The 'official' government story is that the spraying was testing. They however claim it wasn't testing the negative impacts of the spray, the spray was believed to be completely harmless, but easily detectable. They wanted to test the dispersion patterns and spread of potential chemical and biological weapons. That is weapons research( both defensive and offensive) but if you take it as true(I know) not intentionally meant to cause harm.

There isn't enough police in the country to disperse that crowd. The biggest thing is that the police weren't beaten up and kidnapped. This shows clearly which side is for peace. It isn't the people who get paid money to ensure peace that's for sure.

My guess is that any effort to help Assange escape would constitute "aiding and abetting" or "conspiracy to ..." something. At the very least, they would be interfering with police duties, so all those people could get legally arrested on the spot.>> ^seltar:

Hire a flashmob / lookalikes to dress like him and show up outside, let Assange blend in with them, and then disperse in all directions!

>> ^seltar:

Hire a flashmob / lookalikes to dress like him and show up outside, let Assange blend in with them, and then disperse in all directions!


That could work. The thing about how that could work as well would be as soon as he's away from the place of focus, he has a much greater chance of getting away. The problem would be of course if the police are tipped off and surround and block off the streets, detaining EVERYONE in the process. So you'd have to do this during maybe a high traffic hour...maybe with a lot of people who aren't afraid of giving the cops are hard time because they might have to charge them or something.

It could work, but there's a significant risk involved of bodily injury, so I don't know. The other thing would be sensory overload which is possibly a dangerous alternative. Set up a call center and start calling emergency services, bombarding them until it draws police away or at least harms communication and confuses them. The problem with that is obviously if there's a real emergency during that time, that person could be in real trouble.

Hire a flashmob / lookalikes to dress like him and show up outside, let Assange blend in with them, and then disperse in all directions!

You also didnt have a megaphone blasting at you requesting you leave that area. Safe to say there was no need to immediately disperse, and had they all been hanging around watching someone get stabbed then you should have left and called the cops.

>> ^L0cky:

I went into town one evening a few weeks ago and saw a big crowd of people. I decided to walk up and see what was going on. Turned out the Olympic torch was passing through and they were putting on a show of it; and man it was pretty slick.
But now that I've read you're post I realise how stupid I was. I could have been associating myself with all kinds of horrible crimes; maybe even murder or drink driving! And as I wasn't ACTIVELY disassociating myself from the activities before me I was justifiably laying myself down to the mercy of any reckless police officer that may be in the vicinity. If one of them shot me, I would have felt foolish and would have only myself to blame. Thanks for the info!
Or rather, without the smart ass stuff, you're post has a major flaw. You failed to specify any crime that this naive, biased, hothead youth of America was supposed to be disassociating himself from.
>> ^legacy0100:
Know your civic duties before claiming you are being violated of your rights. Naive, biased, hotheaded youth of America.

I agree. Crowds gather for a reason.
>> ^legacy0100:

"I didn't do anything"? What egocentric bullshit. Why are you getting closer to the action where cops are telling you to move away? Why on earth would you walk with the rioters when the police are actively telling you to disperse?

"I didn't do anything"? What egocentric bullshit. Why are you getting closer to the action where cops are telling you to move away? Why on earth would you walk with the rioters when the police are actively telling you to disperse?

This naive 백소년's logic of the role of his bystander-ness is flawed. Most likely some individuals were involved in illegal activities to have triggered the cops to act at first. So cops try to look for these individuals, but the individual disappears into the crowd. Police tries to search for the individual.

Now this is the important part. It's most likely that the crowd of bystanders got in the way of the cops, saying they didn't have anything to do with the illegal activity, so they shouldn't have to do anything or comply to cop's requests.

There are two things the bystanders are doing wrong:

1. Actively getting in the way of the cop's official duty.
2. Failure to disassociate themselves from the illegal activity.

