On my Debian system I use the flatpack version of Steam, it comes with the 32bit stuff inside the container, so you don't need any 32bit packages in the OS.
The flatpak-client starts here, but has permissions-problems with installing games. Probably because I have to use a different ssd from the one where the flatpak is installed at.
Not in C. In C signed integer overflow is underined behaviour that may or may not be compiled to the equivalent of mod arithmetic dependingonthe whims of the compiler.
It is like chocolate cigarettes, they are not real cigarettes, they don't have nicotine nor smoke, and yet they serve to present and normalize real cigarettes to kids, so there is an argument for banning them. Where you draw the line is a difficult ask (a chocolate with packaging and wrapping copying exactly a cigarette pack seems like a clear case, but what about cylindrical chocolates that vaguely resemble? Probably not).
I think it is fair to argue where to draw the line, but I think some "looks like gambling but without gambling" do in fact deserve more scrutiny just because of the resemblance.
(On the other end of the spectrum we as a society should really crack down on the "doesn't look like gambling but is gambling" epidemic.)
To extend your analogy, banning Luck Be a Landlord while allowing lootboxes and the like is kind of like banning chocolate cigarettes while allowing kids to have nicorette gum.
One of them has the aesthetic, one of them has the actual negative thing.
The aesthetic being banned is supposed to be in support of reducing the impact of the actual negative thing, but the actual negative thing is being PROMOTED instead of banned.
It all feels very pants-on-head kind of up-is-down logic.
This is the sort of hysteria that got comic books censored in the the 1950s and "violent" video games in the 1990s. The argument that fictional depictions of undesired behavior cause real cases of it just isn't supported by evidence, but only assumed.
He was fined a billion dollars, but it will never be collected, he never lost a billion dollars. With this decision all his debts are pardoned and he gets to keep his megaphone, that is very "no consequences".
America was founded with a constitution that guarantee's citizens a megaphone as part of a list of inalienable rights (God given per words in the constitution). Bankrupting Jones won't remove his ability speak or muzzle him and it's more than likely only going to give him more of an audience. He'll still be able to voice his performance art about growing babies-in-cows-for-25-years and gay-frogs. He'll more than likely struggle to sell his seeds and end-of-times nonsense and he's probably been debanked. But megaphone wise he'll be louder than ever.
The correct term is intersex, but whatever. But in addition
> EE2 exposure at all concentrations lowered male sexual arousal, indicated by decreased proportions of advertisement calls and increased proportions of the call type rasping, which characterizes a sexually unaroused state of a male.
So the males also became uninterested in sex with females. Given that I think you must be really nitpicking to find fault with what he said.
I was always under the impression that the performance art he did with the frogs was in reference to Chlorpyrifos. And I am in concert with Alex Jones here. I agree with him. This crap is not good, is banned throughout the world, and is a mammalian neurotoxin.
But you and I both know he crosses the line (and enjoys doing so) from authentic to clown. He'll bedazzle a libertarian and country boy with quirky strange perspectives that have a kernel of truth and then drag them down into the dark ass netherworld he's living his life in. He spins people up and inflames their amygdala's and connects the dots to some dark metaphysical Ba'al. But then he still comes back around and sells you some seeds and some product to stock your nuclear fall out shelter. He's one part performance artist one part grifter. But he crossed a third rail when he tried pulling the parents of a school shooting into his bi-polarish world. Bottom line with a guy like Alex Jones is that he's always going to connect the natural failure-state of a system (FDA regulatory capture) to some fever dream Ba'al conspiracy vs acknowledging that humans and their systems are flawed and that the natural state of a government is one in which it is picking winners and losers (cronyism) and it's been that way in his country since Washington's soldiers and officers mutinied over pensions. https://www.mountvernon.org/education/primary-source-collect.... That didn't need the illuminati becuase, like the FDA, it's the natural mode of humanity and a system to fail.
I cant speak for epileptics, but I do suffer from photosensitive migraines (which the author briefly mentioned in the article), and in my case failing flashing LED lights are indeed an issue. Luckily for me it is not as instantaneous as a seisure, I feel it building up over many seconds, so in many situations I can just look away or close my eyes and it doesn't turn into a full blown migraine (just a kind of "hangover" in my head).
That is great. Now they just need to add a easy way to alternate between different profiles on the same computer, because having to log-out and log-in every time you want to hand the controller to someone else in the family is a big hassle.
