The point of DDOS was pressure. pressuring paypal to revert. expect it to continue.
you can rest assured that, had the pressure not been there, paypal wouldnt have any issues holding their funds like they held the funds of millions of people without any means to recover them in the past.
At first paypal was blabbering that they cut wikileaks due to 'violation of tos', and there was no political pressure involved. (probably liebermann warned them to say that). A few days with anonymous, they came around to openly say that they did it due to political pressure. A few more days, they decided to release the wikileaks funds they were holding...
some dedicated server provider oversold dedicated servers and bandwidth to these guys. and now, when these people started using the bandwidth they have PAID FOR, they are cutting them off because they are being unprofitable.
thats all that is there to it. FRAUD. simple as that.
someone who had already been a governor before, and who have, by chance and the machinations of an old man's mind, been nominated as vice president, and then gathered enough fame and reputation by being a controversial figure, to be known.
basically, ALL the expenses for her advertisement, has been paid by gop and mccain, both with finances and with political capital. (much to the detriment of them).
so, she sells millions. great.
ah - also, serial murderers sell millions too. add that to your list too.
so, the way to practice one's freedoms without having to have funds, passes from these. or, one needs to lower one's pants and take a dump at the lincoln memorial or something in front of tv cameras etc.
and when the press is under control of 4 corporations to a 80% extent, no dissenting opinion will have a chance of being heard by a significant percentage of people either. like news in us.
Humans invented something called a "book" and one can write a book without capital and one can find a publisher to publish said book without the author having to spend huge capital.
yees. isnt it. its that easy. pray, tell, how many people had reached to a hundred million people like that in the past year, from your own social circle ? neighborhood ? your town ?
all other means to access millions of people, OUTSIDE internet, requires huge capital or means. you need heaps of cash to buy 'printing supplies', as some commenter put it, to reach a hundred million people. you need heaps of cash to get your adverts on news channels. (that is if they accept your ad, even). you nead heaps of cash to get airtime. in short, your freedom is limited totally with your finances, and those who have finances determine who talks and who not.
at this point a lot of people err in thinking that 'you have internet !'... it is a mistake :
Internet is just a temporary 'abomination' establishment wants to fix.
in the current situation, an upstart like you and me can get up a site, and reach millions of people through it. actually, even doing that currently requires advertising capital or other means, however, lets say that it is much easier to exercise your freedom of speech on the internet than anywhere else. lets say, at least there are sites like this slashdot, this, that, already big traffic mediums in where you can reach people. so, we are dangerous.
that is precisely why they have come up with endless schemes to bring internet under control and make it like a private cable network, or publishing mediums, in which only the richest will be able to reach noticeable amount of people in a nation:
anti network neutrality : aims to allow backbone providers and isps to charge websites for the traffic - the more traffic, the more charge you will have -> so, if you happen to reach hundreds of millions of people perchance, with your free speech, you will need to have the heaps of cash to pay for it. if you dont, youre cut off from millions of people with every major isp that censors you. and it will be legal, and compatible with first amendment too !
acta : supposedly anti counterfeiting treaty, it gives censorship in the hands of a privately appointed commission from private industries, and gives the ability to shut down sites on dubious grounds, without court order.
coica : you know what it is. this is the government version of controlling.
there are a few more in the works.
so, as you can see, it would be an utter folly to think that 'we are free' on the internet. we are TEMPORARILY free, and the system is trying to fix that. once it 'fixes' that, you will need precisely similar amounts of finances in order to be able to be 'dangerous' with the power of your free speech. in that state, what will happen will be precisely be the same with the outside-internet life ; just like you are free to blabber to your friends, family, coworkers, people in your bar and post a few flyers around the town, you will be free to blabber in this or that forum, put up a small blog to see 50 people a day read your views and so on. but, you wont be able to set up a blog with $20 cost to you yearly, and reach millions, if your views get popular, or you have the finances to engage in medium amount of internet advertising. internet advertising also requires considerable money, and that is also a similarity with the outside-internet situation, but, it is still accessible for at least the middle class in regard to the amount required.
so, if the private interests reach their goal in ANY of the ways above, your freedom will be as limited on internet as it is limited outside internet : free in proportion to the amount of money in your bank. judging from the wikileaks incident, one can easily say that if you really become dangerous to the system, you will be 'taken care of'.