See, what the bystanders forget is that you can't just stand there and let shit happen. It's common knowledge that if you see someone murdering a person or let your friend drink and drive, and didn't do anything to stop them, you are charged for contempt as well. When you are a bystander, it doesn't mean that you are responsible for everyone else's action. But at least when someone acts in a way you disagree with, you are obliged to ACTIVELY part yourself from that activity. Point the person out, or at least move away from the individual to disassociate yourself.

This is not so much to ask. Remind yourselves what you would have to do when you have witnessed a murder scene or saw your drunk friend with the car keys. In these situations, if you aren't able to prevent the illegal activity yourself, you are obligated to report to the police right away. In a crowded setting you often don't know who have committed the crime or let alone know if there is a crime being committed. So you haven't witnessed it first hand, but you are still obliged to disassociate yourself from the crime scene. So what's so hard about just walking away from group of people who have reportedly been doing illegal things?

Saying you are innocent at a crime scene and then actively walking toward the cops who are telling you to clear the area does not make you innocent. Because now you are purposely getting in the way of cops official business. When they tell you to move away, MOVE AWAY. Why are you disregarding the cops request? Why the FUCK are you approaching a group of cops who has their weapons drawn out? And notice how the film doesn't show what illegal activity was going on that triggered the cop's response, and only show the parts where cops are crackin' heads.

Know your civic duties before claiming you are being violated of your rights. Naive, biased, hotheaded youth of America.

Hope the mother was able to come retrieve her pup once the pesky humans dispersed a bit!

Hippos are deceptive like that, they look like big docile cows but they're actually quite aggressive, do not fuck with hippos. And definitely never stand behind hippos, unless you like standing in shit sprinklers, mother nature's own wide dispersal fertilizer delivery system.

There is so much wrong with this crap. I can't even begin to explain.

@ForgedReality. I am not going to go knee deep into this. But I think you have misunderstood a few things. First, dispersion or the index of refraction of many materials is frequency dependent. Ironically, my graduate research focused extensively on this! In it's simplest form, the dispersion relation is (w/k)^2 = (c/n)^2. That means that the group velocity is limited by c. So in a medium where the refractive index is nonzero the speed of light is less than c. Frequency dependence further complicates the issue. It implies that the refractive index is different at different frequencies. Hence, light at one frequency has a different group velocity than light at another frequency. This has been known since Hertz. It was explained by Einstein.

Lene Hau's experiments at the Rowland Institute are a little more difficult to explain.

It is a little easier to explain something related to her experiments: Bose-Einstein condensates. Naively, you can think about light as billard balls. If you hit one ball moving at a given velocity in a given direction with an identical ball moving in exactly the opposite direction and same velocity, then by momentum transfer you can cancel the motion of both balls. When you do this with light you create a Bose-Einstein condensate.

They did a study of the "faked-evidence" turns out there was nothing to it, and it was headed up by a Global warming skeptic.


Every few months the alarmists claim we're at a "crisis point" where it will be "too late to turn back". I'm waiting for the next one since last June.

Consensus does not mean unanimous and since when does it take every scientist to agree for something to be right. You think only the people that disagree deserve their degrees or use the scientific method?

Those that disagree are being suppressed and marginalized. Shouldn't that alone illustrate that people declaring "The debate is over" before there is any real debate have something to hide or gain?

People surprisingly don't need the amount of oil that we use...the oil we use is misused and greatly mismanaged.

Which goes back to my point: who shall we leave in charge of determining the "correct" weather, the "correct" temperature....and the "correct" dispersion, uses and price of oil? The free market does a better job of regulating waste and correcting mismanagement than any government.

This is sort of like the idea of believing about God or not to be safe. Suppose you don't believe in Global warming and don't do anything about it...then it turns out that all the evidence and the Vast Majority of scientists are right. Then what? Well we didn't change so now we're fucked...sorry kids.