I understand the now a days most people have their own computer, so the log-out/log-in is not a problem for most people; but some of us have a gaming desktop connected to the living-room TV that is shared by the whole family, and in this case a way to change profiles without having to do all the hassle of logout/login is really needed.
You could use the recently new change account feature where you open Steam and all your accounts appear in one window and you're already logged in to all of them and you just click on your profile icon and it opens that account and when you are ready to switch you click the drop-down box next to your username and select "Change Account" and after it closes, the window with the profile icons pops up again and you can select another account and you don't have to use a password each time. Make sure you tick the check box when you confirm the request to change the account. It makes it much easier to log in and out of different accounts.
> "For the time and the media their CGI is pretty good. And yes, it's not perfect, but completely adequate to the time I think."
I watched it then, and i can tell you that NO, it wasn't pretty good for the time nor the media, it was terrible even for that time. Not because their CGI was particulary worse, but because all CGI was terrible at the time. The technology wasn't ready yet to do much, so everyone else at the time relied on practical effects, miniatures, and built full set; but for practicality and cost reasons they decided to use the crude CGI of the time for many things that were not good enouth at the time, and it shown terribly.
In subsequent seasons they walked back that decision slightly, mostly abandoning CGI for indoor scenes in favour of building sets for their actors like everyone else. And the last few seasons had fairly good CGI for external shots of the station and ships, because by that time the tech evolved to be good enouth (that is when you start seeing such CGI being used in all other shows as well).
For me the best feature of Celsius, the one that makes it much better for weather, is the zero on the freezing point of water. Everything changes in life when water start to freeze, roads get slippery, pipes burst, crops die. So it is important that such a crucial threshold is represented numerically in the scale. In other words, going from 5 to -5 in Fahrenheit is just getting 10° colder, nothing special, while going from 2 to -2 in Celsius is a huge change in your daily life.
This is also fine for any long-running processes and servers where the "vector" in question is not expected to shrink its allocation, which I would guess is the main use of vectors. Shrinking a vector's allocation is a niche use, with some finicky APIs, that most programmers never needed or touched.
What an utterly absurd judgment, that should have no place on a free society. They have a literal kidnapping/assassination plot, and yet the Judge considers it all above board and that it doesn't show any prejudice.
Assange's team brought evidence that the USA had a kidnapping/assassination plot in case he attempted to flee to Russia. They brought this as obvious evidence that he will not be safe in US custody - they were already willing to kidnap or kill him without a trial. This should prevent his extradition from the UK to the USA, as the UK in principle doesn't extradite prisoners to countries where their safety and UK judicial rights are not guaranteed.
From reading that article it doesn't sound like there was any plot. Mike Pompeo wanted such a thing, but it was never approved. It was hotly contested and never attempted. The article also made it sound like Russia had more of a plot in action to move Assange to Russia.
So there was about as much plot for the US to kidnap Assange as there was to make Mexico to pay for a wall. Hot air from politicians that just evaporates.
>The lawsuit alleged that the CIA violated their constitutional rights by recording their conversations with Assange and copying their devices after suspicions were raised that Assange was working for the Russian intelligence services.
Recording conversations is not the same as plotting a kidnapping.
> Recording conversations is not the same as plotting a kidnapping.
That is true, but I was replying to OP who said such a thing never happened, when it is clear they did, including the CIA hiring a 3rd party firm to monitor Assange via illeagal methods.
This Yahoo News investigation, based on conversations with more than 30 former U.S. officials — eight of whom described details of the CIA’s proposals to abduct Assange — reveals for the first time one of the most contentious intelligence debates of the Trump presidency and exposes new details about the U.S. government’s war on WikiLeaks. It was a campaign spearheaded by Pompeo that bent important legal strictures, potentially jeopardized the Justice Department’s work toward prosecuting Assange, and risked a damaging episode in the United Kingdom, the United States’ closest ally.
The CIA declined to comment. Pompeo did not respond to requests for comment.
Additionally later on accusations of a plot to assaninate Assange became prominent too. These allegations were presented and detailed in court last month by Assanges legal team. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-68344106 (ctrl-f assassinate).
We did kill that top Iranian general out of the blue under Pompeo's watch, same time frame. So it's hard to say other assassination plots were just hot air and would never be acted out.
Administrations and agencies actively+eagerly seeking methods to deliver revenge to Assange in the form of kidnapping and assassination - this is also not extradition.
