We five mobile gaming packs to giveaway that include a Sony Xperia Z3, a PS4, a mount for your Dualshock controller and a pop-up gaming tent!
Sony Xperia Z3 Mobile Gaming Giveaway Featuring a PS4!
AusGamers presents a hands-on report of the third major game in the 'World of' series from Wargaming, World of Tanks.
World of Warships Hands-On Preview
We take a look at the latest mobile gaming setup from GAEMS to see just how useful it is.
Tech Tuesday - GAEMS Vanguard Black Edition Review
We chat with 343 Industries about Halo 5: Guardians and the upcoming multiplayer beta!
343 Industries Talks Halo 5: Guardians Multiplayer Beta
Julian Assange may run as a Senate candidate next year
ravn0s
Brisbane, Queensland
16353 posts
looks like he may form a political party

WIKILEAKS publisher Julian Assange has confirmed his intention to run as a Senate candidate in the 2013 federal election and will announce the formation of a WikiLeaks political party early next year.


11:20pm 12/12/12 Permalink
system
Internet
--
11:20pm 12/12/12 Permalink
HERMITech
Brisbane, Queensland
8077 posts
That's been on the cards for ages.
Will have a twofold purpose

*cough* diplomatic immunity *cough*

Still, I'd rather someone into exposing truths than a party lapdog.
11:33pm 12/12/12 Permalink
infi
Brisbane, Queensland
19336 posts
Good on him if he ever makes it out of the UK alive.

PS Getting elected a Senator does not grant you diplomatic immunity.
01:10am 13/12/12 Permalink
FaceMan
Brisbane, Queensland
9663 posts
Assange sells out.
02:06am 13/12/12 Permalink
HERMITech
Brisbane, Queensland
8078 posts
baby steps infi, baby steps
02:08am 13/12/12 Permalink
Nukleuz
Perth, Western Australia
231 posts
Julian Assange may run as a Senate candidate next year


...in Ecuador? :)
02:09am 13/12/12 Permalink
Viper119
UK
1789 posts
He'll never get out of the UK.
03:26am 13/12/12 Permalink
Insom
Canada
4162 posts
what's he going to do, run from the ecuador embassy?

what a show-pony
04:44am 13/12/12 Permalink
Ha
31 posts
i would vote for him over any other clown running true story.
07:10am 13/12/12 Permalink
Zapo
Brisbane, Queensland
2851 posts
I would like the guy more if he didn't just seem like such a twat.
07:46am 13/12/12 Permalink
Twisted
Brisbane, Queensland
11779 posts

Good luck with that... LOL
09:14am 13/12/12 Permalink
crazymorton
Brisbane, Queensland
3683 posts
What's his position on water fluoridation and airport full body scanners?

These are the burning issues trending right now on QGL!
09:39am 13/12/12 Permalink
Scooter
Brisbane, Queensland
6119 posts
He wouldn't get my vote. He's kind of a d*** and there are actually some things that I think the government does need to keep secret from it's people.
Cutting off your nose to spite your face.
12:43pm 13/12/12 Permalink
SquarkyD
Brisbane, Queensland
6193 posts
his agenda is so blindingly obvious and irrelevant to the people he would be 'representing' that he would make a s*** candidate, could someone with his background really take a step back and worry about the little things? doubt it, he'd spend all his time show ponying around trying to make a name for himself or 'fighting for freedoms' rather than get s*** done.
07:09pm 13/12/12 Permalink
Insom
Canada
4164 posts
i would like to see him try to pander to working families actually
08:44pm 13/12/12 Permalink
Resonate
Brisbane, Queensland
624 posts
He sure does love to be in the spotlight.
10:21pm 13/12/12 Permalink
shad
Brisbane, Queensland
3846 posts
he'd spend all his time show ponying around trying to make a name for himself or 'fighting for freedoms' rather than get s*** done.


So you're saying he would fit in perfectly as a politician?
10:25pm 13/12/12 Permalink
Superform
Netherlands
7618 posts
maybe he is just doing it to gain access to classified information
10:54pm 13/12/12 Permalink
FaceMan
Brisbane, Queensland
9667 posts
Remember what happened to old Baldy when he joined The Firm.

11:24pm 13/12/12 Permalink
BladeRunner
Queensland
1070 posts
I would like the guy more if he didn't just seem like such a twat.


+1
06:06am 14/12/12 Permalink
PornoPete
UK
791 posts
Yeah I don't think Assanges career would go much like Garrett's. He would be a major liability for any of the major parties, and they have all called him a d*** and turn coat at some point.

He would be an annoying grandstanding independent link Barnaby Joyce sort of used to be. Would the member for Nimbin please shut his f*****g trap, you don't like America... we get it.
10:13am 14/12/12 Permalink
trog
AGN Admin
Brisbane, Queensland
36616 posts
He would be an annoying grandstanding independent link Barnaby Joyce sort of used to be
But I would be a lot more confident that he has the best interests of the citizen in mind because of his track record
10:35am 14/12/12 Permalink
PornoPete
UK
792 posts
Who Assange or Joyce?

