the two women he slept with. But Sweden doesn't make up charges because the CIA asks.
Amnesty International doesn't go after people because the CIA asks.
His colleague split off from Wikileaks and wrote a book about how evil Assange was, a book he has been working on long before most of this hit the fan. His colleague share's Assange's supposed vision of government transparency, leaks, etc. I find it hard to believe he'd write a book accusing Assange of threating his life just because we asked given that he has painted the US government as a villian himself.
I'm saying there does appear to be this trend (especially in his mailing list posts, which are public) where Assange comes across as this massive asshole. And the behavior that he is accused of in Sweden does not appear to be out of line with his other behavior. It certainly isn't beyond reason that he might be guilty, which the OP has suggested is completely beyond reason.
This is rape by Swedish definitions. There are two different women who consented to have sex with him, but in the course both demanded he wear a condom, and he refused. He also didn't disclose to either that he was having multiple sex partners at the time.
So he didn't violent force his way on a woman by US standards, but put women at risk of STDs by refusing to wear a condom while having multiple sex partners. By those standards, and with the testimony of these two women, he would be found guilty. That is why he is ducking Sweden and won't show up for his warrants.
And frankly those charges are in line with him being an asshat.
It doesn't behoove you to link Haggis and Assange.
There are public records of mailing crypto mailing lists where you can see Assange act like an asshat. His former colleauge from Wikileaks wrote a book saying that Assange is an asshat and theatened to kill him at one point. And Sweden doesn't just make up fake warrants just because we ask.
Heck, Amnesty International ripped Assange for putting innocent civilians in harms way when he refused to redact names, and causing civilian volunteers to suffer death threats. He didn't apologize. He said if they wanted names protected, he wanted $200,000. If Assange were innocent, then it wouldn't hurt him to show up in Sweden and dispute the charges rather than run from multiple warrants. His lawyer says showing up in Sweden will get him sent to Gitmo, but Sweden would never do that in a million years.
In drawing a comparison that any attempt to discreit Haggis would be on par with Assange, you are in turn suggesting it might be valid.
You're assuming that Wikileaks is telling the truth and that Domscheit-Berg lied. You're stated reasoning behind that was anyone criticizing Wikileaks must be working for the CIA. I pointed out why that was faulty reasoning.
We don't know the facts of the matter. One side is lying. You've contended that no one is allowed to question Assange without being a government pawn. That makes you exceedingly objective.
People keep suggesting that anyone who speaks out against Assange or Wikileaks must be pawns of the CIA. Logically that doesn't hold nearly the water you imagine it would.
I personally don't care for how Wikileaks editorializes. I don't care for how they've been irresponsible in leaking names of innocent civilians, names that came under death threats because of their negligence. When Assange was directly asked about how he failed to react civilian volunteer names that were threatened, he said it is an expensive process and people should give him $200,000 if they wanted it done.
Reputable organizations that call for government transparency and accountability (like Amnesty International) have ripped Wikileaks and Assange. Are you going to next insinuate they must be part of the CIA playbook? Last time I checked, Amnesty International and the CIA aren't exactly pals.
And when everyone assumed Assange was being set up by the CIA on rape charges (because European governments love to throw their citizens under the bus just because we ask), it turns out these are very real charges by real people (though in all fairness, this isn't necessarily the American view of rape).
The same simplistic view I keep hearing is that Assange criticizes the US government, which many people like, so that must make him a fucking hero. Let's just conveniently overlook everything else.
Domscheit-Berg has also said the whole point of Wikileaks was supposed to be transparency and leaking of documents. Under Assange, a lot of stuff seems to sit on a shelf without being released. Wikileaks itself has no transparency, so no one knows why certain things get leaked whiles others aren't. Domscheit-Berg said he didn't approve of Assange's direction and wants to continue the concept of leaking documents under new management.
Wikileaks supporters supposedly want more transparency and more leaks. Shouldn't they support this?
The only real problem I have with any of this is whether or not he revealed the names of anonymous tipsters. And there is no proof he did that. There is an accusation that he crippled a system that was designed to help protect their innocence. And I'm not sure whether or not to believe that accusation.
The Bible actually clearly states you are to confess sin directly to God, not to man. But the Catholic Church wants you dependent on the Church, and this app removes part of that dependence.
Instead of fighting the MPAA, Google could replace the MPAA.
Google could approach each major studio and make a very clear case.
