So, they idea is: if a leak makes the US government look bad then it must be the real deal, but if it may serve the US government in some way then we have to suspect that it has been planted?

Nice judgement you have there.

This reminds me of what is going on with the leaks which state that the Government of Israel had notified both the Egyptian Government and the Palestinian Fatah before attacking the Gaza Strip during operation Cast Lead in 2008, mainly against Hammas (and thus making the Fatah look bad to the Palestinians). The international press is giving much more voice to those denying the leak than it gives to leaks which bring discomfort the US government.

I asked myself the same thing. If they are selecting what to release, in what order, and how much noise to make for each release, then it would look like they have a reason to privilege certain leaks, or even hide leaks they went through and decided not to publish (which is far more dangerous).

IMHO it is too much power in the hands of a single organization and that rarely brings anything good in the long run.

I highly doubt he hasn't the support of some government or even big companies around the world who would love to see their rivals (be it political or economical) going down. It is highly unlikely he has no secret agenda.

Reason gets to pick, for Christ's sake. They should have released documents which reveal crimes, misconduct, torture, etc. They should have not disclosed documents which reveal internal reports and assessments of other governments, internal relations and legitimate negotiations between the US and other nations.

Having privileged information doesn't mean having to disclosed it. Unless one is using it as evidence to uncover, accuse and ultimately trial said crimes, disclosing it is pure sabotage and high treason.

I completely second you. I've posted a few comments with a similar point of view but I was not this eloquent. WikiLeaks has definitely disappointed me on this one. People will suffer for their recklessness. People, not governments.

You, sir, have gone too far. You take that back, and take it now.

From a geekish point of view the idea is pretty neat. Who wouldn't like a bonsai lamp on his desk?

But using such a technology in public trees to replace street lights? Doesn't sound too good for me. What about the animals which dwell on the trees? Not only birds and squirrels, but also invertebrates, reptiles and other small mammals which have nocturnal life and depended on the absence of light to feed, to hunt, to reproduce, to be hunted, etc. This isn't Middle-Earth, they haven't evolved for an environment where leaves give off luminous glow.

Changing the environment (for worst) is not restricted to dumping tons of CO2 on the atmosphere. People haven't got that yet?

Interesting to know. Originally it was used in the same way as it is used in Spanish, meaning joy or pleasure (when a noun). In Brazilian Portuguese it has acquired the sexual connotation besides the usual meanings. Funny thing is that I just discovered that gozo means sweet in Basque.

Phonetically gosu sounds identical to the Portuguese word "gozo", which literally means cum (as in ejaculation).

s/history/story/

The interesting thing about this flick is that it actually has a history -- weak as it may be, I've seen worse in regular movies. The DVD even includes a 30 minutes long non-porn version of the movie in which all the porn scenes have been cut off.

This non-porn version is probably just a reordering of the DVD chapters by excluding the porn chapters, but nonetheless it's pretty interesting, it really captures the spirits of the original series.

This is nothing compared to Fringe's typewriter hacked to communicate with a parallel universe through a mirror.

Those results are from google.com. The Brazilian TLD for Google is google.com.br. I just did a quick search on both now and for the .com TLD I got 52.7% vs 47.3% for Rousseff, and for the .com.br TLD 54% vs 46%. Official polls run by several different media agencies were giving Rousseff with 60%+ of valid votes.

On the first turn of our major elections, when we voted for Senators, Governors and Congressmen, something similar happened. For my state a certain Senator candidate had 17% on previous public surveys and it was ranking 3rd. After the results were out he was elected with 36% and he was the 1st.

Here in Brazil such surveys and predictions are quite dangerous, to some extent they are used as manipulative tools. Most people are unfortunately uneducated and ignorant in issues concerning politics and economy and those people are likely to vote on the candidate which seems to be winning, just so they don't "lose" their vote (yes, this is not an uncommon reasoning around here, insane as it may sound). Worst of all perhaps is the fact that we are obliged to vote, it is an imposed duty. Our democracy is still an infant, and I think we are yet to reach adolescence. Some rough years to come.

The winner is out, and it is Rousseff with 55.65% vs. 44.35% from Serra. Google got closer than any other prediction.

Today Brazilians are electing their new President. It is the second turn of our elections so we get to choose between the two candidates for the presidential chair which were most voted in the first turn that occurred one month ago.

The candidates are Jose Serra (current opposition) and Dilma Rousseff (candidate supported by the current President). According to a simple "volumetric" serach on Google, Serra has 47% and Rousseff has 53%. These predictions are somewhat similar to what polls and public opinion surveys have been showing (reckoning only the valid votes). Tonight we will have the final results and I will be amazed if this Google prediction so to speak turns out to be more accurate than official polls.