Humodour

Monte Carlo, Julian Assange is a Libertarian. To me that doesn't qualify as 'left-wing'. Libertarians are economically far right and socially far left. They believe in minimal government and no state intervention in personal lives.

He was a decent guy. Glad to hear he went out content.

Prohibition is such an ironic policy. Thought up to control and limit damage to society but in reality its existence amplifies such damage.

I'd say my impressions were the opposite. I was never treated harshly (most of them were scared ****less of having a lawyer there), but never fairly or with any respect, apart from the respect you give to somebody who you suspect can tie you into legal loopholes for the rest of your natural life. Clearly your military culture is at an advantage over ours. Military as a prison is an institution, the big difference is that you probably won't be stabbed, raped, robbed, or likely to develop a drug addiction in the military. Plus my sting in the military is something I remember to be harsh but ultimately enjoyable; that said I wouldn't do it again. The comparison really isn't fair since both have very different objectives and populations. The whole point wasn't to equate the two, but to instead point out that people will generally view even a rather "soft" limitation of personal freedoms pretty ****ing opressive. It shouldn't matter what people think, prison should be punitive within the confines of the law. Otherwise the whole concept fails, specially since most hardcore criminals scorn general viewpoints. It is saddening that you feel revenge and punishment should trump rehabilitation and humanity. Especially when there's a large body of work to favour the latter as a means of reducing crime.

Heh, fact. Like an awful lot of 'facts' that is actually an opinion. You are being rather naive; though the ingenious use of and invocation of emotes like 'democracy' and 'dictatorship' indicate a good future in the world of PR... Call it what it is- a self appointed committee- and the reaction is rather different. Not really much different from a self appointed dictatorship whether it's Assange or plain old Joe Random with secrets arbitrarily deciding they should be leaked, except that turning something into a committee is a prime way of making sure that nothing ever gets done. Or in other words, it's still pointless and if you have quis custodes ipsos custodiet concerns, per Wals, then a self appointed politburo (<-My try for a career in PR) is not going to alleviate them. I see. Perhaps you should take a read: http://www.smh.com.au/technology/technolog...1210-18s0w.html

Well, as I see it, it's a question of what you'd rather have - and what eventually leads to a stable democracy... Agreed. The world is safer with modern-day Russia than Soviet Russia. And the Soviet Union split up to give many countries their freedom - countries which have now become democracies or are on their way. It's fall has ended, perhaps not well, but certainly not badly. The Iranian people thirst for an alternative. If given the chance they would likely embrace it. Certainly whatever resulted would likely be better than the status quo. Wow, way to be a huge racist bastard. Do you even want people to take you seriously?

Because you still need a free hand after every shot to reload? Never used one myself. Can't see it being difficult depending on the design.

Wikileaks leaks what the media doesn't leak, so to have media control Wikileaks.. ? Well, I'm sure it sounds ideal in Krez' world.. Dumbass.. J. Yeah but this coming from somebody who believes every conspiracy theory they here. I'm sure if there was anything sufficiently big that Openleaks couldn't convince the media to release they would just do it themselves. Moreover they would likely release it to sympathetic newspapers just like WikiLeaks did. But if people preferred things before WikiLeaks when governments and important safety/security secrets weren't leaked or people's live compromised through lack of redaction, but still want the bad, noteworthy stuff leaked, Openleaks seems like the best option. Fact is, Julian Assange is a dictator in his organisation. Openleaks is run democratically. Says a lot to me.

Is the latest Harry Potter movie any good guys?

Iran continues to suffer problems from a meticulously and intricately engineered botnet called 'Stuxnet'. I find this brilliant. No killing, no bombing, just exploitation of the Iranian government's own stupidity and lack of internal cyber-security. http://tech.slashdot.org/story/10/12/09/23...n-Nuclear-Sites And an article from a few weeks ago explained that Stuxnet is taking out all sorts of defence and governmental systems accross Iran, including their nuclear centrifuges and aerial hardware (drones, missiles, planes, etc). Stuxnet wasn't destroying the nuclear centrifuges, either, it was deliberately making them spin incorrectly, producing useless fuel. And this comment from a poster is kind of cool: And a comment on the worm's technical specs: The worm is generally presumed to be of Israeli, American, or Arab origin, however it could well be a joint collaboration as well.

Hahahaha yeah, it's probably actually a Tyranny Prize or something. I mean Confucius himself was pretty damn authoritarian and anti-freedom.

http://news.slashdot.org/story/10/12/09/22...A-New-WikiLeaks "Unlike WikiLeaks, Openleaks will not receive and publish information directly for the public eye." Basically it's the same thing as WikiLeaks, except these guys will release to certain news organisations/journalists, and let the journos decide what to release to the public, redact, etc. Sounds ideal to me! Thoughts?

It's worth keeping in mind that Julian Assange is still innocent. Nobody has proven him guilty and it's as likely that intelligence organisations are trying to frame him as it is that he is actually guilty of continuing with sex once consent was withdrawn.