So what we do have is a series of open fora, including the Internet. You can say whatever you want. You can be heard all across the nation by anyone who chooses to tune in. Guess what? Your posting on slashdot is an example of this.
im tired of responding to the fools which have not read what they are replying to. internet is an abomination that the establishment wants to 'fix'. i have told that in my post you replied to. you seem to failed to understood it and bringing it as an argument.
ponder on why they are wanting to kill net neutrality, and charge cash from websites for traffic.
according to recent data, 80% of news distribution in us is owned by the parent companies of 4 major movie studios. fox is one of them.
fox doesnt prevent you from saying whatever you like. and it doesnt care. because, you can only say whatever you want to your friends, family, and close social circle. people have been doing it for thousands of years.
what matters is, whether you can say it to 200 million people.
The costs are very modest and well within the means of the vast majority of the population in the US.
yes. for printing out 600 flyers, and posting around the town. accomplishing nothing, or changing the opinion of people regarding where the new park should be built. everything else remains the same.
talk about buying printing supplies to reach 200 million people, idiot.
What, you think the means of publication should be free for all? Perhaps controlled, say, by a central bureaucracy? Who gets to decide who receives this limited resource? And where does that lead, I wonder?
Socialist nitwits are walking contradictions.
where does it lead to, is definitely not a fake illusion of freedom, in which you believe you are free, but you see that you dont have the money to practice that freedom. instead, the means to practice any freedom, are owned PRIVATELY, by very big entities and rich personas. basically putting you in the position of an ordinary peasant in medieval times, subject to the will of the lord to do anything.
which is the current state.
right wing nutjobs, in the wake of this, are walking self-deceivers. 'hey i am free - i may never have the means to practice it, but i am free !!'
its not backtracking. its your reading comprehension issues.
there is no difference in buying printing supplies to reach 200 million people, and buying fox news.
in case you have not noticed, what you speak of falls in the category of 'blabbering your opinion to people in your locale'. go buy $600 worth printing supplies, print flyers, and post around the town. or, go to a park, get on top of a barrel, and talk to 600 people.
the establishment doesnt give a zit whether you do that or not.
when you are rich enough to buy printing supplies and reach 200 million people, they do.
there is now 6 idiots, who havent comprehended what they have read and replied to.
The US is better than china, anyone can be free to twitter and tweet and post on facebook etc..., in china you bad mouth the government and you have to go to a "reeducation through hard labor camp".
have you not read whats below, in the post you replied to ?
The only chance is to reach people through internet, and you are seeing how hard they are trying to censor it, and get it under corporate control through any means possible. So that, the same pattern in publishing and news broadcasting will be there too -> everything in the hands of few megacorps, everything private, and supposedly free ; only the VERY rich can talk, if allowed.
as long as witless morons like you around, who cannot comprehend what they read, no message can reach anyone. explain me, fool, have you read and understood what was written in the parent post you have replied to, below:
The only chance is to reach people through internet, and you are seeing how hard they are trying to censor it, and get it under corporate control through any means possible. So that, the same pattern in publishing and news broadcasting will be there too -> everything in the hands of few megacorps, everything private, and supposedly free ; only the VERY rich can talk, if allowed.
moron. you have your freedom of speech, without having heaps of cash here on the internet. and that is the VERY thing the establishment is not liking, and therefore they are bringing acta, coica, and attacks on net neutrality to enable corporations to directly control content, and put a price on whatever you do on the internet.
as much as it cost you to NOT read what you have been replying to.
The only chance is to reach people through internet, and you are seeing how hard they are trying to censor it, and get it under corporate control through any means possible. So that, the same pattern in publishing and news broadcasting will be there too -> everything in the hands of few megacorps, everything private, and supposedly free ; only the VERY rich can talk, if allowed.
Unequal means of producing speech is another matter.
no it isnt. if you are not able to have the MEANS to produce free speech, it means that you dont have free speech. in the end result, you cant use it.
