>> ^A10anis:

He brought down a major newspaper and has put ALL media on trial. What point would there be in killing him after the disclosure? Of course he may have had much more information but, surely, killing him after the fact would just compound the problem. Still, what do i know? Let the conspiracy theories begin.


I don't care if conspiracies begin or if they're true or not (well, OK if it IS true), because if there is someone on this planet that needs SCRUTINY 24/7 due to this and everything else he has done, it's Rupert Murdoch.

/silver linings

He brought down a major newspaper and has put ALL media on trial. What point would there be in killing him after the disclosure? Of course he may have had much more information but, surely, killing him after the fact would just compound the problem. Still, what do i know? Let the conspiracy theories begin.

Sorry, but... the lawyer sent a stern letter??? It's lawsuit time baby! Loss of wages, loss of property, pain and suffering... the list could probably go on for quite a while! And Chase would have to settle. They look like idiots already! Maybe the stern letter included a suggested donation that would keep it out of court.

I don't know why they are even thinking about asking for or receiving an apology. It's just an admission of guilt. The bank would be stupid to apologize with anything other than a fat check and a non-disclosure agreement.

Full Disclosure always helps.


Thom Hartmann is the #1 progressive radio talk show host in the US

New York Times:

Lawrence Mishel, Heidi Shierholz and Kathryn Edwards, all of the left-leaning Economic Policy Institute, are three such economists, and they have laid out their arguments against structural unemployment in a report released today.


How to Identify Liberal Media Bias

*beg

Trust me. This is better than it appears. Seven votes out of 11 unique views? An unsolicited quality? These are statistics and facts that surely must tantalize you!

It's 90 seconds of your time.

Full disclosure:

Kitten Crash is waaaaaay better. http://videosift.com/video/Kitten-Crash

Actually, addendum / full disclosure to that: The video wouldn't load at all in my Firefox (I get "Video not found") but I assumed that was because it wasn't playing nice with my combination of NoScript, Adblock, and Cookie Monster plugins.

I tried Chrome, and it successfully played the ad so I made the post above, but then I got the same "Video not found" when it got past the ad and tried to cycle through to the actual video.

I then tried in IE (my "last resort" browser), which I have just today "upgraded" to IE9, only to discover that apparently there isn't a solid version of Flash for IE9 on Win7 x64.

I'll try again later.

^gwiz665 Troublesome topic to get into on a forum. But I will make a meager attempt to express myself on this matter.

Firstly, I greatly respect you as a person, and value your opinion. Please excuse any phrasing that seems belittling or disrespectful of your own personal experiences with Christianity; my purpose isn't to discredit your personal experience, but relay mine.

In the interests of full disclosure, I am not a practicing Christian, I am an agnostic atheist. My pursuit of truth and knowledge lead me away from my faith some time ago. However, it is the very pursuits Christianity grew up in me that lead to this second awakening in myself. Christianity saved me, twice. Let me explain.

Low self esteem has been the story of my whole life. I was bullied a lot as a child, and my week personality was unable to cope. I always was pretty good in school in terms of grades. But the scars of my low self esteem means I never tried to live up to my full potential. I sold myself short in everything, I gave up, gave in, quit trying. Always managing slightly above average marks, several shallow friendships, and anything else that wasn't to risky.

That all changed in high school. I met one of the most influential friends I had in my life. He radiated self confidence. He also happened to be a Christian. I formerly mocked Christians via the evangelists I saw on TV, it was my only real experience with Christians till that point. I eventually "converted" to Christianity and my life was forever changed. I felt good about myself. Felt I could actually be something, do something, affect something. I was encouraged not only in personality, but in mind. I read countless books on theology, philosophy, and science. I grew in ways that I couldn't fully appreciate until my second great awakening. I was forever a different person. Gone where the rational bounds I placed on myself. I was no longer constrained by the ordinary. It was light in my darkness. A cure to the miasma of my existence. It instilled in my the responcibility to myself for goodness, purity, kindness, and truth.

The pursuit of truth eventually lead me to realize that if there is a God, it can't be the God of the bible (I won't go into that here), and so ended that phase of my life. But I am forever indebted to Christianity. And while someone might rightly point out it was me saving me, it still wouldn't of happened (I believe) without those people in the place they were doing the things they were with the believe that they were, I wouldn't be where I am now (most likely would of killed myself). All things have their share of evils and goods. For my part, even though I am no longer a Christian, I can't ever call for its eradication, or even that it is a moral bad.

To me, the great evil that works in us is a 2 billion year old tail; that this world is a world of violence. 2 billion years of animals eating other animals can't be laid at the feet of Christianity, or Islam, or any other scapegoat. We are humans, a tragic creature able to understand its own tragic nature. We seek to pass the blame to something we created, but it is what 2 billion years of life has created working in us, through us. We are the result of that, not the result of ourselves...yet. Perhaps in time we will come to terms with ourselves, and deal with ourselves. To this day, we only at best manage ourselves. I can't stop feeling anger at someone for cutting me off in traffic, I can only manage it the best I can. And I guess that is my closing thought. Right now, the best person is just a manager of their human condition, our fate was determined long ago through the course of billions of years of ooze... perhaps; or maybe God did it all, I don't know.

