71–80 of 99 posts
I love how they thoughtfully go ahead and provide a headline-ready name for the data set now. "Cablegate." At this point the Watergate should just assign rooms scandal names ending in -Gate instead of room numbers.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you have a clearance you should absolutely not be clicking on it (if you are also paranoid and don't want to possibly fail your polygraph test -- "have you accessed or downloaded classified documents on your personal computer...?" er...oops). Otherwise if you don't hold a clearance, I don't think they can do anything to you (however, I am not a lawyer so don't take this as a legal advice etc etc...)
Actually don't worry too much about the polygraph, it's complete pseudoscience. http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Polygraph
The fact that police services can use it to extract confessions is just a nice bonus, and it's really a really cheap alternative to conducting a complete and thorough investigation. Police policy has for a long time favored confessions over investigations.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
With Obama/EU(not a person at all) winning Nobel peace prize, its obviously just political showmanship. Obama is a controversial because he expanded definition of combatant and expanded military reach. EU is a state. Not a person...
Not that I disagree with your assessment as such, but the peace prize as been award to institutions and organizations lots of times. So in and of itself there is nothing strange or unusual about the EU getting the prize.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>>Now, why do things have to be this way? Are you certain that, even while we the people are perfectly capable of being nice to each other, the countries that represent us must act like immorally self-centered egoists? That is a very common opinion (yes, I'm calling you naive). You are making an analogy between civil society (where people are nice) to states, where there is "realpolitik". You forget that there is a v…
Then explain the EU to me? Especially the beginnings of it? E.g. France, UK and Germany, mortal enemies for centuries, shifting focus from self-interest defense thinking to collaboration?
You have nothing to say about my point, except demanding that I should explain a single example of cooperation?
And about your example: Can you first show that the cooperation isn't in the economical or political interest of the countries? (That would make it realpolitik -- in this case, it is good to be nice.) Or at least for large lobbyist groups? Or the personal interest of the ruling politicians?
If you can show that, you have a counter example. [To an argument about statistical behaviour...]
Earlier quoted context omitted.
and yet, still used
They're using the idea of the polygraph, the actual measurements could mean anything. It's the "conversation" during and after the test that counts. Of course it's also a great medium to screw someone over, but that's a whole other thing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>>Now, why do things have to be this way? Are you certain that, even while we the people are perfectly capable of being nice to each other, the countries that represent us must act like immorally self-centered egoists? That is a very common opinion (yes, I'm calling you naive). You are making an analogy between civil society (where people are nice) to states, where there is "realpolitik". You forget that there is a v…
Then explain the EU to me? Especially the beginnings of it? E.g. France, UK and Germany, mortal enemies for centuries, shifting focus from self-interest defense thinking to collaboration?
Furthermore, Western Europe found in the USSR a common and real enemy. As Germany was divided into four (later two) parts, the power balance between France and Germany favored France at that time. That allowed for the idea of a collaboration that would connect the re-development of Germany to the development of Western-Europe as a whole. As a result, so hoped the Europeanists, France and Germany would become co-dependent to that extent that a military solution would not be in the interest of either country. To keep that balance, however, neither country could afford to annex some of the smaller countries. That would make the European idea attractive to these smaller countries.
All idealism aside, all this can be explained from a Realpolitiker point of view.
PS It has been a while I since studied International Relations and Modern History, however, so take the above more as informed speculation than historical analysis.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Actually don't worry too much about the polygraph, it's complete pseudoscience. http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Polygraph
and yet, still used
They are typically used in criminal investigations as a way to make suspects feel uneasy so investigators can pick up visual tells.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is a common argument, that I've seen at lot here on HN as well. It boils down to "every country should act in only its own direct best interest, and assume that every other country will or should the same". If I'm not mistaken, that's called classical realism[1] by political scientists. Now, why do things have to be this way? Are you certain that, even while we the people are perfectly capable of being nice to e…
>>Now, why do things have to be this way? Are you certain that, even while we the people are perfectly capable of being nice to each other, the countries that represent us must act like immorally self-centered egoists? That is a very common opinion (yes, I'm calling you naive). You are making an analogy between civil society (where people are nice) to states, where there is "realpolitik". You forget that there is a v…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"The collection published today has not been leaked. Assange said WikiLeaks had been working for the past year to analyse and assess a vast amount of data held at the U.S. national archives before releasing it in a searchable form." http://leaksource.wordpress.com/2013/04/08/wikileaks-plusd-p... So it is legal
Legal in what sense? Wikileaks cannot de-classify materials regardless of how much they "analyze and assess" it.
If the materials were still classified-but-leaked then I won't go near it until it is declassified. But I can't tell from this side of the window what's going on.
Usual disclaimer applies for those with a clearance: by accessing classified documents on your home computers you could get yourself in serious trouble (in theory). In light of this particular situation I don't know if anyone has ever been punished but you should be careful.
Perhaps only if you are a citizen and residing in the country that classfied them. Pretty sure it wouldn't be an offence to read documents classified by Zimbabwe in the USA, or vice versa.