The internet did a lot to level the playing field by significantly reducing the barriers to broadcasting various forms of speech. Youtube being a good example of this. Are the barriers to speech eliminated?
i cant even begin to understand why the fuck you are posting the above block. have you not been able to comprehend what you have read in the parent you have been replying:
..... The only chance is to reach people through internet, and you are seeing how hard they are trying to censor it, and get it under corporate control through any means possible. So that, the same pattern in publishing and news broadcasting will be there too -> everything in the hands of few megacorps, everything private, and supposedly free ; only the VERY rich can talk, if allowed.
you have your free speech on the internet, YET. still, wikileaks incident shows you dont even have it, in case you start to make a big impact.
You do realize that if you had said that in medieval time you would be imprisoned and tortured?
no. it was well within the possibility of a serf or peasant to become a knight, through any means. either by being bestowed a title and land, or, through acquiring small plots of land through incremental purchases or marriages to qualify for the minimum plot of land required for knighthood.
And that you paid exactly $0 to exercise this free speech?
most significant punishment i face today for exercising my free speech with $0 through a medium that corporations yet are not in full control of, are having to reply idiots like you who reply to a post without using their brain.
as you can see, internet is recounted as something yet out of control of the establishment. you CAN exercise free speech with $0 here. that is precisely why there are attacks on net neutrality to allow corporations to control content, acta, coica and others.
what you are missing is, the SELL part in the 'sell you print supplies'.
you need to have money to BUY those print supplies. if you dont, you wont have them.
the 'dozens of video sharing sites' are what has been bothering the establishment up till now, because, they have been providing the unwashed masses the ability to reach millions without having to pay heaps of cash. hence, the attacks on net neutrality to allow corporations to control content, hence acta, hence coica.
i see that you havent read the post you replied to. for, all your moot points were iterated in it.
In countries which control free speech directly, such laws are created. Its blunt, direct, you know what it is and there is no mistaking what it is.
In countries like usa, you are told you have free speech. But your free speech is only as free as the money/means you have -> you can blabber to your friends, family, close circle, or people in your locale about everything. But, for your free speech to actually matter, you would need to reach millions of people. And, you cant do that unless you have enough money, or means. The moment you get the funds/means to actually talk to millions of people, you become a threat, unless what you say goes to the liking of the system. And then you are silenced, very much in the way wikileaks is being silenced -> with excuses, financial pressure, indirect pressure.
Of course, even the above is a grand, grand assumption -> fat chance that you will actually be able to reach millions of people, even if you have the money. 3-4 corporations dominate news and 'opinion making', and if they dont give you airtime, you wont reach anyone. The only chance is to reach people through internet, and you are seeing how hard they are trying to censor it, and get it under corporate control through any means possible. So that, the same pattern in publishing and news broadcasting will be there too -> everything in the hands of few megacorps, everything private, and supposedly free ; only the VERY rich can talk, if allowed. Since, one cannot become VERY rich, or, create a news channel that would cater to hundreds of millions without complying with the system and hierarchy, all threats become averted.
But, in countries like china, other places, your free speech DIRECTLY has an effect. everything hinges on opinions of people -> not the money people has to exercise their freedoms. You can reach anyone, and you can change minds, if you are let speak freely.
To sum it in short :
In usa, you are told you have freedom, but practicing them requires money. You are only free as much as you have money.
In the other way, you dont have freedom. But, practicing anything you have does not require money.
one might err in that, 'as long as you are free to earn money, you can practice your freedom'. that is incorrect.
this is the recent data about situation in usa. 80% of population only get 15% of income. basically, 80% of 300 million, basically 240 million people, are not in a position to exercise their freedoms. had it been possible, there would be at least any kind of different political or social situation due to these people 'becoming rich' and practicing their freedoms.
if, the chances of someone making it from the bottom to even middle ranks, is lower than a medieval peasant making it to a measly knighthood, it means 'you are free to try it' means 'you are free to try it, but fat chance you will make it'.
humanity is not evil. humanity is dragging foot, trying to live, because, the minority greedy have set up a negative, hierarchical dog eat dog order loooong ago.
Re:Good idea, crappy implementation ..... and
on
Angles On Anonymous
·
· Score: 1
Slashdot Mirror
I was thinking of protesting against fscking cold myself. Even if it doesnt snow here ... good for anonymous.
