you're basically saying that both science and the bible agree that human nature, untempered by reason and empathy, can do some asshole things....this is one of those "i could have told you that" situations.
flipside though, is that sex is an integral part of a relationship.
otherwise it is just a friendship.
if the sexual component of a relationship is not being fulfilled, and the couple are not communicating and attempting to solve a very real problem, then guess what happens? cheating or breaking-up, or both. best to get that shit out in the open and resolve it before it comes to that, otherwise of course there'll be no trust if the couple can't talk to each other about being horny or not horny or otherwise unfulfilled.
also, a good number of fuck buddy relationships wind up as romantic ones, or end like them due to the parties becoming involved.
how exactly is a guy going to not be noticed with a freaking bomb strapped to himself?
even the most rudimentary security theatre would have picked that up. you don't need x-ray backscatter to see a bomb strapped to a person.
and in the case that the bomb is concealed, your hypothetical situation would not arise because nobody would have seen the bomb.... it's the box cutters we've gotta watch out for:)
also, your link does not shed any light on your argument whatsoever. were you banking on "Idiots like us" to not follow the link?
as much as it's the only model most people have, you can't apply your own values to everybody and conclude that only idiots would act differently.
"public" in the digital age doesn't necessarily mean "standing uncomfortably close to an open window in a room full of your enemies", or "riding around in an open-top on a sunny Texas day"
the problem is potentially much worse online than in broadcast.
though TVCs aren't yet regulated in the states, they have a maximum level dictated via analog backward compatibility (analog 0dB VU = digital -20dBFS, peak is +10 VU which is -10 digital. there's still and extra 10dB, and that's a lot). anything more than transiently above -10dB will be rejected by the distributor or network.
on regulation: it must be done correctly, and commercial interests ensure that it wont be.
there's a spec in australia called "OP48" that deals with TVC loudness. it has many useful things to say about volume in general - lipservice is given to such alien concepts as compression, limiting and equalization for increasing average loudness, but the problem is that OP48 only operates at the mastering stage for the TVC itself. once it gets to a TV station for airing, they are not covered by OP48 and are free to turn it up as loud as they can fit it down an analog pipe (which increasingly is less watched now that it's being phased out).
tl;dr - the networks will probably just turn the ads up with or without regulation. it'll just shift the blame from the ad agencies and their clients and appease the public ("what do you mean it's too loud? read this... see, it's really not even though it sounds like it is")
what he does falls quite clearly into that category.
well, he's more like the editor than a journo - he doesn't read everything that comes in, but there are people to do that. this is why the dox are being released so slowly - they're actively assessing these leaks rather than just putting them out there.
the only reason this work differs from traditional journalism is that it's not ad-supported and doesn't have sensational and inaccurate headlines designed more with SEO in mind than fact.
the only support model wikileaks really has is Assange's self-made celebrity. i'd rather than than a full page ad suspiciously related to the adjacent article.
the way journalism has become, it's no surprise that the real thing seems completely alien to journalism.
astronomers/astrophysicists don't ascribe everything they don't know to "dark matter" in the sense that supernaturalists would say "God did it". dark matter is just a cool sounding name for stuff we can't see but we know it's there - ie the people or dogs or both in the room.
Does his "deep deep desire" to be some kind of righteous vigilante mean he can do whatever he wants in other spheres of life?
the suggestion of you being naive stems from the fact that you are only approaching one part of this large picture.
take the flipside of the quoted text above:
if a man is a righteous vigilante fighter-for-truth etc etc, and very much in the public sphere, should he therefore abstain from sex outright for fear of accusations?
the problem with so many of these cases is that it's he-said she-said, and there can be no absolute way to determine if the allegations are true or not.
this has been an issue in Australia for a while - footballers being accused of rape left right and centre. sometimes they probably did it, sometimes they probably didn't, sometimes it was probably a case of everyone involved was too drunk and shit got complicated.
