That's the most vitriolic and agreeable post I've ever read. You had me at the first paragraph, the rest was just icing. Nice work, I've vote you up if I had mod points.
Clearly on this occasion I've been out cliched. Well done sir, I concede.
Also I'm currently on your lawn... should I leave maybe?
First thing I thought of too, but makes me wonder how flexible this would be, could it be folded? How about ironed and washed without damage? No idea about fiber optics (a minute on Google didn't help) but those seem to be pertinent questions before it's ready to be integrated into clothes. The whole multi-angle light collection seems like it could be pretty useful as well.
As a non-American liberal (I think - not sure, but anyhow) you sound like my kind of libertarian. I have sympathy for the libertarian ideals... from what I have read they would come close to the anarchistic ideals of someone like Noam Chomsky... Which you may disagree with in principal... but which I find amusingly similar. I'm not necessarily as "extreme" as either of these pov's but I find it interesting that they seem to me to be so close (freedom of the individual, democratic authority) and yet so separate rhetorically. If there is a difference, please elaborate upon it and enlighten me! I am not averse to being persuaded. It seems to me that most people want the same things - Individual freedom while maximizing social stability... so I guess.. no, I hope... that we are all more similar than we like to think.
Who said weak minded... it's the weak, and YOU posted anonymously... so... well... draw your own conclusions...
Exactly. I stopped reading about 1/2 way through, when I noticed several untruths and several statements that weren't supported by their actions till now. They are both going to say things that they think will get them elected and appeal to their respective bases, when what matters is what they will eventually do when elected. To discern that you can't listen to the words - you have to look at the actions and where they have vested interests... From that perspective, we are screwed no matter who the USA votes for.
You're wrong it's clearly craft-individual.
Mate if you can parse it like that and remain unaffected then great, someone needs to do this job - and I personally wouldn't want it to be me. And I'm grateful to the people who do it. Even those who say it doesn't affect them. But I don't think characterizing the people who are affected by these things as weak is helpful or fair. That is where I had an issue with what you said. Why do or say things to discourage empathy in the human population, or portray it as a negative attribute? I think it's a good trait and one that it would be nice to have more of in general not less, and in my mind the people who are affected by this are probably those with more empathy. After all if these images were just pixels to everyone, and we could all just refuse to process them at a conscious level, then why is the job of removing them even necessary?
You think that admitting that you have enough empathy for other people, that looking at pictures of their suffering for hours on end would affect you... makes you weak? Seriously? I'd rather be your version of weak and retain my humanity thanks. Especially since your sole criteria for being weak, seems to be a lack of empathy. You know who I'd trust to look after my kids? Who I'd rather have a beer with?... hot tip, it isn't someone who is ok with looking at this sort of stuff, and is so devoid of empathy that they are convinced seeing it for hours on end wouldn't affect them.
Would your definition of free will include having available all of the information needed to make an accurate decision? My point is that it is a spectrum not a dichotomy... Or is reading between the lines too difficult?
He was already interviewed though wasn't he? Or does it need to be since the case was reopened?
I agree I think that is a reasonable response. Although irrespective of the EAW framework, if the questioning is valid in Serbia why wouldn't it be in the UK? I also aren't willing to immediately jump to the conspiratorial conclusion... but it's looking suspect to me, and I don't see why an agreement can't be reached that allays the extradition fears. Either through questioning in another country or a guarantee being given that he won't be extradited.
Ok fine, but how would it hurt the proceedings to compromise in this case? If his fears are legitimate then surely an exception can be made or a guarantee can be made that he won't undergo extradition? If the only reason that the questioning is not being done in the UK is because of sheer bloody mindedness, that what does that say about the people conducting the case? Surely even the two girls allegedly involved in this would benefit from a speedy resolution? Why didn't they question him when he was there, despite him offering...? Why was the case dropped and reopened? Remember the monetary blockade on wikileaks by the US? Remember that they got kicked off amazon and the apple store? Remember that twitter was subpoenaed for users associated with wikileaks by the US government? Remember that death threats were made against Julian Assange by prominent Americans on national tv? Why was an interpol red notice issued for Assange, when even Gaddafi only warranted an orange? Yeah someone sure has questions to answer, but I don't think it's Assange.
Yeah. Except that you are wrong (which is ok) in a willfully ignorant manner (which is not). All of the cables were read and vetted and wikileaks even posted journalistic comments on many of them. The only ones that weren't were released due to the incompetence of David Leigh at the guardian.