OK I regretted my upvote. The interviewer is a child.

^ ^ actually i think it's the air glowing orange from being compressed so hard.

compare this vacuum bomb. (although the picture is released from the Russian army, so may not be THAT credible.

It's pretty worrisome how much they trust the technology - they get a grainy image of a dark blob with a shoulder strap and decide it's a gun, and not just a gun but an AK-47 (and then an RPG).

Nikon et al ought to make a bright orange line of cameras for use in conflict zones, so they have less risk of being mistaken for guns.

- And the pilots ought to be court martialed of course.

Excellent twist on twitter exhibitionism. Must be shocking to suddenly be in front of an IRL audience.

>> ^geo321:

The same? http://videosift.com/video/Leadership-Lessons-from-Dancing-Guy


guess so... sigh..

*dupeof=http://videosift.com/video/Leadership-Lessons-from-Dancing-Guy

^well I was thinking more along the lines of hate speech laws, which apparently don't exist in the US. They're generally pretty badly thought through, and can easily be abused. Especially since the groups being offended might have a counterproductive worldview (i.e. religious groups), and humoring them would cripple a functioning democracy.
For instance, the Durban II talks were hijacked by religious groups trying to make it a human right not to have your religion criticized.
Not only would that make a rational dialogue impossible, it also smacks of group rights.

*isdupe

^ @SDGundamX, I fail to see how hanging up a lynching noose falls under "violence" and not "offensive behaviour".

Are you talking about Fighting Words? That seems to be as good a definition of hate speech as any, and is based on the following belief:

"It has been well observed that such utterances are no essential part of any exposition of ideas, and are of such slight social value as a step to truth that any benefit that may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by the social interest in order and morality."

(Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 1942)

However, to me that seems like a stupid attitude - is it then up to the judge's fancy whether, for instance, Philip Pullman's books constitute a "social value as a step to truth" or not?

If i "encourage" you to murder someone by saying you should, and you then do it, which of us is the guilty party? Are you less guilty because you were under my spell?

[edit] Oops, i confess i hadn't read the post-chaplinsky chapter in the wiki article. NOT so great a definition of hate speech then, but it does show how that sort of legislation is irrational

well said!

Whenever people bring up hate speech laws etc, just show them this video.

...Alan Tudyk?

Indeed, sirs, 'twas a ruse.

damn and blast!

true, sadly...don't know if i'm privileged, but here goes..

*isdupe

^tree man, actually

A Tobin tax is probably not a terrible idea, but why do they have to associate it with Robin Hood? That will just piss off everyone who doesn't have an envy-based view of economy.
And while Bill Nighy is brilliant at squirming awkwardly, why can't we get some real replies from a real banker?

And why do they focus so much on the banker guy squirming? We don't get to see the (also greedy) face of the interviewer, or hear much of an argument besides righteous retribution against the selfish banker class.

How will they use the funds they raise to help 'the poor'? Straight up alms? Hundreds of billions of pounds applied irrationally can be quite destructive.

Jeez, UK policymakers can just make anything feel ominous, clumsy, greedy and obnoxiously P.C.