http://www.liveleak.com/browse?q=Pointless Wed, 19 Jun 2013 09:54:49 -0400 Liveleak http://edge.liveleak.com/80281E/u/u/ll2/logo.gif http://www.liveleak.com/browse?q=Pointless Fri, 14 Jun 2013 08:30:56 -0400 http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=690_1371212673 CaptainPugwash From concerns over used games to questions about an always-online requirement, the Xbox One is growing more controversial by the day. Sony's PS4 reveal was met with mixed reactions by most gamers. This was largely due to the system's mixed-bag debut-some things were good, some bad, but mostly it was all a bit lackluster. But at least we saw some games, some new exclusives, and a wide variety of developers and titles ranging from indies to big AAA stuff like the new Killzone. Microsoft's Xbox One reveal was decidedly more controversial, and while I think the new console will have a lot going for it, there is plenty of reason to be concerned. Many of these concerns stem from mixed messages Microsoft is sending to the press and to gamers about what this new console will entail in regard to everything from the internet to used games. We're left to wonder whether this is merely a problem with communication or a much deeper and more worrisome problem with vision. While Sony has made it clear that they'll target the "core" gamer demographic with the PS4, Microsoft's target audience is more nebulous. Now, to the list.... 1. Privacy The Xbox One comes packaged with the next-generation Kinect 2.0. This time around, the Kinect will be more versatile and accurate than the original, measuring everything from your facial expressions to your heart rate. And Microsoft would like as many games as possible to take advantage of it, whether by utilizing its voice commands or its motion detection system. But the next Kinect isn't a "peripheral" gadget. Not by a long shot. The device is a required component of the Xbox One system and you'll need to have it on and connected at all times-always watching, and always listening, to its users. What this means for the games we play is an open question, but it certainly raises privacy concerns. German Federal Data Protection Commissioner, Peter Schaar, has called the always-on Kinect "a twisted nightmare." Having your emotional data-conveyed through heart rate data, facial recognition, and so forth-recorded and stored on Microsoft's servers does seem problematic at the very least. Microsoft (MSFT) vice president Phil Harrison told Eurogamer that this doesn't equate to "snooping." "Microsoft has very, very good policies around privacy," he said. "We're a leader in the world of privacy, I think you'll find. We take it very seriously. We aren't using Kinect to snoop on anybody at all. We listen for the word 'Xbox on' and then switch on the machine, but we don't transmit personal data in any way, shape or form that could be personally identifiable to you, unless you explicitly opt into that." In the age of Facebook and mounting privacy concerns across the tech world, a gadget monitoring your physical, corporeal being at all times is alarming whether or not Microsoft couches it all in anonymity.The Xbox One will use region-locking to lock games down geographically. The reason for this-on any of the many devices and media formats region-locking exists-remains shrouded in the fog of pointless ideas. "Similar to the movie and music industry, games must meet country-specific regulatory guidelines before they are cleared for sale," Microsoft told Digital Trends . "We will continue to work with our partners to follow these guidelines with Xbox One." This is hardly surprising, though it is disappointing, especially for gamers in regions where games are not available thanks to region blocking. When pressed by Polygon Microsoft declined to give any more details. Of course, region-locking is not actually necessary at all. The PS3 has just one game that is region locked out of its entire catalog: Persona 4 Arena. If Sony can create a region-free device, surely Microsoft can do the same. 3. Used Games This is one of the most controversial pieces of the Xbox One puzzle. I admit to being perhaps a little too sanguine about this at first, or at least about reports that Microsoft and game publishers might take a piece of the used game pie from GameStop. The real issue with used games isn't GameStop (whose business model I'm not a fan of) but rather the end-user. According to statements made by Phil Harrison (both at Kotaku and Eurogamer ) the age of used games isn't quite over, but things will never be the same. Basically if you want to lend a game to a friend they can either log into your account to play it for free, or pay for the game (probably at full retail price) if they want to play it on their Xbox Live account. This is because games are no longer really being sold, they're being licensed. The physical disc is just a delivery system, and the "bits on the disc" are not as important as the code downloaded to your hard drive. What Microsoft is doing here is both sensible and a bit ahead of its time. I say "sensible" in that they're basically emulating the digital distribution model already in place on PC with a platform like Steam. If I own a Steam game I can play it on any computer, but if a friend wants to play it they'll need to log into my account to do so.The problem here is that unlike PC, console gamers are used to buying (and then lending or selling or trading in) physical copies of their games. The age of digital distribution and all of its drawbacks and benefits has not arrived for console gamers yet. It will, and Microsoft is sensible enough to anticipate it, but there will be some big bumps along the way. For one thing, while many different digital distribution platforms exist on PC in competition with one another, this is not the case on consoles. Currently there is no real pricing competition between Sony and Microsoft, meaning that the lower prices we often see on a platform like Steam and its competitors, haven't arrived on consoles yet. I believe they will, eventually, when one of these console manufacturers realizes that they can make their system enormously attractive by offering cheaper games than the competition, but we're not there yet. One way Microsoft could really take the sting out of this would be to make digital copies of games cheaper than retail from day one. Another would be to allow for free transfers of game codes, or for a lending system similar to Amazon's Kindle lending (whereby one book at a time can be loaned out to another device.) "The bits that are on the disc, I can give to anybody else, but if we both want to play it at the same time, we both have to own it," Harrison told Eurogamer. "That's no different to how discs operate today." But it is different. If I lend you my game today I certainly couldn't play it at the same time as you, but you could play it to your heart's content without paying and you could keep playing until you give it back to me (or "lose" it.) You can do all of this without logging into my account, which is a huge inconvenience for me, since I'd no longer be able to log into it to play my games, or watch Netflix, etc. One purchase for one game that could be played only by one person at a time is what we have already. What Microsoft is describing is something much more costly to consumers. Microsoft could easily implement a system of game sharing that prevented people from playing at the same time but didn't require separate purchases or account sharing. They could do all of this while still requiring better policies out of used game retailers and still not prevent peer-to-peer transactions. If Microsoft wants to change the used game landscape to pave the way toward digital distribution, they can do so without implementing hugely anti-consumer practices at the same time. Indeed, they have an opportunity to do digital distribution right. There's no reason they can't make buckets of money while still benefiting the consumer. 