Posts by Ian Michael Gumby

@NoneSuch

When mainstream journalists embed themselves with the insurgents and the insurgents are firing on US troops, well, they knew the risks of what they were doing.

Of course I wonder if you remember this guy Daniel Pearl?

And you do realize that the video you refer to was edited by Assange, right?

Please see my earlier post referencing Eddie Adams and his Pulitzer Prize winning 1969 photograph from the Viet Nam war.

Huh?

Ok, its no wonder you post anon because you don't even get your facts straight.

"War crime, depending how you look at it, probably not."

Its not how I or you look at it. Its how the US and other Nations view it. And I'm not talking about any conviction but just enough evidence to bring charges or an investigation. None, nada, zip. No cover ups, nothing in the reports to even hint at an investigation.

No 'probably not' anywhere.

"But the video did look like a bunch of Hick sounding jocks using 50mm weapons on people, who even in the shitty video did not appear to be a direct threat to anybody, not only on the insurgent targets but women and children, whilst yeeeeeharrrring!, and obviously enjoying it, just make the US forces look bad.

Huh?

You mean the door gunner?

First if it was a 50, its 50 caliber. (M2 'Ma Duce' machine gun). That means the bullet diameter is 1/2". 50mm is a cannon shell and has a diameter of over an inch. Second, I'm not sure if they have 50's on door gunner platforms. Usually its a 7.62mm NATO aka .308. Or even a 5.56 NATO (.223 cal) machine gun/ mini gun.

Third... you seem to forget this thing called RoE (Rules of Engagement) and of course that what you saw was edited by ASSange himself to be prejudicial. Putting that footage in context and you get a different picture.

I can go on, but I think you get the point.

And if you want to do some homework check this out...

http://www.famouspictures.org/mag/index.php?title=Vietnam_Execution

The photo was taken by Eddie Adams.

You should read the web page but here's a quote that I think you should try and understand...

"I won a Pulitzer Prize in 1969 for a photograph of one man shooting another … The general killed the Viet Cong; I killed the general with my camera. Still photographs are the most powerful weapon in the world. People believe them, but photographs do lie, even without manipulation. They are only half-truths. What the photograph didn't say was, "What would you do if you were the general at that time and place on that hot day, and you caught the so-called bad guy after he blew away one, two or three American soldiers?" General Loan was what you would call a real warrior, admired by his troops. I'm not saying what he did was right, but you have to put yourself in his position.

"

--Eddie Adams "

-=-

Go follow the link and read the web page. Then you might start to understand the dangers of Assange's dumping of documents without providing any context. You might begin to appreciate the damage he's done.

I don't believe that Manning did this all on his own. Sorry, but his actions don't fit.

Heinlein requires one to develop a certain taste in his works....

If you look at his stories, some are really good, like the 'Moon is a harsh Mistress'.

But others like 'The cat who could walk through walls' also goes in to his 'series' of stories that play around 'The number of the Beast' story line. And then there are other authors who also wrote about alternative universes. Zelanzy ?sp? is another one.

'Bill the Galactic Hero' ? NO FSCKING WAY!

Ok,

First, I do like the story.

But it would be too easy for Hollywood to screw it up and do a horrible job.

The Forever War? That is an excellent story and something which could be made in to a movie, however I think that you may find that parts of the ending story line would not go over too well for certain closed minded individuals.

@ AC re Will Smith

"Omega Man" was made in to a movie staring C. Heston. Smith stared in the remake.

Going from memory, wasn't I Robot a collection of stories and not a specific story?

What Smith acted in resembled a bastardization of 'Caves of Steel'.

I think the problem we see in adapting sci-fi books to movies is that the directors and actors don't grok the initial storyline so that they hack it to shreds trying to please a crowd of people rather than keeping true to the storyline.

Larry Niven?

I'm disappointed in that some of Niven's collaborative works got mentioned while a lot of his works from the 70's and 80's did not. Personally I didn't really care for some of his collaborative works...

Niven created an alternative universe which could be made in to both a TV series as well as a series of movies. Protector fits in to Ringworld, Ringworld Engineers, etc...

'A world out of time' also ties in to his earlier works but some of his themes might be too adult for the mainstream audience.

Like others of his era, they use Science Fiction/Fantasy to explore the changes in their current society. (Like the episode of Star Trek where two guys have 1/2 of their face painted Black and the other white... only they are mirror images of themselves trying to question the issue of race... (Stuff like that....) )

So if you have to choose, try and find stories that are:

1) relevant to today's society and social issues.

2) have enough action to satisfy Hollywood.

3) have some bits of drama and comedy intermixed.

I mean there are literally 100's of great stories that could be adapted to tv and movies. Even a safe bet and much better than remaking movies that were done 20-30 years ago and even some of them were remakes of moves from the 20's, 30's and 40's.

I agree that Larry Niven's works would translate well.

