The documents they leaked this week did nothing except hurt the American people. (For the record, I am an American people). The Russian stuff embarrassed and enraged Putin, who is not exactly a friend, but we certainly don't want him as an enemy. The Saudi stuff embarrassed the king and since his security people just gave us a tip that saved hundreds from death by air-cargo bombs, I would like to keep him happy (most of the time). The Afghan stuff was by no means news, but it has given Karzai another reason to go around saying that the US is out to get him.
There are no smoking guns here and the only people it helps are adversaries of the US and Assange when he goes out looking for tail in Sweden. Give one solid reason why this release was "good for democracy"?
It's not about hiding something from the people of the US. It's about hiding things from the nations with which it deals. Why would it be in the interest of the US or Russian public for Putin to know what the US State Dept thinks about him? Why would it be in the interest of the US or Afghan people for Karzai and his co-criminals what the US knows about their corrupt practices? Why would it be in the interest of the US or Iranian people to embarrass the Saudi king by letting everyone know what he really thinks about Iran's nuclear program? (Remember that the Saudi security services gave the tip that saved hundreds from death by air-cargo bomb.)
There is a gotcha mentality here that is quite short sighted and foolish. This doesn't help anyone but Assange when he goes out looking for some tail in Sweden.
If it turns out that they have some Bank of America stuff that would burn the bank's execs, I'm all for that. That's what I imagined a whistle-blowing safe-harbor like Wikileaks would be for. The diplomatic stuff is just a chance for Assange to stick his boney finger in the eye of a government that is operating in a very different way than the Bushies he hates so much. It only hurts the people he supposedly wants to help.
Oh good grief. I don't care about your credibility.
I don't really care what you think of me, I was attempting to point out a hypocrisy. All of the conspiracy theories surrounding Assange's alleged misconduct are focused on how baseless accusations have undermined his credibility with the average news-consumer. By calling me naive rather than taking what I am saying on face value, you are doing exactly what you criticize.
Does this not seem like dirty pool to you?
Yes, of course there is reason to believe that pressure was exerted on the Swedish prosecutors to up the ante. But that does not mean he's innocent. If you are only interested in seeing this as a fun conspiracy theory, then by all means enjoy yourself. But if you have any interest in seeing this as a matter of justice and letting the system do it's job, then there is no reason why the allegations against him shouldn't be investigated. One of the two women making the accusations has said that while he did not in fact rape her, he did have trouble taking no for an answer. That's why the original charges of rape were dropped (the practice, btw, of charging someone with harsher charges in the hope of reaching a plea on the lesser ones is quite common) and the molestation charges were re-instantiated. He didn't rape anyone, but credible witnesses (meaning the women, who have no ties to any government and appear to be acting in good faith) are saying that he broke the law. That should be enough for an investigation.
And the fact that they did not question him at the start could have been the result of the exact opposite problem from the one you suggest. He may have appeared to the (elected) prosecutor as too hot a potato, and to avoid being seen as having harassed on a minor molestation charge. Then the US and others come along and scream bloody murder about letting him go and things get moving again. Seems the most likely explanation to me. But then again, I'm just guessing.
But also let's get into the reasons why this went from a local matter to an international circus.
Because Assange is the ring-leader. He built the tent, sold the tickets and turned up the lights. Now that he's in the lion's den with the whip, no one should be surprised about all the attention given to his every move. The irony of all this is that he's doing exactly the same thing to the US. He shined a spotlight on what is effectively a nation's private business to "expose" what goes on under the covers whether there's anything to look at or not (so far not), and now he's upset that the US is doing the same. Granted there is some indication that extraordinary measures have been taken to push the investigation along, but there is so far no evidence that the charges were manufactured.
I am not naive, nor do I think the international community is sitting idly by while he attacks their lines of communication. But I do think he deserves to be held to the same standards of justice as any other person. When a celeb is accused of a crime, they don't give the case to the night assistant. They give it to the top dog. If interpol has to get involved because he doesn't give a forwarding address, then so be it.
should he therefore abstain from sex outright for fear of accusations?
Of course not. Who suggested that?
We're talking about a relentless dedication to the idea that he is not guilty of anything because he's a "righteous" man faced off against the big bad USA. You have yet to say anything that acknowledges that he could actually have done something wrong.
For the record, I don't know if he did anything at all. Maybe he didn't. But the fact that he was accused of misconduct (not rape) by two different people for roughly the same thing within a few days of one another can and should result in a serious investigation of his actions - regardless of his other activities.
My guess - and that's all it is, a guess - is that he was riding high on the success of the first release, and had no problem attracting the attention of some young starry-eyed Swedish ladies (he admits to being with both women). I'll bet he even played the Zorro thing for all it was worth, "Hey baby, i just carved a Z in George Bush's forehead. Wanna see my sword?"
Once they got comfortable, maybe he pushed things a bit too far and didn't think a superhero like him had to play by the rules. Happens all the time. Maybe it wasn't even anything that horrible, but that's not for either of us to say. It's for the women and the Swedish courts to decide.
It's a common mistake to assume that a person you feel is doing something righteous can do no wrong. MLK had lots of mistresses. Bill Clinton took advantage of a 21 yo intern. No one is perfect. Even if they need to be when it matters most.
your grasp of what people in power are willing to do to keep their position is astonishingly naive
I am well aware of the treachery some people are capable of. For example: calling me naive is an ad hominum attack designed to undermine my credibility based only on personal opinion.
You think tracking down some girl he spent time with and leaning on her is an impossibility? Really??
Of course not. But you're starting assumption is that she is a plant, while I'm starting with the assumption that she is not. I'm not sure where you live, but in the U.S. people are innocent until proven guilty (which would go for Assange as well). I think she deserves the benefit of the doubt, especially since there is no actual evidence that there was any tampering at all. Circumstantial evidence regarding the sequence of events during the early period of the Swedish investigation does not prove anything.
Furthermore, you're assertion that she must be a plant because governments play dirty is exactly the same kind of insinuation and slander that people say is being used against Assange.
why did the prosecution decline the offer of cooperation while he was in country, and suddenly pursue it through interpol after he had left
Perhaps you should ask the prosecutor. Again, you are relying on the speculation of bloggers and forum posts to come to a conclusion. I realize that you're probably the type that doesn't believe anything you're told by "the man", but maybe you should wait to hear what they actually have to say before you make your final conclusions. And since you asked what I think, I have a feeling that the basic charge of sexual misconduct is legit (of course don't know for sure yet), and once the initial charges were filed (incorrectly) as rape, it was seen by some as an opportunity to undermine his credibility. Even so, if the woman in question has a legitimate complaint, and you are doing all you can to undermine her case because you are rooting for Assange in the larger battle over Wikileaks, than you're no better than the shady govt types you hate. Aren't her rights just as important as his? Should her claims of injustice be ignored because of the "greater good"?
Some people like attention, even bad attention. Again, you naivete is showing. Some people have motives you cannot understand. Because they are nuts
So I guess you're the defense attorney that tries to undermine a rape victim's credibility by accusing her of being a slut on the stand? Or maybe you're the type that would use Daniel Ellsberg's psychiatric history to undermine his credibility? Or perhaps you are the type that uses Assange's personal indiscretions to undermine his credibility. Oh wait...