4. Mostly always-online Harrison told Kotaku that while gamers wouldn't need an online connection 24/7, they would need a connection from time to time to play even offline, single-player games. Harrison indicated that for non-online functions, users would still need to log in once a day. Microsoft, which appears to be in a state of constant damage control lately, responded to their own vice president's statements on used games and an online connection by calling them "potential scenarios." "While Phil discussed many potential scenarios around games on Xbox One, today we have only confirmed that we designed Xbox One to enable our customers to trade in and resell games at retail," the company said. They added that the specific details surrounding when users would need to log on to the internet remains up in the air. "There have been reports of a specific time period," the company said, however "those were discussions of potential scenarios...." Which means we'll have to guess until more details emerge. Again, it's perfectly sensible for Microsoft to embrace the cloud and reap its benefits. Consumers stand to gain all sorts of convenience from cloud-based computing, whether that's a steady stream of updates and new content or saving games across devices. Microsoft can provide better services and possibly even some server-side muscle to video games. But there's absolutely no reason to force consumer participation. Make a service attractive enough and get consumer buy-in, but don't force an ecosystem that your core consumer base finds repellent. Most consumers will happily log into the internet and remain logged in all the time and will enjoy the services and benefits the cloud provides. But some consumers may have no internet access (or poor internet access) and others might just prefer to play single-player games without worrying about their internet connection. All of this is complicated by the fact that Xbox Live is a paid service. 5. Show me the video games! Finally, but just as importantly, gamers have plenty of reason to be worried about Microsoft's commitment to games. For years the console manufacturer has distanced itself from gaming and the "core" gaming audience. The Xbox One presentation did its best to compound these fears: we saw lots of stuff about TV and the entertainment ecosystem the company hopes to provide, but very little about the games themselves (and the ones we did see were cross-platform.) There's nothing wrong with trying to win the war for the global living room, but Microsoft shouldn't forget who its core consumer base is either. People who want to stream Hulu can buy a Roku (or an Xbox 360.) People who want to watch TV already have their DVRs and other devices. The only people really excited about the Xbox One are people who want to play next-gen video games. Microsoft needs to focus more on the video games that will define their system, and they really need to announce some non-Kinect exclusives for the Xbox One at E3. Maybe E3 will kill this concern, maybe not. But as it stands, Microsoft seems to be forgetting who their most important customers are. We don't know what the final product will look like in terms of how the Xbox One will function, partly because Microsoft's information has been "inaccurate and incomplete" so far. It certainly makes sense for the company to withhold some stuff for E3, but sending out so many mixed messages is tantamount to aiming both barrels at their feet and firing repeatedly. In the long-run, I still think that a move to digital distribution will benefit consumers. As a consumer of other types of media (and digital distribution on PC) I believe I have benefited from this, whether it's streaming music services like Rhapsody or the rise of eBooks. But in the near-term I think we're going to feel the growing pains of a changing industry and an evolving technology. While many observers have noted how this will impact consumers, I think companies like Microsoft should think about how it could impact their own bottom line as well. This is inevitably tied to what gamers are actually willing (and able) to pay. Gamers who purchase used games or lend their games to friends often do so because they cannot afford to purchase new games at $60 a piece. Hampering used games and the capacity to lend or gift your own games without a very real price drop for new games won't magically lead to more new game sales. Gamers have finite resources. Digital distribution results in cost-savings for producers who can skip retail, skip shipping costs, and forego manufacturing the actual discs, but those savings need to be passed on (at least to some degree) to consumers to offset the eventual end of used games. I maintain an optimistic long view of the video game industry, but I've no doubt at all we're in for stormy weather. PS: As always, I'm rooting for Microsoft here. Just like when I critique or analyze most businesses in the video game industry, my intent is to benefit both the companies themselves and the consumers. My personal philosophy is that treating customers right is the best business strategy for long-term success. I hope that Microsoft and other players in the video game industry listen to consumer feedback and adjust their strategy accordingly. I think in the long run this will create a win-win situation. Hopefully many of these concerns are put to rest by E3. We shall see.Source:http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2013/05/27/the-five-biggest-problems-with-the-xbox-one/xn http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=690_1371212673 CaptainPugwash The Five Biggest Problems With The Xbox One xbox,microsoft,ripp,off,gaming Thu, 13 Jun 2013 23:49:14 -0400 http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=337_1371181318 omniradar I,m sick of these bastards presuming this is good for all citizens !!!! Senior politicians from across the political divide have united to call for UK security services to be given greater internet monitoring powers. In a letter to The Times newspaper three former Labour home secretaries, three senior Tories and one Liberal Democrat urge changes. They say "coalition niceties" must not hinder counter terror efforts. A bill allowing the monitoring of all UK citizens' internet use was dropped after Liberal Democrat opposition. However, following the killing of Drummer Lee Rigby in Woolwich there have been calls for the Communications Data Bill, dubbed the "snoopers' charter" by opponents, which was shelved in May to be revived. Quote from letter issued by Jack Straw, David Blunkett, Alan Johnson, Lord Baker, Lord King, and Lord Carlile The letter was signed by former Labour home secretaries Jack Straw, David Blunkett and Alan Johnson, along with former Conservative home secretary Lord Baker and defence secretary Lord King, and Liberal Democrat Lord Carlile, who until 2011 was the independent reviewer of government anti-terror laws. In issuing the letter Mr Straw teamed up with Ben Wallace, the MP for Wyre and Preston North and parliamentary aide to minister without portfolio Ken Clarke. As a parliamentary aide Mr Wallace must not differ from the government position. The letter, which was passed to Newsnight and which will be published in The Times on Friday, puts renewed pressure