Anyone who tries to seriously answer that question here will get down voted so far that their answer will be pretty much the same color as the background.
This is a topic that simply cannot be discussed on HN.
You're right that there's a bias here, but there are also people on the other side and (I hope) a nontrivial number who don't identify with sides and are here to learn.
So your understanding is that it's true that people died as a result of Manning's leaks? My understanding is that it's not true and that military leaders have said publicly that it wasn't true. If that's wrong, I'd appreciate hearing why.
> So your understanding is that it's true that people died as a result of Manning's leaks?
No. If someone has died as a result of the leaks, it is very unlikely we would ever discover that. When, say, the Taliban kills someone, they generally don't leave a thank you note for whomever provided them the information to identify the target.
Asking for specific names is as pointless as asking for specific hurricanes made worse by climate change, or for specific lung cancer fatalities whose lung cancer was caused by cigarette smoking.
The only way to access the damage, if any, from the leaks is probabilistically. That's the same way we know climate change has caused increased hurricane damage, and the same way we know cigarettes have killed people.
If discussion now goes the way it usually does, the above two paragraphs are going to be interpreted by many as me claiming that cigarettes have never killed anyone. :-(
There's a fairly large incentive for the US military / intelligence and its supporters to demonstrate that the leaks have killed people, or otherwise caused damage. If there were casualties, wouldn't we have heard about them by now?
Of course, I could be wrong, and there have been, but in operations which are classified, but I suspect that it's unlikely that there have only been casualties which are classified.
My point was that when someone is targeted by groups like the Taliban, we (the non-Taliban) generally don't find out HOW that group found out about that person.
For instance, suppose someone is killed for providing education to girls, and suppose that person's name and activities were mentioned in a leak. We couldn't conclude that the Taliban killed him because of the leak. Maybe a Taliban sympathizer reported the person. Maybe one of the girls unwisely spoke in public about how great it was to be learning, and a Taliban member overheard and followed to find out who was teaching girls.
At the same time, there's an obvious research project that would bring clarity to this question, which either has not been done (I doubt this) or has not unearthed any evidence that the leaks killed anyone (my suspicion).
That is, compile a list of people's names included in the documents that were publicly released, and see who among them are dead. Among those, see if any could have been specifically targeted (e.g., a minister mentioned in a diplomatic cable who dies of cancer was obviously not; an Afghan educator who was assassinated probably was targeted). Among the potentially-targeted dead, see if there are any who were exposed by Manning's documents (instead of already being publicly-known for their activities.
If were are any names left at the end of that funnel, they would have been hugely valuable to the US government.
Either no one has done this research, or it came out with no results, or there's some other reason the results can't be revealed unknown to me.
There is no need for him to be melodramatic; all I want is a name.
I'll upvote him for it if he is really that scared of being downvoted. Hell, if he is downvoted to oblivion for giving us a name of somebody killed because of Manning's leaks, I'll say something that will get me downvoted to oblivion as well. If he's hellbanned for giving me a name, I'll nuke my account. Call it a "karma suicide pact".
He won't give us a name because he doesn't have one.
Uh, you are the one being melodramatic here, and childish, and arguing strictly from emotion.
You are trying to suggest the really vapid idea (over and over and over) that because no "names" are being supplied by one side (in a realm where divulging names might be harmful in itself), then no harm was done.
Hey, I'm a big supporter of transparency and whistleblowing activites.
And I still say to people behaving like you - do you have any clue whatsoever how illogical you sound?
If he wants to tell me that people were killed because of Manning, then he is going to need to do better than "I feelz it". He has absolutely no evidence, only shit that sounds good in his head. The DOD itself cannot even find any evidence of specific harm to other parties caused by Manning.
I don't really want a name, I want anything at all more substantial than "I can totally imagine it going down like this". That is the same shit we've been hearing from day one. It isn't falsifiable, it is worthless. But he has nothing more, nothing but a regurgitated propaganda line. I'm not going to apologize for being mildly pissed about that.
I don't think it is. It seems pretty clear you misunderstood. As posted in another comment, this Tweet shows that The Guardian destroyed the hard drives at the government's behest: https://twitter.com/dansabbagh/status/369794535464767488
This is all very unclear to me. There's quite a bit indignation here which may be clouding people's rational assessment of the situation.
The Guardian has clear motive to play up any interaction like this with the government. That doesn't mean they would, but I'm not going to suspend critical assessment of the situation just because it plays to be beliefs.
The ratio of verified information to editorializing rants is very low here, at the moment.
I think maybe you misunderstood what the language does. It is compiled not to Haskell itself, but to the type system. No Haskell code is executed when using the interpreter (well, apart from the interpreter's itself), but it is Haskell's types that are... executed? checked? It's as is you made a program using C++ templates, not C++.
It may not be important everywhere, but there are other places where the origin of evidence is indeed important (e.g. Spain, in the EU). Just because in Austria it isn't you can't conclude that it's only important in the US.
> Calling it property is considered a misnomer by many
Yes, and those people don't understand property.(The problem isn't their understanding of IP -- most of what they say about the nature of IP is correct; the problem is that they don't understand real property, tangible personal property, and intangible personal property other than IP, because if they did, they would understand that the contrasts they attempt to draw are specious.)
Reasonable people do usually get in arguments (and are wrong) over the Monty Hall problem even when the problem is correctly stated (as the Vos Savant or Erdős' stories show).
It doesn't seem to be outdated. I guess you probably didn't follow correctly the instructions (or maybe they aren't explained well). The extra code given in the second example goes just after the code in the first example, starting with the same indentation. Something like:
main = do
putStr "Hello World! Let's have a picnic! \n"
people_text <- readFile "people.txt"
-- ... the rest
This article http://www.thenation.com/blog/174622/seven-myths-about-bradl... (in the myth #5) shows some evidence, in fact, of the opposite.
Even the military finds no deaths from the leaks: http://www.courthousenews.com/2013/07/31/59869.htm