The only thing sexist and shameful is everyone leaping to the conclusion that this guy clearly must be up to something because some woman hinted that he might be
No it is not sexist to vigorously investigate the possibility that a man mistreated a woman when
she claims that he did. It is simply how criminal investigations are run. You are applying a double standard. When a hero of yours is accused of doing something wrong, you blame the alleged victim because if you take the allegation seriously, it would require an admission that he could actually be an asshole. It appears as though that's too much for some fanboi types to handle.
You must recognize that the battle between Wikileaks and the US is a PR battle. If Assange couldn't keep his fly closed and pulled a Bill Clinton (i.e., letting his dick ruin his image), wouldn't it be a mistake for supporters of Wikileaks to defend him at all costs? Does his "deep deep desire" to be some kind of righteous vigilante mean he can do whatever he wants in other spheres of life? Or would it be wiser to maintain some kind of neutrality and let the investigation take its course?
Isn't it possible that he is both a hero and a creep?
Paint him as a child molester because nobody feels bad for one of those
The woman making the allegation (and I stress woman because she is not under age), should be taken seriously until the investigation has been completed. Your assumption that he must be innocent because he is engaged in what you clearly consider a righteous PR war with the United States is sexist and shameful. Why would this woman willingly put herself at the center of an international maelstrom, knowing that every bit of her personal life would be put under the microscope if nothing happened? The Swedish government has found no evidence of tampering by the US. He admits being with the woman. The woman in question has no record of being involved in anything even remotely like this before. The irony is that you don't even mention her in your conspiracy theory. She warrants no attention because you don't really care whether she is telling the truth or not.
it's FBI has assassinated American civilians, the CIA is currently torturing someone to death in a secret prison somewhere in the world
Where is the evidence for this exactly? Are you talking about various conspiracy theories or are you talking about accepted fact? The CIA using water-boarding is well known, but what evidence can you cite of either someone dieing from it or any other interrogation technique? Can you die from lack of sleep? Can you die from the embarrassment of being questioned while naked? And I cannot find any evidence of even an investigation of an FBI agent carrying out an assassination. Please provide more detail for your rather serious indictments. And the theories of some blogger who talked to "anonymous sources within the security establishment" does not count.
I understand that there is a great deal of mistrust of governments in general and the US in particular, but the idea that the FBI and CIA are serial human rights abusers on the level of the Russian or Chinese secret police is simply wrong. The easy retort is of course that they shouldn't do anything to hurt anyone (physically or psychologically), anywhere, ever. This is both naive and dangerous.
Wikileaks didn't kill a bunch of brown people in an some country with an unpronounceable name and then pretend it didn't happen.
What are you referring to exactly? Do you mean the chopper pilot that killed the reporters? If so, no one has claimed that the pilots were acting outside the rules of engagement, and there was fighting going on only a few hundred yards from where the incident occurred. Was it tragic? Yes. And did the pilot come off as a cold-hearted bastard? Yes. But anyone who has actually suited up and taken aim during a gun fight (modern warefare 2 doesn't count) will tell you that the first thing you must overcome is your own sense of empathy for the human being you are about to gun down. Go to a boot camp and note how much of the training is designed to remove any remorse from the mind of the grunt. They are not out there to make decisions about who is innocent or guilty beyond the rules of engagement they operate under. If they hesitate, they - or someone next to them - will die. To believe otherwise is naive and quite dangerous. Should the pilot have said, I think he's got a missile launcher, but I'm not 100% sure so I'll let him go until he shoots at me or someone else? Not bloody likely.
It can be about how US foreign policy actions are often against both their own laws
I'm sorry, did i miss something? Where is there even a bit of evidence of this?
Demonstrating how incompetently they're handing out palettes of US dollars is also interesting. Brilliant -- here's millions and millions of dollars we will hand out without any form of oversight, and hope it solves the problems.
So you justify all of the damage this release has caused to US relations with the world by coming to the Monday morning assumption that the US State Dept. spent a few million dollars unwisely? Are you kidding? The US sends billions of dollars every year to dozens of nations that do it outright harm (e.g., Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, etc) just to maintain some influence over their behavior and you're worried about some individual payoffs that went bad? A bit naive i think. Not only because of the small scale of the spending, but also because you assume that the US was capable of properly assessing the risks and failed to act upon them. Sometimes people are simply duplicitous. And how many payments in question were actually successful at achieving their goals? In other words: what is the US batting average in such cases? I would suggest that it is much higher than you would expect.
Democracy is not well served by lying to the public about what you're doing and how you're doing it
What did the US lie about exactly? If you're talking about the Afghan assessments from a few months ago, I would agree that the source assessments were more harsh than what the govt officially reported, but no one claims that the US lied about anything. And as for the latest release, there is so far no reason to believe anything even close to that. Please enlighten us with your special insight.
This really is calling the US to account for its war crimes and crimes against humanity.
Really? What crimes against humanity are you talking about? Torture? If so, that evidence is common knowledge at this point. President Bush (our worst ever) talks about water-boarding and its legality publicly. Rendition? It is public knowledge that Gitmo prisoners have been sent to other countries for interrogation.
The reason many previous Wikileaks supporters are upset with this release - including high-level people who have resigned from Wikileaks because they believe Assange has gone too far - is that there appears to be no "smoking gun" here. The only effect so far has been that the opinions of some diplomats have been (incorrectly) interpreted as the official position of the US govt, and that various world leaders have been embarrassed by having their opinions about nations like Iran made public. How does that serve anyone in the US general public? Even the supposedly more damning info that came from the Afghan assessments released earlier this year did nothing to change anyone's opinion of the war effort or of how the US conducted itself. The fact is that aside from some specifics about individual incidents (e.g., the chopper shooting the unarmed reporter), there was nothing either release that people didn't already know - albeit in less detail.
This does little more than weaken US diplomacy going forward because candid assessments will be...less candid, and as a result decision makers will be that much more in the dark about what other nations are thinking.
There is certainly a place for Wikileaks in the public sphere, and I am not one to call for it's extinction. But I do feel as though this was basically a personal vendetta by a small group of individuals who quite accidentally came upon a stack of sensitive documents and saw an opportunity to make a name for themselves and the project they started.
The only solace for the American public is that the kid who started this is in custody - he won't be releasing anything to anyone except his lawyers for a long time - and once his initial contribution dries up, Wikileaks will be back to doing what it does best: acting as a forum for things like corporate malfeasance and specific govt illegalities.
Do we need to go back to destroying embryos to develop an inferior product?
Why keep repeating the myth that embryos are "destroyed"? Most of the embryos are frozen zygotes created by artificial insemination. They are frozen in case they are needed by a couple having trouble conceiving, then donated because they are no longer needed for whatever reason. No one is walking into a research center and saying "take this baby out of me and use it for science". The word "destroy" is used by anti-abortion types to falsely imply that people are aborting their children so some mad scientist can do experiments with mutant monkeys or whatever.
There is no evidence that fewer babies are born because of the use of embryonic stem cells. The cells would have been discarded without any purpose, so isn't that worse than putting them to some good use?
not true. you bought the medium, (record, printed paper), but even back in the "good ol days", you did not purchase the right to the actual content. And today almost all of our information is encoded digitally and much of it is transmitted across the internet, so there is no longer any natural limit on infringement.