What are the worst cases the alarmists bring up? More storms? We can't do anything to stop or change the natural disasters we have now. What's that you say? A rise of one degree in the global temperature in the next 100 years? In 100 years people will be sprinkling Kool-Aid-sized packets of nanobots in the ocean and creating their own temporary islands.

Conversely, in 100 years, if there's no global warming and the threat was empty, we'll still be stuck with hundreds of thousands of environmental laws and regulations as insane as the U.S. Tax Code.

It may be paranoid to mistrust government power, but it is seldom a mistake.












>> ^Yogi:

>> ^quantumushroom:
It goes back to consensus versus scientific fact, especially where the consensus is far from unanimous. There is no solid evidence for anthropogenic global warming, to the point data was faked to make it seem more so.
Assuming that everything the alarmists claim is true, and man somehow has the power to noticeably affect global climate with industry, then who shall we leave in charge of determining the "correct" weather, the "correct" temperature?
The root of this global climate "debate" is control. The taxpayer-funded alarmists--even if correct--are the useful idiots of governments that want more control over people's lives. The oil companies want to sell oil. People need oil and more oil, not more and more do-gooder tyranny.

>> ^Xaielao:
They ask where Bob is getting his info. I think it's pretty obvious the only thing he's reading on the subject are the religious papers and leaflets that try to debunk climate change by spouting a bunch of lies. Because clearly here he believes that propaganda, as the rest of those on the panel just stare at him dumbfounded.
It's probably the same propaganda and misinformation booklets that QM here reads.


They did a study of the "faked-evidence" turns out there was nothing to it, and it was headed up by a Global warming skeptic. Consensus does not mean unanimous and since when does it take every scientist to agree for something to be right. You think only the people that disagree deserve their degrees or use the scientific method?
People surprisingly don't need the amount of oil that we use...the oil we use is misused and greatly mismanaged.
This is sort of like the idea of believing about God or not to be safe. Suppose you don't believe in Global warming and don't do anything about it...then it turns out that all the evidence and the Vast Majority of scientists are right. Then what? Well we didn't change so now we're fucked...sorry kids.

Unfortunately, this is something i utterly reject. It doesn't just border on ignorance for you to tell anyone their own desires and thoughts and their sincerity to themselves, it goes over the border and keeps on going. I find it insulting to the highest degree for you to try and impose upon me a lack of sincerity in the things that i do in order to cover the truth of the matter - that i have not felt god, and that is no fault of my own. I will not accept the guilt that the church tries to lay at my door and it only pushes me away by attempting to do so.

I'm sorry if I offended you, but you might not be seeing this from my perspective. From my perspective, I know God exists, therefore, if you don't know God, it means that you haven't truly sought Him out. You've also spent many of your replies telling me all of the reasons why you don't seek Him out and aren't interested in seeking Him out, which lends credence to that theory. You say it's no fault of your own, but scripture says He gives everyone sufficient evidence, which people suppress, and in the end no one is going to have an excuses. I am not trying to offend you by saying that, I just believe scripture and my own experience.

If i were to tell you that if you really really wanted to, you could just admit that god isn't real, and you'll stop believing in an outdated superstition caused by the fear of the unknown - death. Would you like that? No, and you'd be right to be put out. I have no position to tell you your mind or thoughts or sincerity to yourself.

My position is if you do what scripture says, you will know God. That's always been my position.

By saying something like that, you lower yourself to be no better than a crusading atheist - do you not see that? I hope i have not misjudged you; afford me the same respect i afford you, please. If we both decide to dictate to each other our own minds and sincerities, this would be me and you telling each other we're wrong, ignorant, stupid etc., i hope god helps you to find a way of talking to an agnostic atheist without accusing them of ignorance and insincerity, because you did the same thing last time when you reinforced my understanding that theists cannot discuss religion in a fair and balanced manner, and therefore their argument must be weak.

I don't know anything about you other than what you post on this website. I don't assume anything other than you're a person worthy of respect.