The point of DDOS was pressure. pressuring paypal to revert. expect it to continue.
you can rest assured that, had the pressure not been there, paypal wouldnt have any issues holding their funds like they held the funds of millions of people without any means to recover them in the past.
he said share your bread. not charge for it.
At first paypal was blabbering that they cut wikileaks due to 'violation of tos', and there was no political pressure involved. (probably liebermann warned them to say that). A few days with anonymous, they came around to openly say that they did it due to political pressure. A few more days, they decided to release the wikileaks funds they were holding ...
you cant say it didnt work.
some dedicated server provider oversold dedicated servers and bandwidth to these guys. and now, when these people started using the bandwidth they have PAID FOR, they are cutting them off because they are being unprofitable.
thats all that is there to it. FRAUD. simple as that.
read the discussion attentively next time. your non argument was already responded in the first post of this thread. if that is not enough :
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1906592&cid=34524632
sarah palin. a splendid example.
someone who had already been a governor before, and who have, by chance and the machinations of an old man's mind, been nominated as vice president, and then gathered enough fame and reputation by being a controversial figure, to be known.
basically, ALL the expenses for her advertisement, has been paid by gop and mccain, both with finances and with political capital. (much to the detriment of them).
so, she sells millions. great.
ah - also, serial murderers sell millions too. add that to your list too.
so, the way to practice one's freedoms without having to have funds, passes from these. or, one needs to lower one's pants and take a dump at the lincoln memorial or something in front of tv cameras etc.
and when the press is under control of 4 corporations to a 80% extent, no dissenting opinion will have a chance of being heard by a significant percentage of people either. like news in us.
Humans invented something called a "book" and one can write a book without capital and one can find a publisher to publish said book without the author having to spend huge capital.
yees. isnt it. its that easy. pray, tell, how many people had reached to a hundred million people like that in the past year, from your own social circle ? neighborhood ? your town ?
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1906592&cid=34524632
all other means to access millions of people, OUTSIDE internet, requires huge capital or means. you need heaps of cash to buy 'printing supplies', as some commenter put it, to reach a hundred million people. you need heaps of cash to get your adverts on news channels. (that is if they accept your ad, even). you nead heaps of cash to get airtime. in short, your freedom is limited totally with your finances, and those who have finances determine who talks and who not.
at this point a lot of people err in thinking that 'you have internet !'... it is a mistake :
Internet is just a temporary 'abomination' establishment wants to fix.
in the current situation, an upstart like you and me can get up a site, and reach millions of people through it. actually, even doing that currently requires advertising capital or other means, however, lets say that it is much easier to exercise your freedom of speech on the internet than anywhere else. lets say, at least there are sites like this slashdot, this, that, already big traffic mediums in where you can reach people. so, we are dangerous.
that is precisely why they have come up with endless schemes to bring internet under control and make it like a private cable network, or publishing mediums, in which only the richest will be able to reach noticeable amount of people in a nation:
anti network neutrality : aims to allow backbone providers and isps to charge websites for the traffic - the more traffic, the more charge you will have -> so, if you happen to reach hundreds of millions of people perchance, with your free speech, you will need to have the heaps of cash to pay for it. if you dont, youre cut off from millions of people with every major isp that censors you. and it will be legal, and compatible with first amendment too !
acta : supposedly anti counterfeiting treaty, it gives censorship in the hands of a privately appointed commission from private industries, and gives the ability to shut down sites on dubious grounds, without court order.
coica : you know what it is. this is the government version of controlling.
there are a few more in the works.
so, as you can see, it would be an utter folly to think that 'we are free' on the internet. we are TEMPORARILY free, and the system is trying to fix that. once it 'fixes' that, you will need precisely similar amounts of finances in order to be able to be 'dangerous' with the power of your free speech. in that state, what will happen will be precisely be the same with the outside-internet life ; just like you are free to blabber to your friends, family, coworkers, people in your bar and post a few flyers around the town, you will be free to blabber in this or that forum, put up a small blog to see 50 people a day read your views and so on. but, you wont be able to set up a blog with $20 cost to you yearly, and reach millions, if your views get popular, or you have the finances to engage in medium amount of internet advertising. internet advertising also requires considerable money, and that is also a similarity with the outside-internet situation, but, it is still accessible for at least the middle class in regard to the amount required.
so, if the private interests reach their goal in ANY of the ways above, your freedom will be as limited on internet as it is limited outside internet : free in proportion to the amount of money in your bank. judging from the wikileaks incident, one can easily say that if you really become dangerous to the system, you will be 'taken care of'.
