Then it should be a simple matter for Sweden to publicly refute any extradition for Assange.
There's nothing to refute! You've fallen for the make-believe BS he's dishing out.
And end this bullshit speculation.
Who's speculating? The only people looking to extradite him are the Swedes, for purposes of wrapping up an investigation into whether or not he's run afoul of their sexual assault laws, which they appear to take far more seriously than Assange does.
Why haven't they done so?
Because there's nothing for them to do! Assange isn't facing a single other charge or legal proceding other than those already well described by the Swedes. The only person who's adding layers to this is Assange himself, to delay or avoid dealing with Swedish investigators, and of course to do the main thing that he always wants: keeping the spotlight on himself no matter how foolish he appears. And of course the vitriolically anti-American political hashing-about by the current administration in Ecuador, which is operating a la Venezuela's Chavez, and is looking to make a minor and (to them) low-cost spectacle for the home audience, shadow-boxing in a non-existent fantasy fight.
At best this is two women abusing Sweden's legal system to get back at a cheating boyfriend
And that means that when it's still an active case in the hands of investigators within that country's law enforcement agencies, that the person being investigated should be able to decide whether or not it matters? He fled the country to avoid being interviewed. His fantasy - that it's all about the US - is utterly transparent. It's not even delusional... it's just a junior-high-school-grade bit of theatrics on his part, an attempt to distract from the fact that he's run up against Sweden's particularly harsh position on how sexual assault is defined and prosecuted.
Right. Of course if he'd become political about stuff you actually like or approve of, you'd have applauded him for being your kinda guy. Just because his opinion of who ought to fund/run a particular program is different than yours doesn't mean that he was less of his admirable self when he said it out loud.
This planet has been at peace for a long time, until we infected it.
I'm curious which scripting language and platform you used to post this after you killed yourself in the interests of the planet.
this planet never had a species like Humans
The planet has had all sorts of very destructive, greenhouse-gas-emitting species. Including gigantic herds of mult-ton herbivores capable of srtipping the vegitation from an entire valley in a week before moving on. Wildly more species are extinct than exist, and this was true long before we came along.
It's just convenient for you to arbitrarily decide that your own opinions about subjective matters are somehow more correct?
Who said anything about subjective? Rationally derived opinions are always superior to irrationally derived ones. Opinions based on fantasy are always inferior to opinions based on facts and reality. People who say that all opinions have equal merit are just intellectually lazy, and can't be bothered to talk about substance because that will shine light on the mixed premises and irrationalities underlying their world view. They find that uncomfortable, so they attempt to cover it up by being moral relativists and having situational ethics instead of real ones.
to merely accept that you have a difference of opinion
Guess what: not all opinions are equally valid. The opinion that ripping off the people who create the software you want is a good thing? That is an inferior opinion based on an irrational world view.
Yes, your shrill, deliberate mis-use of the term "thought crime" and purposeful embrace of the practice of ripping off thousands of man-hours of work in order to save the cost of a cup of coffee - that is scary. Because it shows just how entrenched the entitlement-minded leech culture is.
The whole real-wages-are-down meme always ignores the enormous change over time in standard of living, creature comforts, households full of magic communication devices and the rest. Give up on some of that, rewinding to the nostalgic past to which everyone compares earning power, and watch how much better you can get by on a given wage.
In cases like that... capitalism works despite socialism's drag on production and growth, and socialism only works because capitalism is there to be its beast of burden. Luckily for the socialists they haven't completely squashed the capitalists' drive to produce things.
Re:Ok, let's see you died in the wool capitalists
on
OnLive Acquires OnLive
·
· Score: 0
Yes, that's exactly what he'd prefer. Because he doesn't want to see investors (who lost their entire investment in round one) come back and double-down as a sign of how much they think the business can still succeed. He doesn't want half of those people to lose their jobs, he wants all of those people to lose their jobs - because he wants them to become dependent on the state, instead.
If organized crime was legalized, then there would be no organized crime
So you're all for extortion, arson as insurance fraud, groups that target and steal cars for black export, groups that steal cabling from construction sites and find scrap metal dealers intimidated into buying it from them (or else!)... yes, we should definitely make it easier for that sort of thing to happen. And when someone decides to kill someone else over protection racket turf, and uses his organized group of criminal friends to present false alibis... cool, right? Because if it weren't illegal for a group of people to conspire in the act of committing a crime, then those crimes wouldn't happen, right? You're an idiot.