on the deputy prime minister, Nick Clegg, whose party claimed a month ago they would not allow the bill to become law while the Liberal Democrats were in government. It also shows support amongst backers of the bill is undiminished, despite claims British security services used information gathered on UK citizens by Prism - the US secret intelligence programme revealed last week. Instead, referring to the recent murder of Drummer Rigby, they write: "When such a threat reveals itself, government has a duty to ensure they can do all they can to counter it." Without Liberal Democrat support in parliament, the Conservatives alone could not get the bill on to the statute book, but this letter is the first sign that Labour politicians are prepared to combine in principle with the Conservative party to help ensure the security services are given the new powers. In an attack on Liberal Democrat opposition, they write: "Coalition niceties and party politics must not get in the way of giving our security services the capabilities they need to stay one step ahead of those that seek to destroy our society." They also accuse the Liberal Democrats of siding with the interests of large communications companies, writing: "We find it odd that many critics of the Bill prefer to champion the rights of corporations over democratically accountable law enforcement agencies." Speculation is mounting in Westminster that to avoid complicated votes in parliament, measures will be brought forward by Home Secretary Theresa May that are not presented in a formal bill, but instead use other means of achieving the same ends. The Communications Data Bill would have given police and security services access, without a warrant, to details of all online communication in the UK - such as the time, duration, originator and recipient, and the location of the device from which it was made. It would also give access to some details of Britons' web browsing history and details of messages sent on social media. The police would have to get a warrant from the home secretary to be able to access the actual content of conversations and messages. In April, Mr Clegg told his weekly LBC radio phone-in: "What people have dubbed the snoopers' charter - I have to be clear with you, that's not going to happen." "In other words the idea that the government will pass a law which means there will be a record kept of every website you visit, who you communicate with on social media sites, that's not going to happen. It's certainly not going to happen with Liberal Democrats in government." "We all committed ourselves at the beginning of this coalition to learn the lessons from the past, when Labour overdid it, trying to constantly keep tabs on everyone. We have a commitment in this Coalition Agreement to end the storage of internet information unless there is a very good reason to do so." But in the letter the Conservative, Labour and Liberal Democrat grandees say: "Far from being a 'snoopers' charter', as critics allege, the draft bill, seeks to match our crime fighting capabilities to the advances in technologies. "The proposed Communications Data Bill does not want access to the content of our communications but does want to ensure that enough data is available in the aftermath of an attack to help investigators establish 'who, where and when' were involved in planning or supporting it."rjs2662 13th June 2013 - 19:42 If you value security over freedom you will end up losing both +62 Comment number 24. Welsh Ben 13th June 2013 - 19:55 And the terrorists have almost won... They've pushed the UK to the point where we are more in fear of state snooping on our private lives than we are of the potential terrorist acts. +59 Comment number 18. jay 13th June 2013 - 19:53 "However, following the killing of Drummer Lee Rigby in Woolwich" Not only would police/local authorities monitoring all UK internet use without a warrant due to one terrorist attack be grossly disproportionate, but I haven't heard a single objective, evidenced-based argument for how these powers would have prevented Woolwich. Cynical, manipulative and dangerous. Go through the courts. +49 Comment number 3. BikerAndy 13th June 2013 - 19:44 disgusting invasion of privacy. together with the current trend of net censorship, it just goes to show that all the major political parties have no interest in what the public actually want. big brother gone mad. i for one will be voting pirate party in the next elections to make my feelings clear to the next government. +49 Comment number 6. vin 13th June 2013 - 19:46 They already monitor everything. They are just trying to legalise it. +46 Comment number 4. oOLJCOo 13th June 2013 - 19:46 Any one think that people who do not wish to be monitored will just go back to pens and paper? This isn't for "terror", it's for policing of the population incase we ever decide to turn off Big Brother or Downton Abbey and head down to the Capital to remove the fat cat bankers and their MP henchmen who have robbed and stole from the common person. +46 Comment number 109. yournext 13th June 2013 - 20:31 First they came for the communists, I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist. Then they came for the trade unionists, I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist. Then they came for the Jews, I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Jew. When they came for the Catholics, I didn't speak out. Then they came for me, and there was no one left to speak for me. +40 Comment number 68. ePug 13th June 2013 - 20:14 What? I must be dreaming. More surveillance? More scrutiny? Terror? What terror? This is insane. +37 Comment number 85. Tony 13th June 2013 - 20:23 Jack Straw is a creep.. a power freak who was behind the British ID card system.. oh how that man loves the idea of Big Brother. +34 Comment number 12. beesaman 13th June 2013 - 19:50 This will make both Labour and Conservative unelectable in the next election. +34 Comment number 13. Mooker 13th June 2013 - 19:50 We are doomed if we do not unite and take a stand against this NOW! +33 Comment number 38. BeesAreTrendy 13th June 2013 - 20:02 It's funny how Governments want its citizen's business out in the open for it to see, but it does not want its own business out in the open for its citizen's to see. Yes, funny that. +33 Comment number 45. Dragonwight 13th June 2013 - 20:04 Lee Rigby would not have been saved by new powers so any mention of him is just political opportunism and an insult to his family. This lot should just learn to go away gracefully they had their time in office. Given the number of MP`s who seem to have trouble with basic morality like not stealing from the public purse I certainly wouldn't trust them with a complex issue like privacy. +31 Comment number 67. Big John the Red 13th June 2013 - 20:14 Why not "chip" us all like dogs and have done with it? Oh, and in the UK, you are around 50 times more like to die of an allergic reaction to a cat than in a terrorist attack! +31 Comment number 29. TQ 13th June 2013 - 19:56 "if you are not guilty of anything then what is there to fear?" let me give you a list... corrupt politicians (for examples see the last decade of UK politics), corrupt police (for examples see last 30 years of Police history), hackers, corrupt civil servants, corrupt judges... the list goes on but when too much power is centralised then abuse of that power isn't far behind (See the Prism scandal) +28 Comment number 51. GodsSon83 13th June 2013 - 20:07 The nazis may of lost the battle but they def won the War Welcome to Soviet United kingdom of Europe where your "security" is our top