So what we do have is a series of open fora, including the Internet. You can say whatever you want. You can be heard all across the nation by anyone who chooses to tune in. Guess what? Your posting on slashdot is an example of this.
im tired of responding to the fools which have not read what they are replying to. internet is an abomination that the establishment wants to 'fix'. i have told that in my post you replied to. you seem to failed to understood it and bringing it as an argument.
ponder on why they are wanting to kill net neutrality, and charge cash from websites for traffic.
according to recent data, 80% of news distribution in us is owned by the parent companies of 4 major movie studios. fox is one of them.
fox doesnt prevent you from saying whatever you like. and it doesnt care. because, you can only say whatever you want to your friends, family, and close social circle. people have been doing it for thousands of years.
what matters is, whether you can say it to 200 million people.
The costs are very modest and well within the means of the vast majority of the population in the US.
yes. for printing out 600 flyers, and posting around the town. accomplishing nothing, or changing the opinion of people regarding where the new park should be built. everything else remains the same.
talk about buying printing supplies to reach 200 million people, idiot.
What, you think the means of publication should be free for all? Perhaps controlled, say, by a central bureaucracy? Who gets to decide who receives this limited resource? And where does that lead, I wonder? Socialist nitwits are walking contradictions.
where does it lead to, is definitely not a fake illusion of freedom, in which you believe you are free, but you see that you dont have the money to practice that freedom. instead, the means to practice any freedom, are owned PRIVATELY, by very big entities and rich personas. basically putting you in the position of an ordinary peasant in medieval times, subject to the will of the lord to do anything.
which is the current state.
right wing nutjobs, in the wake of this, are walking self-deceivers. 'hey i am free - i may never have the means to practice it, but i am free !!'
its not backtracking. its your reading comprehension issues.
there is no difference in buying printing supplies to reach 200 million people, and buying fox news.
in case you have not noticed, what you speak of falls in the category of 'blabbering your opinion to people in your locale'. go buy $600 worth printing supplies, print flyers, and post around the town. or, go to a park, get on top of a barrel, and talk to 600 people.
the establishment doesnt give a zit whether you do that or not.
when you are rich enough to buy printing supplies and reach 200 million people, they do.
The US is better than china, anyone can be free to twitter and tweet and post on facebook etc..., in china you bad mouth the government and you have to go to a "reeducation through hard labor camp".
have you not read whats below, in the post you replied to ?
The only chance is to reach people through internet, and you are seeing how hard they are trying to censor it, and get it under corporate control through any means possible. So that, the same pattern in publishing and news broadcasting will be there too -> everything in the hands of few megacorps, everything private, and supposedly free ; only the VERY rich can talk, if allowed.
that isnt too hard to comprehend.
The difference is Obama hasn't taken state control of Fox News for spreading dissent about his presidency.
so ? obama isnt the one who is controlling the free speech. fox news et al, are.
The only chance is to reach people through internet, and you are seeing how hard they are trying to censor it, and get it under corporate control through any means possible. So that, the same pattern in publishing and news broadcasting will be there too -> everything in the hands of few megacorps, everything private, and supposedly free ; only the VERY rich can talk, if allowed.
moron. you have your freedom of speech, without having heaps of cash here on the internet. and that is the VERY thing the establishment is not liking, and therefore they are bringing acta, coica, and attacks on net neutrality to enable corporations to directly control content, and put a price on whatever you do on the internet.
you have your freedom, cheap, YET.
look at what happens to wikileaks still.
The only chance is to reach people through internet, and you are seeing how hard they are trying to censor it, and get it under corporate control through any means possible. So that, the same pattern in publishing and news broadcasting will be there too -> everything in the hands of few megacorps, everything private, and supposedly free ; only the VERY rich can talk, if allowed.
Unequal means of producing speech is another matter.
no it isnt. if you are not able to have the MEANS to produce free speech, it means that you dont have free speech. in the end result, you cant use it.
