When what you're talking about is things businesses and governments wish to keep secret, there is no such thing as free speech. You pay for it in blood.
Were I Assange, I'd be far more worried about a bullet in my head or a mickey in my drink than a legit arrest.
Am I insinuating that a government or business would kill over information they wish to keep secret for legitimate reasons, or otherwise?
Hell yes, I am.
I'm sure there are many secrets that should remain so -- but buried in that pile are atrocities and behind-the-scene dealings that impact people like you and I in the worst ways -- and those are the dirty bits of laundry that need to get out.
Frankly, I still think the Internet is nothing but television magnified by 1000, with all the lolcatz and pr0n and myface and spacebook and all that -- but the ability to shed light on nasty, shady dealings -- that's what I had hoped the Internet would be able to do.
We need more of this. We need to know more about what businesses and governments do in secret to line their pockets by picking ours. The mainstream media can't quite be trusted to do so, I feel they're in the payroll of government and business -- so the last resort is.. this.
But, who vets this kind of leaks? Who can assure the reader that it isn't misinformation? Wow, paranoids are right, I think!
Still, there's a little place in my heart that tells me.. we really don't want to know. I think it could be that revolting, that repulsive.
They would probably just capture him and interrogate him for the rest of his life.
I agree with this. There's an interest excerpt from the constitution for the state of Massachusetts:
Article XXX. In the government of this commonwealth, the legislative department shall never exercise the executive and judicial powers, or either of them: the executive shall never exercise the legislative and judicial powers, or either of them: the judicial shall never exercise the legislative and executive powers, or either of them: to the end it may be a government of laws and not of men.
This is precisely what the action of the US military preempts. This is far from the first such abuse, but it should be resisted. Why should a citizen of a peaceful ally, conducting his business legally, even though it be to the disadvantage of the US or the US military, be classified as a "enemy", especially, when it is not within the authority of the US military to make such a designation?
It doesn't matter. They can kill us all. Their weapons are the rules.
He already -can- drone strike him with impunity: who's going to charge Obama with anything? If we even question His Droniness, we're interrogated as to why we hate America, and put on a list of potential drone targets.
Love the Ellison reference: "At which time he merely sang a song about moonlight in a place no one had ever heard of, called Vermont, and vanished again."
Why would Obama use drones when they probably have all sorts of top secret weapons? Assange is in serious danger.
The thing lacking in both the original article and the comments here (except for a few) is that ultrasonographic imaging has many diagnostic applications outside of neonatal care. Cardiopulmonary medicine, nephrology, hepatology, endocrinology, gastroenterology... the list goes on. All of these applications would make low cost, portable ultrasonography extremely beneficial in third world and developing countries.
It can also detect signals through walls such as keystrokes.
Sexually frustrated men fight. Not immediately but if they see no hope of getting time with a woman for long enough. Some join the army and get into wars, some form gangs, some quietly become rapists (those with a predilection to). Evolution in action I'm afraid. Look at sheep, cattle, horses or lions for a hint as to how deeply this is ingrained in our genome. Combat is a means of rebalancing the population toward the species-optimal sex ratio.
Men in poverty do the same thing. Send some women over to China along with some cash.
Hillary Clinton's failure to use the bully pulpit to point out that Iran is hacking our banks, jeopardizing the safety of US Citizen's money, worries me. No, I don't want a war with Iran, but hacking US banks requires a loud vocal response to provide cover for whatever bombing Obama/Romney is planning to do.
I doubt the attack was very successful but it depends on the security of banks. I don't know how banks are configured but if it's configured properly it wont be damaged permanently, it will take some time to restore operations though.
'Cui bono' test for Iran: LOW What? They're going to make off with virtual sacks of money? What a coincidence that they decided to launch this soft attack while real military hardware is converging on their location.
Ramping anti-Iran sentiment via false flag hacking tricks: HIGH It's what we do, it's what the Israelis do. Proudly and loudly. But not in this particular instance, right?
It's a test to see what you're willing to believe.
It depends on the nature of the attack. If it's targeting banks it depends on if the goal is destructive or espionage. Allies would resort to espionage. Hackers would try to get money or find information to release to the press. A hostile government would try to destroy or shut down operations.
No body hates anybody here. These are countries, not people. Countries don't actually have friends or enemies. Only interests.
If they want us to stop setting their stuff on fire, they need to align their interests with ours. Until then, we'll keep inching that armada we've got off their coast ever closer until either they take a shot at us or somebody sneezes and then the war starts.