It is utterly facile of you to tell me that 2 religions are taken from christianity. You know as well as anyone else that there are thousands of religions and thousands of "gods" i could choose. Why did you cherry pick two religions post christ? You understood my point, yet you decided to avoid it. Regardless, if i got a mormon or muslim in here, they would offer similarly vehement defenses of their own religion followed by casting dispersions on yours; do not skip the underlying point, the religion in question is irrelevant. Your religion is not the oldest religion on the planet, not by a long way; so no, not all revolves around christ.

There are 1000s of religions, most of them in antiquity. If God has revealed Himself to the world, do you think it is going to be through some obscure religion no one has ever heard of? Do you think He is only going to have a handful of adherants? All religions are not the same, and they don't make the same claims. For most of the believers on the planet, Jesus is the central question. Also, Judiasm is the oldest religion on the planet, and that is where Christianity comes from.

Finally, why do you assume that i have not investigated logic and the scientific method? In the past and now, you have occasionally had a negligent way of speaking to me that i don't feel i've deserved.. There are ALWAYS many people out there who are more educated than you are, and i could be one of them.

Maybe you have, and maybe you are. However, we cannot examine the comments you made about mathematics without examining the laws of logic and the uniformity of nature.

I put a lot of time and effort into these posts for you and it's unrewarding.

I have put in some time as well, as thus far I find you addressing the last paragraph or line of my replies and ignoring everything else.

Edit:
Actually, i imagine with all the people you have to reply to it's probably hard to editorialise everything you want to say.

It can be, especially because of the limitations of the medium.



>> ^dannym3141:

>> ^shinyblurry:

This is something He would give to you if you sought it out.

Unfortunately, this is something i utterly reject. It doesn't just border on ignorance for you to tell anyone their own desires and thoughts and their sincerity to themselves, it goes over the border and keeps on going. I find it insulting to the highest degree for you to try and impose upon me a lack of sincerity in the things that i do in order to cover the truth of the matter - that i have not felt god, and that is no fault of my own. I will not accept the guilt that the church tries to lay at my door and it only pushes me away by attempting to do so.

If i were to tell you that if you really really wanted to, you could just admit that god isn't real, and you'll stop believing in an outdated superstition caused by the fear of the unknown - death. Would you like that? No, and you'd be right to be put out. I have no position to tell you your mind or thoughts or sincerity to yourself.

By saying something like that, you lower yourself to be no better than a crusading atheist - do you not see that? I hope i have not misjudged you; afford me the same respect i afford you, please. If we both decide to dictate to each other our own minds and sincerities, this would be me and you telling each other we're wrong, ignorant, stupid etc., i hope god helps you to find a way of talking to an agnostic atheist without accusing them of ignorance and insincerity, because you did the same thing last time when you reinforced my understanding that theists cannot discuss religion in a fair and balanced manner, and therefore their argument must be weak.

It is utterly facile of you to tell me that 2 religions are taken from christianity. You know as well as anyone else that there are thousands of religions and thousands of "gods" i could choose. Why did you cherry pick two religions post christ? You understood my point, yet you decided to avoid it. Regardless, if i got a mormon or muslim in here, they would offer similarly vehement defenses of their own religion followed by casting dispersions on yours; do not skip the underlying point, the religion in question is irrelevant. Your religion is not the oldest religion on the planet, not by a long way; so no, not all revolves around christ.

Finally, why do you assume that i have not investigated logic and the scientific method? In the past and now, you have occasionally had a negligent way of speaking to me that i don't feel i've deserved.. There are ALWAYS many people out there who are more educated than you are, and i could be one of them.

I put a lot of time and effort into these posts for you and it's unrewarding.

Edit:
Actually, i imagine with all the people you have to reply to it's probably hard to editorialise everything you want to say.

from the necn.com article:

"14 people were arrested and charged with failure to disperse and disorderly conduct."
"No one was hurt, and there was no property damage."

I'm not sure that even qualifies as a party, much less a riot.