now, does this mean that no public figure should go out and take randoms home like normal people do?
i stand by the right of a public figure to go get filthy like the rest of us love to do. of course i don't stand by sexual assault. but it seems these allegations only ever come during a large wikileak. though nothing can be proved at this point, it would be foolish to think that these events are not somehow connected.
the above post does not say "unreasonable" at any point.
you also missed (or at least did not respond to) the part about "...his client repeatedly offered to cooperate with local investigators while he was in Sweden..."
i believe wikileaks' mission is to release anything that comes to them. as far as i can tell they don't have a strong political agenda beyond "if we receive it, it gets published, come what may".
they do redact things that could endanger people. but i don't think they feel they have a right to suppress anything that could colour politically what they've released.
it just so happens they received this, so they felt obliged to publish it. that's what they're there for.
personally i'd love to see leaks come from more varied places (companies?), but they can't really control that as they're at the mercy of what they receive.
the 200,000+ documents aren't released yet!.1% of them are.
i haven't read any, but neither have you. you're just choosing a side and bullying as AC. smells like teen astroturf. or someone with an incredibly weak will who would fight for a cause not worth fighting for.
Slashdot Mirror
and your point?
you're basically saying that both science and the bible agree that human nature, untempered by reason and empathy, can do some asshole things. ...this is one of those "i could have told you that" situations.
flipside though, is that sex is an integral part of a relationship.
otherwise it is just a friendship.
if the sexual component of a relationship is not being fulfilled, and the couple are not communicating and attempting to solve a very real problem, then guess what happens? cheating or breaking-up, or both. best to get that shit out in the open and resolve it before it comes to that, otherwise of course there'll be no trust if the couple can't talk to each other about being horny or not horny or otherwise unfulfilled.
also, a good number of fuck buddy relationships wind up as romantic ones, or end like them due to the parties becoming involved.
how exactly is a guy going to not be noticed with a freaking bomb strapped to himself?
even the most rudimentary security theatre would have picked that up. you don't need x-ray backscatter to see a bomb strapped to a person.
and in the case that the bomb is concealed, your hypothetical situation would not arise because nobody would have seen the bomb. ... it's the box cutters we've gotta watch out for :)
also, your link does not shed any light on your argument whatsoever. were you banking on "Idiots like us" to not follow the link?
as much as it's the only model most people have, you can't apply your own values to everybody and conclude that only idiots would act differently.
read the terms of use lately?
eventually any issue will require a judgement call to be made. someone at google made a call. blame them.
"public" in the digital age doesn't necessarily mean "standing uncomfortably close to an open window in a room full of your enemies", or "riding around in an open-top on a sunny Texas day"
where are my points when i need them?
thanks muchly for linky
the problem is potentially much worse online than in broadcast.
though TVCs aren't yet regulated in the states, they have a maximum level dictated via analog backward compatibility (analog 0dB VU = digital -20dBFS, peak is +10 VU which is -10 digital. there's still and extra 10dB, and that's a lot). anything more than transiently above -10dB will be rejected by the distributor or network.
on regulation: it must be done correctly, and commercial interests ensure that it wont be.
there's a spec in australia called "OP48" that deals with TVC loudness. it has many useful things to say about volume in general - lipservice is given to such alien concepts as compression, limiting and equalization for increasing average loudness, but the problem is that OP48 only operates at the mastering stage for the TVC itself. once it gets to a TV station for airing, they are not covered by OP48 and are free to turn it up as loud as they can fit it down an analog pipe (which increasingly is less watched now that it's being phased out).
tl;dr - the networks will probably just turn the ads up with or without regulation. it'll just shift the blame from the ad agencies and their clients and appease the public ("what do you mean it's too loud? read this... see, it's really not even though it sounds like it is")
implication that wikileaks has lead directly to deaths?