What part of "Defense Secretary Gates Reveals Wikileaks Document Leak Didn't Actually Reveal Intelligence Sources" did you not understand?
Unlike you, I'm actually able to consume information within a broader context. He was speaking of intelligence sources. There was no need for him to speak about the damage done to foreign operatives, in-progress diplomatic matters, anti-regime protesters and the rest who were betrayed. He was speaking of the stuff that couldn't be immediately obvious to the rest of us, unlike the very obvious public dumping of all of the other sensitive material and the people/processes/arragnements that it trashed. Of course, you know that, and are cherry-picking in order to tap dance around that topic.
So what you're saying is that he hasn't been charged with anything, or that you don't understand what you're talking about. Thanks for clearing that up.
There shouldn't be any government undercover cops working against organised crime.
Because... you like groups that murder, extort, enslave young girls in the sex trade, deal in narcotics, and use force and threats to corrupt government employees? What's your agenda, actually, in looking to make life easier for such people, rather than seeing a solid case built against them, and a successful prosecution of their crimes? Oh, I get it. You're a libertarian purist gone wrong, and think that there's no such thing as crime, and would just shrug your shoulders if your own sister or daughter was the one having to do strangers at gunpoint.
There shouldn't be people working covertly in places like North Korea and Yemen
Because you like the idea of a Stalinist state that starves millions of people in labor camps, and like the idea of Sharia law and undamentalist wackos shooting school teachers in the head for daring to teach girls to read? You're painting a very flattering picture of yourself, here.
People should know precisely everything about every nuclear load that various agencies, including government move around them.
Including where and when they can put an IED or twelve in order to destroy the trucks carrying it?
And why the hell are US agents working coverly in Yemen to begin with?
They're working to understand and push back against groups operating there - you know, groups who've said it's their sacred purpose to destroy western civilization, or to at least kill members of western civilization whenever they have the chance. By, you know, doing things like sinking ships, flying aircraft into buildings, getting their hands on WMDs for use in western cities, blowing up trainloads of people in Madrid or London for the sin of being insufficiently Islamic and allowing women to read - that sort of thing. That group has had its cozy Taliban-hosted summer camp taken away from them, and they're looking at places like Yemen and Somalia to set up shop again.
You'll recall that a well known recruiter and PR mouthpiece for that movement - the guy involved in helping to plan and stage the attempted destruction of an inbound airliner over Detroit - was operating out of Yemen. Not to bother you with any details or anything. They didn't send that guy to try to kill a few hundred people so we'd stay out of Yemen. He did it because he thought that western civilization should cease to exist, and that his vision for a global Islamic culture should rise - killing off contemporary liberal non-Islamic democracies with death by a thousand cuts over time. You know, that guy operating in Yemen. Hence our working with people there to attampt to shut him down.
Of course, you already knew all of that, but rather than deal with the reality of the existence of people who don't merely want to be left alone, but who want to see your culture and lifestyle cease to exist... rather than face that, you're opting for la-la-la-if-we're-just-nice-to-them-they'll-be-happy. Which is a joke.
witness protection and undercover cops are neither illegal or unethical
Unless they are, right? What if they're being paid off to protect (or betray) the wrong people? If you say there's nothing unethical about lying about a person's identity, giving them other people's tax money to buy a house, start a business, and get a fresh new life... but that there is, by definition, something unethical about having off-the-record diplomatic exchanges with, say, the leader of a pro-democracy movement in Iran - then what standards are you using, exactly, to define "ethical?" Should we choose Julian Assange to be the arbitor of that, case by case?
So you've got standards about what you think counts as appropriately covert and inappropriately convert communications and record keeping. But you're not saying how you would decide when it's being handled correctly. You obviously don't trust people like Nancy Pelosi to be honest about her take on what she's been briefed on, and you clearly don't trust elected executive-branch people to make the right call. So, how do you see that working? The government can appropriately handle sensitive matters only as long as they run it past you, first?
Wikileaks collaborated with major media outlets to assist in removing sensitive information.
And gleefully included in their "scrubbed" data details of exactly the sort of people referred to, their family ties in places like Iran, etc.
Just because people spout the same bull over and over and...... doesn't make it true.
