siteÂs actual DNS number: http://213.251.145.96/ Good Morning Silicon Valley says using the DNS should work.
Re: WikiLeaks taken off the air.
siteÂs actual DNS number: http://213.251.145.96/ Good Morning Silicon Valley says using the DNS should work.
"Chicago to my mind was the only place to be. ... I above all liked the city because it was filled with people all a-bustle, and the clatter of hooves and carriages, and with delivery wagons and drays and peddlers and the boom and clank of freight trains. And when those black clouds came sailing in from the west, pouring thunderstorms upon us so that you couldn't hear the cries or curses of humankind, I liked that best of all. Chicago could stand up to the worst God had to offer. I understood why it was built--a place for trade, of course, with railroads and ships and so on, but mostly to give all of us a magnitude of defiance that is not provided by one house on the plains. And the plains is where those storms come from." -- E.L. Doctorow |
|
|
Link to Ellsberg: 'Boycott Amazon'
|
|
|
Add Paypal to the list
Not that they shouldn't have already been boycotted for being plain shifty operators, but they have frozen Wikileak's account(s) now.
|
|
|
The assumption you make
is that I agree with the way wikileaks operates.
Which I don't. If you think that every single communication of every single human being in every organization setting should have zero expectation of privacy...go ahead and boycott. I don't have that expectation...nor do I think its a "good thing" Sure, understanding today's complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head. But...there they are.
|
|
|
Except when you are lord of the jungle of course
|
|
|
Its no different than
the crackers who published credit card numbers...except for the fact that you don't like the folks he's publishing...
as long as it isn't you and yours...its great. Sure, understanding today's complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head. But...there they are.
|
|
|
As has been observed elsewhere
given that the state seems to think it's got complete rights to rummage through my communications, I'm not feeling all verklempt when the tables are turned.
It might be different if the controls on the behaviour of the Powers That Be were functioning, but that's clearly not been the case for at least a decade. |
|
|
I don't like it either way...
and given that his "friends" now plan to attack commercial sites they feel are "complicit"...like PayPal...what happens if they decide to steal their money back...or crack the security so that people "lose faith"...and that just happens to compromise the personal records of a few million "guilty consumers" (by association, of course..as no self respecting member of "anonymous" would have a paypal account, natch).
Sure, understanding today's complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head. But...there they are.
|
|
|
From what I know about Anonymous
you couldn't really call them his friends; don't think you could say that Anonymous really has any friends.
Personally, though, if PayPal and eBay end up taking a serious shitkicking, I'm not crying any tears for them either. Are they (and Amazon) going to stop doing business with the NYT? They published (some of) the cables as well. The hypocrisy is astounding and revealing. |
WikiLeaks taken off the air.
- (static)
- (13)
- Dec. 3, 2010, 04:27:26 AM EST
Back on
- (drook)
- (3)
- Dec. 3, 2010, 08:33:43 AM EST
The US keeps this stuff up
- (jake123)
- (1)
- Dec. 3, 2010, 10:41:51 AM EST
Indeed...
- (folkert)
- Dec. 3, 2010, 12:24:16 PM EST
Dupe, sorry
-NT
- (jake123)
- Dec. 3, 2010, 10:55:38 AM EST
Re: WikiLeaks taken off the air.
- (lincoln)
- (8)
- Dec. 3, 2010, 08:16:39 PM EST
Link to Ellsberg: 'Boycott Amazon'
- (Ashton)
- (7)
- Dec. 4, 2010, 06:33:34 AM EST
Add Paypal to the list
- (scoenye)
- (6)
- Dec. 4, 2010, 11:40:44 AM EST
The assumption you make
- (beepster)
- (5)
- Dec. 4, 2010, 12:09:13 PM EST
Except when you are lord of the jungle of course
-NT
- (scoenye)
- (4)
- Dec. 4, 2010, 04:33:34 PM EST
Its no different than
- (beepster)
- (3)
- Dec. 4, 2010, 06:07:33 PM EST
As has been observed elsewhere
- (jake123)
- (2)
- Dec. 6, 2010, 06:59:12 PM EST
I don't like it either way...
- (beepster)
- (1)
- Dec. 6, 2010, 07:40:37 PM EST
From what I know about Anonymous
- (jake123)
- Dec. 6, 2010, 08:45:04 PM EST