(edit: grammar and spelling, ugh)

If I had my way, I'd go with a look something like this or this for the Amazon princess for any TV or film project. The war skirt is reminiscent of ancient Greek and Roman armor, and in the first pic her leggings are sort of like greaves, so they could be improved some. Both her top and the skirt are made from leather, also like ancient armor, and the breastplate, tiara, and belt are made with real metal. This whole look would not be out of place for =w=, because she has worn armor similar to this in the past in the comic series. She looks pretty badass here while fighting that hydra. (The jet in the background also make the image cool.) This look I think would give her a serious appearance while still making her look feminine, and also give the audience a look that still makes them think "Yes, this is Wonder Woman."

Full disclosure: At one time I embraced the new =w= costume, but not anymore. I'm not saying I hate it, but it's been a disappointment. I liked that they were getting her out of her bathing suit costume:



As you can see, on screen it's just too hard to take seriously. So when I saw the new outfit I thought the jacket might have some practical use, like some kind of protection, and the leather pants as well. However it's worked out that in almost every fight the jacket gets torn to shreds. The pants still don't bother me too much, but I prefer the armored skirt. Guess I just don't care for jeggings. The leather-armored approach linked above would have definitely moved her out of the bathing suit while still staying connected to her history.

A million fanboys would crucify me for dissing her bathing suit if this site had a million Wonder Woman fanboys. Too bad. I know that at any given time at least 10% of them are whacking off to images like this anyway. Ha! (I'm down to once every other day. Power Girl gets the days in between.)

This post was a toss-up between This one already published here on Videosift (7.5 Mil+ views in 3 days on YouTube is not too shabby), and another video of over 7 people in the demolitions industry being interviewed one after another all lending insights towards a consensus in opinion-that people's minds may be partly cloudy concerning what they think they think happened on that day. "Truthers" maybe, but cry foul at a reasonable call for more disclosure?
Why? It's more information needed to form a reasonable conclusion. More the better.

The truth is that wikileaks has disclosure legal agreements with three major papers and runs every State Dept cable through the pentagon. The reality is that every cable is redacted by the US pentagon, and who knows what they are releasing on what schedule.


Who knows at this point if Wikileaks is working for themselves, the US govt, mossad?


The truth is also that wikileaks submission has been down for like two years. You cannot submit "leaks" to them anonymously anymore, and they have NOT fixed this in two years. That is the truth about wikileaks.

First of all, the book is being charged because the staff members of NYTimes had to read through piles upon piles of information, sifting through the redundant text and picking out things that are actually worth of note (U.S. Diplomatic cable leak alone were over 250,000 classified cables from various U.S. Embassies).

http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/over_250000_us_diplomatic_documents_released_by_wi.php

And they summarized the information they found into a book, and is charging a service fee for the work they've put in. I have no disillusions about why the book is being charged as it is called a 'service fee' and that's how a free market works, you trade in resource or capital value in exchange for goods and services.

I heard the story on NPR interviewing NYTimes executive editor Bill Keller and he explains the situation a little further than just purely relying on this little video clip for all the information on the matters involved (do some research of your own over this matter. It wouldn't hurt). It seemed that NYTimes as well as other journalistic organizations couldn't really trust this Julian Assange guy, as he acted on this hidden agenda of his own that Assange never fully reveals; an alterior motive separate from fighting against the evils of the world and taking down giant corporations.

http://www.npr.org/2011/02/01/133277509/times-editor-the-impact-of-assange-and-wikileaks

Keller also mentions his doubts against the demand for full disclosure of everything, including exposing his staff writers to the public eye to be hassled and receive death threatened from this numerous yet anonymous people. But that's another issue.

I have my own reasons to be skeptical about Assange's full motives.

http://videosift.com/video/Julian-Assange-helps-a-falling-old-man?loadcomm=1#comment-1135222

And from the looks of it the guys at NYTimes had a reason of their own, whatever it may be and have cut ties with Julian Assange. They suspected something was off with Assange, though they never fully reveal just exactly what it was. But they are a journalistic organization and I'm sure they've had plenty of research done on their part. Anyways that's what Keller suggests in his interview, and that's what most other journalistic organizations are saying as well at this point who has also cut ties with Assange.

Now I highly doubt NYTimes is doing this because they are somehow a part of the media conglomerates trying to undermine the works of Julian Assange. NYTimes may have gotten a bit inattentive over the years and let a few things slip (especially during the Bush years). But that doesn't mean they are ones to shy away from criticizing the wrongs of our society. They've took on Nixon's administration before, they've dealt with Daniel Ellsberg. It's not like this was the first time dealing with a situation like this. So there must have been a pretty damn good reason why such reputable journalistic organizations decided to cut ties with Assange.