Yes, it is considered a cardinal sin to discredit authority through embarrassment. It may not be an official crime, but they will make it feel that way. This isn't unique to governments. Try discrediting any authority figure with embarassment (parent, teacher, manager, police) and watch what happens. The result somewhat irrational and ego driven, but it's relatively consistent.
most effective way of dissent is to ridicule and embarrass them. Why bother with challenging or "debunking" their lies when you can just make fun of them.
sadly Assange was not a "funny man" and totally lacked the gift of humor. So the only tool he had was his rightousness coupled with his will to embarrass.
Sadly for him he is a self obsessed and attention seeking cretin. Would he have had any charisma or the gift of humor the outrage of what was done against him would be a lot bigger. One can only dream of the damage that could have been done against these criminals in the US and Britain (and the EU) by somebody who knows how to package these things into better. The raggedy Wikileaks outlet was never going to be capable of this. A shame because anyone who believes in civil rights all over the world deserves better.
You know that's not true because if the US govt were what you seem to allege (extradites and arrests mere critics) then you wouldn't be safe to post this here.
It's also a national pastime to crap on the government. Are you not aware that thousands of reporters and millions of people embarrass the US government every day?
You appear to have a different definition of "embarrass the government" than I do. Embarrassing a government is an action that they are willing to kill people over (like reporters). There's a big difference between leaking state secrets that materially harms the government and poking fun at them. One will get you disappeared and tortured-not-tortured, the other is a useful distraction.
Lions don't attack every animal that sets foot on their turf.
The release of "Collateral Murder" damaged public opinion of the US invasion of Iraq and US foreign policy in general. If journalists embarrass the US government by telling them their nose looks funny, Assange embarrassed them by pulling their pants down at the half time show at the Superbowl.
Knowingly handling stolen (secret) property is still a crime. It's not about the embarrassment. If he only released the infamous helicopter attack or specific "criminal" documents, that'd be one thing. However, he dumped the entire diplomatic communications (among other stuff) that literally put people's jobs, careers, and even lives in jeopardy who were doing nothing illegal, immoral, or wrong. Most of the dumped data was mundane, but still classified.
Embarrassing leaks have happened many times (pentagon papers*, watergate, Iran–Contra affair among others) and the leakers didn't go to jail
Even worse his ego took over and wikileaks became the julian assange show; he reminded me of every cult leader I've ever seen. He's now experiencing FAFO for his arrogance.
*Though the gov't tried to charge Ellsberg with stealing/releasing classified data, the fact that he was highly selective is what saved him from jail time.
A mid-level diplomat in some authoritarian country writing a blunt opinion/analysis of its government's possibly dangerous leaders is not spying on every American.
That's my original point. Assange/Wikileaks made little, if any, distinction between an American mid-level diplomat that's stationed at an embassy sending intel on the mistresses, corruption, or misdeeds of the local leadership and the genuine terrible things that were covered up and arguably should have been leaked.
Leaking government misdeeds is whistle-blowing and has legal and moral justifications (and when wikileaks first arrived on the scene I was 100% supportive of it). Leaking troves of generic government data that's unrelated to any misdeeds, is a crime. Assange, for a host of reasons, decided to do the latter and is now in a FAFO situation.
The leaks Assange provided proved a great deal of willing and intentional illegal activity by the government. It exposed several instances of officials lying to congress, it exposed a spying program that is not only unconstitutional but wiretapping in that manner is itself illegal.
Nobody went to jail. The only people who go to jail for government malfeasance are the people who expose it (Manning, Snowden). That is nonsense, We can all just ignore the "rule of law" if that's how its going to be.
> For the crime of reporting information that embarrassed the US government.
let me fix it:
For reporting on a bunch of war criminals sitting in a shipping container in Nevada drone striking brown combatants.
also let's not forget that what we see here is propaganda at its best. Anyone in InfoSec in the West who has in 2012 been outraged by what Snowden revealed, and by what Wikileaks helped publish, has meanwhile condemned the whistleblowers and sided with the terrorists in Washington.
Americans are the most propagandized[1][2] people on the planet, and compared to Russians living under Putin, or Chinese under Xi, ... they're totally oblivious to it.
As Jacques Ellul says[3], well made propaganda is invisible to the person who are the target of it (while usually visible to everyone else).
At the very least, I see him now as a warning to others that powerful state actors are happy to use free-information advocates as pawns in their agenda to destabilize their opponents.
Wrecklessly and without simple redaction, in such a way that very well might have resulted in the deaths of US officials. And highly questionable selective publishing.