I agree with you concerning the effect copy prevention has on the "average consumer", and i tend to shop for more open formats. But people will always choose free over not free. And "retailers" like the Pirate Bay don't charge for the service (they make their money from ads) so they facilitate people's instinct to get something for nothing, and make millions doing it. All the while saying that they are defending free speech or whatever. They just make it easy to walk right past the producer of the content and take their shit without paying. And that seems really, really cool. Until you think about it a little.
...invading a country and then offering hospital services to some of the victims is not a recipe for popularity.
So i suppose the US should also pack up rescue and relief operations and leave Haiti, Pakistan (and retroactively Indonesia). And that's just the recent ones. Almost all of the US military's relief operations are performed outside the scope of any conflict. It is the most effective security and rescue apparatus ever created and cannot be replaced even by the combined efforts of the rest of the world.
I'd turn to Germany, England, Norway and Denmark.
Really? And I suppose you live somewhere in northern Europe in a small to very small country with very few poor people. Because when a place like Pakistan ends up with 20% of its already poor and rural population (30 million people!) homeless and destitute, all of those nations combined could not even put a dent in the problem.
You at least seem somewhat sympathetic, but there is a serious amount of pile-on happening right now. Too many nations are forgetting just what the US means to both their international security and potential disaster operations. When someone like Bush gets into the driver's seat, the US is bound to swerve off course for a bit, but overall the US has done FAR more good for the world than bad. The transformation of Europe and Japan in the 20th and China in the 21st century is a testament to the power of the individualist/liberal/capitalist model, and the long run of world peace (i.e., no wars between major powers) since the end of WWII is a testament to its effectiveness as a deterrent and peace-keeper.
For any of the complaints about US overreaching or manipulation, there are 10 more to be made about far more egregious violations of human rights, national sovereignty, etc. by other nations. The problem is that because the US has set itself up as the "city on the hill", people hold it to a higher standard. And now that it has gone through a period of unpopularity because of an extremely unpopular (internally) administration (i.e., Bush), everyone is pulling out all the stops and piling on. No one in the US would complain about a little constructive criticism, especially when it comes from our allies and friends. But when it is done with so little recognition of the good parts, it becomes hard to swallow.
Remember "a teaspoon of sugar helps the medicine go down"?
They mean endangering their ability to lie effectively.
It has been widely reported that there was nothing new in the leaked documents. Anytime you get at raw reports they will of course contain more personal opinion than the processed official releases made by the govt itself, but in terms of pure "gotcha" revelations, there are few if any. People like comparing this to the Pentagon Papers leak, but the stuff Ellsberg released was actually important and revelatory. This is not even in the same league. We knew the Pakistani intelligence services are helping the Taliban. We knew there have been civilian casualties. We knew there have been night raids. What exactly did the govt lie about?
What they are really upset about is the fact that the raw reports have details about sources and tactics that have no bearing on the resulting intelligence but do compromise the individuals involved and make it that much harder to use those tactics in the future.
Do you want the people fighting in Afghanistan to fail/die? I am not suggesting that you must agree with their mission as dictated from civilian authorities, but as it is there mission, they are executing it to the best of their ability and leaks like this make their jobs even harder and more dangerous.
Reminding us of the stupidity of major-brand retail prices, and their massive disconnect from underlying value.
While I agree that most "brand name" products are overpriced based on their utility, you must remember that there is also a great deal of money spent to let people know that the product even exists. I am not sure of the numbers, but a surprisingly large percentage of a product's budget is allocated for marketing. And when you look at how things are sold to a mass market, it starts to make sense.
Why, for example, do we know that there even is a new "Toy Story" movie? Not because of word of mouth. We are aware of it because Pixar and their parent spent millions of dollars on advertising. Similarly, why do we know about that new Sony TV or Nikon camera? Because Sony and Nikon spent millions to buy space in the heads of as many people as they could. And when more and more people associate a brand with quality, the brand becomes the product.
Counterfeiters benefit from this because an inferior product with a respected brand name will sell faster and at a higher price. Its that simple. (Remember, counterfeiters do not have to honor warranties or take service calls.)
If a tourist in Times Square sees a hole-in-the-wall store selling knock-off cameras (I work near there and there are many of these shops), they will be much more likely to spend big bucks if they see the Nikon brand in the window than some unrecognizable brand they know nothing about. As a result, these stores sell knock-offs with Nikon branding at what appear to be very attractive discount prices and people snap them up. By the time they realize that they have been taken advantage of, its normally too late to do anything about it. And on the web this problem is a million times worse.
Now I know that a one-to-one ratio is way off - every negotiation starts off with inflated demands/claims - but counterfeiters are good for no one but themselves. They hurt legit companies by selling (in the vast majority of cases) inferior products that undercut the value of the real branded product by undermining the relationship between brand and quality. And to some degree they decrease sales (putting aside how much the numbers are pumped). But mostly they hurt the people who buy their crap by providing an inferior product at an inflated price.
And if you question the assumption that counterfeit products are generally inferior, perhaps you should ask the simple question: Why don't they trade on their own name? Why can't the Times Square stores tell people that they are selling Nikon-like cameras that are "just as good"?
how on earth do you think restricting apps on a mobile device is going to change this?
While it is true that there are many ways for a child to get at things they shouldn't, does that mean we should remove all barriers in the name of "openness"? I am a developer and know first-hand the value of open platforms. They are the most fertile ground for innovation and offer end-users the most bang for the buck. But this is not about features, this is about content.
The challenge for phone makers and carriers is to balance the different and often conflicting demands from the market. Almost anyone who buying a phone for their kids wants (at least theoretical) control over what can be done with it. Remember that grade-school kids are getting phones these days, and they don't want some lame "junior" phone. They want an iphone or android smartphone. So for Apple, Motorola, Samsung, HTC, etc, they have to consider how much control they give to the innovators and how much control they retain for the millions of parents who buy their stuff.
The lack of control is not a deal breaker for many parents, but if the smartphone entertainment platform becomes as much about porn as the PC platform has become, they'll start to think twice.
Especially when it has absolutely zero impact because there are other avenues for getting porn on to the devices.
Yes, there are other ways for kids to get at the stuff, but zero impact? The very fact that you are aware of "other avenues" means that the policy has had an impact on how content is delivered. Porn websites are supposed to filter minors. If that is not effective, web filters can do a bit more. The point here is parents want to do all they can to do what they feel is best for for their kids.
Sure, young kids sneak into movies, but does that mean its a good idea to let them in whenever they want? They get a hold of beer, but should we let them drink as much as they want? It's a balancing act. No one is suggesting that we limit political speech or decide what cultural trends are acceptable or not. We're simply talking about the very capitalist, very freedom of choice struggle to keep as many of their customers as possible coming back for more.
That droid or iphone was not built just for you. They had to think about everyone they have to sell to.
If you think that most people, even kids, equate movies with reality.. well then your argument is valid.. I just don't think so..