priority. Whilst the "Terrorists" are about we will have to remove your rights and spy on you without probably cause or due process I AM SICK OF THIS NONSENSE Where are they going to draw the line on this "security" which there pretty useless at! +27 Comment number 65. Citizen Too 13th June 2013 - 20:13 It has taken a thousand years for us to win the level of freedom of speech and action that we now enjoy so we should be prepared to accept risks and dangers in order to maintain it and not be browbeaten into accepting any further curtailment. +27 Comment number 87. JoJoDeathunter 13th June 2013 - 20:24 Politicians take note... we the British people don't want this! We're the people who survived the bombs of the Blitz and the collapse of the largest empire the world has ever seen, only to come out stronger than ever, a few lousy terrorists can't faze us. For once listen to your people rather than trying to grab as much power as you think you can get away with. +26 Comment number 66. blogitusmaximus 13th June 2013 - 20:13 Show me where in the snoopers charter they have developed the technology to crack encrypted tunnelled traffic. Any idiot with a VPN renders this legislation pointless. It is a gross oversight to allow those in power to acquire snooping powers that once in place cant be recinded easily. Beware future not-so-benevolent power hungry governments. +25 Comment number 46. Sane or not 13th June 2013 - 20:04 To give police and security services the right to monitor all communication data is a recipie for a civil liberties /privacy disaster. It's impossible to guarantee that it will only be used to deal with terrorism and serious organised crime. Usage of the anti-terrorism bill has not been confined to war on terror. What stops any officialy body snooping on people who oppose their policies. Page 1 of 23 Newer 1 2 3 4 5 ... 23 Older Sign in with your BBC iD, or Register to comment and rate comments All posts are reactively-moderated and must obey the house rules . Share this page 709 Share Facebook Twitter Email Print Top Stories US: Syria 'used chemical weapons' Cuts could be dangerous - army chief Man charged over Queen painting Alcohol liver disease care 'lacking' Pensioners' incomes 'rising fastest' Features Launch time The plane that Airbus did not want to build All change Is tipping so unfair it should be banned? Cost of war The Afghan soldiers paying the price for taking on the Taliban Cinema saviour Watch The man bringing Britain's art deco picture houses back to life Most Popular Shared 1: Secret life of the cat: What do our feline companions get up to? 2: 'Ugly prostitute' reported to police 3: Angler pulled into lake by huge fish 4: US Supreme Court bans DNA patents 5: Mussolini's gay island Read 1: Police warn on Big Brother entrant 2: 'Ugly prostitute' reported to police 3: Should tips be banned in restaurants? 4: Spielberg predicts film 'meltdown' 5: Airbus A350 prepares for take-off 6: Man charged over Queen painting 7: Coldstream Guard laid to rest after 200 years 8: Hen party crash driver arrested 9: US: Syria 'used chemical weapons' 10: Airbus A350 set for maiden flight Video/Audio 1: Angler pulled into lake by huge fish Watch 2: 'Gasps' as PS4 price unveiled Watch 3: BBC News Channel Watch 4: How did this man learn 11 languages? Watch 5: Man survives three days trapped under sea Watch 6: Snowden in hiding after China claims Watch 7: Henry Cavill brings Superman home Watch 8: Art deco cinemas saved from demolition Watch 9: Will.i.am tries UK citizenship test Watch 10: E-cigarettes face new restrictions Watch http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=337_1371181318 omniradar BBC Bullshit & Comments from Brits that needs a thoughtful "EAR" wtf Thu, 13 Jun 2013 07:47:26 -0400 http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=3b2_1371123779 GShock112 Second attempt to share the news, first attempt did not pass, PERHAPS because of wrong age filter. I asked the MODs but they didn't reply so I assume that's the reason and I am trying again. Daya Gamage - US National Correspondent Asian Tribune Washington, D.C. 03 October (Asiantribune.com): In March 2006 four US soldiers from the 101st Airborne Division gang raped a 14 year old Iraqi girl and murdered her and her family -including a 5 year old child. An additional soldier was involved in the cover-up. One of the killers, Steven Green, was found guilty on May 07, 2009 in the US District Court of Paducah and is now awaiting sentencing. The leaked Public Affairs Guidance put the 101st media team into a "passive posture" - withholding information where possible. It conceals presence of both child victims, and describes the rape victim, who had just turned 14, as "a young woman". The US Army's Criminal Investigation Division did not begin its investigation until three and a half months after the crime, news reports at that time commented. This is not the only grim picture coming out of Iraq U.S. forces being accused of using rape as a war weapon. The release, by CBS News, of the photographs showing the heinous sexual abuse and torture of Iraqi POW's at the notorious Abu Ghraib prison opened a Pandora's Box for the Bush regime wrote Ernesto Cienfuegos in La Voz de Aztlan on May 2, 2004. Journalist Cienfuegos further states "Apparently, the suspended US commander of the prison where the worst abuses took place, Brigadier General Janis Karpinski, has refused to take the fall by herself and has implicated the CIA, Military Intelligence and private US government contractors in the torturing of POW's and in the raping of Iraqi women detainees as well." Brigadier General Karpinski, who commanded the 800th Military Police Brigade, described a high-pressure Military Intelligence and CIA command that prized successful interrogations. A month before the alleged abuses and rapes occurred, she said, a team of CIA, Military Intelligence officers and private consultants under the employ of the US government came to Abu Ghraib. "Their main and specific mission was to give the interrogators new techniques to get more information from detainees," she said. At least one picture shows an American soldier apparently raping a female prisoner while another is said to show a male translator raping a male detainee. Further photographs are said to depict sexual assaults on prisoners with objects including a truncheon, wire and a phosphorescent tube. Another apparently shows a female prisoner having her clothing forcibly removed to expose her breasts. Detail of the content emerged from Major General Antonio Taguba, the former army officer who conducted an inquiry into the Abu Ghraib jail in Iraq. Allegations of rape and abuse were included in his 2004 report but the fact there were photographs was never revealed. He later confirmed their existence in an interview with the Daily Telegraph in May 2009. The London newspaper further noted "graphic nature of some of the images may explain the US President Obama's attempts to block the release of an estimated 2,000 photographs from prisons in Iraq and Afghanistan despite an earlier promise to allow them to be published." Maj. Gen. Taguba, who retired in January 2007, said he supported the President's decision, adding: "These pictures show torture, abuse, rape and every indecency. "The mere description of these pictures is horrendous enough, take my word for it." In April, Mr. Obama's administration said the photographs would be released and it would be "pointless to appeal" against a court judgment in favor of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). But after lobbying from senior military figures, Mr. Obama changed