I think the guy is getting fucked over in this unfairly, but let's not pretend he has released information to a reasonable standard.
All of this is over the Manning leaks, where Assange tried to go over the documents with the US government so he could do a responsible disclosure. The US refused.
He then got a team of journalists together to sift through the documents to make sure things were properly disclosed. Some Guardian journalists then published the encryption keys in a book.
I seem to recall the Journalists had an argument with Assange over the leaking. The Journalists wanted to take their time and carefully filter out any info that was not necessary such as informants identities. Assange wanted to get the stuff out as quickly as possible perhaps out of fear of being stopped before it was released.
Snowden's mistake was revealing himself. He should've done what the Panama Papers leaker did.
>seem to recall the Journalists had an argument with Assange over the leaking.
After the keys had already leaked, there was a disagreement whether Wikileaks should continue their plan of slowly publishing things as they went through them or dump everything since it was already in the public.
But before "the Journalists" leaked the keys, Assange was in charge of a massive undertaking to sort through the documents for responsible disclosure.
there is something to be said about quoting human rights orgs when the country in question does not agree to hold it's own soldiers and generals accountable under these same orgs
When I served in Afghanistan the locals would tip us off about ambushes or IEDs. Should those people be killed for warning us and potentially saving my life?
I think your point is fully valid. I would balance it with the notion that they (people undertaking huge personal risk) would be better protected - if there was less natural pressure to acquire/release info that gets over-classified to protect political interests.¹
Stated otherwise, if US Gov could be relied on to honor it's ethical obligations to taxpayers and release the entirety of info that it ought, I argue that fewer unqualified people would feel responsibility to take that upon themselves.
> Reporters Without Borders, a press freedom group which had been maintaining a backup version of the WikiLeaks site, revoked its support for the whistleblowing site in the wake of the decision.
> "Some of the new cables have reportedly not been redacted and show the names of informants in various countries, including Israel, Jordan, Iran and Afghanistan," it said in a statement. "While it has not been demonstrated that lives have so far been put in danger by these revelations, the repercussions they could have for informants, such as dismissal, physical attacks and other reprisals, cannot be neglected."
> The letter from five human-rights groups sparked a tense exchange in which WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange issued a tart challenge for the organizations to help with the massive task of removing names from thousands of documents, according to several of the organizations that signed the letter. The exchange shows how WikiLeaks and Mr. Assange risk being isolated from some of their most natural allies in the wake of the documents' publication.
> The human-rights groups involved are Amnesty International; Campaign for Innocent Victims in Conflict, or CIVIC; Open Society Institute, or OSI, the charitable organization funded by George Soros ; Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission; and the Kabul office of International Crisis Group, or ICG.
> “We are deeply concerned that WikiLeaks decided to make public the names of diplomatic sources who may face reprisals by oppressive governments,” said Elisa Massimino, president of Human Rights First, an independent nonprofit organization.
> "We fear the names could create new targets", Nader Nadery, the president of the AIHRC, told the French news agency AFP.
> The WikiLeaks editor, Julian Assange, replied to the letter by asking the groups concerned to help WikiLeaks redact the names. He also threatened to expose Amnesty if it refused to provide staff to help with the task, according to the Wall Street Journal.
Assange "threatened to expose Amnesty" International?
To me it seems that Assange was not pursuing some noble cause, but was on some kind of vendetta, given all the (collateral?) damage he was causing to others.
(Generally I knew of him, given he often made headlines, but have never really dug into the details.)
Of course he wants to affect political outcomes. Is that not the entire point? The US is committing war crimes, why would he _not_ want this to change?
Also, how would unbiased reporting on war crimes look like?
Lastly, does "having an agenda", whatever that might mean to you, change anything about the facts that were presented? Does it make the crimes the US is committing any less severe?
Firstly, your comment makes absolutely no sense at all. Are you genuinely asking whether the US has committed war crimes in Iraq?
The treatment of prisoners in the Abu Ghraib prison is a war crime. The raping of 14-year-old Abeer Qassim Hamza al-Janabi is a war crime. The subsequent killing of her and her family is a war crime. The Haditha massacre is a war crime. And these are just _some_ of the most well-known ones.
Also, Collateral Murder is not any less gruesome, just because it isn't "terrible enough to be a war crime". That is absurd and dangerous thinking. In the very least, the actions shown, especially the attack on the van, can, without a doubt, be classified as murder. Murder is a crime, and the people who commit crimes should be held accountable for them.