I think you have it right. Although I don't think a war with Iran would go as well as Iraq and could last well over a decade. It's not a good idea.
The brave cyberwarriors of the theocracy can on one hand fight for the glory of their dogmatic institutions, while using the technology that the infidels invented, that they wouldn't even possess, without assembly in infidel lands.
How is God great when it is the godless who provides the tools used to prove God is great?
You're thinking of Saudi Arabia not Iran. Iran is somewhat progressive and secular. The Taliban is not in Iran as far as I know. Not saying Iran doesn't have problems but by middle east standards they are among the most advanced.
And helping the police isn't the same as snitching. Snitching is telling on your own side.
The problem is, there are so many sides.
But if you're a traitor to your side then the next side you join will automatically expect you'll be a traitor to theirs as well and your usefulness will be limited.
Just look at how it's designed. It's designed to encourage snitch culture. Let me make it clear, telling the truth isn't the same as snitching. Witnessing isn't the same as snitching. And helping the police isn't the same as snitching. Snitching is telling on your own side.
The problem with Facebook itself is it doesn't care about ethics or the risks associated with making everyone stalkable. Facebook is a stalker friendly application while at the same time snitch friendly. That combination isn't a good mix. For example if you have a friend who has a stalker maybe you shouldn't reveal their last name on Facebook even if you know it, and maybe you shouldn't tell Facebook whether or not they are using a pseudonym.
On the other hand maybe they shouldn't be on Facebook.
There are about 36 types of fusion being explored (of which "Magnetized Liner Inertial Fusion" is just one), categorized roughly into 6 main types. Here's a list: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Fusion_methods
'Unlimited' energy would be such an amazing thing (eclipsing even say lithium-air battery tech, 200" OLED screens, super conductors, or cheap-as-peanuts aerogel) by an order of magnitude or two. If a quarter of the money that went into the Defense budget went into fusion, we'd all be laughing by now.
No, see as you approach feasibility, your likelihood of being bough by a competing producer to be extinguished (see gasoline) becomes multitudes greater. You will never actually reach production with things like this, for the same reason you will never reach a wall by moving in increments of 1/2. Tee short of it, there is too much money to be made to have something as valuable as energy become a low-cost commodity.
What about foreign countries?
If the USA wont do it I'm sure another country will.
"That is all subjective. Calling the President a name isn't a threat, but it could be perceived as a threat depending on the context and culture."
Both this statement and parent statement about threats are irrelevant until acted upon. The law isn't supposed to have any role until an illegal action otherwise we start talking about censorship and thought police.
Correct. But if it's legal to incite terrorism then what? It's complicated. I support free speech but I don't support terrorism and if free speech is being used to promote terrorism you see the problem?
The point here is the film maker knew he was going to trigger violence. He was part of the scheme and did not seem to care who would get killed over it. His film is hate speech at least and treason at worst.
If anyone's committing treason, it's the person calling for the 1st Amendment to be violated because it's inconvenient for him.
Thats not what I'm calling for. It's also the first amendment to find the film maker and give his picture and address to the Muslims furious at him. That is free speech as well.
The problem is where does it end? If you want absolute free speech that is fine, but it means anything goes. I don't think governments want that even if citizens wouldn't care.
Christians in the USA, as in actual church groups need to be on the media talking about this.
Maybe they just don't care? That video was so shit-tastic and unpleasant to watch I could only stand a few seconds - I don't think the average American would take it seriously. The internet is full of retarded videos produced by nutjobs, and this one doesn't seem special. Are we going to have riots every time an idiot posts an insulting video online?
The idea that an entire culture should go around apologizing because people in another culture went apeshit violent after they got offended by a crappy youtube video is preposterous. The folks rioting over this need to chill out, learn to accept that people sometimes post nasty stuff on the internet, and try harder to live in peace with other cultures.
If it were done in the name of my religion I wouldn't want my religion smeared with intolerance.
you dont think its fair to treat muslim terrorists who are actively killing americans different than those who stand out in front of abortion cliniques with signs that say abortion is evil? wow
What is the difference? Christian terrorists hide behind innocent non-violent protesters just like Muslim terrorists do. Terrorists are terrorists, extremists are extremists, it's that simple to me.
Of course. Why would anyone imagine otherwise? If Bin Laden made a video about how to cultivate roses, or how to bake bagels, or a condemnation of what he sees as injustice, or a rant against the beliefs of the Amish, or making fun of redheads or of mother and apple pie, I doubt anyone would be much bothered by it except as an indication that an otherwise known psychopath might be still alive and at large.