his mind saying they could put the safety of troops at risk. In May, he said: "The most direct consequence of releasing them, I believe, would be to inflame anti-American public opinion and to put our troops in greater danger." In April 2004, new photographs were sent to La Voz de Aztlan from confidential sources depicting the shocking rapes of two Iraqi women by what are purported to be US Military Intelligence personnel and private US mercenaries in military fatigues. It is now known, Cienfuegos wrote in May 2004, that hundreds of these photographs had been in circulation among the troops in Iraq. The graphic photos were being swapped between the soldiers like baseball cards. Asian Tribune carries here three of the 'Rape' photographs which have brought criticism that the U.S. forces in Iraq have used rape as a weapon of war. - Asian Tribune - http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=3b2_1371123779 GShock112 Rape of Iraqi Women by US Forces as Weapon of War: Photos and Data Emerge Iraq, Rape Wed, 12 Jun 2013 12:14:27 -0400 http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=a5f_1371053352 juba776 During the Cold War, the Mediterranean was the most important area of http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=a5f_1371053352 juba776 Russia to create Mediterranean fleet to protect Syria WW3,assad,NATO,cold war,putin,israel, Sat, 01 Jun 2013 07:20:01 -0400 http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=82d_1370085306 spacejockey_ As above. (Shrugs) Made me laugh! http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=82d_1370085306 spacejockey_ Guy flys a broom... Yep! WTF, guy, flys, broom, pointless, funny Mon, 10 Jun 2013 11:30:13 -0400 http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=355_1370878055 Nazel_Hut Twenty-two American nuclear bombs are being stored in underground strong-rooms at the Volkel air base in Brabant, the Telegraaf reports on Monday. The Telegraaf says former prime minister Ruud Lubbers has confirmed the bombs are being kept at the base in a National Geographic documentary. There have been rumours about the bombs for decades but Lubbers, who was prime minister from 1982 to 1994, is the first senior official to confirm their presence. Pointless 'I would never have thought those silly things would still be there in 2013,' Lubbers is quoted as saying. 'I think they are an absolutely pointless part of a tradition in military thinking.' 'If you go to Volkel now, we still have parts there which have a role in the nuclear ,' the AD quotes Lubbers as saying. Experts told the Telegraaf the bombs are B61 nuclear weapons and up to four times as powerful as the bombs used on Hiroshima and Nagasaki during World War II. Papers leaked by Wikileaks in 2010 seemed to suggest that US nuclear bombs were kept in the Netherlands as late as 2009. However, the then foreign minister Uri Rosenthal declined to comment. http://www.dutchnews.nl/news/archives/2013/06/22_american_nuclear_bombs_are.php http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=355_1370878055 Nazel_Hut 22 American nuclear bombs are stored in the Netherlands nukes Fri, 07 Jun 2013 17:05:24 -0400 http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=e60_1370637685 potrblog http://pissinontheroses.blogspot.com/2013/06/something-is-listening-to-recording-all.html (c)2013 http://www.potrblog.com One thing we won't do in this post is link to or otherwise use classified documents, even if they are in the public domain. Hence, any digging you do is solely on you. Today's headline on the Drudge Report quotes President Obama as saying: 'Nobody Is Listening to Your Telephone Calls'. The whole quote actually is: "When it comes to telephone calls, nobody is listening to your telephone calls. That's not what this program is about." If the President were going to tell the the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, he would have said something like this: 'SOMETHING Is Listening To And Recording ALL Your Digital Communications'. Now this is a subject we here at POTRBLOG have almost posted about for several years; but it seems sort of pointless as those who know already know; and those that don't know either don't want to know, or are incapable of doing anything about it. The only thing that has made us post about it now is Obama's use of "Clinton speak" ie "I did not sleep with that woman". Of course, the first thing that the people who don't want to know will say is that it is illegal to record such information. Unfortunately there is a difference between being unconstitutional and being illegal, it shouldn't be that way; but it is. If a machine records all your digital communications but no human ever listens to it; they don't think it is illegal. If a machine finds something that tells a human to listen to it, they can rubber stamp a warrant. If the communication in any way, at any time, crossed the US border they don't even need a warrant. The second thing the people who don't want to know will say is that it would take too much memory to record all digital communications. What these people don't know or don't mention is that a search of news paper reports will show that every digital text message sent in New York city of Septemeber 11, 2001 is available on line. What that means is that over 12 years ago all ready every digital message was being recorded. Given that fact, the cost of computer memory at that time, and the available amount of computing power back then, it is possible to do a parametric analysis to estimate what is more than possible today. We'll leave that exercise to you. What we do know is that many of the Federal Job opening posted in the last several years have been for people who specialized in the computational capability to weed through massive amounts of unimportant data to find that data which has value in the near term. However, this situation will not be the case for long. As computational capability grows and AI's improve, all data will have value as it will give those in power a kind of omniscient and predictive knowledge of their subjects. The corporate world already works to this end for economic reasons. The rise of corporatism (fascism 2.0) melds these capabilities nicely with the security/economic controls of the state. In the end, this will produce a mixture of digital omniscient with totalitarian omnipotence. Governments desiring this type of capability is nothing new, what is new is that it creates a capability to utterly and completely control the economic behaviors of individuals in a manner that would have previously been considered in the realm of the supernatural, as was foretold in Revelation 13:17 17 And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name. So we are not quite there yet, but every foundation has been laid for this to occur without the need for a supernatural input. The technology is nearly there, and the laws are already there. 