In any case, their morale is already damaged from experiencing the events described in the documents. It makes no sense to forbid soldiers from reading about something they already know...
Remember when the Cult of Scientology banned its members from viewing critical content or leaked documents, and even distributed a sort of parental-guidance web censor? Can't find the source at the moment, but it was probably around 2008.
If Wikileaks is going to refuse either way, it doesn't matter whether they refuse to return paper or to delete all digital copies. And if Wikileaks were to comply, there would be no way to prove that all copies had been destroyed, regardless whether the original was paper or digital.
The fixation on "doing the right thing" is amusing, because as far as Wikileaks is concerned, that is exactly what they are doing. It's not like they are profiting from an act that they agree is immoral. They do this because they believe it is right.
Regardless of whether one supports the disclosure (I do), the logic of this demand is pretty shaky.
(Naturally, it is not expected to be followed. It's probably more of a warning that Wikileaks' redundantly decentralized server infrastructure will be put to the test soon.)
Don't worry, both Newton and Leibniz lived well before the cut-off date for copyright, as well. (They even died long enough ago for the current copyright terms to expire, though the growing copyright terms might soon fix that.)
If anything, I'd be glad to be on a social network that wasn't occupied by obsessive browser game addicts. Ideally, they would stay on Facebook forever.
That's 15.7 times each. Being shot with that thing must feel awesome. You'd think the military would have caught on once the volunteers started queueing up for the fifth or sixth time.
Slashdot Mirror
It's obviously a cover story for the actual UFOs that are expected to land there shortly!
I can hardly think at all at that temperature, let alone faster.
In any case, their morale is already damaged from experiencing the events described in the documents. It makes no sense to forbid soldiers from reading about something they already know...
Remember when the Cult of Scientology banned its members from viewing critical content or leaked documents, and even distributed a sort of parental-guidance web censor? Can't find the source at the moment, but it was probably around 2008.
If Wikileaks is going to refuse either way, it doesn't matter whether they refuse to return paper or to delete all digital copies. And if Wikileaks were to comply, there would be no way to prove that all copies had been destroyed, regardless whether the original was paper or digital.
Either way, the demand is indeed ridiculous.
The fixation on "doing the right thing" is amusing, because as far as Wikileaks is concerned, that is exactly what they are doing. It's not like they are profiting from an act that they agree is immoral. They do this because they believe it is right.
Regardless of whether one supports the disclosure (I do), the logic of this demand is pretty shaky.
(Naturally, it is not expected to be followed. It's probably more of a warning that Wikileaks' redundantly decentralized server infrastructure will be put to the test soon.)
I don't know what you mean. I'm perfectly sa
[LOST CARRIER]
The machine intelligences are communicating through hidden channels in our global network.
Judgement Day is close.
I see no mention of the moral framework within which civilian casualties are taken into account.
But then, that is realistic.
An increase in game sales led to a decline in piracy, which indirectly contributed to global warming.
I wouldn't be surprised if Disney had already pre-written that legislation. :P
Don't worry, both Newton and Leibniz lived well before the cut-off date for copyright, as well. (They even died long enough ago for the current copyright terms to expire, though the growing copyright terms might soon fix that.)
I was able to observe your post, but not how fast you typed it. The limit remains unbroken, I guess.
... why not get a Wikileaks member for that?
(Oh, right, they're pretty elusive.)
What the story doesn't mention is that his mouth spontaneously disappeared and he was then implanted with a robotic insect-like tracking device.
Who is downloading the list of IPs of people who are downloading the list of Facebook profiles?
It's like a recursive privacy wank! :D
(But in secret, another smart-card was made - one that could rule all the others...)
And on the other hand, the space elevator will not be developed until fifty years after everyone stops laughing. Now there's a paradox.
I can't find it in me to care about 2182 as much as I do about 2036. I guess I'm kind of selfish.
(Besides, those future people will all be screwed by global warming anyway; what's an asteroid or two?)
Or, to put it another way, he is allowed to die if and only if he does not wish to die.
Yossarian would love this.
If anything, I'd be glad to be on a social network that wasn't occupied by obsessive browser game addicts. Ideally, they would stay on Facebook forever.
You could try brainfuck.
Now there's a language that won't be assimilated by a corporation.
That makes sense. The experiment plan is easier to get past the ethics committee that way.
That's 15.7 times each. Being shot with that thing must feel awesome. You'd think the military would have caught on once the volunteers started queueing up for the fifth or sixth time.
There's nobody I'd rather have looking at my internet history than a Chinese company.
Except maybe the North Korean government.