We control the disemination of information in a major way. We control the distribution of content in a major way. You haven't figured out the online model yet. And while the RIAA was busy chasing Napster, Apple came along with iTunes and took over the music industry. What if we decided to start purchasing the rights to distribute films, and completely eliminated your current distribution system?
We have the backbone to distribute them to theaters and invidual consumers just the same. And the people who would jump onboard first are the guys like James Cameron, Steve Speilberg, George Lucas, Chris Nolan, etc. that love to push innovation and new technology. The big blockbuster films that provide the bulk of your profit would disappear overnight.
Or you can beg right now to be kept in the loop and cut a similar deal with us now, where we allow you to continue to distribute to theaters and just use Google to help distribute to video on demand, Google TV, etc. in the future.
There was this, and the music rootkit fiasco. I've seen first hand that in mammoth corporations, one division really has no clue what another division is doing. So I gave Sony one pass for the rootkit, because the rest of the company shouldn't necessarily be judged by one action the music division.
The PS2 was very easily hacked to play pirated games. And yet the PS2 was the most successful console of its generation. The Gameboy line of handhelds have all been very easily hacked, and yet Nintendo sells tons of games and hardware.
I'm not advocating piracy or saying it has zero effect, but I honestly believe that threatening to sue anyone who even viewed the content (with no proof they hacked their console, or distributed the information) is really going too far. I've long been a Sony supporter. I bought a PS3 instead of a 360 to specifically support Sony. With it I purchased a new Sony surround system and Bravia.
But I can't imagine every supporting them again for any reason. And why would any consumer want to buy a future console from a company that sues their customers? The key won't kill Playstation, but Sony's behavior will.
I had really hoped the price would be closer to $500, but if we're comparing apples to Apples, then the iPad isn't $500.
This is a 3G + Wifi 32GB model. So the comparable iPad is $730. The Xoom is $70 more, has 4 times the RAM, two HD cameras, a SD slot, and a dual-core processor.
And I keep hearing stories how the average iPad purchase was over $800 with accessories. So the price is high, but not ridiculously high.
That being said, Motorolla needs to offer a base model (Wifi only) for under $600 if they want to compete.
I work for PayPal and can attest that we did track all the IPs we received attacks from. Anonymous specifically targeted api.paypal.com to block transactions from merchants, not just a website like with Mastercard.
Slashdot Mirror
Your understanding of how the Constitution works is shameful.
The Constitution is designed to protect freedoms. Here a private business has the right to refuse or offer service as they see fit. You would suggest that they be obligated to provide service to anyone against their will because it fits your wishes.
Whether or not PayPal offers a financial service to a website doesn't change whether or not he will receive a fair trial.
I work for PayPal, but don't have any knowledge of why this decision was made first hand.
I can say that in many past cases where a non-profit's funds were frozen, and everyone makes a stink about how evil PayPal is, it comes down to the fact that after the Patriot Act, PayPal is obligated by law to make sure non-profits file extra paperwork to prove their status. I think Xorg's funds were frozen for a while and everyone interpreted as PayPal hating open source, when in reality they just forgot to file paperwork.
This certainly could be PayPal refusing to do business with anyone associated with WikiLeaks after Anonymous tried a DDoS attack on api.paypal.com, but it could also be another technicality.
That is what I've been saying ever since ChromeOS has been announced. Everyone said it was crazy to ship an OS that was only a browser, and basically couldn't run anything.
Consider now that the entire OS is locked down and fairly secure. Consider how the browser also keeps NaCl in a sandbox. And now you have perhaps a very simple and secure way to run all kinds of apps with the OS that no one was taking seriously.
Chrome is extremely sandboxed. Scripts running in Chrome don't have permission to randomly alter files, install software, etc. like ActiveX did.
I imagine they'll keep NaCl in a similar sandbox.
There isn't a firm release date for the Wifi one, but we only learned a hard date for the 3G/4G model until about a week before it ships. All the pundits have been saying the wifi model will ship in March or April at the latest. It won't require a dataplan. If you're opposed to paying for 3G data, then why pay $200 more for the 3G model?
Just wait a frickin' month.
Do I believe that the testimony of two women alleging the same thing is enough to get someone in convicted in Sweden with particularly liberal rape laws?
Yes.
The CIA has a track record of being a terrible organization. I'm sure they would be willing to trump up charges.