I'll believe that Joyce has his constituents best interests at heart.

Assange has Assange's public image at heart and nothing else as far as I can see.
11:07am 14/12/12 Permalink
trog
AGN Admin
Brisbane, Queensland
36618 posts
Who Assange or Joyce?I'll believe that Joyce has his constituents best interests at heart.Assange has Assange's public image at heart and nothing else as far as I can see.
Assange

I've heard several people say he's about "public image"; I don't really get that when I see the stuff he says/does. I think he uses his public image as a tool to deliver his message but it's not like he's a Kardashian
11:55am 14/12/12 Permalink
PornoPete
UK
793 posts
To each their own I guess. But his speeches tend to be dripping in hyperbole and short on facts. I also think that his continued insistence that Sweden is only after him to deport him to the US, is him trying to get out of s*** that he is probably guilty of.

Sweden has absolutely no track record of unjust deportation, and has a very high judicial standard.

His cult of personality is what is keeping out of reach of the Swedish Justice system so he isn't a Kardashian per se, but I don't think much more highly of him. If he was just a guy, Ecuador would have told him to f*** off by now and left him to face the music.

I also think the fact that he as decided to side with Ecuador of all places is f*****g hysterical. Here is a country with a long, well documented history of abusing press freedoms. Seems to me like his principles are fairly liquid.

He stinks of an anti american moron, who has made powerful enemies. Who would have thought that publishing US State secrets as fast as you can would have consequences?
12:37pm 14/12/12 Permalink
Obes
Brisbane, Queensland
9847 posts
Who would have thought that publishing US State secrets as fast as you can would have consequences?

Your logic is flawed.
Watergate is an example of why any government should be accountable.


If this had been the Washington Post or New York Times and a print media journalist, none of these questions would have been asked.
01:40pm 14/12/12 Permalink
PornoPete
UK
794 posts
No it isn't,

Watergate was a clear and systematic attempt undermine the US's democracy.

It was also reported in a professional manner.

There is a huge difference between that and what Assange has done. He can't possibly vetted the 400k or so wires he and his group leaked.

He is totally unaccountable as the truth of what he was publishing. By any measure it is terrible Journalism if that's the road you want to take with him.

Publishing intelligence data en masse is not the same thing as holding a government to account.

If he had focused on clear evidence of false information regarding WMD or a clear chain of policy at abu ghraib then he would have a leg to stand on. But they didn't, they just blanketly published everything, with seemingly no regard for the consequences.

How is publishing a diplomats impressions of a foreign leader holding obama to account exactly? Meanwhile it unquestionably does damage to any negotiations with that country, if they were negative.

*edit* It also isn't his country. The US has no mandate to be accountable to him or wikileaks.
02:03pm 14/12/12 Permalink
thermite
Brisbane, Queensland
10586 posts
There is a huge difference between that and what Assange has done. He can't possibly vetted the 400k or so wires he and his group leaked.

He is totally unaccountable as the truth of what he was publishing. By any measure it is terrible Journalism if that's the road you want to take with him.

Publishing intelligence data en masse is not the same thing as holding a government to account.

If he had focused on clear evidence of false information regarding WMD or a clear chain of policy at abu ghraib then he would have a leg to stand on. But they didn't, they just blanketly published everything, with seemingly no regard for the consequences.

How is publishing a diplomats impressions of a foreign leader holding obama to account exactly? Meanwhile it unquestionably does damage to any negotiations with that country, if they were negative.


What wikileaks did was good. They came out with a source of raw data which could be used as part of journalism, but was not strictly journalism itself. You have been raised by evil governments with little transparency and accountability. You have been made to believe that secrecy is a necessary thing and that freedom of press is a dangerous thing. Your point of view is very similar to a military point of view, and that should be a worry for you.
02:18pm 14/12/12 Permalink
PornoPete
UK
795 posts
What wikileaks did was good. They came out with a source of raw data which could be used as part of journalism, but was not strictly journalism itself. You have been raised by evil governments with little transparency and accountability. You have been made to believe that secrecy is a necessary thing and that freedom of press is a dangerous thing. Your point of view is very similar to a military point of view, and that should be a worry for you.



Wrong, wrong, wrong. What Wikileaks did was reckless and irresponsible. They simply didn't have the means to check if what they were publishing was accurate and true. It could have been the ramblings of some pissed off nutbag working at Langley. Now it is being hailed as the future of journalism. Well if that's the case I am afraid for any accountability moving forward.

You can only hold someone to account for doing something wrong.
02:31pm 14/12/12 Permalink
eski
Perth, Western Australia
1330 posts
secrecy is a necessary thing


There is little evidence to suggest otherwise, historically I can't think of any government out there that hasn't relied on secrecy. There's really no proof that a government can operate without it. I'm not saying that it wouldnt work, but it's an untested model as far as I know.
02:32pm 14/12/12 Permalink
Captain Lateral
Brisbane, Queensland
4666 posts
Wrong, wrong, wrong. What Wikileaks did was reckless and irresponsible. They simply didn't have the means to check if what they were publishing was accurate and true.


if you got a hold of a bunch of confidential documents from china, are you saying releasing them would be reckless? even if they show clear disregard for international law and indifference to human suffering?

