Walsingham

Enoch, full apology, and humble pie from me. I don't know how I failed to grasp your original post properly. To quickly recap, we've split into two discussions. One is on the behaviour of Julian Assange, and that is in two parts (rape and leaking secrets). The other is the principle of leaking in general. - I believe the technical vulnerability leak puts the nail in Assange. His is not a crusade for information the People need, but a power play. Zoraptor's analysis that the targets aren't serious is interesting, but defunct. Mass casualty attacks on tourists may make the opposition feel good, but they don't pose an immediate threat to national well being. Whereas these are presented as vital. I see no reason why I should instantly dismiss their validity because I make an idle guess that they aren't.* - The principle of leaking has - I can accept - some noble intentions. However, as free members of democracies we have it in our power to put in place real institutions with real power to whom leaks can be given. If we support leaks let us do so properly**, and not at the whim of dubious and unaccountable persons of unclear agenda. * I haven't read them, and don't intend to as that would be a crime. ** I have a further point on the validity of leaks in principle, in military and diplomatic affairs, but I'm hoping not to get a tldr.

Saying "I could have worked that out" betrays a lack of understanding about terrorists. I hate to break it to you, but they just aren't very bright. Which is kinda why they become terrorists. Moreover, even if they did make a guess as to the sites which are or high significance, they wouldn't actually know for certain. The list takes away that uncertainty. But that's not the point. The real point here is that the leak doesn't remotely serve any public need. It's pure spite. And it shows exactly how this is a power trip for Assange, not an exercise in democracy - leaving aside my persistent point that not a single bastard elected Assange to anything he's doing.

I imagine it would taste pretty foul. They're carrion, right?

For me, the death penalty rests on the fundamental evil involved in some crimes. Go delve into the case files until you've been physically sick at least once, then come back and tell me the death penalty isn't OK. Statistics be damned.

To my great delight on two counts I am pleased to report that my physio informed me today that she is coming to the gig this weekend. *bows* My second reason being that it vindicates my eschewing the 'groin first at full gallop' approach.

Super Size me fell down because McD's have enver told me to eat there all the time. I liked the guy, and enjoyed the film, but no sale. He should have done a sequel in Baskin Robbins.

Homophobia is gay.

Say you have airborne herpes. At Christmas. It's like malaria. It comes back now and again.

Krez, have you fallen for some left wing chick or something? You've been like an avalanche recently...

Three things with the carriers: 1. MoD were told they had to make cuts. No buts. 2. The nature of the carrier contracts was such that they would cost more to cancel than to keep.* 3. Taking a slightly wishful view of current affairs there is little propsect of us needing a carrier in the foreseeable mid term future. So, I don't like the decision, but I like it a lot more than the decision to scrap desperately needed infantry battalions. BTW, your tank analogy is rather apposite. The Germans decided to commission the mk III and IV panzers with small guns to save expense and industry. Later in the war these were upgunned and served pretty well. *The fact that some MPs have argued we shouldn't sign contracts of this nature gives me the screaming abdabs. Companies, and the employees of companies have a right to know if an investment of millions into infrastructure and staff and training might just evaporate.

I'd definitely recommend reading it. But it's not a Pratchett style take on fantasy. At least the near constant raping isn't.

I genuinely don't get the fuss over the TSA. FWhile I'm not exactly proud of my body, I don't mind showing it if I have to in order to stop it being blown into tiny tiny bits. Tiny tiny chunks are an even worse look for me than naked. The problem is that most people who are not in the business of selling those new machines and/or fearmongering for profit/re-election consider this latest step to be totally ineffective (as long as your anal cavity is not inspected, you can smuggle things on board). I'd rather die than lose my dignity, but it's probably too late for that. And I have a deathwish, anyway. Genuinely no offence, Nep. But your dignity begins and ends where you say it does. Unlike your spleen.

Feeling a bit better now. Lay on my office floor with the lights off for a bit. Not quite Orde Wingate, but still good no-one saw me.

It looks great, I might well pick it up. But ain't that cover art awful? I haven't read that, but if you think you'd like it then you need to read Dan Abnett's series about the Tanith First, beginning Gaunt's Ghosts. It really is outstanding fiction.

I genuinely don't get the fuss over the TSA. FWhile I'm not exactly proud of my body, I don't mind showing it if I have to in order to stop it being blown into tiny tiny bits. Tiny tiny chunks are an even worse look for me than naked.

[And I find it astonishing that people are often so mistrustful of government when they cheerfully swallow mountains of abuse from private companies. ] Having said that, I don't think we're actually that far apart, just facing in different directions. I'm a bit of a systems theorist when the mood is on me, and it seems to me that a balance is pure common sense. I'm certainly no enemy of business. Yet a system which is governed by greed and unemcumbered by and ties of responsibility needs to be kept in check when it gets funny notions. And equally I've had too much experience of government to regard it entirely as the angels. A key difference between us is philosophical, I suppose. Maybe a little practical. You see business as fundamentally innocuous because it can't deploy force (which is simply not true in my opinion). I on the other hand consider democratic government* to be fundamentally deserving of power and capable of great things. *In the full meaning of the word, not just one which holds elections, before LoF jumps in.

I speed read, and as a consequence am extremely poor at spotting errors. I basically fix them preconsciously. Besides, I already have a plate of free stuff I'm doing. My advice would be to do someone a favour and then call it in. It's a good economy if you find the right people.

Another day with a killer headache all day. I hate my back trouble. I almost never had headaches of any kind before this. Shame really as the snow and freezing mist manages to make even England look beautiful.

My favourite is that monkey means

I like the tent plan. Maybe I could hire one of those galapagos turtles? Ride around on his back all night.

I know I've said many times I'd never live in London, but a position has come up on short contract at a very considerable whack based in that felonious stink pit. I thought I'd pitch in here and get some ideas on how to live in London cheaply-ish. e.g. at less than 50 quid a day.

I don't think it's hypocritical. Being nice all the time just isn't sustainable.

Not exactly. Dumb regulation is just dumb regulation and it is onerous and harmful no matter what quarter it comes from. Keeping the scope and power of government small only serves to minimize the harm it can do. There really is little difference in being screwed of by a well meaning but stupid buerecrat or a feckless or even malicious one. Limiting their power protects you from every type. Now that is not to say government has no role to play of that regulation is a bad thing per se. I think by now I should have made that abunantly clear in both philisophical arguments and examples. But it MUST be applied carefully and with restraint and consideration. The government at any level does not know how to apply power judiciously or with restraint. As Regan once said, government is like a giant baby, an insatiable appetite at one end and no sense of responsibility at the other. Do you think those idiots who wrote the everglades restoration act realized the end result of their well beaning but ignorant law would be thousands of acres of green sugar cane fields being paved over for houses? Which do you think did greater harm to the enviorment, the sugar farmers who had already stopped suing phosphate of the government that ran them off forever? Florida banned the use of phosphate fertilizer, that was a good and restrained regulation. They also partnered with US Sugar in redirecting water runoff to minimize the amount that seeped into the everglades. That was also good. The federal government came in and took the whole thing over and ruined everything for everyone because they did not listen to the people who actually live in the state and they did not even try to work with US Sugar. Isn't that rather like saying that living in a tent protects you against having to get builders in to fix your home? You've dwelt at length on the failure of individual govt initiatives. You have yet to come close to a convincing argument that the overall net effect is detrimental.

I agree it has a lot of potential. Although I'd encourage the makers to read the original novel to get some ideas on plot that go beyond the hilariously lame.

Sheesh, krez. Not everyone has 60 hours of free time.