sees_all1

I deleted my facebook profile several months ago, so this doesn't affect me. I strongly urge everyone to do the same, facebook doesn't seem to be as good as it used to. [hide=For those of you that haven't tried to delete your profile,] Let me tell you its a pain in the ass. First of all, you can't find a link to do it on the main site. There's a link to "deactivate" your profile, but its still there afterward. The only way to completely get rid of it is to google "delete my facebook account" and it'll take you to that link which facebook doesn't provide. Then, after you click the link, you have to answer a bunch of stuff on why you're deleting your profile (and like 3 or 4 confirm messages before the "process" is started). Then, they make you wait two weeks, during which they'll email bomb you saying "don't go!" If at any point in time in those two weeks you log in (intentionally or accidentally - if you had your profile auto-linked to something like pandora, you'll log in again accidentally, and you'll have to start the wait over again). They really don't want you to leave. [/hide]

They've released less than .5% of the documents And every time they've made a huge deal about the newest release. And it seems everything up to this point has just been gossip...

I asked santa for legos.

They *didn't* censor it, they just made it harder to get to. :lol: Anyhow, Wikileaks is their own worst enemy. People are starting to notice none of the current leaked stuff has been earth shattering, and I feel like it'll be a case of the boy who cried wolf. Assange: "Leak! Leak! Leak!," yet nobody will care. EDIT: Paypal just joined Amazon and dumped Wikileaks as well: http://www.theblaze.com/stories/no-pals-paypal-latest-company-to-dump-wikileaks/

Alvin Greene on the other hand, won the democrat primary in South Carolina. He got 60% of the vote too, without as much as having a single campaign event. People like chipmunks, and they like the color green too. Perfect fit. He lost the general election though, to Jim DeMint, who caused the recession. My boy Hank Johnson though - he's the real deal. US Representative and all. I don't think he's as sinister as my girl Maxine Waters... This liberals all about socializing.... uh um... basically... taking over.... and the government running all your companies. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GqjFBiPMmBE

Glad we have that guy. Now all we have to worry about is Guam tipping over... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zNZczIgVXjg

Yeah, but you're forgetting that Jim DeMint started the recession. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jK9L8MZA17Y

Nah, I was just being sarcastic towards a few people in this thread. I use this tactic a lot in political discussions when someone says something that is ridiculous, and it usually works because people forget that I do this and don't really mean a lot of what I say in political topics. Yep, we all appreciate your strawmen. [/sarcasm]

This. TIF is a nice little community where interesting discussions can be had without excessive ideological attacks. super necro quote is super. :mrgreen: I keep coming back for the bears and the pro rs tips.

woot usually has them on sale every once in a while, they end up being a two-for-one deal. Only reason I bought them, otherwise you're paying about $.15 per magnet.

Right, because the delegates to the constitutional convention in 1787 weren't sworn to secrecy. Oh wait... No, I'm pretty sure that the current US constitution was drafted in secret. Let me check, yep here it is: http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h368.html That does seem a bit odd for a country founded on openness to draft their constitution in secret. Learn2history.

^This + Voluptuous Blonde. Lol.

Right, so you plan on reading all 250,000 documents? :rolleyes:

So, lets turn that statement around. Liberals, who don't trust government at all, want tons of it! That makes sense... The point I'm trying to make is that wikileaks is harming watchdogs everywhere. They just proved that gleaning information from willing government employees is easier than pie. By dumping all information they have with *seemingly* no agenda exposes everything - from the frivolous items to the ones with life or death importance. Clarity and honesty in government is a good goal, but the issue I have is the way they're approaching it. EDIT: Contrast this leak with the example I gave earlier, the pentagon papers. The pentagon papers was good because it stripped out all the frivolous information and just exposed the damning evidence. It had a point, and a purpose. Wikileaks has no point or purpose, except to show exactly how sausage is made (and no one wants to know that).

I don't know, maybe that's a good reason why they don't make this information public?

Someone hasn't actually read the leaks http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5jOSEFypoNiNvm2AnAHw3nVk9ew7w?docId=CNG.15cc4feb849a0db79c547e6aa131f09a.231 Apparently not.

You know that the government releases records of things periodically? Knowing why something happened three years ago doesn't change the current situation, but can definitely make it worse. What wikileaks is accomplishing for us is tightening down current information policy for the US, making it more difficult in the future for important leaks to happen.

Don't be fooled by what wikileaks "tried" to do. The fact that the US made the information "CLASSIFIED" means that they didn't want any of it leaked to the public. If the US openly cooperated with wikileaks in further censoring the information they were to leak, what would that mean to you? That posting sensitive information is a legitimate thing to do? Here US government, you can have this olive branch from your olive tree we're about to cut down. So, you're willing to let the government deny you information? Information about actions that they have taken in your name, with your money, and possibly your vote? Yep. I don't need to know (or care) that the US government knows about that voluptuous nurse. Information hiding happens all the time, and its not a bad thing. It doesn't bother me that I don't know the secret ingredient in Coca-Cola, or the next Apple product, or that I don't know how many monkeys with keyboards Google employs. I still drink coke, listen to my ipod, and search Google.

Don't be fooled by what wikileaks "tried" to do. The fact that the US made the information "CLASSIFIED" means that they didn't want any of it leaked to the public. If the US openly cooperated with wikileaks in further censoring the information they were to leak, what would that mean to you? That posting sensitive information is a legitimate thing to do? Here US government, you can have this olive branch from your olive tree we're about to cut down.

Desk toy - I know not everyone here has a desk job, but I'm fairly certain everyone owns a $5-30 item that is novel to them, suitable for a desk in an office. I own two sets of buckyballs - 216 small (powerful) magnetic spheres. Got it on woot.com when they were on sale, heard about it from a thinkgeek magazine. Love them, wish they wouldn't chip after use so much (my hands get all silvery after playing with them).

Don't worry, it'll only affect 5% of free players. <_<

Lol at amazon pulling the plug on wikileaks.

Boo damage absorption. I'm sorry, but F2P really doesn't have the problem that members do. The closest thing to more damage than your opponent can eat out of is either a gravite 2h or a corrupt battle axe, but even then you're risking a ridiculous amount and you should have that ability. Besides, those hits are hardly guaranteed (probability of hitting 350+ given that you'll hit is 1 in 36, multiply it with the probability of getting a hit and its closer to 1 in 70 or worse for any given hit). Any string of splats that average less than 280 per hits and your opponent can still eat out if it. booooooo!

Assange says that he had consensual sex with both of them, and when each learned the other had sex with him that they then changed their story and called it rape.

I know that 90% of the information isn't important, based on the amount of stuff he posted. If there 200 pages, I'd believe there was something significant. But this was just everything and anything the leak could get their hands on. Its the same as if a Google employee decided that everyone's gmail account information was public, and released that. There's no reason for it, and it'll probably put everyone in a bad light. No, the public doesn't have the "right" to know.