Each major region gets a representative (or a few), they all take votes on actions to do, just like other groups such as UN.
There's your problem. As bad as the US has been in recent years, it's no where near as bad as a grouping would be. Sure it would give the EU more of a say, but it would also give China a bigger say as well, and probably other governments known for far more abusive practices with regards to the internet.
I have rebranded it as Oracle Turnip and raised the price by 10,000% for all of our hapless clients who are locked into the platform. Everything will be just fine.
Signed,
The One who is more magnificent than your greatest conception of God
You're not the real Larry Ellison, you're an imposter.
For serious, the num lock key is one I use regularly. The only time I can envision that being a reasonable design decision is if you've also nixed the 10 key portion of the keyboard for whatever reason.
I was annoyed when I noticed that Logitech felt the need to take off my MX5000, it was a hand me down, so I didn't gripe too much about it, but the scroll lock key is still one that has use. If they're going to take away keys, they should be taking away ones that are legitimately not used, like that blasted menu key or, well that's the only one on my keyboard that hasn't got a legitimate use. Although those Winkeys are pretty much as useless.
That explains the rest of your post. You work for MS, don't you? Tell Steve Ballmer to knock it off with those stupid Windows keys on the keyboard, they're the most annoying keys on the entire board, and of little value even under Windows.
Most keyboards have 3 extra buttons that are mostly annoying. The two Win keys and the menu key. The menu key is generally right between the right alt and right win key.
Personally, it doesn't bother me as much as the left win key. Which was seemingly placed there to ensure that if you miss the ctrl key that you'll end up causing all sorts of havoc. I know you can adjust that, but what kind of mental midget thinks that having a key that can snap you out of a full screen program placed right there is a good idea.
I don't think you're wrong. Leaking information comes at a high risk, organizations like Wikileaks, the NY Times and such are there largely to help mitigate the risk, but there's still substantial risk. When journalists do have sources, they're private, as in not shared even within the organization. And will typically be approached based upon reputation for keeping a shut mouth about contact information.
So far the US government hasn't identified where any of the materials have come from by way of anything that Wikileaks has done, which is going to be a substantial hindrance to anybody that's wanting to set up a new service to compete.
Indeed, this is likely what asymmetric warfare is going to look like in the information age. The US government right now is at best tilting at windmills and at worst encouraging and supporting this sort of thing.
Probably the best play for the US government would be to shut up and focus on finding and plugging the leaks. Wikileaks is well set up enough that it's going to be more or less impossible to stop them from releasing the information. What's worse for the government is that by attacking Assange they're only kicking the ball to folks who have far less to lose than Assange does by releasing the leaks unredacted.
That's a bullshit explanation. If it were really true, there'd be no reason not to release the identity as the terrorist or whoever would already know who they are and the people around them. The fact that they haven't bothered to cite a single instance is a pretty good indication that they've got bupkiss and are just talking out of their asses.
Additionally, if the information were really that sensitive, why on Earth did the US government not tell Wikileaks what legitimately needed to be redacted? Seems if the information is that dangerous that they ought to be willing to play ball. Seeing as how they couldn't prevent it from getting to the public at that point.
It is, and the problem has been dealt with already. It's an issue of jurors not following the orders they've been given. Jurors are ordered not to investigate the case or speak with anybody about it while the case is ongoing. After deliberation you can speak freely about your thoughts, but up until then you're ordered to avoid coming into contact with any information related to the case where possible, and report any possible exposure to the bailiff, so that the judge and attorneys are aware of anything which could compromise the verdict later on.
The bigger problem is that the jury pool ends up being people that are less educated or retired and don't necessarily get shown a lot of respect by the politicians that require them to be there. The court staff does treat jurros well typically, but it's hard to feel appreciated when you're being asked to lose so much money to serve.
And the final question is, with that equipment, can you legitimately weld in a 9x15 foot room?
That's what I'd like to know. While some types of welding require more space than others do, for safety reasons, I can't imagine any equipment allowing you to use a space that size. The issue of getting around the item in and of itself is formidable. It would likely be doable if you've got the room completely free of other stuff, but with a bench it's going to get tight real quick.
It's not just anarchists. It's also those of us that respect and appreciate the constitution. The FBI hasn't exactly gotten that reputation without a lot of work. From the abuses by J. Edgar Hoover to the more recent abuses of the national security letters, the organization hardly has a clean record.
People tolerated the US controlling ICANN because we were viewed as impartial, or at least less partial than an international organization. But this raises considerable doubt as to whether or not the US should still be allowed that level of control. Which is unfortunate because historically we've had a much better record on freedom of speech than most other countries, to throw that away now so that we can preserve a dieing industry is troubling to say the least.
Probably because honesty is punished, harshly. Any honesty that doesn't go with the group think runs the risk of resulting in being shunned or run down.
Real names are nice, I suppose, but I'd rather they confirm that the person bought it or at least ordered it. Many times an item might be the same for practical purposes but have something substantively different about them. Most often with computer games where one version might be patched up to date, but for a former platform, but the other is patched up and supported on the most recent OS revision. They're the same, but there could very well be compatibility issues there.