Do I believe that Sweden listens to the CIA? Do I believe that Sweden issues warrants for people we don't like? Do I believe that Amnesty International (who rips the CIA on a regular basis) acts on the behalf of the CIA? Do I believe his fellow-CIA-hating-former-colleague cares what the CIA wants?
No, no, no and no.
And I didn't say it is proved he is guilty. I'm saying you can't say definitively he is innocent, which is what the OP said. I've explained that a few times now.
The OP suggested that Assange has to be innocent because any charges MUST be trumped up. I'm suggesting that there is a lot of smoke, and where there is smoke there is often fire. Assuming Assange has to be innocent against all evidence otherwise isn't prudent.
No one really knows other than Assange and the two women he slept with. But Sweden doesn't make up charges because the CIA asks.
Amnesty International doesn't go after people because the CIA asks.
His colleague split off from Wikileaks and wrote a book about how evil Assange was, a book he has been working on long before most of this hit the fan. His colleague share's Assange's supposed vision of government transparency, leaks, etc. I find it hard to believe he'd write a book accusing Assange of threating his life just because we asked given that he has painted the US government as a villian himself.
I'm saying there does appear to be this trend (especially in his mailing list posts, which are public) where Assange comes across as this massive asshole. And the behavior that he is accused of in Sweden does not appear to be out of line with his other behavior. It certainly isn't beyond reason that he might be guilty, which the OP has suggested is completely beyond reason.
No, two women have stated that they demanded he wear a condom and he refused. By Swedish law, that is called rape.
And basically he knows that if he stands trial in Sweden and the two women testify, then he will be found guilty.
Have you read over his charges?
This is rape by Swedish definitions. There are two different women who consented to have sex with him, but in the course both demanded he wear a condom, and he refused. He also didn't disclose to either that he was having multiple sex partners at the time.
So he didn't violent force his way on a woman by US standards, but put women at risk of STDs by refusing to wear a condom while having multiple sex partners. By those standards, and with the testimony of these two women, he would be found guilty. That is why he is ducking Sweden and won't show up for his warrants.
And frankly those charges are in line with him being an asshat.
It doesn't behoove you to link Haggis and Assange.
There are public records of mailing crypto mailing lists where you can see Assange act like an asshat. His former colleauge from Wikileaks wrote a book saying that Assange is an asshat and theatened to kill him at one point. And Sweden doesn't just make up fake warrants just because we ask.
Heck, Amnesty International ripped Assange for putting innocent civilians in harms way when he refused to redact names, and causing civilian volunteers to suffer death threats. He didn't apologize. He said if they wanted names protected, he wanted $200,000. If Assange were innocent, then it wouldn't hurt him to show up in Sweden and dispute the charges rather than run from multiple warrants. His lawyer says showing up in Sweden will get him sent to Gitmo, but Sweden would never do that in a million years.
In drawing a comparison that any attempt to discreit Haggis would be on par with Assange, you are in turn suggesting it might be valid.
There isn't a whole lot of mockup in server hardware.
HP servers a little more expensive because of their lilo cards and such, but the markup is pretty small.
I'm not sure Domscheit-Berg did either.
You're assuming that Wikileaks is telling the truth and that Domscheit-Berg lied. You're stated reasoning behind that was anyone criticizing Wikileaks must be working for the CIA. I pointed out why that was faulty reasoning.
We don't know the facts of the matter. One side is lying. You've contended that no one is allowed to question Assange without being a government pawn. That makes you exceedingly objective.
People keep suggesting that anyone who speaks out against Assange or Wikileaks must be pawns of the CIA. Logically that doesn't hold nearly the water you imagine it would.
I personally don't care for how Wikileaks editorializes. I don't care for how they've been irresponsible in leaking names of innocent civilians, names that came under death threats because of their negligence. When Assange was directly asked about how he failed to react civilian volunteer names that were threatened, he said it is an expensive process and people should give him $200,000 if they wanted it done.
Reputable organizations that call for government transparency and accountability (like Amnesty International) have ripped Wikileaks and Assange. Are you going to next insinuate they must be part of the CIA playbook? Last time I checked, Amnesty International and the CIA aren't exactly pals.
And when everyone assumed Assange was being set up by the CIA on rape charges (because European governments love to throw their citizens under the bus just because we ask), it turns out these are very real charges by real people (though in all fairness, this isn't necessarily the American view of rape).