1 You need the Government's permission to work (e-verify) 2 You need the Government's permission to engage in private commerce (gun laws) 3 Cash is confiscated all the time without any evidence of a crime (drug laws) 4 You can't engage in any business without governmental permission. (regulations and taxes) 5.Your health care is no longer under your control (Obamacare) Basically the US government can use the Commerce clause to implement every last detail of Revelation 13:17; the only thing they are missing is the insight into to your mind. But you share that insight into your mind every day and every second with every bit of digital communication you create. Every thing you digitally say (and have ever said) can and will be used against you in a court of law, and Moore's law is making that possible. So what can you do? (1) Pray (2) Create digital alter ego's to confuse the AI (not a countermeasure that is easily done). http://pissinontheroses.blogspot.com/2013/06/something-is-listening-to-recording-all.html http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=e60_1370637685 potrblog SOMETHING Is Listening To & Recording ALL Your Digital Communications NSA, data mining, Obama Wed, 05 Jun 2013 15:41:43 -0400 http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=3b1_1370461111 Catalytic Krzysztof Jasiewicz claimed that 'Jews participated in the murder of their own people' April 11, 2013, 11:31 pm 4 TA - Leaders of a Polish nationalist movement said a historian's claims that Jews helped perpetrate the Holocaust were "factual" and "necessary." The historian who made the claims, Krzysztof Jasiewicz, was "far from politically correct but his statements are supported by historical facts," Robert Winnicki, president of the All-Polish Youth, said in a statement published Tuesday on the website of the ultra-nationalist organization, which has a few thousand registered members. Get The Times of Israel's Daily Edition by email and never miss our top stories Free Sign up! Artur Zawisza, a former lawmaker in the Polish parliament, is quoted as telling the news site NaTemat.pl that Jasiewicz "said too much common sense that has long been present in the literature." He said the historian's claims were a "necessary part of open debate." Jasiewicz, a professor at the Polish Academy of Sciences, made the claim in an interview that appeared this month in a Focus Historia edition focusing on the 70th anniversary of the Warsaw Ghetto uprising. "This nonsense about Jews being killed mostly by Poles was manufactured to conceal a big Jewish secret: That the scale of the German crime was made possible by the Jews themselves, who participated in the murder of their own people," Jasiewicz wrote. He added that "dialogue with the Jews was pointless." Following indignant reactions by the Simon Wiesenthal Center and other groups, the board of the Polish Academy of Science said it would consider taking disciplinary steps against Jasiewicz. Winnicki called the protestations "by fringe groups outrageous and unacceptable." http://www.timesofisrael.com/polish-nationalists-defend-historian-who-blamed-jews-for-holocaust/ http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=3b1_1370461111 Catalytic Polish nationalists defend historian who proved Jews participated in the murder of their own during Holocaust Israel, Jews, Holocaust, shoah, Krzysztof Jasiewicz, lobby, facts Wed, 05 Jun 2013 12:45:31 -0400 http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=fd8_1370450527 firehot Police are investigating after an Islamic centre in Muswell Hill, north London was destroyed by fire in the early hours of this morning. It is unclear what started the fire at the Al-Rahma Islamic Centre, in Muswell Hill, north London, but graffiti reading EDL, an acronym for the far-right group English Defence League, was found daubed on the building. Around 35 firefighters were called to the centre, which is used as a mosque, when the blaze broke out at around 3.15am. One woman from a nearby property suffered shock and was treated at the scene, London Ambulance Service said. There has been a significant increase in reports of attacks against Muslims since Drummer Lee Rigby was murdered in Woolwich last month in a suspected terror killing, however it is not yet clear whether the two are linked. Faith Matters, an organisation that works to reduce extremism, said 11 mosques were targeted in the days after the killing, despite Drummer Rigby's family warning against any revenge attacks Counter-terrorism officers are investigating whether a fire which destroyed an Islamic community centre was started deliberately in a racially-motivated attack. Police confirmed they are treating the fire in Muswell Hill, north London, as supicious and promised a "vigorous and thorough investigation". They also revealed the letters 'EDL' - the initials of the English Defence League - were found scrawled on the outside of the Bravanese Centre, which was being used as a mosque. However, Tommy Robinson, the leader of the EDL, denied one of the group's supporters was behind the blaze. He said members have always been told not to attack mosques or places of worship and claimed there was a "nationwide campaign" to blacken the name of the group. Chief Superintendent Adrian Usher, of the Metropolitan Police, said: "At this stage, we don't want to rule anything out. We have several lines of inquiry and we will pursue those and until we can determine whether a crime has been committed. "We will then pursue any offenders and bring them to justice." Boris Johnson, the Mayor of London, said that if the fire is confirmed as an attack attack, it should be condemned as "cowardly, pathetic and utterly pointless". http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=fd8_1370450527 firehot London Islamic centre set on fire mosque muslim fire police terrorist extremist snackbar edl london uk burning revenge Sun, 02 Jun 2013 04:53:35 -0400 http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=a11_1370162942 english-patriot33 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/terrorism-in-the-uk/10093568/The-truth-about-the-wave-of-attacks-on-Muslims-after-Woolwich-murder.html The truth about the 'wave of attacks on Muslims' after Woolwich murder Fiyaz Mughal runs a project called Tell Mama, which receives lb214,000 a year from the Government to monitor anti-Muslim attacks in Britain. In the wake of Drummer Lee Rigby's murder, he has been understandably busy. There has, said Mr Mughal, been "a wave of attacks, harassment, and hate-filled speech against Muslims ... an unprecedented number of incidents", including "a rise in street harassment of Muslims - unprovoked, opportunistic attacks from strangers as Muslims go about their lives". He added: "Over the past week or so, these sorts of hate crimes have noticeably increased in number and, in many instances, become more extreme. "The scale of the backlash is astounding ... there has been a massive spike in anti-Muslim prejudice. A sense of endemic fear has gripped Muslim communities." The media, especially the BBC, have accepted the claims without question. A presenter on Radio 4's influential Today programme stated that attacks on Muslims were now "on a very serious scale". Talk of a "massive anti-Muslim backlash" has become routine. And it is that figure issued by Tell Mama - of, to date, 212 "anti-Muslim incidents" since the Woolwich murder - which has formed the basis of nearly all this reporting. Mr Mughal is in no doubt what lies behind it all. As he told a newspaper: "I do not see an end to this cycle of violence. There is an underlying Islamophobia in our society and the horrendous events in Woolwich have brought this to the fore." And as he put it on Today, "the Prevent agenda, the extremist agenda, have not been good for building confidence - the sense of fear just alienates and isolates communities." Yet the unending "cycle of violence" against Muslims, the unprecedented "wave of attacks" against them from strangers in the street, the "underlying Islamophobia in our society" - all turn out to be yet more things we thought we knew about Woolwich that are not really supported by the evidence. Tell Mama confirmed to The Sunday Telegraph that about 120 of its 212 "anti-Muslim incidents" - 57 per cent - took place only online. They were offensive postings on Twitter