You don't get off by narrowing down the no-no to a "direct quote of a call to violence", though. If he incites to violence, he doesn't necessarily have to say the words "go forth ye faithful and murder the incarnates of satan". He could whip a mob to frenzy in the same way Hitler did, by casting his bete noir as subhuman and responsible for all the ills and tribulations of his particular Favored Ones, to such an extreme as to be an unmistakable incitement to violence. In the same way, you can't get off by standing and gesticulating and screaming in a crowded theater "OH MY GOD NO! WE'RE ALL GOING TO DIE! RUN!" instead of "FIRE" - even though it is a true statement of fact. Everyone hearing the screams IS going to die - and everybody else presently living is going to die as well - just not today.
What to you think a "terrorist message" is? It's not a message on any topic by terrorists. It's a message which is terrorist in nature, or in direct furtherance of terrorist activities. Not just lampooning some lunatic belief.
And that is exactly what happened with the anti-Muslim film. The film maker is acting like Hitler whipping Muslims into a violent frenzy.
you are joking right? I havent seen anyone say this is a good movie, or that it is representitive of how we feel. even the president apologized for the movie (he shouldnt have) Im not even religious, but this movie is a joke, bad production quality and just a horrible horrible movie that never should have been made. I havent seen muslims condemn anything, in fact I have seen more embassies get attacked in the past few days...Where are these muslims that are speaking out???
I'm not talking about politicians like the President apologizing. Of course the US government is going to do that. I'm talking about putting ordinary Christians on TV to set the record straight so that the Muslim community can understand the views in that film are not mainstream views and not only that but that the film itself is hate speech. It might be free speech but it's as much hate speech as holocaust denial and racist video games.
Slashdot Mirror
That's not their job, is it? Wouldn't this be up to Congress, the courts, the State Department?
I guess its official. We are being run by a military junta.
You would think so but no, they passed laws to already make it so they can do this legally. NDAA.
When what you're talking about is things businesses and governments wish to keep secret, there is no such thing as free speech. You pay for it in blood.
Were I Assange, I'd be far more worried about a bullet in my head or a mickey in my drink than a legit arrest.
Am I insinuating that a government or business would kill over information they wish to keep secret for legitimate reasons, or otherwise?
Hell yes, I am.
I'm sure there are many secrets that should remain so -- but buried in that pile are atrocities and behind-the-scene dealings that impact people like you and I in the worst ways -- and those are the dirty bits of laundry that need to get out.
Frankly, I still think the Internet is nothing but television magnified by 1000, with all the lolcatz and pr0n and myface and spacebook and all that -- but the ability to shed light on nasty, shady dealings -- that's what I had hoped the Internet would be able to do.
We need more of this. We need to know more about what businesses and governments do in secret to line their pockets by picking ours. The mainstream media can't quite be trusted to do so, I feel they're in the payroll of government and business -- so the last resort is.. this.
But, who vets this kind of leaks? Who can assure the reader that it isn't misinformation? Wow, paranoids are right, I think!
Still, there's a little place in my heart that tells me.. we really don't want to know. I think it could be that revolting, that repulsive.
They would probably just capture him and interrogate him for the rest of his life.
And they have the weapons. They can kill us all. Their weapons are the rules. It's as simple as that.
They're making it up as they go along.
I agree with this. There's an interest excerpt from the constitution for the state of Massachusetts:
Article XXX. In the government of this commonwealth, the legislative department shall never exercise the executive and judicial powers, or either of them: the executive shall never exercise the legislative and judicial powers, or either of them: the judicial shall never exercise the legislative and executive powers, or either of them: to the end it may be a government of laws and not of men.
This is precisely what the action of the US military preempts. This is far from the first such abuse, but it should be resisted. Why should a citizen of a peaceful ally, conducting his business legally, even though it be to the disadvantage of the US or the US military, be classified as a "enemy", especially, when it is not within the authority of the US military to make such a designation?
It doesn't matter. They can kill us all. Their weapons are the rules.
He already -can- drone strike him with impunity: who's going to charge Obama with anything? If we even question His Droniness, we're interrogated as to why we hate America, and put on a list of potential drone targets.
Love the Ellison reference: "At which time he merely sang a song about moonlight in a place no one had ever heard of, called Vermont, and vanished again."
Why would Obama use drones when they probably have all sorts of top secret weapons? Assange is in serious danger.
