This is wrong. What Wikileaks does is not asymmetrical because al Qaeda and the Taliban are nothing like the US government. First of all, the Taliban and al Qaeda are organizationally immune to Wikileaks for a variety of reasons. The Taliban are a repressive dictatorship of stone-cold killers whose power derives from the fear generated by their evil deeds, and they are operate in a low-tech if not no-tech country that has virtually no access to information, much less the kind of information storage employed by a trillion-dollar bureaucracy. As for al Qaeda, they aren't a government, they aren't a bureaucracy, they represent no one, they aren't even a decentralized network of cells. Most of these "cells" are utterly independent. al Qaeda is just a name, one that any ragtag band of angry young men who wish to attack the United States adopts, or one that the United States applies to anyone who they perceive as their new enemy in the Muslim world. That wasn't necessarily the case before 9/11 but it certainly is now.
The benefactors of Wikileaks' are not al Qaeda or the Taliban. There is no evidence that anyone has been killed as a result of Wikileaks' leaks. Even if there were, how many innocents has the US killed? No one who defends the wars has the moral standing to argue that Wikileaks is endangering innocents or people on our side. Wikileaks doesn't release troop movements or anything that could benefit the enemy. And if it damages the US government's image or makes the US look bad, whose fault is that? Do we not have a right to know when our government lies to us, commits crimes, and is involved in cover-ups? And how else are we to find out when the government classifies information so liberally merely to hide their own bad behavior? The benefactors are us, who have a right to know when our government commits crimes or objectionable acts, and whose only channel for finding out is Wikileaks.
If your goal is to prosecute a guy for a crime, you bring charges and you prosecute. If your goal is to assassinate his character, you draw out the process as long as possible, using innuendo in the media, without actually involving the courts.
This reeks of the latter.
"We're thinking of getting an arrest warrant to detain Assange for questioning involving these charges that we keep bringing against him and then dropping, but we haven't actually done it yet. We're just putting it out there in the media that we're thinking of doing it. We'll tell you more when we maybe do it next week, or decide not to, so we can keep getting media attention."
Freedom from unreasonable search and seizure is a right. And just because we may choose to participate in an activity that isn't an enumerated right in the Constitution, such as flying, it does not give the government a pass to ignore that right. There is no exception to the 4th Amendment that says "unless you want to board a plane", and the government does not have the right to impose unconstitutional rules to restrict my ability to do things that aren't explicitly protected in the Constitution (of which there are many.) That's just tautological.
We absolutely should try to secure air travel, but this isn't making air travel any more secure. Someone here, in one of the more visible posts, linked to an article that talks about what they do in Israel, and they have a lot more experience dealing with the threat of terrorism than we do. They are appalled by the TSA's ineptitude. They employ professionals. They have multiple minor, non-invasive checks along the way to the plane. They don't allow people to queue up in large lines or crowds that make excellent targets for bombers.
This stuff the TSA is doing is security theater meant to make it look like they are protecting us when really they are just wasting all our time and money. Just consider the quality of people they hire to be screeners. The TSA has only been playing Whack-A-Mole with possible threats, and they have never caught anyone. They have been utterly incompetent. And now with these "enhanced pat-downs", aka full-on sexual molestation, they are in the business of intimidating passengers into compliance. If you don't go through the porno-scanner, which is your right to opt-out of, you will be sexually molested, so that it is as uncomfortable as possible to opt-out of the porno-scanner. And if you refuse to submit to either, you will be fined $10,000.
All of this is a violation of my Constitutional right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure, to be secure in my person and effects, which I do not give up and cannot give up simply by trying to board a plane. That flying is not a right has nothing to do with it.
I don't even know where to begin with your horrible analogy. One of the other people who responded to you had it right though. It isn't to get me to block your blows, it's to get me to panic and flail about wildly. By definition they want to terrorize us, and we are doing a good job of responding by acting like a terrorized populace.
This only works when people protest loudly enough. This does not work when encroachments are instituted gradually enough, such as in the past ten years of TSA history.