That's true. But you're applying it to exactly the wrong circumstances. The untrue part is where the thousands of documents released did no harm. Because they did. They exposed at-risk people working under dangerous circumstances, they betrayed supporters of oppressed people in places like Iran, and they convinced countless potentually helpful people around the world to stop confiding in diplomatic contacts throughout the western world - people to whom they can no longer entrust sensitive communications, lest Julian Assange use them for another Look At Me I'm Famous ploy.
So your solution is to randomly dump hundreds of thousands of documents, including a lot of very sensitive stuff involving ongoing relationships with allies and people in dangerous situations, out into the hands of people who like to murder protesters and sabotage diplomatic relationships with violence?
That's a nice story, but those things weren't in the Wikileaks cables. Try again.
Not even a good straw man complaint, there. I'm replying (as you obviously know) to the GP's implication that government shouldn't do things in secret. Which is nonsense on the face of it. And you know that, but you're trying to change the topic so that reality doesn't get in the way of your politics. You try again.
Oh, and just in case you don't know about (though you do, and you're just asserting an alternate reality for bogus political points), the leaked cables absolutely do give up details of all sorts of covert operations, quiet conversations between nations, at-risk protesters with families living under brutal regimes like Iran, etc. Exactly the sort of stuff that's kept out of the public discourse for a reason. It must me relaxing to think there's nothing at stake in the world, and that none of people who risk their necks to get things done are of any worry to you. But then, that's what it's like to be in junior high school, right? Let me guess - 9th grade? Ah, those were the days.
charges being piled against him by various governments
Which charges have been piled against him by which governments? Please be specific.
Of course you know you're being a shrill, bleating goat-troll, since no charges have been made against him by any government, only complaints by two women about which police in Sweden simply want to interview him. Which you know. Which makes your frantic panties-in-a-knot rhetoric exactly as silly as it sounds.
Borderline date rape doesn't have multiple governments involved
You mean, like, the government investigating the alleged sexual misconduct, and the government of the country where he ran in order to avoid beinn interviewed? Yeah, I guess "two" is "multiple."
Assange himself is the only person who's decided to drag yet another country into it, again to avoid being interviewed by the first country where the alleged rape-ish behavior took place.
The only reason higher levels of government are involved (you mean the courts in Britain, right?) is for the same reason they always get involved in contested extradtion matters... because that's the part of the government that gets involved in exactly such matters.
people shouldn't know what their government is up to
You're right. I suggest that we publish the names and photos of all undercover cops working against organized crime. Also, home addresses of the wives of people working covertly in places like North Korea or Yemen. Also, we should circulate a spreadsheet showing the schedule and routes of moving nuclear material. And when the government acts to put someone in protective custody or witness protecction, such covert activities - where the public doesn't get to know where the person is and what they're doing - should definitely be considered the sleazy act of an insufficiently GNU-Open-Secrecy-Is-Bad government.
Or is it possible that there are benefits, when doing things like talking to political parties in countries that are on the brink of a civil war, in being able to assure such a group that they can speak frankly while policy matters are hashed out?
What ever was I thinking?
Don't beat yourself up about it. Most other people don't think about reality, either.
Here's a guy saying that we should stop paying attention to the fact that he and his team helped deliver to regimes like Iran and North Korea thousands of sensitive documents having nothing in common other than the fact that a wish-I-hadn't-joined-the-military drama queen stole a giant, un-focused heap of them in a fit a pique... and then he spends months trolling through them looking for anything he can find that might make his idealogical opponents look bad, no matter the consequences for people under cover or working against oppressive regimes... and then he says, "the witch hunt must end!"
He wants the "witch hunt" (what which hunt? the one where we already know exactly what happened and who did it?) to end so that he can continue his own actual witch hunt in peace and go back to having contentious sexual relations with groupies and getting fawning media coverage from his designated approved media desciples.
I always find it funny that the generations of people who grew up living in absolute terror of all things nuclear are the same generations that believed hiding under a piece of furniture would protect them from all things nuclear.
No, what's funny is people pretending - even though they know better - that cover-seeking drills aimed at mitigating injuries from marginal damage like shockwave roof collapses from shockwaves were really people thinking that it would save them from "all things nuclear." Please just stop with that idiotic meme.
Slashdot Mirror
Then it should be a simple matter for Sweden to publicly refute any extradition for Assange.
There's nothing to refute! You've fallen for the make-believe BS he's dishing out.
And end this bullshit speculation.
Who's speculating? The only people looking to extradite him are the Swedes, for purposes of wrapping up an investigation into whether or not he's run afoul of their sexual assault laws, which they appear to take far more seriously than Assange does.