So you think a 14yo thoughtfully considers the motives and intentions of the people in a porn flick? Your error (IMHO) is that you believe a teen looks at the world in the same way as an adult. They don't. And don't take my word for it, go read any child psychology book and find out just how far a teenager has to go before their brains develop fully. They are hard wired to learn from adults and by example. How do you think they learn how to behave? By thoughtful consideration? They learn by imitation. And even if they instinctively know that what they're seeing is part reality and part fantasy, they are for the most part unable to draw an accurate line between the two. (Remember that many adults are unable to tell the difference between an actor and the character they play).
Yes, (most) adults can distinguish movies from reality, and kids are generally not naive enough to do exactly what they see, but when it comes to things with which they have no direct experience - i.e., hard-core sex, they are almost completely unable to distinguish reality from fantasy. How can they? They have no idea what people actually do behind closed doors, so they are at least partially convinced that what you see is what you (hopefully) get. In fact, the porn experience is most "satisfying" when the fantasy is seen as reality.
All the other things in your post, objectifying, stuttering, etc.. put you in the sex is wrong an dirty
huh? So the term objectification means "dirty"? Do you know what the term means? It refers to the act of de-personification. In other words, it means turning a person into an object. That's not a moral concept, its a psychological one. Criminals objectify their targets to make it easier to hurt them. Soldiers objectify their enemies to make it easier to kill them. Male viewers of hardcore porn (tend to) objectify the women involved because it makes it easier to use them as "holes". Half of the titles you see on porn sites refer to holes, meat, hoes, etc. The whole idea is to give an otherwise frustrated male the chance to put aside all of the wooing stuff and get right down to business. That's not "dirty", its just de-humanizing.
Sex is great. I hope you have lots of it in as many positions as you can manage. In fact, as far as i'm concerned if you want to have sex with farm animals while your cousins watch thats just fine. But if you suggest that 14yo kids should be able to watch a video of it, i have a serious problem with that.
It's not that nudity is so bad, it's what happens when kids are exposed to porn that people are concerned with. Kids have raging hormones that operate whether they are prepared for the consequences or not. And by consequences i dont mean teen pregnancy (kids who are getting some at that age are probably not downloading porn apps on their phones). The problem is that porn presents sexuality in its most mechanical form. No love, no personal relationship, just rubbing. Women are presented as easy and submissive. They do what they are told, and don't seem to need anything more than a man in the room to be ready and willing to do whatever the man wants. Young men are obviously not going to assume that all women are as slutty as the "characters" in a porn vid, but they cannot hope to understand how women actually feel about and have sex by watching porn. Parents and schools are the last places kids turn to when it comes to sex, and by the time they actually see a real nude person in their bedroom, they've probably seen thousands of digital ones there for years.
And that's just the boys. Consider how a porno makes most girls feel. They see women doing things that the average adult would stutter to explain. Almost all of the women they see are submissive and objectified (that may be something some women are into, but they don't show the woman negotiating her contract or explaining what she will or wont do). So-called "soft" porn or skinimax flix are a little more sensitive to the female psyche, but they are less and less common. (Check out how many of these series are on vs how many websites there are dedicated to the more damaging "slutty" porn).
I am not against images of nudity or even porn for adults (watch it myself from time to time...). But to ask with incredulity why people are so concerned with nudity is to ignore the fact that kids are NOT adults. They are not prepared to deal with the condensed and distorted view of sexuality that porn presents.
Nudity is not the issue. It's the developing psyche of children that people are concerned with.
PS: For the record, i am not religious at all so i am not coming at this from a moralistic point-of-view. I simply have a young daughter who's well-being is my top priority in life, so i think about this stuff a lot.
The Chinese have the workforce (and hence more persons with high IQ)
They simply have a larger population. By definition, an IQ is a measure of one's intelligence in relation to the whole population, i.e., a distribution or bell curve. Hence a 100 IQ is right at the top of the bell curve and is the median IQ for that population. Because there are more people living inside the borders of the place we call China, there are of course more of everything a person can be - smart, stupid, crazy, tall, short, etc.
So if you are suggesting that more high-IQ people under one flag gives the Chinese some comparative advantage, you are forgetting that they also have a great deal more people at the lower end of the scale as well. And everyone needs to eat.
In an American company when something goes wrong, somebody is fired. In a Japanese company when something goes wrong, they try to figure out what went wrong and fix it som that doesn't happen again.
I understand that there are a lot of pissed off unemployed people out there, but let's stop with the US bashing please. American tech companies are among the most efficient and successful in the world - Intel, IBM, Apple, Microsoft, J&J, Boeing, 3M, etc, etc, etc, etc. And though the US auto manufactures started to bloat in the 1970's, Ford at least has become more efficient than ever. (BTW, Toyota is not exactly at the peak of its powers at the moment).
There is always room for improvement and I'm not a love-it-or-leave-it type, but claiming that all US companies are somehow inferior is simply wrong. Success breeds arrogance which breeds laziness, but that applies to a small portion of the largest institutions when they are no longer driven by growth and innovation but by stability and stock price (once again, see Toyota). Most mid sized and many large companies in the US can compete with any other in the world. And though China makes many of the products sold in the US, those products are designed by American companies.
While you are correct in pointing out that from a legal point of view, downloading a movie without paying the copyright owner is not technically theft. But from a moral, and more importantly from a societal point of view it is a distinction without a difference.
I'm not sure what you do exactly, but there is a very very good chance that you don't actually produce any kind of physical product. Very few American workers do these days. And since you're posting on/. It is equally likely that you are a "knowledge worker" of some kind who relies on the copyright system to protect your work (even if you don't own the copyright yourself, your employer could not afford to pay you without it).
So how can you possibly justify violating someone else's rights - a copyright is defined as the exclusive right to make copies of a registered work - when you know very well that your own livelihood and the livelihood of many of your piers and friends depend on exactly the same kind of protections you so glibly dismiss?
Moreover, your description of someone breaking and entering to somehow reproduce someone's jewelry without taking it is ludicrous - and quite ironic. The only reason copyright infringement is different than property theft is because information is generally not considered property - whereas jewelry is. So your hypothetical is actually quite self defeating. Even so, if the person who owns the jewelry does not want you to have it, you have to commit the crime of breaking and entering just to get access. (And if someone else knowingly receives the fruit of your efforts they are accomplices after the fact - that's you btw) Therefore, you would have to break the law to make or receive a copy. Probably not the best analogy.
I am all for fair use, but you are simply unwilling to pay for something you want. That makes you a thief.
six months after I could download a virtually complete and much more interesting workprint release
You mean steal right? I have a feeling the producers are not giving you special access to their prints, so if you're downloading it you're stealing it from them. Same goes for leaked music. Are you working on the assumption that because no one can stop you that you have the right to take whatever you want? It's theft whether you've got a black mask and a flashlight or not.
So I guess Einstein was making a distinction without a difference? Again, as I mentioned in an earlier post, from the point of view of a particular point in space, there may not be a difference, but when looking at systems as a whole, it makes a huge difference. Gravity is the least understood of all the basic forces, and the fact that it is not actually an attractive force but a property of space-time itself is a tremendous leap in our understanding of the universe.
That said, my original point has little to do with any particular problem in science, but rather talks about the more general philosophical problem of trusting the scientific method to tell us absolutely everything about everything. It is, IMHO, inherently limited because it relies on human observations. We are not omnicient and therefore by definition miss things because of our limited faculties. To go forward with traditional scientific experiments knowing these limitations is to act with some degree of faith that they will tell us something useful.