What Manning did was arguably irresponsible. What Assange did was just release the original documentation instead of just a journalistic overview / opinion.

How is publishing a diplomats impressions of a foreign leader holding Obama to account exactly?
its not so much the diplomats impressions, it was the spying that they were conducting (that broke international law) while under the guise of being diplomats.
03:01pm 14/12/12 Permalink
PornoPete
UK
796 posts
if you got a hold of a bunch of confidential documents from china, are you saying releasing them would be reckless? even if they show clear disregard for international law and indifference to human suffering?


If you have the means to check their accuracy and truth then no. But if you just get some dude go here is a bunch of confidential s*** and then immediately publish it then yes.

What Manning did was arguably irresponsible. What Assange did was just release the original documentation instead of just a journalistic overview / opinion.
What Manning did was clear cut illegal. He will have signed an agreement to uphold the the state secrets act or whatever the US version is called.

But what your saying is that the drug dealer has done something wrong but the smuggler is somehow absolved of all guilt.
If it was irresponsible to leak it, it is just as irresponsible to uncritically publish it.


its not so much the diplomats impressions, it was the spying that they were conducting (that broke international law) while under the guise of being diplomats.


The vast majority of the diplomatic cables were simply reporting back to base.
03:17pm 14/12/12 Permalink
thermite
Brisbane, Queensland
10590 posts
Wrong, wrong, wrong. What Wikileaks did was reckless and irresponsible. They simply didn't have the means to check if what they were publishing was accurate and true.


This does not matter. No where did Wikileaks claim that the content of the documents was factual. It may even be the case that they weren't. What matters is that the documents existed.
03:40pm 14/12/12 Permalink
PornoPete
UK
797 posts
So then you wouldn't consider publishing a false study linking immunization to autism on a high profile website irresponsible?
03:42pm 14/12/12 Permalink
thermite
Brisbane, Queensland
10591 posts
That isn't analogous to wikileaks exposing dirty government secrets.
03:46pm 14/12/12 Permalink
PornoPete
UK
798 posts
Yeah and without fact checking, Wikileaks wasn't exposing s***.
04:02pm 14/12/12 Permalink
Captain Lateral
Brisbane, Queensland
4667 posts
Yeah and without fact checking, Wikileaks wasn't exposing s***.


er, not sure I follow the logic there.

information can be fact-checked from a 3rd party, exposing(swidt) the information is required first though.
04:44pm 14/12/12 Permalink
eski
Perth, Western Australia
1331 posts
information can be fact-checked from a 3rd party, exposing(swidt) the information is required first though.


So how come there's a massive anti vaccination movement? How come people believe in God?

If people read something that supports their world view they dont bother fact checking.

IIRC there was some controversy over Assange releasing the documents before journos had finished checking them for accuracy and sensitivity.
04:52pm 14/12/12 Permalink
Captain Lateral
Brisbane, Queensland
4668 posts
If people read something that supports their world view they don't bother fact checking.


yes, people are idiots. are you questioning the validity of the releases though? do you think they're made up? How would one fact check otherwise confidential information?
05:00pm 14/12/12 Permalink
eski
Perth, Western Australia
1333 posts
I dont know, you would have to ask the collection of journalists who tried.

information can be fact-checked from a 3rd party, exposing(swidt) the information is required first though.
How would one fact check otherwise confidential information


No I dont question their validity, but just now you said that a 3rd party could fact check them, and then in your next post you said that they cant be fact checked.

But Fact checking is beside the point.

I DO question the unchecked release of hundreds of thousands of confidential documents though. It seems incredibly irresponsible and can potentially threaten lives.

And I don't think that governments are about to do away with secrecy, they will just find new places to hide stuff.

Finally, Assange started out as a computer hacker. I think he likes to try and find out peoples secrets for his own personal pleasure, and invented all these moral reasons for doing so after the fact. He's a loose cannon and cannot be trusted.
05:09pm 14/12/12 Permalink
PornoPete
UK
799 posts
Precisely eski.

As a result of "holding the US government to account" over this stuff, people in China started lynch mobs to find people who had talked to US officials. Spreading false or un-contextualized information can be and is very dangerous. It is a journalists job to ensure the information is accurate and presented in the proper context. Its a very important part of holding a government to account.

"Raw data" is how 911 truthers still have any sway what so ever.

Spreading massive amounts of unchecked, unverified data is enormously irresponsible.

and as far as the exposure without fact checking goes my logic is simple.

If they had have done their homework and verified the information in regards to a clear cut case of wrong doing, then I would credit them with exposing a secret.

If they just publish hundreds of thousands of documents and some of it happens to be legit, then the person who did the fact checking did the exposing.
05:18pm 14/12/12 Permalink
system
Internet
--
05:18pm 14/12/12 Permalink
AusGamers Forums
Show: per page
1
This thread is archived and cannot be replied to.