False. QOS is pretty much useless unless it's respected by the ISP. Where QOS matters most is the at the point of congestion, which is usually the last mile. For QOS to work properly, it should be respected by the ISP.

Maybe he did. The defense could have leaked it as easily as the prosecution. It doesn't make him look that bad, (except in bed). The biggest loser from the post is Assange's sex life, as it's now in international news that's he's a dud root, and a douche to the women he sleeps with. Yeah, he'll have an easy time getting laid from here on out. But it doesn't really hurt the case, it might even end up helping him.

iPhone and Android make money by spying on you. DOD wants to reprogram their OS to make that impossible, and they said no. They won't even let the DOD have a secure version of their OS, because their OS are inherently insecure.

No way, just don't accept the same packet from the same IP more than once per second. The firewall rule would be a little more complex, but there are definite differences between Ddos packets and legitimate packets that a properly configured firewall should be able to detect.

Join Iceweasel?

Loser pays means poor people can't afford to sue rich people, because they won't be able to afford an expensive lawyer like the rich person can (so they're less likely to win) and the if they lose the risk is a lot higher for them. It's not a big deal for Google to pay for Boring's lawyer, but the other way around is a big deal. It would create a strong disincentive for little people to sue mega-corporations, even when the mega-corporation was clearly in the wrong, and it wouldn't cut down on senseless lawsuits by wealthy people/corporations because they could afford to pay for the other sides lawyer. Forcing the side with more income/assets to pay for the other sides lawyer, if they initiated the case and lost, makes sense.

False, "when committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against a civilian population" only refers to genocide, not all crimes against humanity.

What went on at Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib are crimes against humanity. Waterboarding qualifies as "inflicting severe pain and suffering" no matter how you cut it.

Article 7: Crimes against humanity

1. For the purpose of this Statute, "crime against humanity" means any of the following acts when committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population, with knowledge of the attack:
                        (e) Imprisonment or other severe deprivation of physical liberty in violation of fundamental rules of international law;
                        (f) Torture;
                        (i) Enforced disappearance of persons;
                        (k) Other inhumane acts of a similar character intentionally causing great suffering, or serious injury to body or to mental or physical health.
2. For the purpose of paragraph 1:
                        (e) "Torture" means the intentional infliction of severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, upon a person in the custody or under the control of the accused; except that torture shall not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to, lawful sanctions;
                        (i) "Enforced disappearance of persons" means the arrest, detention or abduction of persons by, or with the authorization, support or acquiescence of, a State or a political organization, followed by a refusal to acknowledge that deprivation of freedom or to give information on the fate or whereabouts of those persons, with the intention of removing them from the protection of the law for a prolonged period of time.

Article 8: War crimes

1. The Court shall have jurisdiction in respect of war crimes in particular when committed as part of a plan or policy or as part of a large-scale commission of such crimes.
2. For the purpose of this Statute, "war crimes" means:
                        (a) Grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, namely, any of the following acts against persons or property protected under the provisions of the relevant Geneva Convention:
                                        (ii) Torture or inhuman treatment, including biological experiments;
                                        (vi) Wilfully depriving a prisoner of war or other protected person of the rights of fair and regular trial;
                                        (vii) Unlawful deportation or transfer or unlawful confinement;
                        (b) Other serious violations of the laws and customs applicable in international armed conflict, within the established framework of international law, namely, any of the following acts:
                                        (v) Attacking or bombarding, by whatever means, towns, villages, dwellings or buildings which are undefended and which are not military objectives;
                                        (xiv) Declaring abolished, suspended or inadmissible in a court of law the rights and actions of the nationals of the hostile party;
                                        (xxi) Committing outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment;

We hire politicians to be upfront and honest. We don't hire them to be two faced.

Wrong. We hire politicians to please the greatest number of people possible, and that requires being two-faced. Once you accept that, politics starts making sense.

No, no one who doesn't have a warrant has the right to know if I'm calling the local pharmacy, my mistress, or a local drug dealer. And this would include the content of the transmission, not just to/from information.

Warrantless wiretapping isn't OK, even if it's just done by corporations.

Could anyone imagine the uproar if phone companies let telemarketers listen to your calls to find out what kind you products to market to you? This would give ISPs the ability to that to non-encrypted voip calls.

I couldn't imagine a cell phone or land-line phone company getting away with that.

I drink beer. Sometimes just one in the evening, sometimes I go out and get drunk. Going out with friends is great too.

Check the "am I reading bullshit on the internet meter".

1) Is this plausible? No, not financially, or politically.
2) Does this link to credible sources? No, it links to nothing.

When someone says something implausible, and doesn't source it on the internet, it's probably not true.

People in the US wouldn't put up with it either. Hell, they don't even do this is Israel. This "article" is entirely unsourced bullshit.

I can't think of a faster way to shut down New York City. The traffic is always so bad you can't drive, so everyone takes the subway to work, home, grocery shopping... There is no way people would wait in line to be scanned, if they did you'd have millions of people who suddenly had 1+ hours added to their already long commute, you would make traffic worse, so the delay would affect everyone whether they drove or took the train.

You don't even have to go through a metal detector to get on the subway - maybe they'll start that first. A part of me isn't even opposed to metal detectors on subways (besides the delay it would cause), because disarming criminals on subways would probably cut down on other crimes, and make subways safer for women, and people carrying cash or laptops (so long as they don't make you take your laptop out, or show if you're carrying something valuable).

There is no way they're going to use body scanners in places they don't even use metal detectors now.