Freedom from unreasonable search and seizure is a right. And just because someone chooses to participate in an activity that isn't an explicitly enumerated right somewhere in the Constitution does not give the government a pass to violate those rights that are given there.
Complete security is impossible. The Founders who wrote the Constitution realized that, and reasonably favored liberty over security. Gradually reducing our liberties in an a vain effort to make us safer only leaves us less free.
Here's the thing. This is exactly the terrorists' plan.
I really hate being referred to a video in a story. I am never interested in enough to sit through it. So how did they find copper? And a power source?
So Gene Simmons isn't going to back down, and neither will Anonymous. They're just going to keep going back and forth tit for tat. A feud between Gene Simmons and Anonymous is going to be awesome!
I was referring to the post I responded to, We have turned into the Randian utopia of rugged individualists who have given up on treating each other as human beings. We treat each other like consumers. It's sad, and it's one of the things I had hoped the Obama era would overcome. Unfortunately, it seems like the problem has only been exacerbated.
That problem is not due to the reasons you cited, but the increasingly narcissistic right wing that believes and perpetuates ideas that lead to things like this man's house burning down while the fire department sits idly by.
Dude, didn't you hear? Obama isn't a legitimate president, he's a socialist! He isn't even American!
The problem with the "Obama era" is so many people buy in to crap like that. Solidarity is dead. It's each man for himself. As much as some of us would like it to be different, that exactly describes what happened in this story.
You've essentially described one of the fundamental problems with public goods -- if it's provided for the benefit of all, how do you avoid free-riders?
By embracing the concept of a public good you reject the concept of a free rider. It's either/or, (that's twice in two separate topics I've used that term now...), if you try filter out free riders, you aren't providing a public service for the benefit of all.
We decided to reject the idea of free riders with certain taxpayer based services such as fire protection. When your house is on fire nobody questions you about whether you deserve to have your fire put out, your application for having a fire put out isn't processed by adjusters trying to find ways to avoid providing services. Except in Obion County. The real tragedy is not the homeowner that didn't pay the fire department fee and received no help from the fire department that stood idly by while his house burned down, because this guy is obviously a freeloader. The real tragedy is that people think this sort of system is acceptable, that we've gone back to a system where people's houses can burn down and most people are callously indifferent because the guy should have paid his fees.
There's a commenter around here with the sig "I like paying taxes, with them I buy civilization". Every time I read that I think of how stories like these are examples of how we are becoming less civilized, and how solidarity is dead.
OP: "to read a full A4 page or a web page or a function call."
Do any of these require high performance video?
As of right now, it's either/or, either you need to easily see tall things, or you need high performance video graphics, of the sort that one would actually bother to benchmark, but who needs both at the same time? Not the OP, nor anyone I can think of.
FWIW, I bought the Xbox 1 because it was such a powerful media center after it was jailbroken, and that's the only reason I am now considering AppleTV. I can't wait for XBMC to get ported to it!
The end-goal is to create a hybrid inexpensive 3D printer that can be easily reconfigured for 2D laser cutting, providing powerful making tools to the desktop."
The end-goal ought to be to create a working lightsaber! Get on that!
We have this system set up between the three existing branches already. In particular, the Legislative branch has considerably more investigative power in the Executive than it chooses to use.
The problem is the excess of deference among the branches of government, especially to the Executive, which has the most interest in restricting our rights. War and party politics have subverted the Founders' built-in adversarial conflict between the branches. Another branch would just get corrupted like the existing branches have been.
