Anonymous is not an organization. They are the mob. As in pitchforks and torches, not as in Al Capone and tommy-guns. There are no "ringleaders". Anyone can do anything and attribute it to Anonymous. As such, your accusations of hypocrisy and secrecy are absurd. It's like calling the weather a hypocrite because it rains one day and it's sunny the next.
Actually, it is a problem. They can't kill as many people as easily. Since it was already mentioned, take the wacko in Arizona. If he had a knife instead of a gun he might have stabbed the Congresswoman Giffords but he wouldn't have killed or injured all those bystanders.
They shouldn't do business somewhere if they can't obey the law. It's not the fault of the multiple various tax districts that so many companies are trying to market everywhere simultaneously.
What updates does the iPhone check for over 3G? Network status shouldn't be included in a data coverage plan, I don't get charged for that if I have a cell phone without a data plan.
So what if they're fake? The fake ones don't have any seeders, and have comments like "WTF fake!!!" on them. They are easily identifiable and easily ignored.
I mean in terms of software updates. Once you're a few generations in, you stop getting the new features that get introduced for newer products. This is an old problem for all devices that have frequent updates, simply because it isn't cost-effective to develop for hardware that isn't being sold anymore.
Specifically with the iPhones, many new features in iOS 4 could have been supported by the iPhone 1 and 3G hardware if Apple chose to make it happen. Probably not multitasking of course, but why not folders or custom background images? I have a 3GS and I'll probably upgrade to an iPhone 5 when it comes out in June because I expect that once it's out the 3GS will probably start getting the same treatment the 3G and 1 get now.
They did not release all the cables. Only about 1-2% have been published so far, and not by Wikileaks but papers like the Guardian.Wikileaks is just their source. Wikileaks only provided the cables to a few papers, the New York Times, The Guardian, Der Spiegel, and two others whose names I forget. If any cable has been published at all, it was by one of those papers. Wikileaks only gave the information to them, and only them. They are the filter.
And where do you get your information that Assange is the only person who knows the "key"? Assange has said himself that cables in the hands of hundreds of thousands of supporters, encrypted, and if something were to happen to him the cables would all be automatically released. I've no reason to doubt their ability to set up a system like the one they say they have. Do you have reason to believe it's infeasible, or that they are incapable of it?
I suggest you reconsider your other assumptions.
Assange is the weak point because he has exposed himself as the head of the organization. This makes him vulnerable to attacks like people publishing smears about him being a rapist and an egotistical maniac and only interested in personal profit, etc etc. I don't see any reason to believe he has endangered the operation at all, but only enhanced it by sticking his own neck out and not remaining hidden and anonymous - which would only have led to other demagogic charges, "Only hypocrites and cowards would ask people to take personal risks to provide them with leaks and expose such secrets but not reveal their own identities."
Wikileaks is not dead. Their website is still up. They are still reprinting the leaks that the Guardian and others are publishing even now. Bank of America is so nervous about impending leaks about them that they are buying up domains like "bankofamericasucks.com". Wikileaks is far bigger than just Julian Assange. He is just the public face.
They started out that way. He did an interview and explained that the media just focused on who mystery of anonymous people behind Wikileaks rather than talking about the information they were trying to expose. They also thought that it was cowardly of them to hide behind anonymity when their sources were taking big personal risks by leaking secrets to them. "If they believe information is meant to be free then why won't they reveal who they are?"
Do you see how the situation can be easily be manipulated by demagogues no matter what you do?
So Wikileaks are either cowards or opportunists, or both simultaneously. Much like how the media tells us the recent leaks of US secrets are "nothing new" and "incredibly reckless and damaging" at the same time. It's all spin and bullshit. Which is why you should disbelieve what you hear about Assange being an egotistical maniac. It's all meant to distract from the far more important point of the content of the leaks, and it's probably all untrue.
Wikileaks is not the bad guy here, Mugabe is. Corrupt dictators have long found excuses to persecute their political opponents without the aid of Wikileaks or anyone else resembling journalists. That that should even need to be clarified is just astonishing.
I don't like Amazon's decision AND I do not believe they should have the right to make it. The government ought to step in and protect our property rights.
If Whole Foods doesn't want to sell me something, that's fine, because I know I can go elsewhere. But it is illegal for Whole Foods to sell me something, and then break into my house afterward and destroy the food I bought from them, much less without a refund. So should it be with Amazon.
I don't care what material it is, illegally downloaded child pornography copyrighted by Viacom and downloaded on bittorrent, Amazon should not have the right to remotely remove content from my devices. I'm not allowed to break into their house and burn the books I sold them when I change my mind about the sale after the fact, neither should they be allowed to do the electronic equivalent. When did we stop being citizens and owners and become mere consumers and licensees?
Oh is there a highly-anticipated Flash Gordon game coming out next year too? I didn't realize he managed to overexpose himself as much as Christopher Lee. The fact that he's done Flash Gordon and barely anything since adds to the impressiveness of the move of hiring him.
I played Oblivion on PC the day it came out and enjoyed it thoroughly; whatever problems it had at launch weren't so severe as to affect my enjoyment.
With the money at their disposal Bethesda could have easily gotten another gravelly-voiced old dude for the voiceover, but they got Max von Sydow. Excellent opening move, Bethesda.
Slashdot Mirror
Anonymous is not an organization. They are the mob. As in pitchforks and torches, not as in Al Capone and tommy-guns. There are no "ringleaders". Anyone can do anything and attribute it to Anonymous. As such, your accusations of hypocrisy and secrecy are absurd. It's like calling the weather a hypocrite because it rains one day and it's sunny the next.