The thing lacking in both the original article and the comments here (except for a few) is that ultrasonographic imaging has many diagnostic applications outside of neonatal care. Cardiopulmonary medicine, nephrology, hepatology, endocrinology, gastroenterology... the list goes on. All of these applications would make low cost, portable ultrasonography extremely beneficial in third world and developing countries.
It can also detect signals through walls such as keystrokes.
Sexually frustrated men fight. Not immediately but if they see no hope of getting time with a woman for long enough. Some join the army and get into wars, some form gangs, some quietly become rapists (those with a predilection to). Evolution in action I'm afraid. Look at sheep, cattle, horses or lions for a hint as to how deeply this is ingrained in our genome. Combat is a means of rebalancing the population toward the species-optimal sex ratio.
Men in poverty do the same thing. Send some women over to China along with some cash.
should be recruiting Iranians...
That is actually not a bad idea. They probably already have done that.
Hillary Clinton's failure to use the bully pulpit to point out that Iran is hacking our banks, jeopardizing the safety of US Citizen's money, worries me. No, I don't want a war with Iran, but hacking US banks requires a loud vocal response to provide cover for whatever bombing Obama/Romney is planning to do.
I doubt the attack was very successful but it depends on the security of banks. I don't know how banks are configured but if it's configured properly it wont be damaged permanently, it will take some time to restore operations though.
'Cui bono' test for Iran: LOW
What? They're going to make off with virtual sacks of money?
What a coincidence that they decided to launch this soft attack while real military hardware is converging on their location.
Ramping anti-Iran sentiment via false flag hacking tricks: HIGH
It's what we do, it's what the Israelis do. Proudly and loudly.
But not in this particular instance, right?
It's a test to see what you're willing to believe.
It depends on the nature of the attack. If it's targeting banks it depends on if the goal is destructive or espionage. Allies would resort to espionage. Hackers would try to get money or find information to release to the press. A hostile government would try to destroy or shut down operations.
No body hates anybody here. These are countries, not people. Countries don't actually have friends or enemies. Only interests.
If they want us to stop setting their stuff on fire, they need to align their interests with ours. Until then, we'll keep inching that armada we've got off their coast ever closer until either they take a shot at us or somebody sneezes and then the war starts.
I think you have it right. Although I don't think a war with Iran would go as well as Iraq and could last well over a decade. It's not a good idea.
The brave cyberwarriors of the theocracy can on one hand fight for the glory of their dogmatic institutions, while using the technology that the infidels invented, that they wouldn't even possess, without assembly in infidel lands.
How is God great when it is the godless who provides the tools used to prove God is great?
You're thinking of Saudi Arabia not Iran. Iran is somewhat progressive and secular. The Taliban is not in Iran as far as I know. Not saying Iran doesn't have problems but by middle east standards they are among the most advanced.
And helping the police isn't the same as snitching. Snitching is telling on your own side.
The problem is, there are so many sides.
But if you're a traitor to your side then the next side you join will automatically expect you'll be a traitor to theirs as well and your usefulness will be limited.
Yes, anonymity is valuable! Especially for spammers.
God is everywhere and nowhere at the same time?
Just look at how it's designed. It's designed to encourage snitch culture.
Let me make it clear, telling the truth isn't the same as snitching. Witnessing isn't the same as snitching. And helping the police isn't the same as snitching. Snitching is telling on your own side.
The problem with Facebook itself is it doesn't care about ethics or the risks associated with making everyone stalkable. Facebook is a stalker friendly application while at the same time snitch friendly. That combination isn't a good mix. For example if you have a friend who has a stalker maybe you shouldn't reveal their last name on Facebook even if you know it, and maybe you shouldn't tell Facebook whether or not they are using a pseudonym.
On the other hand maybe they shouldn't be on Facebook.
There are about 36 types of fusion being explored (of which "Magnetized Liner Inertial Fusion" is just one), categorized roughly into 6 main types. Here's a list:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Fusion_methods
'Unlimited' energy would be such an amazing thing (eclipsing even say lithium-air battery tech, 200" OLED screens, super conductors, or cheap-as-peanuts aerogel) by an order of magnitude or two. If a quarter of the money that went into the Defense budget went into fusion, we'd all be laughing by now.
What if China or Russia does it instead?
No, see as you approach feasibility, your likelihood of being bough by a competing producer to be extinguished (see gasoline) becomes multitudes greater. You will never actually reach production with things like this, for the same reason you will never reach a wall by moving in increments of 1/2. Tee short of it, there is too much money to be made to have something as valuable as energy become a low-cost commodity.
What about foreign countries?
If the USA wont do it I'm sure another country will.
