If you need assistance, please send an email to forum at 4hv dot org. To ensure your email is not marked as spam, please include the phrase "4hv help" in the subject line. You can also find assistance via IRC, at irc.shadowworld.net, room #hvcomm.
Support 4hv.org!
Donate:
4hv.org is hosted on a dedicated server. Unfortunately, this server costs and we rely on the help of site members to keep 4hv.org running. Please consider donating. We will place your name on the thanks list and you'll be helping to keep 4hv.org alive and free for everyone. Members whose names appear in red bold have donated recently. Green bold denotes those who have recently donated to keep the server carbon neutral.
Special Thanks To:
Aaron Holmes
Aaron Wheeler
Adam Horden
Alan Scrimgeour
Andre
Andrew Haynes
Anonymous000
asabase
Austin Weil
barney
Barry
Bert Hickman
Bill Kukowski
Blitzorn
Brandon Paradelas
Bruce Bowling
BubeeMike
Byong Park
Cesiumsponge
Chris F.
Chris Hooper
Corey Worthington
Derek Woodroffe
Dalus
Dan Strother
Daniel Davis
Daniel Uhrenholt
datasheetarchive
Dave Billington
Dave Marshall
David F.
Dennis Rogers
drelectrix
Dr. John Gudenas
Dr. Spark
E.TexasTesla
eastvoltresearch
Eirik Taylor
Erik Dyakov
Erlend^SE
Finn Hammer
Firebug24k
GalliumMan
Gary Peterson
George Slade
GhostNull
Gordon Mcknight
Graham Armitage
Grant
GreySoul
Henry H
IamSmooth
In memory of Leo Powning
Jacob Cash
James Howells
James Pawson
Jeff Greenfield
Jeff Thomas
Jesse Frost
Jim Mitchell
jlr134
Joe Mastroianni
John Forcina
John Oberg
John Willcutt
Jon Newcomb
klugesmith
Leslie Wright
Lutz Hoffman
Mads Barnkob
Martin King
Mats Karlsson
Matt Gibson
Matthew Guidry
mbd
Michael D'Angelo
Mikkel
mileswaldron
mister_rf
Neil Foster
Nick de Smith
Nick Soroka
nicklenorp
Nik
Norman Stanley
Patrick Coleman
Paul Brodie
Paul Jordan
Paul Montgomery
Ped
Peter Krogen
Peter Terren
PhilGood
Richard Feldman
Robert Bush
Royce Bailey
Scott Fusare
Scott Newman
smiffy
Stella
Steven Busic
Steve Conner
Steve Jones
Steve Ward
Sulaiman
Thomas Coyle
Thomas A. Wallace
Thomas W
Timo
Torch
Ulf Jonsson
vasil
Vaxian
vladi mazzilli
wastehl
Weston
William Kim
William N.
William Stehl
Wesley Venis
The aforementioned have contributed financially to the continuing triumph of 4hv.org. They are deserving of my most heartfelt thanks.
... not Russel! Registered Member #1
Joined: Thu Jan 26 2006, 12:18AM
Location: Tempe, Arizona
Posts: 1052
Ash Small wrote ...
Thanks for clarifying this Chris. I'd been holding back a bit as I'm new here and didn't want to offend the 'powers that be'.
I'm used to American run websites generally having a more 'conservative' opinion.
I think I'll stick around for a while.
Quite welcome. I should note that my personal opinions don't reflect 4hv.org's stance as a whole. I consider the site itself to be politically neutral -- this thread is just a way of allowing us to blow off some steam with others in the hobby. Opinions that do not match with my own are perfectly welcome, so long as they are in line with the board rules (no pseudoscience, no trolls/flames, no calls for violence, etc). You don't have to worry about having different opinions, so long as you can state them respectfully.
The only time political discussion gets quashed around here is when it becomes so contentious that the benefit of open discussion outweighs the harm being done to the community. Issues like gun control, abortion, religion, etc tend to spiral out of control very quickly. Fortunately everyone on both sides of this discussion is being courteous, so hopefully it can continue. I personally find it interesting and helpful to read everyone's opinions of the matter, as even people that I disagree with can be helpful in illuminating different facets to consider.
