I see from many sources, and among them the guys at Arcamax, that Mr Assange, Wikileaks founder hiding in UK, is in “[…] Negotiations took place Monday for the founder of WikiLeaks to be questioned by British police about sexual assault allegations against him, lawyers said. The Guardian reported Julian Assange was expected to appear in a U.K. court by mid-week. His lawyers said he would meet with police to discuss an extradition warrant from Sweden where he is wanted for questioning, The British newspaper said.”(full article at http://www.arcamax.com/newsheadlines/s-808599-427121?source=1930).
I don’t question too much if Wikileaks is something good or not (IMHO it was netutral when disclosing minor things, but now is irresponsible in disclosing secret things like just did).
I would like to question on Mr Assange personal law.
It’s not fair for all of us. This guy is not an alleged killer or someone with a nuke in his hands.
Why can he choose (an states allow him) to negotiate on his prisoning?
If some of us has problems with law, simply police gets in and does the arrest.
Why Mr. Assange is super partes in this? Maybe because is discussing in non releasing new files?
This post as a comment also at http://www.arcamax.com/newsheadlines/s-808599-427121#posts
The big Wikileaks bombshell happened so fastl and so furious it is difficult to judge the real consequences.
Greg Mitchell at Alternet (http://www.alternet.org/authors/6547/) reports a good walthrough the over 90 thousand documents released (full article at http://www.alternet.org/world/147635/wikileaks_bombshell_on_afghan_war:_what_you_need_to_know_).
I’m not for or against this kind of scoop.
Because on one side I put freedom of speech, on the other the risks that are taken in revealing sensitive informations.
Greg Grant at Defense Tech reports that a drone strike killed Al Qaeda coordinator for Afghanistan Mustafa Abu al-Yazid (full article at http://defensetech.org/2010/06/01/drone-strike-in-pakistan-kills-top-al-qaeda-operational-commander/, original NYT story at http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/01/world/asia/01qaeda.html).
I drop just a couple of thoughts.
First of all that the fact that Al Qaeda feels the need to announce the death of a coordinator (sorry, but I cannot call Officer a terrorist), is a warning of how much is organized and still dangerous, despite of all our efforts.
Second thought is that love them or not, drones are the future.
Personally I think that is a kind of fight so impersonal that helps to do the work without remorses: just a surgical operation were possible, rebalancing the effort in terms of lives and costs of those operations.
Some (and I somewhat agree with them) that F35 will be the last manned fighter. I don’t feel this is the moment of this change, but IMHO path is started.
This post as a comment also at http://defensetech.org/2010/06/01/drone-strike-in-pakistan-kills-top-al-qaeda-operational-commander/
Ben Coxworth at Gizmag (http://www.gizmag.com/author/ben-coxworth/) informs us of a study from American Chemical Society that says within next 20 years e-waste from developing countries will double those from developed ones (full article at http://www.gizmag.com/developing-nations-ewaste-to-double/14951/, original report at http://pubs.acs.org/stoken/presspac/presspac/full/10.1021/es903350q).
“[…] They predict that in 20 years, developing nations will be discarding 400-700 million personal computers annually. Developed nations, by contrast, will be throwing out 200-300 million a year. This increase in e-waste will be due not only to increased computer ownership, but also to technological advances causing computers to become obsolete faster […]”
Of course is a dangerous situation, but should not be misunderstood: if the trend will be confirmed ad infinitum, will e covered by waste in a century or less.
I think we faced a lot of problems and errors in our society. We have the due to make those achieving development (which is a right and an opportunity at same time) avoiding the same errors we made.
Recycling, green power, and everything needed to safeguard the planet are things we need to learn and transfer to those coming after us.
This post as a comment also at http://www.gizmag.com/developing-nations-ewaste-to-double/14951/
Lewis Wallace at Wired (http://www.wired.com/underwire/author/lewis_wallace/) writes an article reporting Wired decision to start a campaign for candidating Internet (means each one of us being behind a PC) for Peace Nobel prize 2010 (full article at http://www.wired.com/underwire/2009/11/internet-for-peace-nobel/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+wired%2Findex+%28Wired%3A+Index+3+%28Top+Stories+2%29%29, candidate site at http://www.internetforpeace.it/manifesto.cfm).
I have contrasting feelings on this action.