Why haven't they done so?
Because there's nothing for them to do! Assange isn't facing a single other charge or legal proceding other than those already well described by the Swedes. The only person who's adding layers to this is Assange himself, to delay or avoid dealing with Swedish investigators, and of course to do the main thing that he always wants: keeping the spotlight on himself no matter how foolish he appears. And of course the vitriolically anti-American political hashing-about by the current administration in Ecuador, which is operating a la Venezuela's Chavez, and is looking to make a minor and (to them) low-cost spectacle for the home audience, shadow-boxing in a non-existent fantasy fight.
At best this is two women abusing Sweden's legal system to get back at a cheating boyfriend
And that means that when it's still an active case in the hands of investigators within that country's law enforcement agencies, that the person being investigated should be able to decide whether or not it matters? He fled the country to avoid being interviewed. His fantasy - that it's all about the US - is utterly transparent. It's not even delusional... it's just a junior-high-school-grade bit of theatrics on his part, an attempt to distract from the fact that he's run up against Sweden's particularly harsh position on how sexual assault is defined and prosecuted.
Right. Of course if he'd become political about stuff you actually like or approve of, you'd have applauded him for being your kinda guy. Just because his opinion of who ought to fund/run a particular program is different than yours doesn't mean that he was less of his admirable self when he said it out loud.
This planet has been at peace for a long time, until we infected it.
I'm curious which scripting language and platform you used to post this after you killed yourself in the interests of the planet.
this planet never had a species like Humans
The planet has had all sorts of very destructive, greenhouse-gas-emitting species. Including gigantic herds of mult-ton herbivores capable of srtipping the vegitation from an entire valley in a week before moving on. Wildly more species are extinct than exist, and this was true long before we came along.
It's just convenient for you to arbitrarily decide that your own opinions about subjective matters are somehow more correct?
Who said anything about subjective? Rationally derived opinions are always superior to irrationally derived ones. Opinions based on fantasy are always inferior to opinions based on facts and reality. People who say that all opinions have equal merit are just intellectually lazy, and can't be bothered to talk about substance because that will shine light on the mixed premises and irrationalities underlying their world view. They find that uncomfortable, so they attempt to cover it up by being moral relativists and having situational ethics instead of real ones.
Really? You have a computer. Other than that life is pretty much the same as it was 100 years ago. Oh and you have a car instead of a horse.
What's it like to be so utterly clueless? Oh, I get it. You're not. You're just trolling while trying to sound pious.
to merely accept that you have a difference of opinion
Guess what: not all opinions are equally valid. The opinion that ripping off the people who create the software you want is a good thing? That is an inferior opinion based on an irrational world view.
Does this not make you scared
Yes, your shrill, deliberate mis-use of the term "thought crime" and purposeful embrace of the practice of ripping off thousands of man-hours of work in order to save the cost of a cup of coffee - that is scary. Because it shows just how entrenched the entitlement-minded leech culture is.
Stop Global Whining.
The whole real-wages-are-down meme always ignores the enormous change over time in standard of living, creature comforts, households full of magic communication devices and the rest. Give up on some of that, rewinding to the nostalgic past to which everyone compares earning power, and watch how much better you can get by on a given wage.
In cases like that ... capitalism works despite socialism's drag on production and growth, and socialism only works because capitalism is there to be its beast of burden. Luckily for the socialists they haven't completely squashed the capitalists' drive to produce things.
Yes, that's exactly what he'd prefer. Because he doesn't want to see investors (who lost their entire investment in round one) come back and double-down as a sign of how much they think the business can still succeed. He doesn't want half of those people to lose their jobs, he wants all of those people to lose their jobs - because he wants them to become dependent on the state, instead.
If organized crime was legalized, then there would be no organized crime
So you're all for extortion, arson as insurance fraud, groups that target and steal cars for black export, groups that steal cabling from construction sites and find scrap metal dealers intimidated into buying it from them (or else!)... yes, we should definitely make it easier for that sort of thing to happen. And when someone decides to kill someone else over protection racket turf, and uses his organized group of criminal friends to present false alibis ... cool, right? Because if it weren't illegal for a group of people to conspire in the act of committing a crime, then those crimes wouldn't happen, right? You're an idiot.
What part of "Defense Secretary Gates Reveals Wikileaks Document Leak Didn't Actually Reveal Intelligence Sources" did you not understand?