We all have our doubts and suspicion. And as I've already mentioned I have my own doubts about this Assange guy. All I can say for now is that Julian Assange is just a human. Of course we shouldn't undermine the fact that he did a very difficult and brave thing as well as muster up quite a resource around him using his skills and talent. But when someone has a motive of their own that does not coincide with what he preaches himself to be, it creates a disconnect from its audience and raises suspicion amongst his partners. If he is working for the good of humanity, why is he censoring himself or trying to manipulate how the story is leaked? Why is he trying to make a career out of whatever that he is doing? If he is really serious about the cause, why won't he just go balls out against the government like Ellsberg did who was very clear about his intent, who gave up his career, his friends and his life, instead of going around the world putting himself on this role of elusive vigilante?

Assange is not this knight in shining armor on a white horse that you guys make him out to be, in my opinion. But perhaps he was just a curious boy who managed to climb up a tall tree and kicked the hornet's nest and watch the shit go down. While the rest of us down on the ground doesn't know exactly why or how it all happened.

Looks like "Energy in Depth" is another bullshit oil industry front group.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Energy_in_Depth

Energy in Depth (EID) is a pro-oil-and-gas drilling industry front group formed by the American Petroleum Institute, the Petroleum Association of America and dozens of additional industry organizations for the purpose of denouncing legislation proposed by Colorado U.S. Rep. Diana DeGette to regulate underground hydraulic fracturing fluids. Hydraulic fracturing of underground geological formations, commonly called "fracking," was invented by the Halliburton Company. It is done to increase the amounts of oil and gas that can be extracted from existing wells. [1]

Energy in Depth denounces DeGette's proposed fracking legislation as an “unnecessary financial burden on a single small-business industry, American oil and natural gas producers.” In June, 2009, Energy in Depth started a multimillion dollar lobbying and public relations campaign aimed at derailing public health legislation that would require the disclosure of the chemicals used in fracking fluids. In addition to a Web site, EID's campaign includes a Twitter feed, a Facebook group, a YouTube channel and an aggressive advertising campaign. [1]

Energy in Depth trumpets the economic contribution oil and gas drilling makes, and the numbers of people employed by the industry.

>> ^wagthedog1:

>> ^nanrod:
I know this is all bullshit because T. Boone Pickens was on the Daily Show and he assured me that no water well has ever been contaminated by fracking. He wouldn't lie would he?

And neither would Lee Fuller, executive director of Energy in Depth, who has told the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences that a litany of errors in the anti-drilling film should render it ineligible for the Oscar for best documentary feature.
http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2011
/02/01/01greenwire-ioil-and-gas-group-urges-oscar-judges-to-steer-99256.html
Besides, it is good that North Americans are once again getting a small taste of what many petro-states have have to endure over the decades to fuel a lifestyle of excess.

The issue isn't whether they allowed these candidates or activists to plug their causes on the air. That's always going to happen.

The issue is whether the commentator/anchor/personality themselves donated money to candidates they were interviewing, without disclosure to their viewers.

Chris Mathews didn't, Rachel Maddow didn't, Ed Schultz didn't.

Olbermann did, and was punished for it.

Of course the machines are not secure, or reliable.

There's no single point of failure in the security setting, and the posture is fucking horrendous.

The machines are not being controlled in a MAC or RBAC setup. I get the feeling that the physical security is lacking in a huge way. Corporations are being relied upon too heavily to sort this stuff out. Diebold was a joke, and still is.

These machines should be made in the United States, and the United States only. This is not some nationalistic joke. It is a United States issue, and should be solved by resources based in the United States.

I'm sure someone will say, "if you make it open source then anyone can make these machines." To which I say only certified machines approved by rigorous process will be allowed to be used in the United States votes. Some very good alternative software have come from well meaning open source communities. Multiple flavors of Linux come to mind.

I'm sure we would need to put in place some very strong punishment for fraud, while not being too tyrannical.

Here's a list of things I would start with.

1. Multiple Independent QA Tests


2. Multiple Independent Security Certification Tests


3. Multiple Independent Source Code Reviews


4. Secure Source Code




• No Buffer Overflows


• No Format String Flaws




5. Full Disclosure




• Source Code Released to the Public. From Firmware to Operating System code.


• Manufacture Process made Transparent

Actually, the first three specific regulations they raised sound like ones that should be repealed.

The Miami street vendor thing sounded totally fine, as did the thing about making full disclosure of assets when you dissolve a corporation.

At the local level, there are plenty of situations where liberals should be standing shoulder-to-shoulder with libertarians.

For example, why should someone need a license to be a hairstylist? That's just corporatism on a small scale.