Slashdot Mirror
This is wrong. What Wikileaks does is not asymmetrical because al Qaeda and the Taliban are nothing like the US government. First of all, the Taliban and al Qaeda are organizationally immune to Wikileaks for a variety of reasons. The Taliban are a repressive dictatorship of stone-cold killers whose power derives from the fear generated by their evil deeds, and they are operate in a low-tech if not no-tech country that has virtually no access to information, much less the kind of information storage employed by a trillion-dollar bureaucracy. As for al Qaeda, they aren't a government, they aren't a bureaucracy, they represent no one, they aren't even a decentralized network of cells. Most of these "cells" are utterly independent. al Qaeda is just a name, one that any ragtag band of angry young men who wish to attack the United States adopts, or one that the United States applies to anyone who they perceive as their new enemy in the Muslim world. That wasn't necessarily the case before 9/11 but it certainly is now.
The benefactors of Wikileaks' are not al Qaeda or the Taliban. There is no evidence that anyone has been killed as a result of Wikileaks' leaks. Even if there were, how many innocents has the US killed? No one who defends the wars has the moral standing to argue that Wikileaks is endangering innocents or people on our side. Wikileaks doesn't release troop movements or anything that could benefit the enemy. And if it damages the US government's image or makes the US look bad, whose fault is that? Do we not have a right to know when our government lies to us, commits crimes, and is involved in cover-ups? And how else are we to find out when the government classifies information so liberally merely to hide their own bad behavior? The benefactors are us, who have a right to know when our government commits crimes or objectionable acts, and whose only channel for finding out is Wikileaks.
Also, the title is inaccurate. There is no court order, someone is just making a show of requesting one. Even Slashdot editors are useful tools.
If your goal is to prosecute a guy for a crime, you bring charges and you prosecute. If your goal is to assassinate his character, you draw out the process as long as possible, using innuendo in the media, without actually involving the courts.
This reeks of the latter.
"We're thinking of getting an arrest warrant to detain Assange for questioning involving these charges that we keep bringing against him and then dropping, but we haven't actually done it yet. We're just putting it out there in the media that we're thinking of doing it. We'll tell you more when we maybe do it next week, or decide not to, so we can keep getting media attention."
Freedom from unreasonable search and seizure is a right. And just because we may choose to participate in an activity that isn't an enumerated right in the Constitution, such as flying, it does not give the government a pass to ignore that right. There is no exception to the 4th Amendment that says "unless you want to board a plane", and the government does not have the right to impose unconstitutional rules to restrict my ability to do things that aren't explicitly protected in the Constitution (of which there are many.) That's just tautological.
We absolutely should try to secure air travel, but this isn't making air travel any more secure. Someone here, in one of the more visible posts, linked to an article that talks about what they do in Israel, and they have a lot more experience dealing with the threat of terrorism than we do. They are appalled by the TSA's ineptitude. They employ professionals. They have multiple minor, non-invasive checks along the way to the plane. They don't allow people to queue up in large lines or crowds that make excellent targets for bombers.
This stuff the TSA is doing is security theater meant to make it look like they are protecting us when really they are just wasting all our time and money. Just consider the quality of people they hire to be screeners. The TSA has only been playing Whack-A-Mole with possible threats, and they have never caught anyone. They have been utterly incompetent. And now with these "enhanced pat-downs", aka full-on sexual molestation, they are in the business of intimidating passengers into compliance. If you don't go through the porno-scanner, which is your right to opt-out of, you will be sexually molested, so that it is as uncomfortable as possible to opt-out of the porno-scanner. And if you refuse to submit to either, you will be fined $10,000.
All of this is a violation of my Constitutional right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure, to be secure in my person and effects, which I do not give up and cannot give up simply by trying to board a plane. That flying is not a right has nothing to do with it.
I don't even know where to begin with your horrible analogy. One of the other people who responded to you had it right though. It isn't to get me to block your blows, it's to get me to panic and flail about wildly. By definition they want to terrorize us, and we are doing a good job of responding by acting like a terrorized populace.
This only works when people protest loudly enough. This does not work when encroachments are instituted gradually enough, such as in the past ten years of TSA history.
Freedom from unreasonable search and seizure is a right. And just because someone chooses to participate in an activity that isn't an explicitly enumerated right somewhere in the Constitution does not give the government a pass to violate those rights that are given there.