Slashdot Mirror
What truths are they revealing?
The documents they leaked this week did nothing except hurt the American people. (For the record, I am an American people). The Russian stuff embarrassed and enraged Putin, who is not exactly a friend, but we certainly don't want him as an enemy. The Saudi stuff embarrassed the king and since his security people just gave us a tip that saved hundreds from death by air-cargo bombs, I would like to keep him happy (most of the time). The Afghan stuff was by no means news, but it has given Karzai another reason to go around saying that the US is out to get him.
There are no smoking guns here and the only people it helps are adversaries of the US and Assange when he goes out looking for tail in Sweden. Give one solid reason why this release was "good for democracy"?
It's not about hiding something from the people of the US. It's about hiding things from the nations with which it deals. Why would it be in the interest of the US or Russian public for Putin to know what the US State Dept thinks about him? Why would it be in the interest of the US or Afghan people for Karzai and his co-criminals what the US knows about their corrupt practices? Why would it be in the interest of the US or Iranian people to embarrass the Saudi king by letting everyone know what he really thinks about Iran's nuclear program? (Remember that the Saudi security services gave the tip that saved hundreds from death by air-cargo bomb.)
There is a gotcha mentality here that is quite short sighted and foolish. This doesn't help anyone but Assange when he goes out looking for some tail in Sweden.
If it turns out that they have some Bank of America stuff that would burn the bank's execs, I'm all for that. That's what I imagined a whistle-blowing safe-harbor like Wikileaks would be for. The diplomatic stuff is just a chance for Assange to stick his boney finger in the eye of a government that is operating in a very different way than the Bushies he hates so much. It only hurts the people he supposedly wants to help.
Oh good grief. I don't care about your credibility.
I don't really care what you think of me, I was attempting to point out a hypocrisy. All of the conspiracy theories surrounding Assange's alleged misconduct are focused on how baseless accusations have undermined his credibility with the average news-consumer. By calling me naive rather than taking what I am saying on face value, you are doing exactly what you criticize.
Does this not seem like dirty pool to you?
Yes, of course there is reason to believe that pressure was exerted on the Swedish prosecutors to up the ante. But that does not mean he's innocent. If you are only interested in seeing this as a fun conspiracy theory, then by all means enjoy yourself. But if you have any interest in seeing this as a matter of justice and letting the system do it's job, then there is no reason why the allegations against him shouldn't be investigated. One of the two women making the accusations has said that while he did not in fact rape her, he did have trouble taking no for an answer. That's why the original charges of rape were dropped (the practice, btw, of charging someone with harsher charges in the hope of reaching a plea on the lesser ones is quite common) and the molestation charges were re-instantiated. He didn't rape anyone, but credible witnesses (meaning the women, who have no ties to any government and appear to be acting in good faith) are saying that he broke the law. That should be enough for an investigation.
And the fact that they did not question him at the start could have been the result of the exact opposite problem from the one you suggest. He may have appeared to the (elected) prosecutor as too hot a potato, and to avoid being seen as having harassed on a minor molestation charge. Then the US and others come along and scream bloody murder about letting him go and things get moving again. Seems the most likely explanation to me. But then again, I'm just guessing.
But also let's get into the reasons why this went from a local matter to an international circus.
Because Assange is the ring-leader. He built the tent, sold the tickets and turned up the lights. Now that he's in the lion's den with the whip, no one should be surprised about all the attention given to his every move. The irony of all this is that he's doing exactly the same thing to the US. He shined a spotlight on what is effectively a nation's private business to "expose" what goes on under the covers whether there's anything to look at or not (so far not), and now he's upset that the US is doing the same. Granted there is some indication that extraordinary measures have been taken to push the investigation along, but there is so far no evidence that the charges were manufactured.
I am not naive, nor do I think the international community is sitting idly by while he attacks their lines of communication. But I do think he deserves to be held to the same standards of justice as any other person. When a celeb is accused of a crime, they don't give the case to the night assistant. They give it to the top dog. If interpol has to get involved because he doesn't give a forwarding address, then so be it.
should he therefore abstain from sex outright for fear of accusations?
Of course not. Who suggested that?
We're talking about a relentless dedication to the idea that he is not guilty of anything because he's a "righteous" man faced off against the big bad USA. You have yet to say anything that acknowledges that he could actually have done something wrong.
For the record, I don't know if he did anything at all. Maybe he didn't. But the fact that he was accused of misconduct (not rape) by two different people for roughly the same thing within a few days of one another can and should result in a serious investigation of his actions - regardless of his other activities.
My guess - and that's all it is, a guess - is that he was riding high on the success of the first release, and had no problem attracting the attention of some young starry-eyed Swedish ladies (he admits to being with both women). I'll bet he even played the Zorro thing for all it was worth, "Hey baby, i just carved a Z in George Bush's forehead. Wanna see my sword?"
Once they got comfortable, maybe he pushed things a bit too far and didn't think a superhero like him had to play by the rules. Happens all the time. Maybe it wasn't even anything that horrible, but that's not for either of us to say. It's for the women and the Swedish courts to decide.
It's a common mistake to assume that a person you feel is doing something righteous can do no wrong. MLK had lots of mistresses. Bill Clinton took advantage of a 21 yo intern. No one is perfect. Even if they need to be when it matters most.
your grasp of what people in power are willing to do to keep their position is astonishingly naive
I am well aware of the treachery some people are capable of. For example: calling me naive is an ad hominum attack designed to undermine my credibility based only on personal opinion.
You think tracking down some girl he spent time with and leaning on her is an impossibility? Really??
Of course not. But you're starting assumption is that she is a plant, while I'm starting with the assumption that she is not. I'm not sure where you live, but in the U.S. people are innocent until proven guilty (which would go for Assange as well). I think she deserves the benefit of the doubt, especially since there is no actual evidence that there was any tampering at all. Circumstantial evidence regarding the sequence of events during the early period of the Swedish investigation does not prove anything.
Furthermore, you're assertion that she must be a plant because governments play dirty is exactly the same kind of insinuation and slander that people say is being used against Assange.
why did the prosecution decline the offer of cooperation while he was in country, and suddenly pursue it through interpol after he had left
Perhaps you should ask the prosecutor. Again, you are relying on the speculation of bloggers and forum posts to come to a conclusion. I realize that you're probably the type that doesn't believe anything you're told by "the man", but maybe you should wait to hear what they actually have to say before you make your final conclusions. And since you asked what I think, I have a feeling that the basic charge of sexual misconduct is legit (of course don't know for sure yet), and once the initial charges were filed (incorrectly) as rape, it was seen by some as an opportunity to undermine his credibility. Even so, if the woman in question has a legitimate complaint, and you are doing all you can to undermine her case because you are rooting for Assange in the larger battle over Wikileaks, than you're no better than the shady govt types you hate. Aren't her rights just as important as his? Should her claims of injustice be ignored because of the "greater good"?
Some people like attention, even bad attention. Again, you naivete is showing. Some people have motives you cannot understand. Because they are nuts
So I guess you're the defense attorney that tries to undermine a rape victim's credibility by accusing her of being a slut on the stand? Or maybe you're the type that would use Daniel Ellsberg's psychiatric history to undermine his credibility? Or perhaps you are the type that uses Assange's personal indiscretions to undermine his credibility. Oh wait...