No, we really shouldn't. That's the part that makes us human. Stubborn insistence that life is sacred and should not be taken as part of judicial process is also unreasonable and illogical. Stubborn insistence that the judicial process should not result in the government murdering innocents is unreasonable and illogical...? *snort* Also, to prevent any confusion, that was meant to read: "We can, and should, expect the law to be so, however." I don't expect any single human to be hyper-rational. I expect the collection of humans we call 'society' and 'government' to always aspire to this, however - an independent, unemotional judicial process is absolutely key to a just, free society. So you would deny a grieving individual closure on a tragic part of their lives? Maybe it does not bring back loved ones but i'm pretty sure that seeing the execution brings a little peace to the aggrieved, specially when the crime it's particularly heinous. This is in a large part an emotional issue not just logical. Yes, I most definitely would deny them that. They can see a psychiatrist if necessary. Under your scenario, what can somebody who was innocent do once they are executed just because somebody was too emotional to handle rational justice? The courts should be able to prove beyond reasonable doubt that a person it's guilty before executing the death penalty. There are criminals out there that are definitively guilty beyond doubt, they gloat of their "achievements" and have a complete disregard for life. I get your point, the system it's not perfect but it's still viable in a lot of cases. Interesting point you raise. Almost worthy of a thread by itself - certainly it splits this argument into at least two parts. 1) Should we allow the death penalty for heinous crimes we can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt? or 2) Should we adhere to the universal declaration of human rights without exception. I hold to the latter view. No, we really shouldn't. That's the part that makes us human. Stubborn insistence that life is sacred and should not be taken as part of judicial process is also unreasonable and illogical. Stubborn insistence that the judicial process should not result in the government murdering innocents is unreasonable and illogical...? *snort* No. Stubborn insistence that capital punishment should be treated specially is. Ultimately no punishment can be guaranteed to be justly declared, you just insist that death penalty should be treated differently for no logical reason. Why not bring in torture for certain crimes too, then? What a bankrupt point you make. Certain punishments most certainly should be considered specially.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/...ing-speech.html Great read. Would like to get hold of the real thing rather than snippets. Anybody have a source?

Psychedelic therapy would probably also work permanently with a handful of session (maybe one) but I doubt Monte Carlo considers that an option.

Tried a few drinks before boarding? I ask this because alcohol is an anxiolytic, and you sound like you're getting anxiety/panic attacks. Even if that doesn't work, there are many other anxiolytic drugs with vastly different structure which probably would.

To be honest I don't really like Julian Assange at all. But he deserves the same rights owed to every other human. I am extremely frustrated that WikiLeaks has not been more responsible with its leaks (classic example being the list of critical terror targets) and I've lost faith with this particular organisation. But the core philosophy and concept is an extremely important evolution of modern-day journalism and government transparency which America is feebly trying to discredit and crush.

No, we really shouldn't. That's the part that makes us human. Stubborn insistence that life is sacred and should not be taken as part of judicial process is also unreasonable and illogical. Stubborn insistence that the judicial process should not result in the government murdering innocents is unreasonable and illogical...? *snort* Also, to prevent any confusion, that was meant to read: "We can, and should, expect the law to be so, however." I don't expect any single human to be hyper-rational. I expect the collection of humans we call 'society' and 'government' to always aspire to this, however - an independent, unemotional judicial process is absolutely key to a just, free society. So you would deny a grieving individual closure on a tragic part of their lives? Maybe it does not bring back loved ones but i'm pretty sure that seeing the execution brings a little peace to the aggrieved, specially when the crime it's particularly heinous. This is in a large part an emotional issue not just logical. Yes, I most definitely would deny them that. They can see a psychiatrist if necessary. Under your scenario, what can somebody who was innocent do once they are executed just because somebody was too emotional to handle rational justice?

No, we really shouldn't. That's the part that makes us human. Stubborn insistence that life is sacred and should not be taken as part of judicial process is also unreasonable and illogical. Stubborn insistence that the judicial process should not result in the government murdering innocents is unreasonable and illogical...? *snort* Also, to prevent any confusion, that was meant to read: "We can, and should, expect the law to be so, however." I don't expect any single human to be hyper-rational. I expect the collection of humans we call 'society' and 'government' to always aspire to this, however - an independent, unemotional judicial process is absolutely key to a just, free society.

In the end there is reasonably minimal difference between anarcho-capitalists, objectivists, and libertarians anyway, so conflating them isn't really a problem... except for anarcho-capitalists, objectivists, and libertarians.

This is a logical fallacy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_emotion It's a human fallacy, not all of us are made of pure logic. We can, and should, expect the to be so, however.

80% of Australians support an R18+ category though Dan - from the government's own poll! :D

Indeed. I think this is a good thing. What I'm far more annoyed about is the stupidly large increase in university fees for UK students. University should be free or heavily subsidised. Find other spending cuts to make you bastards, like this ship! Of course it should. Because universites don't cost anything do they? I mean, all those professors and lab intructors and campus staff, they work for free right? Capus facilities and equioment like research labs and the money to fund them, that just grows up from the ground right? The day college is free is the day a degree becomes worthless. I've seen you critisise others for having an uninformed outsiders opinion on the U.S - let me tell you your comment shows me you know nothing about our university system. Not a thing. I did not mean to imply otherwise. I was just annoyed by Krezack whining about how other people should be paying his way. Learn how to read please.

That