"That is all subjective. Calling the President a name isn't a threat, but it could be perceived as a threat depending on the context and culture."
Both this statement and parent statement about threats are irrelevant until acted upon. The law isn't supposed to have any role until an illegal action otherwise we start talking about censorship and thought police.
Correct. But if it's legal to incite terrorism then what? It's complicated. I support free speech but I don't support terrorism and if free speech is being used to promote terrorism you see the problem?
Why not? Make it a battle for ideas, and may the side with the best arguments win.
Okay lets do it. Just be prepared for the violence and have the police monitoring us all.
The point here is the film maker knew he was going to trigger violence. He was part of the scheme and did not seem to care who would get killed over it. His film is hate speech at least and treason at worst.
If anyone's committing treason, it's the person calling for the 1st Amendment to be violated because it's inconvenient for him.
Thats not what I'm calling for. It's also the first amendment to find the film maker and give his picture and address to the Muslims furious at him. That is free speech as well.
The problem is where does it end? If you want absolute free speech that is fine, but it means anything goes. I don't think governments want that even if citizens wouldn't care.
Christians in the USA, as in actual church groups need to be on the media talking about this.
Maybe they just don't care? That video was so shit-tastic and unpleasant to watch I could only stand a few seconds - I don't think the average American would take it seriously. The internet is full of retarded videos produced by nutjobs, and this one doesn't seem special. Are we going to have riots every time an idiot posts an insulting video online?
The idea that an entire culture should go around apologizing because people in another culture went apeshit violent after they got offended by a crappy youtube video is preposterous. The folks rioting over this need to chill out, learn to accept that people sometimes post nasty stuff on the internet, and try harder to live in peace with other cultures.
If it were done in the name of my religion I wouldn't want my religion smeared with intolerance.
you dont think its fair to treat muslim terrorists who are actively killing americans different than those who stand out in front of abortion cliniques with signs that say abortion is evil? wow
What is the difference? Christian terrorists hide behind innocent non-violent protesters just like Muslim terrorists do. Terrorists are terrorists, extremists are extremists, it's that simple to me.
Of course. Why would anyone imagine otherwise? If Bin Laden made a video about how to cultivate roses, or how to bake bagels, or a condemnation of what he sees as injustice, or a rant against the beliefs of the Amish, or making fun of redheads or of mother and apple pie, I doubt anyone would be much bothered by it except as an indication that an otherwise known psychopath might be still alive and at large.
You don't get off by narrowing down the no-no to a "direct quote of a call to violence", though. If he incites to violence, he doesn't necessarily have to say the words "go forth ye faithful and murder the incarnates of satan". He could whip a mob to frenzy in the same way Hitler did, by casting his bete noir as subhuman and responsible for all the ills and tribulations of his particular Favored Ones, to such an extreme as to be an unmistakable incitement to violence. In the same way, you can't get off by standing and gesticulating and screaming in a crowded theater "OH MY GOD NO! WE'RE ALL GOING TO DIE! RUN!" instead of "FIRE" - even though it is a true statement of fact. Everyone hearing the screams IS going to die - and everybody else presently living is going to die as well - just not today.
What to you think a "terrorist message" is? It's not a message on any topic by terrorists. It's a message which is terrorist in nature, or in direct furtherance of terrorist activities. Not just lampooning some lunatic belief.
And that is exactly what happened with the anti-Muslim film. The film maker is acting like Hitler whipping Muslims into a violent frenzy.
What can we do about it?
Uh, they are. I mean, unless the Vatican isn't "Christian" enough for you.
The Vatican are a government. Christians in the USA, as in actual church groups need to be on the media talking about this.
you are joking right? I havent seen anyone say this is a good movie, or that it is representitive of how we feel. even the president apologized for the movie (he shouldnt have) Im not even religious, but this movie is a joke, bad production quality and just a horrible horrible movie that never should have been made. I havent seen muslims condemn anything, in fact I have seen more embassies get attacked in the past few days...Where are these muslims that are speaking out???
His name is Terry Jones and he's calling himself a Christian.
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/316612/terry-jones-and-assault-us-missions-daniel-pipes
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/09/13/anti-islam-minister-terry-jones-says-he-feels-no-responsibility-for-u-s-ambassador-s-death.html
I'm not talking about politicians like the President apologizing. Of course the US government is going to do that. I'm talking about putting ordinary Christians on TV to set the record straight so that the Muslim community can understand the views in that film are not mainstream views and not only that but that the film itself is hate speech. It might be free speech but it's as much hate speech as holocaust denial and racist video games.