looks great. The jet was a really nice touch. Had to <ctrl-f> to find the city I was looking for, consider alphabetizing? You did? Oh and you thought it would better to group them by region? I can see how that would make exploring the time zones more interesting, but I was looking for a city when I landed at your site :) sortby(region|name). What's that? You think that would clutter the interface; I suppose you're right, it is pretty slick the way it is.
I find it disconcerting that your appeal-to-emotion rebuttel addressing the walled garden premise has garnered so many up votes. The second paragraph is nothing more than an insult to the ideology opposite yours.
I've got nothing against people having an ideology opposite to mine, though we're not talking about polar opposites here -- we probably both agree about the importance of net neutrality.
What I do have a problem with is people holding beliefs based on little to no actual evidence. I understand the appeal of trying to slot this into your worldview, but it's totally unsubstantiated. All evidence suggests that neutrality is threatened by major corporations lobbying the government to allow them to make more money, not the government lobbying major corporations to turn the internet into a walled garden.
There's plenty of evidence that our government wants to restrict the flow of information. For example: When people in Iran were tweeting during demonstrations, it was hailed as the savior of democracy: people getting together and using tools to rally against their oppressors. When Twitter is used at protests here, at home, they get arrested, and called terrorists.
That has nothing to do with the assertion that governments are encouraging private companies to restrict internet freedom. No number of examples of police forces overstepping their bounds is proof of an authoritarian conspiracy to censor the internet in the federal government.
If IRC activity correlates to interest in the language, then data shows a bleak picture of interest in go-lang. Here is the total character count per day as a percentage of the activity on November 12, 2009.
http://i.imgur.com/8ERaf.png
X axis is days (approx) since 11/12/09
Y is % of chars as compared with the busiest day (11/12/09)
I've used the language for big projects and little projects. The strict error handling is fantastic. I like everything about the language except one thing. Just one, and it's a big nasty thing. I hope Russ, Rob, Iant or someone from the development team reads this, because it needs to be said, and others have said it, and it's the reason I stopped programming in go. Go might not need generics, the go development team might not need generics, but I DO! You wonder why there isn't a rocking go web framework? Because generics would be a huge help and no one wants to piece together a tedious solution immediately deprecated by the announcement we've been waiting a year for, "Go is getting generics!" All I want for christmas is generics ... and a pony.
Nah, the interest for new things from big companies always peaks shortly after the announcement. If you cut off the outliers e.g. before day 45 then this graph would look much rosier. Or, to put it another way, would the graph for any successful language like Python or C look any different in the first year after the initial announcement?
Those languages were all quite old and popular by the time those graphs started. It's not apples-to-apples to compare languages with a decade or more of use to a language whose inception was a year ago.
Lest anyone forget the absolute utter dirt bags running the show at AOL, let me regale thee with all time hit #1 "Cancel the account" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xmpDSBAh6RY
Good luck Mr. Arrington, and better luck getting out.
I don't know much when it comes to ips, i.e., I can't tell whether that is a shared ip, or otherwise.
Nonetheless, a quick search reveals this individual (http://www.scamwarners.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=34&p=32...) used/had that ip 3 months ago. (S)he appears to be a security specialist, which goes with the impression I got from the email.
You're right, you don't know much about IP addresses. The entire 10.x.x.x block was reserved long ago for use on private networks, it's not routed anywhere on the internet. This RFC from 1996 describing best practices for their use is still accurate: http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1918
All of those addresses in the header posted are hosts within one of Google's networks. The same address is likely in use on other such networks.
It is not that uncommon to conduct those. They basically rely on the media to just publish verbatim the release. I would be very foolish of them not to use that capability to conduct disinformation campaigns and public response testing before a major operation for example.
As for assassination. I doubt they want to go that far in this case. Shaming and publicly discrediting him would be just as effective. They figured Wikileaks is riding a morality-based popularity at the moment. They are the righteous Robin-Hood type guys fighting a big, mean, empire. If they could just make them look "immoral" in any way they could deflate Julian's popularity balloon.
Not saying CIA is above assassinations. They have a track record to prove it. But I think in this case they not are ready to take it that far yet.
Why stop there? Assassinate Julian Assange? No. The trial balloon was clearly the shadow annexation of Sweden. After all, didn't a scholar at the AEI --- famously part of the US military/industrial/intelligence compound, home of the "neocon" movement --- intimate just that strategy in an op-ed just a few weeks ago?
If you're not going to constrain yourself to actual evidence, you can make any claim and then force anyone who'd dispute that claim to prove a negative. Those suppositions aren't informative. They're boring. And they're epsilon from forum trolling.
- A trial balloon is information sent out to the media in order to observe the reaction of an audience.
- http://www.aei.org/home, The American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research (AEI) is a conservative think tank founded in 1943
To your first paragraph: I didn't realize the AEI raised the point. To your second paragraph: I thought by clearly stating that I was positing the position, that it was up for discussion, in a friendly manner. I certainly wasn't trying to troll. Sometimes creative exploration of an idea without debating first can lead to interesting places. In fact, Edward De'Bono has written reams on the matter. So thanks for enlightening me on those terms, peace.
Conversations about Wikileaks on HN are especially prone to comic book reinterpretations of foreign and domestic policy.
The reality is, as upset as the US no doubt is about the gravity of the information they managed to lose, Assange has almost certainly committed no actual crime (not being a citizen of the US or in any way obligated to safeguard military secrets), and probably faces reprisals no more fearsome than the rejection of any future US visa.
Oh, but it is fun to spin conjecture about his "enemy of the state" status, and the swarm of secret stealth drones that is no doubt speeding to his current undisclosed location as we speak!
By that logic, few of the members of Al Qaida have committed a crime. We all know few detainees at Gitmo ever had, as most were released.
Assange is an annoyance to the US Government. We don't know how big or small an annoyance he is. There was rumor of some very embarrassing diplomatic cables which have not yet been released, which might or might not constitue Assange qualifying as a very big annoyance.
No, fairly straightforward logic and (for that matter) jurisprudence argues that virtually every member of Al Qaeda is a party to any number of crimes.
Sorry, try as hard as you can, you're not going to elevate Proff to the level of "enemy of the state". He's a guy with a bunch of files that the US no doubt wishes he didn't have. It is a complete certainty that every one of those files is going to be public sometime within the next couple years. Nobody with a functioning adult mind and more than a years exposure to any part of the problem space could believe otherwise.
(Bradley Manning is, if credible allegations are to be believed, an entirely different story).
The Supreme Court has never heard a § 793 case. Not even for American citizens. The constitutional problems with the Espionage Act are manifold, starting with the fact that it criminalizes speech. The notion that the government is going to successfully prosecute a case against a foreign national living on foreign soil for violating it seems far fetched.
Note also that to make this case, the government would have to claim "evil intent": either an intent to harm the United States, or an attempt to aid a foreign nation, or a reason to believe his actions would result in either. Assange may be no friend to the US national security apparatus, but he clearly seems to believe he's acting for the benefit of everyone, including the US. Check out US vs. Truong Dinh Hung (and the recent APAC case) for more detail; search for "scienter", the technical term for the requirement.
"Pentagon lawyers believe that online whistleblower group WikiLeaks acted illegally in disclosing thousands of classified Afghanistan war reports and other material, and federal prosecutors are exploring possible criminal charges, officials familiar with the matter said."
They haven't said what law WikiLeaks has broken, but it will be interesting to see what they come up with. The Espionage Act was the first thing that came to mind, but you may be right that it would be a difficult -- if not unconstitutional -- case.