[citation needed]
what he does falls quite clearly into that category.
well, he's more like the editor than a journo - he doesn't read everything that comes in, but there are people to do that. this is why the dox are being released so slowly - they're actively assessing these leaks rather than just putting them out there.
the only reason this work differs from traditional journalism is that it's not ad-supported and doesn't have sensational and inaccurate headlines designed more with SEO in mind than fact.
the only support model wikileaks really has is Assange's self-made celebrity. i'd rather than than a full page ad suspiciously related to the adjacent article.
the way journalism has become, it's no surprise that the real thing seems completely alien to journalism.
hang on, that's exactly what Khenke is saying...
astronomers/astrophysicists don't ascribe everything they don't know to "dark matter" in the sense that supernaturalists would say "God did it". dark matter is just a cool sounding name for stuff we can't see but we know it's there - ie the people or dogs or both in the room.
could this actually be innovative technology from Apple?
i'm kind of impressed.
congressmen can't read, duh.
If they discovered that there are 3 times as many stars as previously believed then what purpose does the concept of dark matter serve?
the other ~70% of the observed mass... 3 times the stars still means a lot of dark matter.
dark matter isn't something intangible. it's matter with not enough light bouncing off it for us to see.
Does his "deep deep desire" to be some kind of righteous vigilante mean he can do whatever he wants in other spheres of life?
the suggestion of you being naive stems from the fact that you are only approaching one part of this large picture.
take the flipside of the quoted text above:
if a man is a righteous vigilante fighter-for-truth etc etc, and very much in the public sphere, should he therefore abstain from sex outright for fear of accusations?
the problem with so many of these cases is that it's he-said she-said, and there can be no absolute way to determine if the allegations are true or not.
this has been an issue in Australia for a while - footballers being accused of rape left right and centre. sometimes they probably did it, sometimes they probably didn't, sometimes it was probably a case of everyone involved was too drunk and shit got complicated.
now, does this mean that no public figure should go out and take randoms home like normal people do?
i stand by the right of a public figure to go get filthy like the rest of us love to do. of course i don't stand by sexual assault. but it seems these allegations only ever come during a large wikileak. though nothing can be proved at this point, it would be foolish to think that these events are not somehow connected.
dark matter much?
the above post does not say "unreasonable" at any point.
you also missed (or at least did not respond to) the part about "...his client repeatedly offered to cooperate with local investigators while he was in Sweden..."
maybe a george lucas figurine.
it's not like they're selling iphone branded phones - unless apple own a Steve Jobs trademark.
it is holding the likeness of an iphone though... who knows?
could be reality-distortion-field meets apple-fans-have-no-sense-of-humour
"Where in the world is Julian Assange"
this should be amusing. i think the guy likes the notoriety, but he's really going to have to address this issue.
or maybe he can move in with Roman Polanski?
Julian Assange is free to have a beer with me on the sidewalk any day! I'll even buy.
but would you let him buy? :)
interesting. all the beatles i've heard on CD sounds just like the LP minus the crackle and distortion.
there's probably a ton of versions out there though.
and LPs are much more fun to play :)
i believe wikileaks' mission is to release anything that comes to them. as far as i can tell they don't have a strong political agenda beyond "if we receive it, it gets published, come what may".
they do redact things that could endanger people. but i don't think they feel they have a right to suppress anything that could colour politically what they've released.
it just so happens they received this, so they felt obliged to publish it. that's what they're there for.
personally i'd love to see leaks come from more varied places (companies?), but they can't really control that as they're at the mercy of what they receive.
you're a twat.
the 200,000+ documents aren't released yet! .1% of them are.
i haven't read any, but neither have you. you're just choosing a side and bullying as AC. smells like teen astroturf. or someone with an incredibly weak will who would fight for a cause not worth fighting for.
what's an analogy again?
oh yeah, something that describes a complex situation in an everyday form that perhaps can be more easily understood.
perhaps it could be expressed as a car analogy, then you'll see the flaw in it?