The only thing sexist and shameful is everyone leaping to the conclusion that this guy clearly must be up to something because some woman hinted that he might be
No it is not sexist to vigorously investigate the possibility that a man mistreated a woman when she claims that he did. It is simply how criminal investigations are run. You are applying a double standard. When a hero of yours is accused of doing something wrong, you blame the alleged victim because if you take the allegation seriously, it would require an admission that he could actually be an asshole. It appears as though that's too much for some fanboi types to handle.
You must recognize that the battle between Wikileaks and the US is a PR battle. If Assange couldn't keep his fly closed and pulled a Bill Clinton (i.e., letting his dick ruin his image), wouldn't it be a mistake for supporters of Wikileaks to defend him at all costs? Does his "deep deep desire" to be some kind of righteous vigilante mean he can do whatever he wants in other spheres of life? Or would it be wiser to maintain some kind of neutrality and let the investigation take its course?
Isn't it possible that he is both a hero and a creep?
Paint him as a child molester because nobody feels bad for one of those
The woman making the allegation (and I stress woman because she is not under age), should be taken seriously until the investigation has been completed. Your assumption that he must be innocent because he is engaged in what you clearly consider a righteous PR war with the United States is sexist and shameful. Why would this woman willingly put herself at the center of an international maelstrom, knowing that every bit of her personal life would be put under the microscope if nothing happened? The Swedish government has found no evidence of tampering by the US. He admits being with the woman. The woman in question has no record of being involved in anything even remotely like this before. The irony is that you don't even mention her in your conspiracy theory. She warrants no attention because you don't really care whether she is telling the truth or not.
You just care about "gotchas".
it's FBI has assassinated American civilians, the CIA is currently torturing someone to death in a secret prison somewhere in the world
Where is the evidence for this exactly? Are you talking about various conspiracy theories or are you talking about accepted fact? The CIA using water-boarding is well known, but what evidence can you cite of either someone dieing from it or any other interrogation technique? Can you die from lack of sleep? Can you die from the embarrassment of being questioned while naked? And I cannot find any evidence of even an investigation of an FBI agent carrying out an assassination. Please provide more detail for your rather serious indictments. And the theories of some blogger who talked to "anonymous sources within the security establishment" does not count.
I understand that there is a great deal of mistrust of governments in general and the US in particular, but the idea that the FBI and CIA are serial human rights abusers on the level of the Russian or Chinese secret police is simply wrong. The easy retort is of course that they shouldn't do anything to hurt anyone (physically or psychologically), anywhere, ever. This is both naive and dangerous.
Wikileaks didn't kill a bunch of brown people in an some country with an unpronounceable name and then pretend it didn't happen.
What are you referring to exactly? Do you mean the chopper pilot that killed the reporters? If so, no one has claimed that the pilots were acting outside the rules of engagement, and there was fighting going on only a few hundred yards from where the incident occurred. Was it tragic? Yes. And did the pilot come off as a cold-hearted bastard? Yes. But anyone who has actually suited up and taken aim during a gun fight (modern warefare 2 doesn't count) will tell you that the first thing you must overcome is your own sense of empathy for the human being you are about to gun down. Go to a boot camp and note how much of the training is designed to remove any remorse from the mind of the grunt. They are not out there to make decisions about who is innocent or guilty beyond the rules of engagement they operate under. If they hesitate, they - or someone next to them - will die. To believe otherwise is naive and quite dangerous. Should the pilot have said, I think he's got a missile launcher, but I'm not 100% sure so I'll let him go until he shoots at me or someone else? Not bloody likely.
It can be about how US foreign policy actions are often against both their own laws
I'm sorry, did i miss something? Where is there even a bit of evidence of this?
Demonstrating how incompetently they're handing out palettes of US dollars is also interesting. Brilliant -- here's millions and millions of dollars we will hand out without any form of oversight, and hope it solves the problems.
So you justify all of the damage this release has caused to US relations with the world by coming to the Monday morning assumption that the US State Dept. spent a few million dollars unwisely? Are you kidding? The US sends billions of dollars every year to dozens of nations that do it outright harm (e.g., Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, etc) just to maintain some influence over their behavior and you're worried about some individual payoffs that went bad? A bit naive i think. Not only because of the small scale of the spending, but also because you assume that the US was capable of properly assessing the risks and failed to act upon them. Sometimes people are simply duplicitous. And how many payments in question were actually successful at achieving their goals? In other words: what is the US batting average in such cases? I would suggest that it is much higher than you would expect.
Democracy is not well served by lying to the public about what you're doing and how you're doing it
What did the US lie about exactly? If you're talking about the Afghan assessments from a few months ago, I would agree that the source assessments were more harsh than what the govt officially reported, but no one claims that the US lied about anything. And as for the latest release, there is so far no reason to believe anything even close to that. Please enlighten us with your special insight.
This really is calling the US to account for its war crimes and crimes against humanity.
Really? What crimes against humanity are you talking about? Torture? If so, that evidence is common knowledge at this point. President Bush (our worst ever) talks about water-boarding and its legality publicly. Rendition? It is public knowledge that Gitmo prisoners have been sent to other countries for interrogation.
The reason many previous Wikileaks supporters are upset with this release - including high-level people who have resigned from Wikileaks because they believe Assange has gone too far - is that there appears to be no "smoking gun" here. The only effect so far has been that the opinions of some diplomats have been (incorrectly) interpreted as the official position of the US govt, and that various world leaders have been embarrassed by having their opinions about nations like Iran made public. How does that serve anyone in the US general public? Even the supposedly more damning info that came from the Afghan assessments released earlier this year did nothing to change anyone's opinion of the war effort or of how the US conducted itself. The fact is that aside from some specifics about individual incidents (e.g., the chopper shooting the unarmed reporter), there was nothing either release that people didn't already know - albeit in less detail.
This does little more than weaken US diplomacy going forward because candid assessments will be...less candid, and as a result decision makers will be that much more in the dark about what other nations are thinking.
There is certainly a place for Wikileaks in the public sphere, and I am not one to call for it's extinction. But I do feel as though this was basically a personal vendetta by a small group of individuals who quite accidentally came upon a stack of sensitive documents and saw an opportunity to make a name for themselves and the project they started.
The only solace for the American public is that the kid who started this is in custody - he won't be releasing anything to anyone except his lawyers for a long time - and once his initial contribution dries up, Wikileaks will be back to doing what it does best: acting as a forum for things like corporate malfeasance and specific govt illegalities.
Do we need to go back to destroying embryos to develop an inferior product?
Why keep repeating the myth that embryos are "destroyed"? Most of the embryos are frozen zygotes created by artificial insemination. They are frozen in case they are needed by a couple having trouble conceiving, then donated because they are no longer needed for whatever reason. No one is walking into a research center and saying "take this baby out of me and use it for science". The word "destroy" is used by anti-abortion types to falsely imply that people are aborting their children so some mad scientist can do experiments with mutant monkeys or whatever.
There is no evidence that fewer babies are born because of the use of embryonic stem cells. The cells would have been discarded without any purpose, so isn't that worse than putting them to some good use?