Sadly, I should also note that there are a number of people on the forum that have security clearances or are interested in obtaining security clearances. There have been warnings that postings about Wikileaks could be detrimental during a background check, so they probably will not be participating in this thread.
Registered Member #3353
Joined: Sat Oct 23 2010, 11:21PM
Location: Greece
Posts: 90
Chris, I agree with you 99%, you got to the root of the problem with "I doubt very many people are willing to inconvenience themselves to support a cause", even though ironically by doing nothing we cause a gread deal of "inconvenience" both to us and the future generations. We are programmed to behave in a certain way and our actions were "predicted" by specialists long before advertisers and marketing experts joined the party.
Anyone knows about the Milgram experiment? It has to do with electricity, give it a read. Wikipedia video related
However, i disagree with you about the power of the vote and how much we will (and not theoretically can) change. Just think that this is exactly what people are believing for over 200 years, still things are always getting worst by the year. Yes, i know i am on the pessimist side, but are you on the realistic side? The only thing that is made all this years is maybe stopping a few things from happening and maybe slowing the rate things are getting worse. Oh, and maybe a few dictatorships came doen, but this only because they did not "do it right", as you can see by the still standing dictatorships if you manipulate people the right way and you don't have any big countries as enemies, no kind of public and even world wide protests will change anything.
As for voting, you have only so many choices and let's face it, usually only 2 or 3 are the parties that have a chance to win. That is a choice between "really bad", "worst" and "Oh not this guy!". OK, so i voted for a almost unknown 0.001% voted party, but even though Greeks are very,very angry with the former and current administration still most of the people voted "white vote" (better than past years of voting liars, but still changes nothing). So we here we are again, at "I doubt very many people are willing to inconvenience themselves to support a cause". And you know why? Because the "threshold" that must be broken to get the mass of the people to take serious action, is something like "80% of the people starving", 70% won't do, at 70% we are just in a "extremely angy but still do nothing" state. That is why nothing is done all this years, if all of the people are together it means the country in a terrible, terrible state, broke, at war with someone and so on, so it is too late.
So call me a pessimist, but i think that even though theoretically we could change the world tomorrow, realistically unless some kind of miracle happens, we will not...
Edit:
Chris Russell wrote ...
Sadly, I should also note that there are a number of people on the forum that have security clearances or are interested in obtaining security clearances. There have been warnings that postings about Wikileaks could be detrimental during a background check, so they probably will not be participating in this thread.
Registered Member #3414
Joined: Sun Nov 14 2010, 05:05PM
Location: UK
Posts: 4245
Chris Russell wrote ...
.Sadly, I should also note that there are a number of people on the forum that have security clearances or are interested in obtaining security clearances. There have been warnings that postings about Wikileaks could be detrimental during a background check, so they probably will not be participating in this thread.
I probably shouldn't post now, as I'm most of the way through my second bottle of wine this evening, but I've refused to sign the 'official secrets act' on more than one occasion, and still got the job. I've always refused to apply for security clearance, even though I'm patriotic. The situation isn't quite so straightforward since 9/11, but I still won't 'sign away my rights' for the sake of a job. (I still have my principles)
I do, however, appreciate that you do allow proper debate, as long as it is respectful.
... not Russel! Registered Member #1
Joined: Thu Jan 26 2006, 12:18AM
Location: Tempe, Arizona
Posts: 1052
Tesla Fan wrote ...
However, i disagree with you about the power of the vote and how much we will (and not theoretically can) change. Just think that this is exactly what people are believing for over 200 years, still things are always getting worst by the year. Yes, i know i am on the pessimist side, but are you on the realistic side? The only thing that is made all this years is maybe stopping a few things from happening and maybe slowing the rate things are getting worse. Oh, and maybe a few dictatorships came doen, but this only because they did not "do it right", as you can see by the still standing dictatorships if you manipulate people the right way and you don't have any big countries as enemies, no kind of public and even world wide protests will change anything.