Why I’m for.
- Because Internet is THE revolution of the last two centuries, having shortened distances, freed people and developed a common conscience
- Because Internet is a media of peace and of peace keeping, permitting people to share thoughts, frustrations, dreams, ideas, hopes
- Because the Nobel Prize for Peace can, finally, promote internet to a sort of new status of overnational media
Why I’m against.
- Internet is immaterial and, for itself, doesn’t deserve any merit, because are people underlying that make it a “good” or “bad” media
- Internet is not only peace. It has inside bad feelings and habits, like everyone of us.
- Because there are a lot of people more real than internet that deserve an help both as a prize and as money and associated visibility
At the very end, I decided to support the campaign because I hope, like Obama’s prize was this year, that this candidation will be a signal of hope for our world.
This post as a comment also at http://www.wired.com/underwire/2009/11/internet-for-peace-nobel/comment-page-1/#comment-41599
Jacqui Cheng at Ars Technica publishes an article talking on the fact that “Lawsuits against anonymous bloggers are common, but the courts generally protect the right to speak unnamed. Now, one Tennessee blogger is about to be unmasked, reminding us that even Internet anonymity has its limits—and that making accusations of arson, drug abuse, and tax evasion can carry consequences.” (full article at http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/10/anonymous-real-estate-critic-on-the-verge-of-being-unmasked.ars?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=rss).
As I said some other times, I don’t think internet anonymity is a right. Better: is not a right everywhere, because most of us, luckily, don’t live in a regime and so talking behind a nickname is not a protection, is just a difefrent way of communicating.
For those belonging to the minority living under a regime, anonimity should be a right to be defendend to the very last extent. For the other (the majority), internet is a media not to be abused.
And so if anyone offends or those something against laws, should be prosecuted like any other.
This post as a comment also at http://episteme.arstechnica.com/eve/forums?a=tpc&s=50009562&f=174096756&m=346000991041&r=765003991041#765003991041
Forsythe (http://www.lockergnome.com/forsythe/author/forsythe/) at Lockergnome writes an article reporting increasing warning over criminal attempts for flu crisis (full story at http://www.lockergnome.com/forsythe/2009/10/24/flu-crisis-is-a-criminal-opportunity).
I think that hasn’t been a time in human histry that was not an opportunity for criminals.
But at the same time I think that, though a real problem exists with flu spreading, sometime big Pharma companies wave on this fear to sell more. And this is a criminal offense too in my opinion.
This post as a comment also at http://www.lockergnome.com/forsythe/2009/10/24/flu-crisis-is-a-criminal-opportunity/#comment-40470
Vince Beiser at Wired tells us that criminologist Nils Christie brings forward the theory that emptying prisons is a good way of changing the mood in which people deal with criminals (full article at http://www.wired.com/techbiz/people/magazine/17-10/ff_smartlist_christie).
I think that rules are there to be respected.
Everyone should be conscious that if a violation is committed, a fair and equilibrate penalty is the risk (or the thing to be sure).
I think that making law offenders self conscious is a way of redempting people that needs too much effort to put in for a little success.
This desn’t mean that they sould be treated as non humans. But, I think, prison should be a moment to think on theirself by loosing for some time the most precious gift a man has: freedom.
This post as a comment also at http://www.wired.com/techbiz/people/magazine/17-10/ff_smartlist_christie
John Timmer at Ars Technica writes an article reporting a study by some economists assigning to high tech adoption a primary role in GDP growth (full article at http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/09/high-tech-adoption-happening-faster-driving-economic-growth.ars, original study at http://www.hbs.edu/research/pdf/08-093.pdf).
I think is real that high tech adoption has a stimulus role within growth in a nation. Seems to me quite simple to understand this because I see technology and high tech as something “infrastructural” in the sense of something that is a facilitator in accellerating growth.
I ask my self another point that is which is the level where this “facilitator” effects stops or slows down: I can understand the effect if we are talking of no (or less) technologized countries where the accelleration effect of technology is disruptive; but in my opinion in a modern and fully alligned (on a tech point of view) country, tech is a facilitator only if is a real breakthrough (such as introdiuction of iphone or Wimax).
This post as a comment also at http://digg.com/business_finance/High_tech_adoption_happening_faster_driving_economic_growth