or Facebook, or comments on blogs: nasty and undesirable, certainly, but some way from violence or physical harm and often, indeed, legal. Not all the offending tweets and postings, it turns out, even originated in Britain. Tell Mama has no written definition of what it classes as an anti-Muslim incident, but has in the past adopted a wide definition. Last November, the cross-bench Asian peer, Baroness Flather, told a newspaper it was "pointless for the Conservatives to chase Muslim votes. They are all on benefits and all vote Labour". Tell Mama added this admittedly crass and untrue remark to its database as an "anti-Muslim incident," though it said it had deleted it following an explanation from Lady Flather. Although the service says its caseworkers "carefully handle each report as it comes in, to determine whether it can be verified and justified as an anti-Muslim incident", Mr Mughal admitted that a further 35 of the 212 post-Woolwich incidents, or 16 per cent, had yet to be verified. He justified publishing the figure, however, saying he expected that all but a handful of incidents would be verified. Fewer than one in 12 of the 212 "incidents" reported to Tell Mama since Woolwich - 17 cases (8 per cent) - involved individuals being physically targeted. Six people had things thrown at them, said Mr Mughal, and most of the other 11 cases were attempts to pull off the hijab or other items of Islamic dress. Without in any way denying the distress and harm caused by such attacks, they do stand at the lower levels of seriousness. Seventeen is still likely, of course, to underestimate the total number of attacks. The Metropolitan Police, the only major force in Britain which breaks down "offences with an Islamophobic flag", said there were 13 allegations of common or racially aggravated assault of Muslims reported to it in London in the week after the killing. About 40 per cent of Britain's 2.7 million Muslims live in the capital, so the national figure could be around 32 cases, or about one Muslim in every 100,000. Offences of common and racially aggravated assault are typically used where there has been no injury, such as hijab snatching, or minor injury not drawing blood or requiring medical treatment, such as the throwing incidents reported by Tell Mama. The Met said there were no cases reported to it where any more serious injury resulted. Asking other police forces and trawling local media reports, The Telegraph has been unable to find a single confirmed case since Drummer Rigby's death where any individual Muslim has received an injury requiring medical treatment. Tell Mama's Twitter feed reported one such incident, of a Muslim woman "knocked unconscious" in Bolton, but the local police said they had no knowledge of this and did not believe it happened. It is unlikely, though not impossible, that any case of serious injury could have escaped the notice of the media or police. Perhaps the most serious manifestation of anti-Muslim feeling after the killing was a number of attacks on mosques. These are believed to total 11, though here again evidence for a "wave of violence" is lacking. With only two exceptions, a mosque in Grimsby into which firebombs were thrown and another one in Essex where a man entered with a knife, all the incidents were relatively minor, such as window-breaking or graffiti. According to the Charity Commission, there are between 1,100 and 1,500 mosques in the UK, so the number attacked is less than 1 per cent. Two other sets of figures are available. According to the Association of Chief Police Officers (Acpo), forces nationally reported 71 anti-Muslim hate crimes or "incidents of note" to the National Community Tensions Team in the week after the murder of Drummer Rigby. "That would cover everything they feel has a link to Woolwich, though an incident of note would not necessarily be a crime," said a spokesman. The second set of figures is from True Vision, an online hate-crime reporting tool operated by Acpo. There were 136 reports of anti-Muslim activity - internet or physical - received via this website in the week after Woolwich, overwhelmingly in the first few days, though Acpo said that not all were crimes and some reports were duplicates. As for the claim that there is "no end" to the cycle of anti-Muslim activity, it has substantially ended already. According to police, there was a sharp spike in reported incidents in the day or so after the killing, but they have already subsided to pre-Woolwich levels. Acpo said that by last Wednesday, a week after the murder, the number of incidents reported to True Vision had fallen back to four a day. The claim that the spike and numbers were "unprecedented" is wrong, too. After the 7/7 attacks in London - admittedly more serious than the killing of Drummer Rigby - there was a far bigger and more prolonged rise in faith-hate crimes. According to the Met, 269 were recorded in London alone in the three weeks after the 2005 attacks, compared with 40 for the same period the year before. What the data broadly show, in short, is that Drummer Rigby's killers have failed. The breakdown in community relations has not come. There has been a rise in incidents, but it appears to be very short-term, overwhelmingly non-violent and even then almost entirely at the lower end of the scale. Yet this is not a message the Islamophobia industry wants heard, now or ever. Two months before the Woolwich killing, Tell Mama was already claiming that anti-Muslim incidents were "rising", on the basis of reports made to its service. But at that point it had only been going for a year, so it had no previous figures to compare. In 2010 a report for the Islamist Cordoba Foundation, described by David Cameron as a "political front for the Muslim Brotherhood", said there was already what it called a wave of "terrorism" against British Muslims, with an "alarming rise" in hatred of Islam. What evidence there is simply does not support the claims. There is anti-Muslim hatred in Britain, and it is disgraceful. But nearly all the evidence shows it is diminishing. In 2009 there were 368 anti-Muslim crimes in London; in 2012, there were 337. In the first 11 weeks of 2013, there were 64 crimes, equating at that point to 303 across the year, though the Woolwich attack will drive that up. Hate crime in London's main Muslim area, Tower Hamlets, has dropped by almost half since 2003 (though it rose slightly this year). Outside London, faith-hate crimes reported to the main forces with big Muslim populations - West Midlands, Greater Manchester and West Yorkshire - have fallen, too. Broader political developments suggest a country increasingly at ease with Muslims. In 2009 the main anti-Islamic party, the BNP, had 55 councillors. Now it has two. The number of Muslim MPs doubled at the last election, some elected for entirely non-Muslim seats such as Bromsgrove, Gillingham, or Stratford-upon-Avon with no backlash whatever. Continental campaigns to ban minarets and the niqab have gained absolutely no political traction in Britain. Opinion polls after the Woolwich attack showed rising positive sentiment about Muslims - though, as with so many of these exercises, the answers can depend on the questions you ask. Yet broader politics are also driving the Islamophobia industry. For Islamists such as the Cordoba Foundation, the narrative of British Muslims under attack, increasingly hated and feared by their fellow citizens, is essential for recruitment, and for furthering their central lie that different races and faiths cannot coexist. "Islamophobic" is also a handy charge to throw at anyone who questions Islamist