I think we're more or less on the same page; I'm not overly optimistic about the power of the vote, in truth. I just feel like it is the best tool available to those who are otherwise unable or unwilling to act, for various reasons. I think that the vote still has power, though I agree that much of that power has been neutered by having just two or three serious parties to choose from in many countries. The limited number of parties keep playing off one another, and generally people are left with voting for the least bad choice, rather than one that could realistically be called best. So long as we remain locked into such a system, little will change IMO. I think that's where the gap between what we can change and what we will change lies.
If change is to come from voting, I think it will be very gradual (maybe years, but probably decades). To my mind, the first step will be campaign finance reform. So long as wealthy individuals and corporations are allowed to prop up candidates that they find most favorable, there will be little chance of positive change. A few areas in the US have undergone rather serious campaign finance reform, and while it is still far from perfect, the major parties are starting to face stiff competition (and even some losses) from minor parties and even independent candidates. Perhaps I'm being a bit optimistic, but if this trend continues, it seems it could dramatically change things for the better.
I guess my point with all this is to not give up. I agree that the situation seems hopeless, but much of what's going on now is permitted not by ignorant voters, but by apathetic citizens. Would change come about faster if everyone took to the streets in acts of nonviolent protest/civil disobedience? Certainly. Will there ever be more than a small fraction of the population that is both willing and able to take part? Doubtful. I am hoping that those who cannot take dramatic action to effect change won't give up, though, and will work to effect change in the ways that they are able. Even simple acts like keeping oneself and one's friends and neighbors aware of and engaged in the political process (even if their viewpoints are opposed to your own) can have a dramatic effect, given enough time.
Registered Member #1221
Joined: Wed Jan 09 2008, 06:17PM
Location: Odense, Denmark
Posts: 196
Chris
"It is entirely within the realm of possibility that these attacks are being carried out as a means to portray Wikileaks supporters as fanatical, or dangerous." I hadnt actually considered that option, but I supose it is possiable that someone else is behind the attacks, however none of us here can know for sure, so it is still also "entirely in the realm of possibility" that wikileaks did it. Therefor I think its abit early to call it a falsehood, however I cant prove its correct what I said, but you cant prove its wrong either.. kind of a deadend isnt it. Either way I just *assumed* they were behind it as I often find those anti-goverment organisations to be rather rebelous and "trigger happy".
"Ironically, most governments specialize in panic solutions, such as passing a glut of new laws and regulations on the heels of a terrible disaster that inspires national fear or outrage"
Is exactly what I call panic solutions, maybe it is the wrong word but that is what I meant. Something the goverment put in place after a big event (such as the leakage and potential riots) to regain control, aka reducing our freedom further.
About the officer and the armys 50 bucks, I was asked to answer a fictional question and my reply should preferable stay in that context. To the question that followed about what low ranked personell might do, I will choose to refer to my answer to the fictional danish-german war involving queen bollocks and others, in which I stated that I belive it to be a noble act if one simply says what he must and not a word more, and then turn himself in to the authorities and accept his responsibility, without any further inconvinence. In that manner, he proves serval things in my opinion, one he is a gentleman not a rebelous kid, two the infomation is much more "concentrated" and "easier to digest" for the public, meaning that it will probably be understood by more people and have a bigger potential for actually causing a change of things, three he didnt piss off the police by making them look for him and thus might be in for a better treatment than if they had to search for him or even send in the swat teams. Theres a whole list of benefits. And I dont really see any drawbacks other than the majority of present day youth would find it less "romantic" and less "rebelous". I think alot of people simply fight for the "romance" which I think is rather disturbing.
