It would also tell the enemy that we know who they are, which would give them a huge advantage. We mustn't let them know that we know, lest they use that information to kill us all.
Daniel Ellsburg, in case you were actually wondering. He's kind of been in the news recently for publicly supporting Bradley Manning and Wikileaks.
I didn't understand what the rhetorical meaning of your question was, but I'd guess that he isn't well known because large elements in our country still despise him; the people who say things like two parents up, "Breaking faith with your country and failing to follow orders cannot go unpunished", and who agree with the Nixonian idea that the president is above the law.
People are reviled or revered based on what's convenient. The Founding Fathers were traitors to the British crown, but we revere them. Nobody knows who Daniel Ellsburg is because the government he challenged is basically still there, and there are lots of modern-day royalists like the guy two parents up.
Nominations are kept secret by the Nobel prize committee so there's no way to know unless the person who made the nomination announces it. But nominations are also due by February 1st so it seems unlikely.
"It's hopelessly political because everyone wants their guy to win (including you), rather than it being about something we can all agree on."
I'm amazed at the ignorance of people who complain about a peace prize being too political. Peace is itself inherently political. There's no way for it to not be political. There never has been or ever will be a peacemaker who doesn't have enemies or opponents.
Or forced out by unhappy corporate masters after his corruption and incompetence was exposed to the world. But Anon didn't force him out, and no one is decrying vigilante justice on the part of the corporate masters. AFAIK no one has even suggested he was illegally forced to quit, which is a bare minimum for calling the act vigilante justice. In fact, the standard line when a company owner fires their CEO is that, far from it being illegal punishment, they own the place and it's their God-given right.
To defend Aaron Burr by calling his resignation in disgrace an act of vigilante justice is nothing more than to flak for him. He got what was coming to him, and no one illegally punished him.
This has very little to do with vigilante justice. Anonymous demonstrated how embarrassingly incompetent HBGary is at what it claims to be its area of expertise. The management of any company that is exposed to be so incompetent deserves to be shamed and fired. Not to mention that Aaron Burr was misusing his position to pursue a personal obsession that had nothing to do with the company's goals. That "vigilante justice" has anything to do with it is completely circumstantial and only marginally related to Aaron Burr's incompetence and corruption.
It's a crime that this kind of false defamation, paid for by a competitor, no less, is getting endorsed by Slashdot. The editors have a responsibility to post a correction noting that this is "research" is bought and paid for by CL competitor Oogle.
Yeah, I'd like to know this too. Hell, if I had any experience I'd start something myself. This seems like a real opportunity for some competition that promises to be less corrupt than Paypal.
There's a donation-based non-profit engaged in a pitched legal battle against some of the wealthiest and most powerful people in the world. How would you suggest they raise the funds necessary to defend themselves?
I'm a layman but I would expect that, after 4.5 billion years, friction would have slowed down the inner core's rotation to match that of the rest of the planet. Has anyone hypothesized why that hasn't happened?
As a consumer, either way I'm screwed because I have to pay for streaming now. So I say fuck it all, I'll just download everything I want to listen to and instead spend my money on shows when my favorite bands come to town. Most artists make most of their money touring anyway, don't they? Support the artists, not the industry.
So, your claim is that Anonymous has no power at all?
He didn't say that at all. Shouldn't basic reading comprehension be a bare minimum for posting?
Anonymous is not the police. They have no authority over us. Nor are they the banks, we did not give them our money to hold in trust. Etc etc. They have no authority and they have no more power than any other private individual such as you or I. If your argument is that Anonymous should become fully transparent then so should you, because you have as much power as Anonymous. I await your revelation of all your personally identifiable information.
Slashdot Mirror
It would also tell the enemy that we know who they are, which would give them a huge advantage. We mustn't let them know that we know, lest they use that information to kill us all.
Daniel Ellsburg, in case you were actually wondering. He's kind of been in the news recently for publicly supporting Bradley Manning and Wikileaks.
I didn't understand what the rhetorical meaning of your question was, but I'd guess that he isn't well known because large elements in our country still despise him; the people who say things like two parents up, "Breaking faith with your country and failing to follow orders cannot go unpunished", and who agree with the Nixonian idea that the president is above the law.
