He is definitely guilty. He did the things with which they're accusing him. The punishment of that crime is straightforward.
However, I think he is a patriot and should be lauded for his efforts. When he did it, he knew that this was what he risked. He obviously felt that it was worth it to provide such a tremendous service to his country. I applaud him and consider him a national hero for making such a sacrifice for me and everyone else. I would like to think I would do the same, but without being placed in that situation, I obviously can't say for sure. He can. His moral character was tested and he passed with flying colors.
This is the way things should/need to work. If there weren't consequences, we'd have all sorts of deluded people releasing classified documents (that they - possibly errantly - felt needed to be released) because they thought they'd just be allowed to go on their way (the world needs to know that we use slightly too weak of bolts on our drones, so here are the plans to prove it!).
The best possible timeline for this type of situation in my opinion:
1. He releases documents and is exposed as doing so
2. He is arrested and tried for the crime
3. He is found guilty and sentenced
4. If the public good that came from the action is so dramatic as to warrant it, he should receive a pardon (but that doesn't mean he shouldn't have been found guilty to begin with).
Of course, I won't hold my breath for the pardon, though. Politicians are too concerned with appearances to risk being "soft" on "terrorism" (everything bad is "terrorism", don't you know).
I salute you Bradley Manning. Serve your sentence with pride.
Certainly, intriguing, but not "dead ringer proof". It could also be that fraternal twins are more likely to be tested for autism if their twin is diagnosed than a non-twin sibling. You have to keep in mind that those statistics aren't giving chances of _having_ autism. Instead, they're giving changes for being _diagnosed_ with autism.
Yes, you were opposing certain code review comments, not opposing having code reviews. Which is what the conversation is about.
Of course you don't have to blindly make every change that comes up in a code review. That's almost as bad as having no code review. You have a conversation with the person who made the comments and provide a compelling argument on why they should complete the code review without those changes being made.
Replace "cows" with "corporations".
Sounds like a great idea. Should make working at a slaughterhouse more appealing.
And thus, Torgo's Executive Powder was born...
"I have not the slightest confidence in 'spiritual manifestations.'" -- Robert G. Ingersoll