Actually, it is a problem. They can't kill as many people as easily. Since it was already mentioned, take the wacko in Arizona. If he had a knife instead of a gun he might have stabbed the Congresswoman Giffords but he wouldn't have killed or injured all those bystanders.
They shouldn't do business somewhere if they can't obey the law. It's not the fault of the multiple various tax districts that so many companies are trying to market everywhere simultaneously.
Of course, because it's far easier to attack the individual. If you can discredit the individual you can discredit the cause.
What updates does the iPhone check for over 3G? Network status shouldn't be included in a data coverage plan, I don't get charged for that if I have a cell phone without a data plan.
Probably because they managed to post their complaint on an Internet message board.
How many AT&T users with unlimited plans switched to a metered plan? Who would?
So what if they're fake? The fake ones don't have any seeders, and have comments like "WTF fake!!!" on them. They are easily identifiable and easily ignored.
Did these people not see Godzilla?
I mean in terms of software updates. Once you're a few generations in, you stop getting the new features that get introduced for newer products. This is an old problem for all devices that have frequent updates, simply because it isn't cost-effective to develop for hardware that isn't being sold anymore.
Specifically with the iPhones, many new features in iOS 4 could have been supported by the iPhone 1 and 3G hardware if Apple chose to make it happen. Probably not multitasking of course, but why not folders or custom background images? I have a 3GS and I'll probably upgrade to an iPhone 5 when it comes out in June because I expect that once it's out the 3GS will probably start getting the same treatment the 3G and 1 get now.
The 3GS does, but support is already dropping for the 1 and 3G.
They did not release all the cables. Only about 1-2% have been published so far, and not by Wikileaks but papers like the Guardian.Wikileaks is just their source. Wikileaks only provided the cables to a few papers, the New York Times, The Guardian, Der Spiegel, and two others whose names I forget. If any cable has been published at all, it was by one of those papers. Wikileaks only gave the information to them, and only them. They are the filter.
And where do you get your information that Assange is the only person who knows the "key"? Assange has said himself that cables in the hands of hundreds of thousands of supporters, encrypted, and if something were to happen to him the cables would all be automatically released. I've no reason to doubt their ability to set up a system like the one they say they have. Do you have reason to believe it's infeasible, or that they are incapable of it?
I suggest you reconsider your other assumptions.
Assange is the weak point because he has exposed himself as the head of the organization. This makes him vulnerable to attacks like people publishing smears about him being a rapist and an egotistical maniac and only interested in personal profit, etc etc. I don't see any reason to believe he has endangered the operation at all, but only enhanced it by sticking his own neck out and not remaining hidden and anonymous - which would only have led to other demagogic charges, "Only hypocrites and cowards would ask people to take personal risks to provide them with leaks and expose such secrets but not reveal their own identities."
Wikileaks is not dead. Their website is still up. They are still reprinting the leaks that the Guardian and others are publishing even now. Bank of America is so nervous about impending leaks about them that they are buying up domains like "bankofamericasucks.com". Wikileaks is far bigger than just Julian Assange. He is just the public face.
Funny, I always thought that ad hominem applied to people who believe whatever they were told, as opposed to the skeptics.
They started out that way. He did an interview and explained that the media just focused on who mystery of anonymous people behind Wikileaks rather than talking about the information they were trying to expose. They also thought that it was cowardly of them to hide behind anonymity when their sources were taking big personal risks by leaking secrets to them. "If they believe information is meant to be free then why won't they reveal who they are?"
Do you see how the situation can be easily be manipulated by demagogues no matter what you do?
So Wikileaks are either cowards or opportunists, or both simultaneously. Much like how the media tells us the recent leaks of US secrets are "nothing new" and "incredibly reckless and damaging" at the same time. It's all spin and bullshit. Which is why you should disbelieve what you hear about Assange being an egotistical maniac. It's all meant to distract from the far more important point of the content of the leaks, and it's probably all untrue.
Oh look, yet more character assassination of Julian Assange.
At this point everything about him should be taken with a giant fucking grain of salt.
Somebody get Joseph Fiennes on this!
Wikileaks is not the bad guy here, Mugabe is. Corrupt dictators have long found excuses to persecute their political opponents without the aid of Wikileaks or anyone else resembling journalists. That that should even need to be clarified is just astonishing.
Have you heard of the phrase "peasant mentality"?
I don't like Amazon's decision AND I do not believe they should have the right to make it. The government ought to step in and protect our property rights.
If Whole Foods doesn't want to sell me something, that's fine, because I know I can go elsewhere. But it is illegal for Whole Foods to sell me something, and then break into my house afterward and destroy the food I bought from them, much less without a refund. So should it be with Amazon.
I don't care what material it is, illegally downloaded child pornography copyrighted by Viacom and downloaded on bittorrent, Amazon should not have the right to remotely remove content from my devices. I'm not allowed to break into their house and burn the books I sold them when I change my mind about the sale after the fact, neither should they be allowed to do the electronic equivalent. When did we stop being citizens and owners and become mere consumers and licensees?
Oh is there a highly-anticipated Flash Gordon game coming out next year too? I didn't realize he managed to overexpose himself as much as Christopher Lee. The fact that he's done Flash Gordon and barely anything since adds to the impressiveness of the move of hiring him.
I played Oblivion on PC the day it came out and enjoyed it thoroughly; whatever problems it had at launch weren't so severe as to affect my enjoyment.
Greetings! How ARE you?
Hopefully, but it could easily just be the Akaviri invading again. And the "Dragonborn" is definitely the player.
Actually I was thinking more along the lines of their not using an overexposed actor like Christopher Lee.
With the money at their disposal Bethesda could have easily gotten another gravelly-voiced old dude for the voiceover, but they got Max von Sydow. Excellent opening move, Bethesda.