You buy it - you own it. That's how it used to be
not true. you bought the medium, (record, printed paper), but even back in the "good ol days", you did not purchase the right to the actual content. And today almost all of our information is encoded digitally and much of it is transmitted across the internet, so there is no longer any natural limit on infringement.
I agree with you concerning the effect copy prevention has on the "average consumer", and i tend to shop for more open formats. But people will always choose free over not free. And "retailers" like the Pirate Bay don't charge for the service (they make their money from ads) so they facilitate people's instinct to get something for nothing, and make millions doing it. All the while saying that they are defending free speech or whatever. They just make it easy to walk right past the producer of the content and take their shit without paying. And that seems really, really cool. Until you think about it a little.
...invading a country and then offering hospital services to some of the victims is not a recipe for popularity.
So i suppose the US should also pack up rescue and relief operations and leave Haiti, Pakistan (and retroactively Indonesia). And that's just the recent ones. Almost all of the US military's relief operations are performed outside the scope of any conflict. It is the most effective security and rescue apparatus ever created and cannot be replaced even by the combined efforts of the rest of the world.
I'd turn to Germany, England, Norway and Denmark.
Really? And I suppose you live somewhere in northern Europe in a small to very small country with very few poor people. Because when a place like Pakistan ends up with 20% of its already poor and rural population (30 million people!) homeless and destitute, all of those nations combined could not even put a dent in the problem.
You at least seem somewhat sympathetic, but there is a serious amount of pile-on happening right now. Too many nations are forgetting just what the US means to both their international security and potential disaster operations. When someone like Bush gets into the driver's seat, the US is bound to swerve off course for a bit, but overall the US has done FAR more good for the world than bad. The transformation of Europe and Japan in the 20th and China in the 21st century is a testament to the power of the individualist/liberal/capitalist model, and the long run of world peace (i.e., no wars between major powers) since the end of WWII is a testament to its effectiveness as a deterrent and peace-keeper.
For any of the complaints about US overreaching or manipulation, there are 10 more to be made about far more egregious violations of human rights, national sovereignty, etc. by other nations. The problem is that because the US has set itself up as the "city on the hill", people hold it to a higher standard. And now that it has gone through a period of unpopularity because of an extremely unpopular (internally) administration (i.e., Bush), everyone is pulling out all the stops and piling on. No one in the US would complain about a little constructive criticism, especially when it comes from our allies and friends. But when it is done with so little recognition of the good parts, it becomes hard to swallow.
Remember "a teaspoon of sugar helps the medicine go down"?
They mean endangering their ability to lie effectively.
It has been widely reported that there was nothing new in the leaked documents. Anytime you get at raw reports they will of course contain more personal opinion than the processed official releases made by the govt itself, but in terms of pure "gotcha" revelations, there are few if any. People like comparing this to the Pentagon Papers leak, but the stuff Ellsberg released was actually important and revelatory. This is not even in the same league. We knew the Pakistani intelligence services are helping the Taliban. We knew there have been civilian casualties. We knew there have been night raids. What exactly did the govt lie about?
What they are really upset about is the fact that the raw reports have details about sources and tactics that have no bearing on the resulting intelligence but do compromise the individuals involved and make it that much harder to use those tactics in the future.
Do you want the people fighting in Afghanistan to fail/die? I am not suggesting that you must agree with their mission as dictated from civilian authorities, but as it is there mission, they are executing it to the best of their ability and leaks like this make their jobs even harder and more dangerous.
Reminding us of the stupidity of major-brand retail prices, and their massive disconnect from underlying value.
While I agree that most "brand name" products are overpriced based on their utility, you must remember that there is also a great deal of money spent to let people know that the product even exists. I am not sure of the numbers, but a surprisingly large percentage of a product's budget is allocated for marketing. And when you look at how things are sold to a mass market, it starts to make sense.
Why, for example, do we know that there even is a new "Toy Story" movie? Not because of word of mouth. We are aware of it because Pixar and their parent spent millions of dollars on advertising. Similarly, why do we know about that new Sony TV or Nikon camera? Because Sony and Nikon spent millions to buy space in the heads of as many people as they could. And when more and more people associate a brand with quality, the brand becomes the product.
Counterfeiters benefit from this because an inferior product with a respected brand name will sell faster and at a higher price. Its that simple. (Remember, counterfeiters do not have to honor warranties or take service calls.)
If a tourist in Times Square sees a hole-in-the-wall store selling knock-off cameras (I work near there and there are many of these shops), they will be much more likely to spend big bucks if they see the Nikon brand in the window than some unrecognizable brand they know nothing about. As a result, these stores sell knock-offs with Nikon branding at what appear to be very attractive discount prices and people snap them up. By the time they realize that they have been taken advantage of, its normally too late to do anything about it. And on the web this problem is a million times worse.
Now I know that a one-to-one ratio is way off - every negotiation starts off with inflated demands/claims - but counterfeiters are good for no one but themselves. They hurt legit companies by selling (in the vast majority of cases) inferior products that undercut the value of the real branded product by undermining the relationship between brand and quality. And to some degree they decrease sales (putting aside how much the numbers are pumped). But mostly they hurt the people who buy their crap by providing an inferior product at an inflated price.
And if you question the assumption that counterfeit products are generally inferior, perhaps you should ask the simple question: Why don't they trade on their own name? Why can't the Times Square stores tell people that they are selling Nikon-like cameras that are "just as good"?
how on earth do you think restricting apps on a mobile device is going to change this?
While it is true that there are many ways for a child to get at things they shouldn't, does that mean we should remove all barriers in the name of "openness"? I am a developer and know first-hand the value of open platforms. They are the most fertile ground for innovation and offer end-users the most bang for the buck. But this is not about features, this is about content.
The challenge for phone makers and carriers is to balance the different and often conflicting demands from the market. Almost anyone who buying a phone for their kids wants (at least theoretical) control over what can be done with it. Remember that grade-school kids are getting phones these days, and they don't want some lame "junior" phone. They want an iphone or android smartphone. So for Apple, Motorola, Samsung, HTC, etc, they have to consider how much control they give to the innovators and how much control they retain for the millions of parents who buy their stuff.
The lack of control is not a deal breaker for many parents, but if the smartphone entertainment platform becomes as much about porn as the PC platform has become, they'll start to think twice.
Especially when it has absolutely zero impact because there are other avenues for getting porn on to the devices.
Yes, there are other ways for kids to get at the stuff, but zero impact? The very fact that you are aware of "other avenues" means that the policy has had an impact on how content is delivered. Porn websites are supposed to filter minors. If that is not effective, web filters can do a bit more. The point here is parents want to do all they can to do what they feel is best for for their kids.
Sure, young kids sneak into movies, but does that mean its a good idea to let them in whenever they want? They get a hold of beer, but should we let them drink as much as they want? It's a balancing act. No one is suggesting that we limit political speech or decide what cultural trends are acceptable or not. We're simply talking about the very capitalist, very freedom of choice struggle to keep as many of their customers as possible coming back for more.
That droid or iphone was not built just for you. They had to think about everyone they have to sell to.
If you think that most people, even kids, equate movies with reality.. well then your argument is valid.. I just don't think so..