Complete security is impossible. The Founders who wrote the Constitution realized that, and reasonably favored liberty over security. Gradually reducing our liberties in an a vain effort to make us safer only leaves us less free.
Here's the thing. This is exactly the terrorists' plan.
Daylight. Duh, it's in the name.
Left and right are not synonymous with D and R.
Finally, a solution to the pile of crumbs at the bottom of the bag!
I really hate being referred to a video in a story. I am never interested in enough to sit through it. So how did they find copper? And a power source?
So Gene Simmons isn't going to back down, and neither will Anonymous. They're just going to keep going back and forth tit for tat. A feud between Gene Simmons and Anonymous is going to be awesome!
I was referring to the post I responded to, We have turned into the Randian utopia of rugged individualists who have given up on treating each other as human beings. We treat each other like consumers. It's sad, and it's one of the things I had hoped the Obama era would overcome. Unfortunately, it seems like the problem has only been exacerbated.
That problem is not due to the reasons you cited, but the increasingly narcissistic right wing that believes and perpetuates ideas that lead to things like this man's house burning down while the fire department sits idly by.
Dude, didn't you hear? Obama isn't a legitimate president, he's a socialist! He isn't even American!
The problem with the "Obama era" is so many people buy in to crap like that. Solidarity is dead. It's each man for himself. As much as some of us would like it to be different, that exactly describes what happened in this story.
You've essentially described one of the fundamental problems with public goods -- if it's provided for the benefit of all, how do you avoid free-riders?
By embracing the concept of a public good you reject the concept of a free rider. It's either/or, (that's twice in two separate topics I've used that term now...), if you try filter out free riders, you aren't providing a public service for the benefit of all.
We decided to reject the idea of free riders with certain taxpayer based services such as fire protection. When your house is on fire nobody questions you about whether you deserve to have your fire put out, your application for having a fire put out isn't processed by adjusters trying to find ways to avoid providing services. Except in Obion County. The real tragedy is not the homeowner that didn't pay the fire department fee and received no help from the fire department that stood idly by while his house burned down, because this guy is obviously a freeloader. The real tragedy is that people think this sort of system is acceptable, that we've gone back to a system where people's houses can burn down and most people are callously indifferent because the guy should have paid his fees.
There's a commenter around here with the sig "I like paying taxes, with them I buy civilization". Every time I read that I think of how stories like these are examples of how we are becoming less civilized, and how solidarity is dead.
Because I know that when I was reading this story I was idly wondering what Google's stock ticker symbol was!
OP: "to read a full A4 page or a web page or a function call."
Do any of these require high performance video?
As of right now, it's either/or, either you need to easily see tall things, or you need high performance video graphics, of the sort that one would actually bother to benchmark, but who needs both at the same time? Not the OP, nor anyone I can think of.
Actually, because the radius is also larger the estimates are around 1.1g to 1.7g, which should be tolerable.
However, there are still a ton of things we don't know about it. Given what we know it could be a Venus-like planet.
FWIW, I bought the Xbox 1 because it was such a powerful media center after it was jailbroken, and that's the only reason I am now considering AppleTV. I can't wait for XBMC to get ported to it!
I'm not worried about China, I'm worried about my own government spying on me with Google's cooperation.
If we can slingshot it around the sun and back to the Earth the scientists in 1986 will be overjoyed with the results!
The legend continues!
The end-goal is to create a hybrid inexpensive 3D printer that can be easily reconfigured for 2D laser cutting, providing powerful making tools to the desktop."
The end-goal ought to be to create a working lightsaber! Get on that!
I just can't help but wonder if these things aren't just signs of a lot of behind-the-scenes scurrying.
What else would they be?
We have this system set up between the three existing branches already. In particular, the Legislative branch has considerably more investigative power in the Executive than it chooses to use.
The problem is the excess of deference among the branches of government, especially to the Executive, which has the most interest in restricting our rights. War and party politics have subverted the Founders' built-in adversarial conflict between the branches. Another branch would just get corrupted like the existing branches have been.