I think people tend to assume that the bad reviews are mainly spam or by people that have something to gain financially by it. Reviews which aren't spam and aren't for profit, but aren't accurate either make it really hard to judge what's being offered.
Advice is frequently best not obtained. The number of morons and people with unconscious biases that give advice way outnumber the ones with reasonably accurate advice. Plus people tend to be better at giving advice than following it.
Citation necessary. The US government declined to negotiate for redactions under the idea that they could stop the release, they were wrong. If it were that egregious and irresponsible, I doubt that Wikileaks would have offered and that the government would have declined. In other words it's their own damned fault for being so arrogant.
What you're suggesting is pretty barbaric. Pfc Manning apparently committed a crime, I'll wait for that to be formalized before accusing, but even if that's the case, Assange and Wikileaks haven't done anything wrong. By that stretch of reason, perhaps you ought to be "disappeared" as you voting seems to be dangerous to the American state and our service personnel.
But, courts and government are essentially mob justice. The only difference is that it's mob justice in slow motion so that we're more likely to find the cases where the mob was wrong. But you do still get people going to prison because of what the mob thinks, the courts at least in the US, tend to be tilted pretty favorably to the prosecution.
You can't hold them responsible for collateral damage. I haven't seen or heard anything from them condoning the DDoS attacks. While one could I suppose view the lack of condemnation a tacit sign of support, it seems rather more likely that they've got their hands busy releasing the cables and getting Assange out of jail.
I suspect that it will help a lot. The people that liked them pulling the plug are typically too stupid to notice that it was retracted. And the people that disliked it are usually up enough on it that they notice the retraction.
Consequently, I suspect that this is probably going to be more upside than downside for them.
The media is allowed to get away with that far too often under the guise of freedom of the press. Freedom of the press was intended to ensure that the press could report on potential malfeasance on the part of government officials, not as a way of protecting the press from having to do their due diligance.
Many lives have been ruined by the press publishing the names of accused pedophiles and rapists who turned out to be innocent and were also acquitted at trial. The coverage in some of those cases would go on for years, leading people to remember the individual as guilty rather than the later article, assuming it was published at all, where the individual was acquitted. Richard Jewell is probably one of the best examples out there, although there is also Michael Jackson who will always be regarded as guilty, despite being acquitted.
Slashdot Mirror
Each major region gets a representative (or a few), they all take votes on actions to do, just like other groups such as UN.
There's your problem. As bad as the US has been in recent years, it's no where near as bad as a grouping would be. Sure it would give the EU more of a say, but it would also give China a bigger say as well, and probably other governments known for far more abusive practices with regards to the internet.
I have rebranded it as Oracle Turnip and raised the price by 10,000% for all of our hapless clients who are locked into the platform. Everything will be just fine.
Signed, The One who is more magnificent than your greatest conception of God
You're not the real Larry Ellison, you're an imposter.
For serious, the num lock key is one I use regularly. The only time I can envision that being a reasonable design decision is if you've also nixed the 10 key portion of the keyboard for whatever reason.
I was annoyed when I noticed that Logitech felt the need to take off my MX5000, it was a hand me down, so I didn't gripe too much about it, but the scroll lock key is still one that has use. If they're going to take away keys, they should be taking away ones that are legitimately not used, like that blasted menu key or, well that's the only one on my keyboard that hasn't got a legitimate use. Although those Winkeys are pretty much as useless.
What about when I'm not running X?
That explains the rest of your post. You work for MS, don't you? Tell Steve Ballmer to knock it off with those stupid Windows keys on the keyboard, they're the most annoying keys on the entire board, and of little value even under Windows.
Most keyboards have 3 extra buttons that are mostly annoying. The two Win keys and the menu key. The menu key is generally right between the right alt and right win key.
Personally, it doesn't bother me as much as the left win key. Which was seemingly placed there to ensure that if you miss the ctrl key that you'll end up causing all sorts of havoc. I know you can adjust that, but what kind of mental midget thinks that having a key that can snap you out of a full screen program placed right there is a good idea.
I don't think you're wrong. Leaking information comes at a high risk, organizations like Wikileaks, the NY Times and such are there largely to help mitigate the risk, but there's still substantial risk. When journalists do have sources, they're private, as in not shared even within the organization. And will typically be approached based upon reputation for keeping a shut mouth about contact information.
So far the US government hasn't identified where any of the materials have come from by way of anything that Wikileaks has done, which is going to be a substantial hindrance to anybody that's wanting to set up a new service to compete.
Indeed, this is likely what asymmetric warfare is going to look like in the information age. The US government right now is at best tilting at windmills and at worst encouraging and supporting this sort of thing.
Probably the best play for the US government would be to shut up and focus on finding and plugging the leaks. Wikileaks is well set up enough that it's going to be more or less impossible to stop them from releasing the information. What's worse for the government is that by attacking Assange they're only kicking the ball to folks who have far less to lose than Assange does by releasing the leaks unredacted.