So you think a 14yo thoughtfully considers the motives and intentions of the people in a porn flick? Your error (IMHO) is that you believe a teen looks at the world in the same way as an adult. They don't. And don't take my word for it, go read any child psychology book and find out just how far a teenager has to go before their brains develop fully. They are hard wired to learn from adults and by example. How do you think they learn how to behave? By thoughtful consideration? They learn by imitation. And even if they instinctively know that what they're seeing is part reality and part fantasy, they are for the most part unable to draw an accurate line between the two. (Remember that many adults are unable to tell the difference between an actor and the character they play).
Yes, (most) adults can distinguish movies from reality, and kids are generally not naive enough to do exactly what they see, but when it comes to things with which they have no direct experience - i.e., hard-core sex, they are almost completely unable to distinguish reality from fantasy. How can they? They have no idea what people actually do behind closed doors, so they are at least partially convinced that what you see is what you (hopefully) get. In fact, the porn experience is most "satisfying" when the fantasy is seen as reality.
All the other things in your post, objectifying, stuttering, etc.. put you in the sex is wrong an dirty
huh? So the term objectification means "dirty"? Do you know what the term means? It refers to the act of de-personification. In other words, it means turning a person into an object. That's not a moral concept, its a psychological one. Criminals objectify their targets to make it easier to hurt them. Soldiers objectify their enemies to make it easier to kill them. Male viewers of hardcore porn (tend to) objectify the women involved because it makes it easier to use them as "holes". Half of the titles you see on porn sites refer to holes, meat, hoes, etc. The whole idea is to give an otherwise frustrated male the chance to put aside all of the wooing stuff and get right down to business. That's not "dirty", its just de-humanizing.
Sex is great. I hope you have lots of it in as many positions as you can manage. In fact, as far as i'm concerned if you want to have sex with farm animals while your cousins watch thats just fine. But if you suggest that 14yo kids should be able to watch a video of it, i have a serious problem with that.
What exactly is it that makes nudity so bad?
It's not that nudity is so bad, it's what happens when kids are exposed to porn that people are concerned with. Kids have raging hormones that operate whether they are prepared for the consequences or not. And by consequences i dont mean teen pregnancy (kids who are getting some at that age are probably not downloading porn apps on their phones). The problem is that porn presents sexuality in its most mechanical form. No love, no personal relationship, just rubbing. Women are presented as easy and submissive. They do what they are told, and don't seem to need anything more than a man in the room to be ready and willing to do whatever the man wants. Young men are obviously not going to assume that all women are as slutty as the "characters" in a porn vid, but they cannot hope to understand how women actually feel about and have sex by watching porn. Parents and schools are the last places kids turn to when it comes to sex, and by the time they actually see a real nude person in their bedroom, they've probably seen thousands of digital ones there for years.
And that's just the boys. Consider how a porno makes most girls feel. They see women doing things that the average adult would stutter to explain. Almost all of the women they see are submissive and objectified (that may be something some women are into, but they don't show the woman negotiating her contract or explaining what she will or wont do). So-called "soft" porn or skinimax flix are a little more sensitive to the female psyche, but they are less and less common. (Check out how many of these series are on vs how many websites there are dedicated to the more damaging "slutty" porn).
I am not against images of nudity or even porn for adults (watch it myself from time to time...). But to ask with incredulity why people are so concerned with nudity is to ignore the fact that kids are NOT adults. They are not prepared to deal with the condensed and distorted view of sexuality that porn presents.
Nudity is not the issue. It's the developing psyche of children that people are concerned with.
PS: For the record, i am not religious at all so i am not coming at this from a moralistic point-of-view. I simply have a young daughter who's well-being is my top priority in life, so i think about this stuff a lot.
The Chinese have the workforce (and hence more persons with high IQ)
They simply have a larger population. By definition, an IQ is a measure of one's intelligence in relation to the whole population, i.e., a distribution or bell curve. Hence a 100 IQ is right at the top of the bell curve and is the median IQ for that population. Because there are more people living inside the borders of the place we call China, there are of course more of everything a person can be - smart, stupid, crazy, tall, short, etc.
So if you are suggesting that more high-IQ people under one flag gives the Chinese some comparative advantage, you are forgetting that they also have a great deal more people at the lower end of the scale as well. And everyone needs to eat.
In an American company when something goes wrong, somebody is fired. In a Japanese company when something goes wrong, they try to figure out what went wrong and fix it som that doesn't happen again.
I understand that there are a lot of pissed off unemployed people out there, but let's stop with the US bashing please. American tech companies are among the most efficient and successful in the world - Intel, IBM, Apple, Microsoft, J&J, Boeing, 3M, etc, etc, etc, etc. And though the US auto manufactures started to bloat in the 1970's, Ford at least has become more efficient than ever. (BTW, Toyota is not exactly at the peak of its powers at the moment).
There is always room for improvement and I'm not a love-it-or-leave-it type, but claiming that all US companies are somehow inferior is simply wrong. Success breeds arrogance which breeds laziness, but that applies to a small portion of the largest institutions when they are no longer driven by growth and innovation but by stability and stock price (once again, see Toyota). Most mid sized and many large companies in the US can compete with any other in the world. And though China makes many of the products sold in the US, those products are designed by American companies.
So are we putting the pieces together on our own or is SkyNet reaching back from the future to make us do it..?
I'm not sure what you do exactly, but there is a very very good chance that you don't actually produce any kind of physical product. Very few American workers do these days. And since you're posting on /. It is equally likely that you are a "knowledge worker" of some kind who relies on the copyright system to protect your work (even if you don't own the copyright yourself, your employer could not afford to pay you without it).
So how can you possibly justify violating someone else's rights - a copyright is defined as the exclusive right to make copies of a registered work - when you know very well that your own livelihood and the livelihood of many of your piers and friends depend on exactly the same kind of protections you so glibly dismiss?
Moreover, your description of someone breaking and entering to somehow reproduce someone's jewelry without taking it is ludicrous - and quite ironic. The only reason copyright infringement is different than property theft is because information is generally not considered property - whereas jewelry is. So your hypothetical is actually quite self defeating. Even so, if the person who owns the jewelry does not want you to have it, you have to commit the crime of breaking and entering just to get access. (And if someone else knowingly receives the fruit of your efforts they are accomplices after the fact - that's you btw) Therefore, you would have to break the law to make or receive a copy. Probably not the best analogy.
I am all for fair use, but you are simply unwilling to pay for something you want. That makes you a thief.
six months after I could download a virtually complete and much more interesting workprint release
You mean steal right? I have a feeling the producers are not giving you special access to their prints, so if you're downloading it you're stealing it from them. Same goes for leaked music. Are you working on the assumption that because no one can stop you that you have the right to take whatever you want? It's theft whether you've got a black mask and a flashlight or not.
Bashing NASA and the US in general is fun for a while, but it gets old fast.
That said, my original point has little to do with any particular problem in science, but rather talks about the more general philosophical problem of trusting the scientific method to tell us absolutely everything about everything. It is, IMHO, inherently limited because it relies on human observations. We are not omnicient and therefore by definition miss things because of our limited faculties. To go forward with traditional scientific experiments knowing these limitations is to act with some degree of faith that they will tell us something useful.