"For example, consider how many states in the US currently have no medical marijuana laws. What is more important in that case, following the letter of the law, or preventing the pain and suffering of a loved one?" How should I possiably come up with some sort of universal answer for that, it depends on the circomstances. If one were actually sick and couldnt get a proper threatment, I dont see how it should damage anything but the health of the user, which would probably be the least worry. But then again, what if the person got caught, then he would be sick and in pain, in jail. Of course buying the weed ilegally (not from a pharmacy, "drug store" kinda sounds wrong in this context )would support the gangs who sell it, which I supose netiher of us here are interested in. Details, detials indeed. Theres more to it than meets the eye, and I dont claim to have seen it all. in case you were wondering.
If there is no way what so ever to bring goverments to justice, what is then the point of this leakage? What is it you think will change, now the public know they lied, instead of just suspecting it.
... not Russel! Registered Member #1
Joined: Thu Jan 26 2006, 12:18AM
Location: Tempe, Arizona
Posts: 1052
GluD wrote ...
"It is entirely within the realm of possibility that these attacks are being carried out as a means to portray Wikileaks supporters as fanatical, or dangerous." I hadnt actually considered that option, but I supose it is possiable that someone else is behind the attacks, however none of us here can know for sure, so it is still also "entirely in the realm of possibility" that wikileaks did it. Therefor I think its abit early to call it a falsehood, however I cant prove its correct what I said, but you cant prove its wrong either.. kind of a deadend isnt it. Either way I just *assumed* they were behind it as I often find those anti-goverment organisations to be rather rebelous and "trigger happy".
In this case, it would fall to you to prove such an allegation, not to me to disprove it. In any case, there are anonymous groups claiming responsibility. They are not acting at the behest of Wikileaks, but are following their own agenda.
GluD wrote ...
Is exactly what I call panic solutions, maybe it is the wrong word but that is what I meant. Something the goverment put in place after a big event (such as the leakage and potential riots) to regain control, aka reducing our freedom further.
I think "panic solutions" is as fair a term as any. Will this leak inspire such actions? Maybe. It's too early to say for sure, but I doubt it. The US doesn't have the power to censor the internet, and its unlikely that very many nations would be willing to cooperate on a national effort to implement censorship of the internet as a result of this leak. It seems more likely that governments will simply guard their data more closely, and may be less willing to play around cloak and dagger diplomacy, which I see as a good thing.
GluD wrote ...
To the question that followed about what low ranked personell might do, I will choose to refer to my answer to the fictional danish-german war involving queen bollocks and others, in which I stated that I belive it to be a noble act if one simply says what he must and not a word more, and then turn himself in to the authorities and accept his responsibility, without any further inconvinence. In that manner, he proves serval things in my opinion, one he is a gentleman not a rebelous kid, two the infomation is much more "concentrated" and "easier to digest" for the public, meaning that it will probably be understood by more people and have a bigger potential for actually causing a change of things, three he didnt piss off the police by making them look for him and thus might be in for a better treatment than if they had to search for him or even send in the swat teams. Theres a whole list of benefits. And I dont really see any drawbacks other than the majority of present day youth would find it less "romantic" and less "rebelous". I think alot of people simply fight for the "romance" which I think is rather disturbing.
I think the drawback is that the person or persons responsible for leaking such information might be imprisoned forever, and possibly executed. I don't think that one should be willing to pay with one's own life or livelihood in order to expose a crime that is being kept secret. In your hypothetical scenario, consider these possible outcomes:
1: A lower-ranked person discovers the dishonest nature of the war, and exposes it. Unfortunately, this information is highly classified, and no media outlets are willing to publish the information for fear of being prosecuted. The attempted leaker goes to jail, and the war continues.
2: A lower-ranked person discovers the dishonest nature of the war, but fortunately there is a Wikileaks equivalent that is willing to publish the information. The leaker then turns himself in. Popular support for the war evaporates and the war ends, but the leaker is sentenced to life in prison for leaking classified information. His sentence may be shortened when the regime which he publicly embarassed is no longer in power, but that might be a long time in the future.
3: A lower-ranked person discovers the dishonest nature of the war, and fortunately there is a Wikileaks equivalent that is willing to publish the information. The leaker remains anonymous. Popular support for the war evaporates and the war ends.
