elemenopy

It is a politically fraught issue because there is a long-running independence movement,[1] which the parent comment may have been obliquely referring to.

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Papua_Movement

It sounds like "proper gander", where gander means "a look".

Main discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19035834

Apparently[1] it was the July 1, 1978 edition: https://timesmachine.nytimes.com/timesmachine/1978/07/01/iss... (NYT subscription reqd)

1. https://www.nytimes.com/times-insider/2014/11/13/1978-farewe...

being illegally indefinitely detained and denied due process

This is a mischaracterisation. If Assange wanted due process, he could leave the embassy and face the British (and then possibly Swedish) court systems. The only person choosing to arbitrarily detain Assange without due process is himself.

I disagree: I think there is a reasonable case to hold WikiLeaks and the NYT to different standards. I think WikiLeaks holds itself out as a much more anarchic news organisation than traditional outlets like the NYT. WikiLeaks isn't connected or have allegiance to any particular country, and will publish, let the facts speak for themselves and damn the establishment and any particular national interests that are harmed. On the other hand, organisations like the NYT are pretty open about how while they often publish against the wishes of USG they do ask for comment and may defer publication if they are satisfied there are very good reasons to do so. [1]

Therefore, for WikiLeaks to become highly partisan is a radical departure from their original mission; moreover, it has happened without WikiLeaks acknowledging that this is the case. I think you can't same the same for the NYT.

1. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/10/public-editor/sullivan-les...

In fact Merriam Webster [1] very explicitly advocates for "gauge":

The verb gauge, which refers to measuring or estimating, also has a variant gage. This variant appears to show up primarily in informal sources, though not often. Gauge is by far the preferred spelling in general usage for both the noun and the verb; we encourage you use it.

1. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/gage

Page 2 (or p. 12 of the PDF):

In July 2015, Russian intelligence gained access to Democratic National Committee (DNC) networks and maintained that access until at least June 2016.

It's still around for some things, eg Jetstar. You used to be able to do a manual online transfer to pay for flights but now POLi is the only way you can avoid the $5 credit card surcharge. Grinds on me every time I buy a flight.

You cite Breitbart as an example of a website that is "less vulnerable to being co-opted or politically motivated."

How is that even remotely accurate, considering the Chairman of Breitbart, Steve Bannon, is Trump's campaign chairman?

I think "forced means of talent retention" is an unfairly harsh characterisation. It's a pretty reasonable policy considering taxpayers have to service the debt, and people who go overseas stop paying tax. It's all very well to propose a "good socialist system" but if people pay domestic fees and then leave NZ they're essentially getting a free ride and it's the people who don't go to uni who end up paying for it.

That's from May last year, when he resigned and then un-resigned after failing to win his seat in the last election.

Of course, possible a similar thing could happen again.

They probably use the email address of the registrant of the domain name as the sign-up address for their own website.

it's clear they this leak is planned

But you haven't produced any real evidence for this claim.

The ICIJ has co-ordinated the reporting on the leak, sure; but that's not the same as claiming the leak itself was in bad faith, part of some wider state-sponsored conspiracy from G20 nations, etc.

Real leaks don't have fancy websites with responsive vectorized portraits and a full on content /social media structure.

I don't understand this. Don't newspapers always make stories that they can tell are important more engaging for the reader? Here's a cute Guardian flash interactive from Cablegate, [1] and another nice Washington Post interactive on the same story. [2] Here's a really fancy six-part interactive from the Guardian in the wake of the Snowden files. [3] Whenever the media publishes leaks they will make similar things, even when Western governments act strenuously to prevent publication, as in the case of Cablegate and Snowden.

How does a well-presented story indicate anything other than the media thought this was a story which was important and in the public interest?

1. http://www.theguardian.com/world/interactive/2010/nov/28/us-... 2. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/nation/wikileak... 3. http://www.theguardian.com/world/interactive/2013/nov/01/sno...

Per the Guardian[1]:

Six members of the House of Lords, three former Conservative MPs and dozens of donors to UK political parties have had offshore assets.

I expect we'll hear more about this in coming days and weeks.

I don't really understand this line of thinking. Big leak + "fancy website graphics" = vast Western conspiracy? Sounds less like insightful analysis and more like the kind of denial I'd expect from RT.

1. http://www.theguardian.com/news/2016/apr/03/the-panama-paper...

No: data held on Apple servers (iCloud) can be provided with a warrant, but this is about data held on an iPhone but not saved to Apple servers. As a result, neither Apple nor the NSA can immediately provide it, and some means of hacking the iPhone is needed.

To quote from the screenshot you linked of a typical Wikimedia Foundation advertisement: [1]

"We ... have costs like any other top site: servers, power, rent, programs, staff and legal help."

I count six costs listed there. Doesn't look like "pretty shady" advertising to me.

Also, "internet hosting costs" in the financial statements isn't all the money spent on IT-related costs. For example, computer equipment is counted as an investment which then depreciates. In the 2011 financial statements you linked, Wikimedia spent $3.2m on computer equipment and $1m on depreciation (though depreciation would also include things like furniture). [2]

You also haven't provided any evidence for your claim Wikimedia promotes "purposeful backlinking to their for profit sites".