The internet did a lot to level the playing field by significantly reducing the barriers to broadcasting various forms of speech. Youtube being a good example of this. Are the barriers to speech eliminated?
i cant even begin to understand why the fuck you are posting the above block. have you not been able to comprehend what you have read in the parent you have been replying :
..... The only chance is to reach people through internet, and you are seeing how hard they are trying to censor it, and get it under corporate control through any means possible. So that, the same pattern in publishing and news broadcasting will be there too -> everything in the hands of few megacorps, everything private, and supposedly free ; only the VERY rich can talk, if allowed.
you have your free speech on the internet, YET. still, wikileaks incident shows you dont even have it, in case you start to make a big impact.
You do realize that if you had said that in medieval time you would be imprisoned and tortured?
no. it was well within the possibility of a serf or peasant to become a knight, through any means. either by being bestowed a title and land, or, through acquiring small plots of land through incremental purchases or marriages to qualify for the minimum plot of land required for knighthood.
And that you paid exactly $0 to exercise this free speech?
most significant punishment i face today for exercising my free speech with $0 through a medium that corporations yet are not in full control of, are having to reply idiots like you who reply to a post without using their brain.
as you can see, internet is recounted as something yet out of control of the establishment. you CAN exercise free speech with $0 here. that is precisely why there are attacks on net neutrality to allow corporations to control content, acta, coica and others.
what you are missing is, the SELL part in the 'sell you print supplies'.
you need to have money to BUY those print supplies. if you dont, you wont have them.
the 'dozens of video sharing sites' are what has been bothering the establishment up till now, because, they have been providing the unwashed masses the ability to reach millions without having to pay heaps of cash. hence, the attacks on net neutrality to allow corporations to control content, hence acta, hence coica.
i see that you havent read the post you replied to. for, all your moot points were iterated in it.
Lets see :
In countries which control free speech directly, such laws are created. Its blunt, direct, you know what it is and there is no mistaking what it is.
In countries like usa, you are told you have free speech. But your free speech is only as free as the money/means you have -> you can blabber to your friends, family, close circle, or people in your locale about everything. But, for your free speech to actually matter, you would need to reach millions of people. And, you cant do that unless you have enough money, or means. The moment you get the funds/means to actually talk to millions of people, you become a threat, unless what you say goes to the liking of the system. And then you are silenced, very much in the way wikileaks is being silenced -> with excuses, financial pressure, indirect pressure.
Of course, even the above is a grand, grand assumption -> fat chance that you will actually be able to reach millions of people, even if you have the money. 3-4 corporations dominate news and 'opinion making', and if they dont give you airtime, you wont reach anyone. The only chance is to reach people through internet, and you are seeing how hard they are trying to censor it, and get it under corporate control through any means possible. So that, the same pattern in publishing and news broadcasting will be there too -> everything in the hands of few megacorps, everything private, and supposedly free ; only the VERY rich can talk, if allowed. Since, one cannot become VERY rich, or, create a news channel that would cater to hundreds of millions without complying with the system and hierarchy, all threats become averted.
But, in countries like china, other places, your free speech DIRECTLY has an effect. everything hinges on opinions of people -> not the money people has to exercise their freedoms. You can reach anyone, and you can change minds, if you are let speak freely.
To sum it in short :
In usa, you are told you have freedom, but practicing them requires money. You are only free as much as you have money.
In the other way, you dont have freedom. But, practicing anything you have does not require money.
one might err in that, 'as long as you are free to earn money, you can practice your freedom'. that is incorrect.
http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html
this is the recent data about situation in usa. 80% of population only get 15% of income. basically, 80% of 300 million, basically 240 million people, are not in a position to exercise their freedoms. had it been possible, there would be at least any kind of different political or social situation due to these people 'becoming rich' and practicing their freedoms.
if, the chances of someone making it from the bottom to even middle ranks, is lower than a medieval peasant making it to a measly knighthood, it means 'you are free to try it' means 'you are free to try it, but fat chance you will make it'.
humanity is not evil. humanity is dragging foot, trying to live, because, the minority greedy have set up a negative, hierarchical dog eat dog order loooong ago.
noone would hear it.