@wayney

Sorry but as I and Scorchoi have said, we're two different people.

Its hard to deny one's hacking exploits when you've got a criminal record, and of course its part of his 'celeb persona' which is part of his mythos.

And yes, hackers and former hackers, even those working in IT Security are considered untrustworthy.

Just ask Kevin Mitnick ?sp?.

@Wayneh

I seriously doubt you've hung around lawyers much.

First Assange was given a lighter sentence because the judge felt sorry for him and felt that his home life, or rather lack of a home life was to blame. Schorchoi ?sp? actually has some quotes and a link to his case. The lighter sentence was not a reflection on the crime or rather an understanding of the seriousness of the crime. Were this crime committed in today's climate... meaning that some other person did it... the outcome would have been different. Hmmm. What's his name... McKinnon? You know the Brit fighting extradition to the US?...

But lets get back to the point.

Assange claims to be suing the Guardian. According to the Guardian, they haven't seen anything about the suit.

Were this lawsuit ever to materialize and go to trial, Assange would be in a difficult spot.

Its a "he said, she said" situation. So on one side you have the Reporters/Editors who will all testify that Assange made those comments. That they were present and witnessed it. Assange and members of his entourage present would obviously make statements to the counter.

So whom is the judge to believe? Who has the more credible statement?

This is where you get in to the character of the person making the statement.

As I stated, there are enough ancillary statements and stories whose facts are not in dispute which tend to corroborate the reporter's statements.

Even if you end with a toss up... that is that both sides present evidence which can't be corroborated, the burden of proof is on Assange to show that he didn't make the statement.

The truth is that if the statement were a fabrication, Assange would have jumped on it immediately. Remember how he reacted when one of the papers (The Guardian in fact) that received leaked material from a Wikileak's insider? And how an editor (NYT wasn't it?) had to defuse the situation? Yet months after the alleged statement was made in the press attributing Assange to being insensitive... he's now threatening to sue for libel?

Add to this the fact that Wikileaks released their documents on the world, and then later redacted them, well after the fact?

Like I said, Assange's claims don't add up.

WIth respect to the pedophile bust ... I could make a joke about it. (But then the Moderator would reject this post) Instead I'll leave you with a thought... Pedophiles don't do well in prison. So should we give a medal to those inmates that beat on pedophiles too? Or should the police not use felons as snitches?

@wayneh

So were you in the room with the NYT, Guardian, and Assange and his ontourage?

That's ok, neither was I.

So what we have is one party making statements accusing quotes made by others to be libel and false.

The other party is of course denying that there is a lawsuit, that the statements are libelous and that Assange really did make those statements.

So whom are we to believe?

If we consider several other incidents and statements which aren't being refuted, combining them with Assange's other out bursts, we can determine that the reporters are credible.

An example is the fact that the reporters and editors decided to not link their articles back to wikileaks' site. Their stated logic was that Assange nor Wikileaks did enough redaction or filtering of the data and exposed sensitive data. In one instance one of the reporters who was ex-military and had been embedded in the service(s) felt that operational detail that should have been redacted wasn't.

We don't see Assange denying this, do we?

We see in another passage, reporters spoke of Assange as 'skipping' down the street like a small child. And in another we hear about Assange bursting in to one of the editor's offices with lawyer in tow threatening to sue because someone leaked Wikileaks' data to the press.

The point is that taken as a whole, we can see a pattern emerging from Assange that calls to question his credibility. Add to this his past... you know, the hacking conviction back home in Australia. ...

But to your point about being down voted. I believe I and others get down voted because we speak our opinions and provide the facts to support our opinions. These facts are from historical events and legitimate news sources.

"You want truth? You can't handle the truth." While this is a line from a movie, its unfortunately a very true statement concerning the world around us.

Huh?

"...but to keep making unsubstantiated claims against anyone who he thinks crosses him is starting to make him look, well, a bit unhinged..."

What do you mean by saying 'starting'?

@Scorchio!!

"It is probable that all armed forces engaged in war commit these sorts of crimes. The point is perhaps not to stop the crimes, but to stop the wars whence these crimes originate, though more than 75% of males are forensic (if pushed I can pony up the data), and the recent UK glut of knifings, shootings and 'happy slappings' is nothing new; in the 1950s the 'Teds' regularly used razors to carve people up, and so on throughout history."

This is true. We can go back to pretty much any conflict and find evidence of War crimes.

With respect to the US, once a War Crime allegation is made, it is investigated and if true, those that perpetrated the crime are charged and tried.

Note that none of this has happened in light of the Wikileaks dumping of information.

No crimes have been exposed and the only criminals involved are Assange (as you pointed out he's a convicted felon back in Australia and allegedly Manning.)

@AC

It's interesting in what moderators accept or reject...

But clearly this AC doesn't really read what I've posted.

