My own sense is that we should err on the side of telling the truth, even when it’s inconvenient or when it makes our lives—or the business of government—more complicated. And that people who tell the truth should at the very least not be denigrated. That’s something I learned when I was young, and that I tried to impart to my three boys when they were growing up. As Albert Einstein is reported to have said long ago, “The search for truth implies a duty. One must not conceal any part of what one has recognized to be true.” And shouldn’t news organizations be defending WikiLeaks and doing some soul-searching of their own about why they aren’t devoting more resources to the search for the truth? Why is it that the National Enquirer and Internet blogs sometimes seem better than they are at finding out what’s really going on?

My own sense is that we should err on the side of telling the truth, even when it’s inconvenient or when it makes our lives—or the business of government—more complicated. And that people who tell the truth should at the very least not be denigrated. That’s something I learned when I was young, and that I tried to impart to my three boys when they were growing up. As Albert Einstein is reported to have said long ago, “The search for truth implies a duty. One must not conceal any part of what one has recognized to be true.”

And shouldn’t news organizations be defending WikiLeaks and doing some soul-searching of their own about why they aren’t devoting more resources to the search for the truth? Why is it that the National Enquirer and Internet blogs sometimes seem better than they are at finding out what’s really going on?

NationalJournal.com - To Tell the Truth - Thursday, December 2, 2010

This is a great little piece on our priorities during a time when a website is made to seem like the greatest threat to democracy. 

Seriously—WikiLeaks a terrorist organization??

W.T.F.

Scientists De-age Mice--could mean huge implications for humans.

This is kind of insanely amazing—yet I bet it got buried under news of WikiLeaks. Check out this cutting from CTV.ca:

Mon Nov 29, 10:00 PM

Scientists find way to reverse aging in mice

CTV.ca News Staff

Scientists in Boston have made an astounding discovery, taking aging mice and turning them young again, like tiny little Benjamin Buttons. (AP / Bebeto Matthews)

Scientists in Boston have made an astounding discovery, taking aging mice and turning them young again, like tiny little Benjamin Buttons.

Just like the title character in the Hollywood film version of “The Curious Case of Benjamin Button,” the mice appeared to not only stop aging but grow younger.

The gist isn’t quite as promising as it sounds, sadly.  Turns out they could only reverse the aging in mice they’d already aged artificially by giving them that disease that mimics the effects of old age.  However, if it works on these mice, why wouldn’t work on humans with the same disease? Or on mice and/or humans who are old, if the effects of the disease are so similar to the effects of regular old-aging?

Check out the whole article to read the specifics.  It’s fascinating stuff for sure.  I’ve always had the feeling I’d live forever. Now I have the feeling I just might know how I’ll do it. :)

How Ma Bell Shelved the Future for 60 Years

How Ma Bell Shelved the Future for 60 Years

Gizmodo’s Tim Wu blogs about how innovation was stopped in its tracks, effectively, due to capitalist interests.  Funny how we’re all told capitalism is great for innovation. Too bad that’s only true until innovation might damage the current business model.  Take the example of the answering machine that existed in the office of a Bell Labs engineer… in 1934.

Apple Inc.: A prominent new reason we need a pro-Net Neutrality Law

I posted this over on website666 and thought it would fit here, too.

website666com:

I noticed this over the past few weeks as I read various coverage of iPhone apps that Apple was and was not letting get through.  Check out these headlines:

Radio Station Apps: No Longer Welcome in the App Store

Apple Bans Android Magazine From The App Store

Why Does Apple Make Donation Apps So Hard?

In short, Apple seems to be using it’s position to stop certain information from getting onto it’s devices.  Want to listen to your favorite local radio station now that you live in a different city? Sorry, you won’t be able to on your iPhone.  That’s a shame since it’s just a little station with a tiny budget and not much ability to reach a national audience. Now, thanks to Apple, a great (and inexpensive) channel for reaching a national audience is gone.

Then, we’ve got Apple deciding whether or not you can read about competitors to Apple on Apple devices.  I don’t know about you, but I don’t like Apple telling me what I can and can’t read on my iDevice.  Sure, I can always pull up that Android magazine’s website in Safari, but then, what’s the difference between Safari and an app?

Finally, that last article I link to above talks about how Apple has stopped accepting apps that allow in-app donations to charity orgs (or anyone else).  Why is this? It sure seems like it’s because it means money passes through Apple’s infrastructure without them getting a cut.

Over all, I feel that it’s this kind of “walled garden” mentality that makes us less free as consumers.  When we start accepting limits on what content we are allowed to consume and how we consume that content, I think we become less free as a people, too.

You don’t really appreciate how important Net Neutrality is until you don’t have it anymore.

666cast episode 36 for December 5, 2010: It’s the FEAR episode of the 666cast! WikiLeaks, governments, politicians, innovation, words, we’re afraid of all sorts of stuff! AAAAA!! Let me know what you think! Please subscribe to the feed. Don’t forget to visit webstore666!

666cast episode 36 for December 5, 2010: It’s the FEAR episode of the 666cast! WikiLeaks, governments, politicians, innovation, words, we’re afraid of all sorts of stuff! AAAAA!!