People are reviled or revered based on what's convenient. The Founding Fathers were traitors to the British crown, but we revere them. Nobody knows who Daniel Ellsburg is because the government he challenged is basically still there, and there are lots of modern-day royalists like the guy two parents up.
The deadline for nominations was Feburary 1st. The uprisings mostly missed the deadline for nominations.
The King of Sweden hands out the prizes.
Because the committee definitely doesn't award prizes to people sitting in jails. Yeah.
Nominations are kept secret by the Nobel prize committee so there's no way to know unless the person who made the nomination announces it. But nominations are also due by February 1st so it seems unlikely.
"What exactly did Wikileaks do to deserve a prize?"
Probably this.
"It's hopelessly political because everyone wants their guy to win (including you), rather than it being about something we can all agree on."
I'm amazed at the ignorance of people who complain about a peace prize being too political. Peace is itself inherently political. There's no way for it to not be political. There never has been or ever will be a peacemaker who doesn't have enemies or opponents.
When was the Peace Prize ever *not* political?
Or forced out by unhappy corporate masters after his corruption and incompetence was exposed to the world. But Anon didn't force him out, and no one is decrying vigilante justice on the part of the corporate masters. AFAIK no one has even suggested he was illegally forced to quit, which is a bare minimum for calling the act vigilante justice. In fact, the standard line when a company owner fires their CEO is that, far from it being illegal punishment, they own the place and it's their God-given right.
To defend Aaron Burr by calling his resignation in disgrace an act of vigilante justice is nothing more than to flak for him. He got what was coming to him, and no one illegally punished him.
He wasn't punished, he was shamed, (there's a difference), and he quit of his own volition. That's not vigilante justice.
This has very little to do with vigilante justice. Anonymous demonstrated how embarrassingly incompetent HBGary is at what it claims to be its area of expertise. The management of any company that is exposed to be so incompetent deserves to be shamed and fired. Not to mention that Aaron Burr was misusing his position to pursue a personal obsession that had nothing to do with the company's goals. That "vigilante justice" has anything to do with it is completely circumstantial and only marginally related to Aaron Burr's incompetence and corruption.
They killed SGU so they could put wrestling in its place. What more evidence do you need?
It's a crime that this kind of false defamation, paid for by a competitor, no less, is getting endorsed by Slashdot. The editors have a responsibility to post a correction noting that this is "research" is bought and paid for by CL competitor Oogle.
Yeah, I'd like to know this too. Hell, if I had any experience I'd start something myself. This seems like a real opportunity for some competition that promises to be less corrupt than Paypal.
Anyone have a backup link? I want to read the article before I jump on or over any guns.
And you're smiling about that???
Edit: "They are"
There's a donation-based non-profit engaged in a pitched legal battle against some of the wealthiest and most powerful people in the world. How would you suggest they raise the funds necessary to defend themselves?
Are they crazy? Leaking this information could put lives at risk!
I'm a layman but I would expect that, after 4.5 billion years, friction would have slowed down the inner core's rotation to match that of the rest of the planet. Has anyone hypothesized why that hasn't happened?
Anonymous Coward may have a point. Anonymous is an Internet Hate Machine, after all.
As a consumer, either way I'm screwed because I have to pay for streaming now. So I say fuck it all, I'll just download everything I want to listen to and instead spend my money on shows when my favorite bands come to town. Most artists make most of their money touring anyway, don't they? Support the artists, not the industry.
Studies also show that 95% of first posters in /. comment sections don't read the article.
But his co-conspirators commuted his sentence to a fine, and paid for it for him. So in Libby's case, the principle holds.
So, your claim is that Anonymous has no power at all?
He didn't say that at all. Shouldn't basic reading comprehension be a bare minimum for posting?
Anonymous is not the police. They have no authority over us. Nor are they the banks, we did not give them our money to hold in trust. Etc etc. They have no authority and they have no more power than any other private individual such as you or I. If your argument is that Anonymous should become fully transparent then so should you, because you have as much power as Anonymous. I await your revelation of all your personally identifiable information.