Finally, although it's an imperfect way to analyse charities, Charity Navigator gives Wikimedia Foundation 93.5/100, an excellent score. [3]

1. http://regmedia.co.uk/2012/11/28/wikipedia_chugging_fullsize...

2. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/a/ac/FINAL...

3. http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary...

I think you mean ordnance [1] :)

1. http://grammarist.com/usage/ordinance-ordnance/

Be careful about relying too heavily on Hersh's article. It makes some pretty bold claims about a conspiracy of eyewatering proportions that have never really been backed up. There has been a lot harshly critical responses to it. [1]

Historically Hersh has been a successful investigate reporter but his LRB piece hasn't really been widely accepted: [2]

Were it not for the byline of Mr. Hersh, a Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist who first gained notice more than 45 years ago for exposing the My Lai massacre in Vietnam, the story would likely have been readily dismissed and gained little attention.

1. http://www.vox.com/2015/5/11/8584473/seymour-hersh-osama-bin... 2. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/12/us/seymour-hersh-article-a...

Look, I agree that the union jack is a poor representation of NZ, and that it should probably be changed, and that it's unfair to represent a colonial legacy and little else, including Maori culture.

But the analogy to the Third Reich just doesn't work. Some countries didn't hesitate to throw off British imperialism - but the white majority of Canada, Australia, NZ and other Commonwealth countries valued their British identity. That never occurred under Nazism, because German colonists never really existed, and certainly never formed a majority.

Including the union jack on the NZ flag is bad, but it's utterly incomparable to including the swastika flag on the French Tricolore.

That's ridiculous and not at all analogous. The British Empire is not without its faults, but countries such as New Zealand were enthusiastic British subjects for decades. The Third Reich enjoyed few French supporters and only for a few years at that. (Having said that, I don't entirely agree with the 'melting pot' comparison either.)

Also, how come on the slide they are selling iPad Mini 2 & 4 but not iPad Mini 3? This is so confusing

National has never really been a classical liberal party. Muldoon ran some of the most interventionist economic policy in NZ history, and Bolger and Shipley passed the Resource Management Act. In recent times only ACT has really been classically liberal, but even that is a bit shaky.

Whether insult hurts or not is your choice.

This is nonsense. If you are subjected to continuous, vitriolic, realistic rape threats on Twitter then this is inevitably going to stress you and make you feel somewhat unhappy or unsafe. But if you are a 14-year-old, or otherwise particularly vulnerable, then they may cause acute depression or suicide.

This Act isn't about antivaxxers or climate change deniers. It is about revenge porn and vicious cyberbullying, and I am not prepared to stand up for either.

Australia

Please reread the title and apologise

if I defraud someone into having sex with me (e.g. by saying I'm some famous actor or that I'm not having sex with anyone else), the state will not intervene unless maybe there's some STD involved

While I can't speak for the U.S., in New Zealand consent is vitiated by mistaken identity [1]. I suspect there is also common law precedent.

If someone agrees to be filmed/photographed and leaves the material with the other person, I don't see why the state should intervene.

Firstly, because from a policy perspective, having an intimate recording publicly and permanently released without consent massively harms the victim to the extent they may be driven to suicide, and there is no reasonable case to be made that the perpetrator should have the right to release such a recording, considering their intention is to inflict pain and trauma upon their victim.

Secondly, intimate recordings are implicitly provided in confidence. It is a social norm that if you receive a sext you do not immediately post it to Facebook. I see no problem in establishing this implicit confidential relationship in statute considering the outcomes of revenge porn.

1. Crimes Act s 128A(6) http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1961/0043/latest/D...

It's only fame and prosecutorial discretion that stands between him and a prison sentence.

That a complete misrepresentation of how this law works. If Louis C.K. created a digital communication which contravened Principle 9 ('do not incite others to commit suicide') [1] then the victim might complain to the Approved Agency, which is presently Netsafe NZ [2], who mediates between Louis C.K. and the complainant.

If mediation is unsuccessful and Netsafe believes it is warranted Louis C.K. could be referred to the District Court, who hears submissions and makes orders as it deems necessary per s 11 [3] including referring the complaint back to Netsafe for further mediation. If the Court makes an order (e.g., 'remove the communication') and Louis C.K. refuses to comply he may be fined, or at the extreme end be sentenced to six months imprisonment [4] which in New Zealand would be served as home detention.

The New Zealand justice system is typically fairly lenient and lacks most of the mandatory sentencing requirements of the U.S. justice system. The District Court would not impose any significant fine or home detention unless the offending was at the extreme end of the scale, e.g. Louis C.K. incited a specific vulnerable individual to commit suicide in front of a large audience and they subsequently attempted to do so.

There is a lot more than 'prosecutorial discretion' between Louis C.K. and a prison sentence. This law is far from perfect, and maybe it'd be better if it didn't exist at all, but it's not imposing the insane wholesale restrictions on free speech that is being suggested throughout this thread.

1. http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2015/0063/latest/w... 2. http://www.netsafe.org.nz/ 3. http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2015/0063/latest/w... 4. http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2015/0063/latest/w...

Couldn't Anne just beam an electromagnetic wave of TV/radio into the black hole to you, though? Nothing will be escaping the black hole.

More than that: unless you buy the premium subscription, you're actually acting as an exit node for their network. So be careful of that.

http://hola.org/premium https://www.reddit.com/r/privacy/comments/1qnphj/psa_if_your...