Number one, in which there is no Wikileaks and no anonymity seems like the worst possible outcome. He has information, but nobody willing to distribute it for him, and no realistic way to distribute the information on his own, so his efforts are for naught. Number two is better, but number three seems best. The person in number two might seem more honorable in your eyes, but his life is essentially over. Fewer people will be willing to risk leaking information if outcomes one or two are the most likely.
GluD wrote ...
How should I possiably come up with some sort of universal answer for that, it depends on the circomstances. If one were actually sick and couldnt get a proper threatment, I dont see how it should damage anything but the health of the user, which would probably be the least worry. But then again, what if the person got caught, then he would be sick and in pain, in jail. Of course buying the weed ilegally (not from a pharmacy, "drug store" kinda sounds wrong in this context )would support the gangs who sell it, which I supose netiher of us here are interested in. Details, detials indeed. Theres more to it than meets the eye, and I dont claim to have seen it all. in case you were wondering.
I don't think there is a universal answer for that situation; I'm just posing it as an interesting question. I could easily envision a scenario in which a loved one was unable to eat or rest due to side effects from chemotherapy, side effects which marijuana has proven extremely effective at relieving. In that case it might be better to disregard state and federal law and purchase marijuana from a local grower, or even grow one's own. My point is to illustrate that it is sometimes allowable or even desirable to refuse to follow unjust laws.
GluD wrote ...
If there is no way what so ever to bring goverments to justice, what is then the point of this leakage? What is it you think will change, now the public know they lied, instead of just suspecting it.
As I said, most governments still derive their power from the people they govern. If leaked information reveals, for example, that the war in Afghanistan is going much more poorly than the government is willing to admit, this can lead to a shift in popular opinion that may bring the war to an end. Revealing lies and dishonesty may also cause citizens to be more cautious and ask more questions the next time their government says that war is necessary. The leaks have less to do with bringing anyone to justice, and more to do with informing the populace to that they can make informed choices.
Registered Member #1334
Joined: Tue Feb 19 2008, 04:37PM
Location: Nr. London, UK
Posts: 615
Ash Small wrote ...
I probably shouldn't post now, as I'm most of the way through my second bottle of wine this evening, but I've refused to sign the 'official secrets act' on more than one occasion, and still got the job. I've always refused to apply for security clearance, even though I'm patriotic. The situation isn't quite so straightforward since 9/11, but I still won't 'sign away my rights' for the sake of a job. (I still have my principles)
This is a common misconception.
You are still covered by the Official Secrets Act (1989) whether or not you "sign" a document - the law is the law. The ONLY purpose of asking someone to sign it is to remind them of their obligations under the act - doing so does not add or remove any application of laws.
Registered Member #3414
Joined: Sun Nov 14 2010, 05:05PM
Location: UK
Posts: 4245
Nicko wrote ...
.You are still covered by the Official Secrets Act (1989) whether or not you "sign" a document - the law is the law. The ONLY purpose of asking someone to sign it is to remind them of their obligations under the act - doing so does not add or remove any application of laws.
Cheers
Nicko, once you've signed the OSA you've signed it for life. You are not allowed to say anything against the government, any government, no matter how wrong they may be.
The penalties for leaking information are more severe than if you've not signed it, life imprisonment.
I was reminded of my obligations when I refused to sign it. Comments were also made that I had principles and refused to sign, rather than just signing it and keeping my mouth shut, as anyone with 'alterior motives' would do.
I'm more than aware of my obligations to my country and I'm patriotic, as I said previously, but I still reserve the right to expose corruption rather than be obliged to 'help cover it up'.
This site is powered by e107, which is released under the GNU GPL License. All work on this site, except where otherwise noted, is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 2.5 License. By submitting any information to this site, you agree that anything submitted will be so licensed. Please read our Disclaimer and Policies page for information on your rights and responsibilities regarding this site.
Wikileaks founder Julian Assange arrested in London