Let me know what you think!

Please subscribe to the feed.

Don’t forget to visit webstore666!

More Reasons Why Free Speech Trumps Government Secrecy (more on why WikiLeaks should be left alone) UPDATED

If this week’s post on EFFYOU.org didn’t give you enough reasons to support WikiLeaks (or at least understand why they are important) here are a few more reasons I’ve snipped from another great post from underpaidgenius:

Jeremy Geelan contacted me about the Wikileaks mess, and wanted my two cents. His piece is an interesting juxtapositioning of cloud computing and political intrigue.

A few snippets:

WikiLeaks & Web 3.0 - A Commentary | Cloud Computing Journal

[…]

“The Internet is open, we have to embrace that. I for one, am proud there are secure silos around the world that can host material and get it out to the people. Yes we have to take the rough with the smooth, and while we do not agree with what they publish, if we live in a free society then this is what we have to swallow if I am to be able to stand up to be heard without fear.

The Internet can keep governments honest…or at least more honest than historically allowed. We have to keep things open.”

[- Alan Williamson]

STOWE BOYD, self-declared social philosopher and “webthropologist,” takes Williamson’s “We have to keep things open” stance to another level.

“What WikiLeaks represents is civil disobedience channeled through an agenda of radical openness,” declares Boyd. “The individuals involved on a personal level are deciding that laws that may or may not designate their activities as illegal are illegitimate, that our obedience to the state is coerced, and therefore can be morally opposed and countered.”

Boyd goes on to explain this in more detail as follows: “Wikileaks is an example of direct action, like Greenpeace activists attempting to shut down the Knightsnorth power station, claiming that the laws against trespass and destruction of private property were outweighed by the need to counter global warming to prevent far greater property damage around the world. They were acquitted, the first time such a claim was used as a ‘lawful excuse’ for committing a crime (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenpeace). One form of “direct action,” Boyd continues, is to expose secrets, especially when governments or large corporations are saying one thing publicly and doing another clandestinely.

“In some cases these exposés might involve criminal wrong-doing, or simply duplicitous behavior,” says Boyd.

“Amazon or other hosting providers that opt to decline support for WikiLeaks or other activists may be acting because of alternate moral viewpoints, or through coercion, or fears of future repercussions when governments may decide that the hosts are culpable in some way,” he adds.

Incidentally, according to the WSJ, Amazon has said that they weren’t coerced by the USG to drop WikiLeaks, but that they were in violation of their TOS. More miraculous timing!  Like that rape charge this isn’t really a rape charge, according to a Gizmodo post (turns out he didn’t use a condom—seriously! You can clearly see why Interpol was required to catch this man! >_<).

UPDATE 20101205: Turns out it *was* a rape charge after all.  Isn’t this supposed to be the communication age?  >_<

Incidentally, I head Assange’s lawyer say on Democracy Now last week that when this story first broke he offered himself up to authorities to work out what was going on.  Turns out they didn’t take him up on it and now want to arrest him. Go fig!

Fareed Zakaria thinks WikiLeaks isn’t hurting America? THAT COMMIE!

Found via coalspeaker who commented:

I think Julian Assange is going to be the TIME PERSON OF THE YEAR.

I think he should be chosen.  Everyone is certainly acting like he’s the most powerful/influential person on the planet (even though he isn’t).

For more on my opinion on WikiLeaks and Mr. Assange, check out Episode 35a of the 666cast or this week’s EFFYOU recipients at http://EFFYOU.org.

666cast episode 35a from website666.com for December 2, 2010: Another special midweek ep! 1st 15: How the FBI is protecting us from non-threats by using entrapment. 2nd 15: WikiLeaks vs. the World—what’s with all the hate? Let me know what you think! Please subscribe to the feed. Don’t forget to visit webstore666!

666cast episode 35a from website666.com for December 2, 2010: Another special midweek ep! 1st 15: How the FBI is protecting us from non-threats by using entrapment. 2nd 15: WikiLeaks vs. the World—what’s with all the hate?

Let me know what you think!

Please subscribe to the feed.

Don’t forget to visit webstore666!

who remembers Cow&Chicken?

nathansgotsole:

who remembers Cow&Chicken?

Hm…. I feel like I *should* remember it! ;P

(I think I was the only “Pete” to work on that show, actually.)

EFFYOU.org: EFFYOU to anyone who thinks WikiLeaks should be stopped

From effyou.org:

The whole problem with absolute power is that there can’t possibly be a check or balance placed on it. In case you haven’t noticed, America has no check or balance on it currently and hasn’t had one in quite a while. No military is stronger than America’s and only a few economic powers could ever hope to compete with the US economy (despite it’s recent and huge collapse).

So, why all the tough talk regarding WikiLeaks? WikiLeaks has no military, no national economy, very few ways to defend itself and it’s only power or influence in the world is through words.

Why are so many world leaders afraid of what words might end up on WikiLeaks.org? Perhaps it’s because those words draw attention to behavior that would normally not be acceptable if it were done in public?

Read more at http://effyou.org