That's a bullshit explanation. If it were really true, there'd be no reason not to release the identity as the terrorist or whoever would already know who they are and the people around them. The fact that they haven't bothered to cite a single instance is a pretty good indication that they've got bupkiss and are just talking out of their asses.
Additionally, if the information were really that sensitive, why on Earth did the US government not tell Wikileaks what legitimately needed to be redacted? Seems if the information is that dangerous that they ought to be willing to play ball. Seeing as how they couldn't prevent it from getting to the public at that point.
It is, and the problem has been dealt with already. It's an issue of jurors not following the orders they've been given. Jurors are ordered not to investigate the case or speak with anybody about it while the case is ongoing. After deliberation you can speak freely about your thoughts, but up until then you're ordered to avoid coming into contact with any information related to the case where possible, and report any possible exposure to the bailiff, so that the judge and attorneys are aware of anything which could compromise the verdict later on.
The bigger problem is that the jury pool ends up being people that are less educated or retired and don't necessarily get shown a lot of respect by the politicians that require them to be there. The court staff does treat jurros well typically, but it's hard to feel appreciated when you're being asked to lose so much money to serve.
And the final question is, with that equipment, can you legitimately weld in a 9x15 foot room?
That's what I'd like to know. While some types of welding require more space than others do, for safety reasons, I can't imagine any equipment allowing you to use a space that size. The issue of getting around the item in and of itself is formidable. It would likely be doable if you've got the room completely free of other stuff, but with a bench it's going to get tight real quick.
Some of us have trouble convincing our parents that a hacker space is a good idea.
It's not just anarchists. It's also those of us that respect and appreciate the constitution. The FBI hasn't exactly gotten that reputation without a lot of work. From the abuses by J. Edgar Hoover to the more recent abuses of the national security letters, the organization hardly has a clean record.
Indeed, porn is the glue that holds the internet together.
People tolerated the US controlling ICANN because we were viewed as impartial, or at least less partial than an international organization. But this raises considerable doubt as to whether or not the US should still be allowed that level of control. Which is unfortunate because historically we've had a much better record on freedom of speech than most other countries, to throw that away now so that we can preserve a dieing industry is troubling to say the least.
Probably because honesty is punished, harshly. Any honesty that doesn't go with the group think runs the risk of resulting in being shunned or run down.
Real names are nice, I suppose, but I'd rather they confirm that the person bought it or at least ordered it. Many times an item might be the same for practical purposes but have something substantively different about them. Most often with computer games where one version might be patched up to date, but for a former platform, but the other is patched up and supported on the most recent OS revision. They're the same, but there could very well be compatibility issues there.
I think people tend to assume that the bad reviews are mainly spam or by people that have something to gain financially by it. Reviews which aren't spam and aren't for profit, but aren't accurate either make it really hard to judge what's being offered.
Advice is frequently best not obtained. The number of morons and people with unconscious biases that give advice way outnumber the ones with reasonably accurate advice. Plus people tend to be better at giving advice than following it.
Citation necessary. The US government declined to negotiate for redactions under the idea that they could stop the release, they were wrong. If it were that egregious and irresponsible, I doubt that Wikileaks would have offered and that the government would have declined. In other words it's their own damned fault for being so arrogant.
What you're suggesting is pretty barbaric. Pfc Manning apparently committed a crime, I'll wait for that to be formalized before accusing, but even if that's the case, Assange and Wikileaks haven't done anything wrong. By that stretch of reason, perhaps you ought to be "disappeared" as you voting seems to be dangerous to the American state and our service personnel.
But, courts and government are essentially mob justice. The only difference is that it's mob justice in slow motion so that we're more likely to find the cases where the mob was wrong. But you do still get people going to prison because of what the mob thinks, the courts at least in the US, tend to be tilted pretty favorably to the prosecution.
You can't hold them responsible for collateral damage. I haven't seen or heard anything from them condoning the DDoS attacks. While one could I suppose view the lack of condemnation a tacit sign of support, it seems rather more likely that they've got their hands busy releasing the cables and getting Assange out of jail.
I suspect that it will help a lot. The people that liked them pulling the plug are typically too stupid to notice that it was retracted. And the people that disliked it are usually up enough on it that they notice the retraction.
Consequently, I suspect that this is probably going to be more upside than downside for them.
The media is allowed to get away with that far too often under the guise of freedom of the press. Freedom of the press was intended to ensure that the press could report on potential malfeasance on the part of government officials, not as a way of protecting the press from having to do their due diligance.
Many lives have been ruined by the press publishing the names of accused pedophiles and rapists who turned out to be innocent and were also acquitted at trial. The coverage in some of those cases would go on for years, leading people to remember the individual as guilty rather than the later article, assuming it was published at all, where the individual was acquitted. Richard Jewell is probably one of the best examples out there, although there is also Michael Jackson who will always be regarded as guilty, despite being acquitted.
What goes around may come around, but mysteriously it always seems to hit the worst actors last.