Difference being that Lind is a civilian. Manning is a volunteer in the armed services. He took an extra oath to defend the Constitution of the United States of America. The only question is if he defended it from a domestic threat (the U.S. Gov't) or whether he committed straight treason. If he'd been a civilian, I'd say time served and thanks for exposing a security flaw. As a member of the service, he was entrusted to keep the secrets which he revealed. It's not clear cut, but if he really thought that info needed to get out, he should have release just what he determined was important for everyone to hear rather than the dump he gave. I never heard anything from the documents that warranted what he did (I don't buy that he put people in any more danger than they'd already been in, but that's part of the point; nothing he realeased was all that important). He may have thought that he was doing good, but he was sloppy. I'd hate to encourage our armed services members to commit treason without a damn sight better reason that those leaks. As it stands, a rope is what he deserves.

Nail head, direct hit.

Of course, this makes Indiana the 41st state to take this interpretation of the law (it was a state supreme court ruling, not a law passing). 40 others already make it illegal to resist or interfere with a police officer even when they are doing something illegal like kicking in the door without a warrant.

I'd be at the rally in Indy next Wednesday, but the economy is so bad out here in Indiana that I can't afford to take the time off from work. Let alone for political purposes. How's that for living in a police state? Keep 'em scared enough economically, socially, and of the cops themselves to do anything about it.

Shit, this actually has me agreeing with the teabaggers out here. How bad can a law be to make me do that?

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/chibrknews-ind-ruling-on-illegal-police-entry-sparks-protest-20110519,0,4882870.story

Gotta disagree with this. Netflix prices have only been going up, and it seems to be due to the cost of streaming content. I've never found the streaming selection useful and the video quality is generally just not up to par. I subscribe for access to Blu-ray and DVDs and wish they would offer a disk only plan without the streaming costs. I've actually just put my plan on hold and am thinking about canceling due to the price levels...

Save this post somewhere. In 2-5 years look back in on it and laugh that you thought paying $10-$20 for all that Netflix offers was expensive. Between the facts that Netflix is an incredible value for all the legal content you get, that on even a 1Mb/s pipe it looks great, and that in a few years we won't be able to find a deal remotely in the ballpark that we're getting now, your post will make me cry then.

Thank you sir.

True, they'll probably go out of business in many locations. But will that open the door for the small bookseller to move back in? It's now time for big retailers to adapt or die like they used to love to tell the mom and pop shops to do.

~Stop talking sense man! People might hear you and learn that they can live without the latest gadgets, or even realize that they don't need the highest levels of all services available to them. If that happens their bank accounts might fill up, their anxiety might go down, and they won't have to use shopping/services as a security blanket in their unfulfilled lives. Stop trying to undo 100 years of marketing already!~

And to whoever modded you off-topic, forget them. The hardest thing about railing against corporations which screw us: learning that it's not rape when we're helping them.

I've read a lot about it. . .

Finish reading, and start living now. Ever think that the poor people who feel that they have to go m2f are taking charge? How much must you feel that you simply are a certain way to take charge with a step like that? Go out and meet some people. I've never known a gay person who thought it was cool when they realized what was going on in their head, only people who've dealt with their situation better or worse; it's gotta be bad enough to know that large parts of society will never accept them, please don't make it worse by telling them to will themselves a way that they aren't.

It was one of those rare cases where I was glad to see the advertisement

Isn't that the point of all this? That it's the rare exception that tracking is useful to anybody?

Anecdote time! Just before checking slashdot today I took a second to read the fine print in my local cable company's latest ad for cable internet access. On all plans 2-year contracts are required. Period. Can't get internet otherwise through them. Oh, and they are the only cable provider in the county.

The other half of the story is this... The banks gave out loans that they knew had very little chance of ever being repaid and then sold those bad loans off to the unwary as fast as they could. Legal does not equal ethical. Remember that, and you'll know why people are so pissed at the banks. If they were in it to make an ethical buck, then they could have still made those loans, kept the risk, then re-mortgaged people who were in trouble at more favorable (to the borrower), but less profitable terms (for the owner of the loan), which would have still made the banks (less) money AND kept people in their homes. Instead, the banks chose to foreclose, as that way they could charge the people they sold the bad loans to for administering the foreclosure, not have to worry about losing the principle or interest on the loans, and leaving borrowers bankrupt and homeless. Sure, the people who took those loans shouldn't have, but if only one party, ie the banks, had done the right thing at any step of the way, everyone could have still come out of this without it having been half as bad as it's been.

That's the thing; I'm sure that there's way more than one leak in their dam. If wikileaks managed to get a hold of this information, why would anyone believe that every intelligence agency on the planet didn't already have all this information? I'm perplexed at the persecution that wikileaks has faced over this cable release as all they really did was expose the U.S. government's inability to keep classified information out of the hands of, well, anyone and everyone. I mean, the government would try to shift the focus away from their failure, but do people really not get that this info has probably been in the hands of every enemy we have for a good long time?

The system is broken. We can either fix it or try to blow smoke about the "terrorist organization" that let us all know how glaringly lax our security is. I guess now that our government is locking useful information away from every one who does need it, we know if they are concerned with keeping us safe or keeping themselves from being embarrassed.

No shit, Sherlock. Of course it'd cause them to suffer!

Did you honestly think that I felt the need to point out that people being robbed would suffer? The person doing the taking would suffer too is the point, duh.

Somalia? Exaggerate much? Or do you just not know what it's really like in a failed state? The U.S. is still (by far) the largest producer anywhere, let alone per capita. We're not quite the powerhouse that we were, but fear mongering and looking for excuses to act like uncivilized gangsters will only hasten the decline.

The ones who will suffer the least will be those with the most guns and ammunition, because they can simply take food and water from those who don't.

Seriously?

If you don't think that taking life-sustaining goods from another human would cause a person to suffer, then I pity you. The one great lesson of history is that those who take in the way that you've described (kings, despots, lunatics) wind up very unhappy, alone, and, for lack of a better descriptor, soulless. Suffering takes many more forms than hunger and thirst.

While I hate the RIAA (passionately might I add) and even more the how the US govt. has handled the prosecution of piracy, there is a very valid argument to be made that the over-all sum of pirated goods (software and music are just the start) does add up in to the hundreds of millions of dollars and Uncle Sam wants his taxes on it. In a cash strapped time like now every penny counts and national security is a money hog.

Then why are they supporting the MPAA in this instance? We're talking about the industry that used Forest Gump as a tax write-off as their accountants jiggered the numbers to make it look like they lost money on the movie. Oh, or was that only after the "donations" went out? They're the first "citizens" to protect...

Look, I don't think people should copy illegally. I've advocated again and again that if you don't like the company or product then you should just not use that product. I really don't like the counterfeit goods dealers as they hurt both the companies and the purchasers. But we have tons of laws, and only those without bucket-fulls of cash have to follow them. Someone copies 25 songs? Millions in fines. Someone fraudulently uses my credit card number (proportionately & absolutely much higher damage)? Here's a report number, give it to your credit card company and have a nice day. Some people are upset that their toys are being taken away, many more of us are upset that society has swung so far back toward having laws applied based not on fairness but on money.