The same simplistic view I keep hearing is that Assange criticizes the US government, which many people like, so that must make him a fucking hero. Let's just conveniently overlook everything else.
Domscheit-Berg has also said the whole point of Wikileaks was supposed to be transparency and leaking of documents. Under Assange, a lot of stuff seems to sit on a shelf without being released. Wikileaks itself has no transparency, so no one knows why certain things get leaked whiles others aren't. Domscheit-Berg said he didn't approve of Assange's direction and wants to continue the concept of leaking documents under new management.
Wikileaks supporters supposedly want more transparency and more leaks. Shouldn't they support this?
The only real problem I have with any of this is whether or not he revealed the names of anonymous tipsters. And there is no proof he did that. There is an accusation that he crippled a system that was designed to help protect their innocence. And I'm not sure whether or not to believe that accusation.
The Bible actually clearly states you are to confess sin directly to God, not to man. But the Catholic Church wants you dependent on the Church, and this app removes part of that dependence.
Instead of fighting the MPAA, Google could replace the MPAA.
Google could approach each major studio and make a very clear case.
We control the disemination of information in a major way. We control the distribution of content in a major way. You haven't figured out the online model yet. And while the RIAA was busy chasing Napster, Apple came along with iTunes and took over the music industry. What if we decided to start purchasing the rights to distribute films, and completely eliminated your current distribution system?
We have the backbone to distribute them to theaters and invidual consumers just the same. And the people who would jump onboard first are the guys like James Cameron, Steve Speilberg, George Lucas, Chris Nolan, etc. that love to push innovation and new technology. The big blockbuster films that provide the bulk of your profit would disappear overnight.
Or you can beg right now to be kept in the loop and cut a similar deal with us now, where we allow you to continue to distribute to theaters and just use Google to help distribute to video on demand, Google TV, etc. in the future.
There was this, and the music rootkit fiasco. I've seen first hand that in mammoth corporations, one division really has no clue what another division is doing. So I gave Sony one pass for the rootkit, because the rest of the company shouldn't necessarily be judged by one action the music division.
What else am I missing?
The PS2 was very easily hacked to play pirated games. And yet the PS2 was the most successful console of its generation. The Gameboy line of handhelds have all been very easily hacked, and yet Nintendo sells tons of games and hardware.
I'm not advocating piracy or saying it has zero effect, but I honestly believe that threatening to sue anyone who even viewed the content (with no proof they hacked their console, or distributed the information) is really going too far. I've long been a Sony supporter. I bought a PS3 instead of a 360 to specifically support Sony. With it I purchased a new Sony surround system and Bravia.
But I can't imagine every supporting them again for any reason. And why would any consumer want to buy a future console from a company that sues their customers? The key won't kill Playstation, but Sony's behavior will.
9 companies were in on the formation of Blu-ray, though Sony is widely creditted as being the primary creators of the technology.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blu-ray_Disc_Association
62% of iPad customers apparently. At least, 62% of the next run will be 3G models. I haven't seen sales breakdowns anywhere.
http://www.cultofmac.com/analyst-62-of-first-run-ipad-2s-will-be-3g-and-16-verizon/80752
And according to this survey, the $830 iPad is the most popular model.
http://www.v3.co.uk/v3/news/2274007/context-ipad-3g-sales-uk
I'm not familiar with your math.
32GB 3G iPad is $730. The 32GB 3G Xoom is $800. I'm not seeing a $150 difference.
I had really hoped the price would be closer to $500, but if we're comparing apples to Apples, then the iPad isn't $500.
This is a 3G + Wifi 32GB model. So the comparable iPad is $730. The Xoom is $70 more, has 4 times the RAM, two HD cameras, a SD slot, and a dual-core processor.
And I keep hearing stories how the average iPad purchase was over $800 with accessories. So the price is high, but not ridiculously high.
That being said, Motorolla needs to offer a base model (Wifi only) for under $600 if they want to compete.
I work for PayPal and can attest that we did track all the IPs we received attacks from. Anonymous specifically targeted api.paypal.com to block transactions from merchants, not just a website like with Mastercard.
I won't say much beyond that.
At some point you want a real keyboard for one.
Secondly, it is a nightmare on your neck and back to try and use a tablet for a couple hours on end.
And, when you're used to having tons of screen real estate and multiple monitors, it is hard to be productive on a small, single screen.