Had he done so, he would have understood that in context I was referring to the fact that Assange only faces potential charges back in Sweden. Technically he has yet to be charged with any crime. Clearly if you wanted to be a grammar nazi, you would have pointed this fact out.

In reading you post you have this belief that Assange has done good. Unfortunately this viewpoint is more of a reflection on the demise of the Western educational system.

First, presenting information out of context usually does more harm than good. Assange does this not once but 3 times with respect to the US. Second Assange was too busy to vet his information, which is something that the traditional journalist is ethically bound to do. Third Assnge didn't censor his information until well after the fact and exposed sensitive information.

The bottom line is that more harm than good was done and it is unfortunate that you and others lack the necessary context to appreciate the repercussions of his actions. Manning would have been better served if he had dumped his intel into the laps of the NYT instead of Assange.

We live in a world where some idiot in Florida exercises his rights to burn a book and this insensitive act causes a riot thousands off miles away. People were killed over this. Like Assange, I doubt the 'pastor' really cared about the consequences of his actions...

@John Deeb

Common sense?

You've probably seen the Harrison Ford move "The Fugitive" ? Its plot is based on the real life murder of Dr. Sam Sheppard's wife in Cleveland OH, back in the 50's.

Because Dr. Sheppard came from a prominent Cleveland family, the initial police investigation didn't turn up anything. It wasn't until a reporter from the Cleveland Plain Dealer continued to raise questions that public opinion forced the police to act and then charge Dr. Sheppard with murder.

The reason I raise this issue is to show you that there is always the chance for someone to use influence. Either to force or hinder prosecution.

There were two unrelated gun cases in Chicago, one pre McDonald vs Chicago's US Supreme Court decision and one post decision. In both cases, the prosecutors never pursued charges because they know that they could never find a jury that would convict even though the two people involved both broke the law.

Again these are cases where politics played a part in the cases.

But lets look at Assange.

The charges he faces are not politically motivated. Like a charge of Espionage.

The charges are actually on the list of charges that do not require to be compared to the charges under UK law. So under international law, if the EAW meets the requirements and its judged to be a valid EAW then Assange is off to Sweden.

To defend Assange by crying foul and saying that the rape charges are politically motivated is a moot point as far as the extradition hearings are concerned. He has to go to Sweden to fight the charges.

@tumbleworld

Assange isn't charged in the US. They are still investigating him.

His only crime is that of rape in Sweden and that's what's on the table.

Everything else is a non issue.

Assange's own Swedish lawyers got flayed in court, pretty much admitting that he obstructed justice...

@Vic, You were never a Cyberpunk, were you?

The point is looking retro and being different.

Today everyone has their iPad, iPhone, MacBooks (Notice how the masses are now all on Apple?)

So how do you differentiate yourself to show your pride in your inner geekdom?

When everyone talks about their latest blog, facebook update, or how they can't wait for the new iPad3 that doesn't yet exist.... what's the uber geek to do?

The answer is to go retro.

Mine's the jacket with the slide ruler in the pocket.

Do you hate Yahoo! too?

Regardless of who you hate, Microsoft has a valid point.

Personally I want to shout 'So who's the bee-itch now?' and 'How does it feel to be screwed by a Monopoly, sucks doesn't it?'

But looking at this objectively, Google is using its dominance in one market, a monopoly, to gain entry and dominance in another. Google is in essence a Monopoly, however it will take a court to actually determine and label Google a Monopoly.

For those who would respond that '... when a better product comes along, we'll switch to that one...' the problem in a market dominated by a Monopoly, a better product can't come along because of unfair market competition. We saw this with Microsoft and earlier in IBM.

Love them or hate them... Google has reached that point where they are a Monopoly and need to be named and labeled as such. When you're a Monopoly, the laws change...

His analogy may be flawed but he's right...

There was a case where a company made a hardware appliance that ran on Linux. They sold their product (router/switch) but they didn't ship the source code for Linux w their mods. I forget most of the details but this was one of the cases where the GPL was enforced.

Looking at the DVD example...

If Google made DVD players and shipped DVD players then under the AGPL with it. (Assuming the DVD player software was licensed under the AGPL.

You are right that there is nothing wrong with Google not choosing the AGPL, but the OP's last point is still correct.

@ Raumkraut, @Vic and @ Zolko

It looks like Zolko and I are on the same page.

What we are essentially saying is that you can't rip apart a document to the point of where the remaining material is no longer worthy of a copyright.

That is what Google says that they did and that they can do because after 'filtering' on the document, what's left isn't 'Creative' thus not subject to a copyright. And there's a legal definition to what is meant by 'Creative' and its open to interpretation.

The bottom line is that Google is yet again trying to take a short cut because they want to re-release GPL code under Apache license.

This is why many people have been saying 'Not all open source code licenses are created equal'.

Mine's the jacket with one pocket containing code released under GPL and one pocket containing code I wrote released under Apache. (And neither the two shall meet.)