ideology. Tell Mama is not Islamist, though Mr Mughal has written in the Cordoba Foundation's journal (he says it was a "mistake" which he will not repeat). But part of its motivation appears to be an attempt to draw some of the sting from Islamist terrorism by equating it with the work of anti-Muslim extremist groups such as the English Defence League. As Tell Mama's Twitter feed puts it, "whilst we need to tackle the narrative of hate inspired by al-Qaeda, we also need to tackle the thuggery and hate of the EDL". Mr Mughal insists that "both groups are significantly problematic". Loathsome as the white extreme Right is, however, there is clearly no comparison. No one in Britain has been killed by the EDL; 53 people have been killed by Islamist terrorists. White racists, unlike their Islamist equivalents, do not control key religious institutions or have a significant presence in British universities. Over the past decade, half a dozen or so white British Right-wingers have been convicted of possessing explosives and other weapons. But all were loners not acting in concert with any group. In contrast, there have, over the same period, been 150 convictions for Islamist-related terrorism in the UK, many relating to serious, carefully organised, often multinational plots against specific targets involving substantial numbers of people. For some quarters of the Islamophobia industry, it has now become Muslims who are the main victims of the Woolwich horror. But while some innocent Muslims have of course become victims, the main victim was Drummer Lee Rigby. And in overhyping the backlash, some in the Muslim community are playing right into the hands of his killers. http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=a11_1370162942 english-patriot33 The truth about the 'wave of attacks on Muslims' after Woolwich murder ( a good read) islam, muslims, terrorists, pedophiles, victim after victim,but your the hard done by ones , unbelievable, Sat, 01 Jun 2013 17:53:38 -0400 http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=c07_1370123461 brazye Yep, kind of pointless. http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=c07_1370123461 brazye How not to lock your gate. lock, gate, fail Thu, 30 May 2013 21:54:08 -0400 http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=f19_1369962159 Baron_Kaz Note: I am not a military strategist nor any kind of military expert, my knowledge of weapons systems and war is through articles and news media. I have never held a gun in my life. I am just rambling here, just sharing my thoughts. Please feel free to critique. Warfare counter strategies. Background: In today's battleground, it is all about communications. The air is thick with RF signals carrying information from the battle field and instructions to the battlefield. I remember reading in Fredrick Forsyth's book 'The dogs of war' that war in Africa was markedly different, because unlike conventional strategies elsewhere, war here meant, hitting very fast, very loud and with a lot of noise. The African soldiers had a tendency to drop their weapons and run at this. Lack of communications, fear and a lack of co-ordination are a battle field commander's greatest nightmare. Countless wars through antiquity have shown smaller, well organized armies reduce larger behemoth armies to the dust through chaos and confusion. Warfare today is far too generalized, every decent country has similar weapons, body armor, the only differentiators are specialized communications and weapons (like Microwave tanks, etc). Spending money on a "corner shot" gun or a bomb that explodes with a slightly bigger bang is great, but it is not going to really make a difference in a war. Strategies : We have seen a shift of the war theater in the history of mankind. From days of huge armies clashing and victory through numbers was assured, we have shifted to the modern day scenario of asymmetric warfare. The enemy is more likely to be a numbskull wearing a towel around his head, rather than a conventional infantry man. The fighting is going to occur more in urban areas, with pockets of resistance, surprise attacks (IEDs, suicide bombers, etc). With the "Global Reach program" the focus is to avoid large expensive deployments, focusing rather on special forces type IN and OUT offensive strategies. But we cannot disregard a conventional large scale war, and have to maintain our forces, even if just for the purpose of providing a deterrence against countries like China. This article focuses more on a conventional war. Counters: In a book by a German Author Lehr something or the other, I remember the line, "To win, you should just make less mistakes than your enemy." The obvious weakest point of an army are the supply lines. This strategy was used with devastating effect by Russians during the 2nd world war. Draw the Nazis in, stretch their lines thin, then turn around in a devastating counter attack. And by the Vietnamese, where they hugged the enemy close, and plain refused to fight the war on the terms of the enemy. It was their land, their terrain, they chose when to fight, where to fight. Both strategies are exceedingly expensive, especially in terms of life. But startlingly effective when one army is prepared to take more losses than the other. The Vietnamese knew they could afford to lose more lives than the Americans could. Also, using low cost, high volume counters to expensive, high performance machines is a similar counter tactic. Like the American Sherman Tanks to the German King Tiger tanks. Or like the Iranian fast motor boats to the American Aircraft carriers. I remember reading in a Tom Clancy novel, that an aircraft carrier needs to position itself before it can launch air craft, and a single explosion in the rudder mechanism can effectively reduce an aircraft carrier to dead weight. But the single most effective counter strategy in today's technology is ..... Jamming. Jamming is the cheapest, most effective and easiest to deploy. Nature itself hates RF signals, and does everything to attenuate it. Not to mention, you don't have to even jam the right frequency, even harmonics will get through and jam a signal quite effectively. Wireless equipment operate on the threshold of operation, meaning they have very very very little margins. Effective jamming can reduce a well co-ordinated strike force to a mess of bumbling fools. And please do not counter this argument with your "frequency hopping makes it difficult" argument. Even a frequency hopped system will still be effectively within a certain band. RF equipment is made with distributed element strip line designs, even if they used some lumped element designs, it does not matter, the range of operating frequency for all components (especially at high frequencies) is quite low. And given weight, cost, size restrictions, a circuit or system can only handle a few select bands. And remember a jamming signal is not a modulated signal, its just noise... just any random noise at different frequency bands or at all relevant frequency bands. Any half wit engineer can jam the most complicated RF signal based communication method. And all the encryption and stuff are pointless here, because the intent is not to "learn the enemy's motive" but to "stop the communication" and cause chaos. Chaos is the single most effective counter to all strategies. PS: I wish live leak would stop making me upload pictures or files for every article. Like in this case, the text is the article. http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=f19_1369962159 Baron_Kaz Warfare counter strategies. Bored Ramblings war, ramblings