Unlike you, I'm actually able to consume information within a broader context. He was speaking of intelligence sources. There was no need for him to speak about the damage done to foreign operatives, in-progress diplomatic matters, anti-regime protesters and the rest who were betrayed. He was speaking of the stuff that couldn't be immediately obvious to the rest of us, unlike the very obvious public dumping of all of the other sensitive material and the people/processes/arragnements that it trashed. Of course, you know that, and are cherry-picking in order to tap dance around that topic.
So what you're saying is that he hasn't been charged with anything, or that you don't understand what you're talking about. Thanks for clearing that up.
There shouldn't be any government undercover cops working against organised crime.
Because ... you like groups that murder, extort, enslave young girls in the sex trade, deal in narcotics, and use force and threats to corrupt government employees? What's your agenda, actually, in looking to make life easier for such people, rather than seeing a solid case built against them, and a successful prosecution of their crimes? Oh, I get it. You're a libertarian purist gone wrong, and think that there's no such thing as crime, and would just shrug your shoulders if your own sister or daughter was the one having to do strangers at gunpoint.
There shouldn't be people working covertly in places like North Korea and Yemen
Because you like the idea of a Stalinist state that starves millions of people in labor camps, and like the idea of Sharia law and undamentalist wackos shooting school teachers in the head for daring to teach girls to read? You're painting a very flattering picture of yourself, here.
People should know precisely everything about every nuclear load that various agencies, including government move around them.
Including where and when they can put an IED or twelve in order to destroy the trucks carrying it?
You have some really twisted priorities.
And why the hell are US agents working coverly in Yemen to begin with?
They're working to understand and push back against groups operating there - you know, groups who've said it's their sacred purpose to destroy western civilization, or to at least kill members of western civilization whenever they have the chance. By, you know, doing things like sinking ships, flying aircraft into buildings, getting their hands on WMDs for use in western cities, blowing up trainloads of people in Madrid or London for the sin of being insufficiently Islamic and allowing women to read - that sort of thing. That group has had its cozy Taliban-hosted summer camp taken away from them, and they're looking at places like Yemen and Somalia to set up shop again.
... rather than face that, you're opting for la-la-la-if-we're-just-nice-to-them-they'll-be-happy. Which is a joke.
You'll recall that a well known recruiter and PR mouthpiece for that movement - the guy involved in helping to plan and stage the attempted destruction of an inbound airliner over Detroit - was operating out of Yemen. Not to bother you with any details or anything. They didn't send that guy to try to kill a few hundred people so we'd stay out of Yemen. He did it because he thought that western civilization should cease to exist, and that his vision for a global Islamic culture should rise - killing off contemporary liberal non-Islamic democracies with death by a thousand cuts over time. You know, that guy operating in Yemen. Hence our working with people there to attampt to shut him down.
Of course, you already knew all of that, but rather than deal with the reality of the existence of people who don't merely want to be left alone, but who want to see your culture and lifestyle cease to exist
witness protection and undercover cops are neither illegal or unethical
Unless they are, right? What if they're being paid off to protect (or betray) the wrong people? If you say there's nothing unethical about lying about a person's identity, giving them other people's tax money to buy a house, start a business, and get a fresh new life ... but that there is, by definition, something unethical about having off-the-record diplomatic exchanges with, say, the leader of a pro-democracy movement in Iran - then what standards are you using, exactly, to define "ethical?" Should we choose Julian Assange to be the arbitor of that, case by case?
So you've got standards about what you think counts as appropriately covert and inappropriately convert communications and record keeping. But you're not saying how you would decide when it's being handled correctly. You obviously don't trust people like Nancy Pelosi to be honest about her take on what she's been briefed on, and you clearly don't trust elected executive-branch people to make the right call. So, how do you see that working? The government can appropriately handle sensitive matters only as long as they run it past you, first?
Wikileaks collaborated with major media outlets to assist in removing sensitive information.
And gleefully included in their "scrubbed" data details of exactly the sort of people referred to, their family ties in places like Iran, etc.
Just because people spout the same bull over and over and ... ... doesn't make it true.
That's true. But you're applying it to exactly the wrong circumstances. The untrue part is where the thousands of documents released did no harm. Because they did. They exposed at-risk people working under dangerous circumstances, they betrayed supporters of oppressed people in places like Iran, and they convinced countless potentually helpful people around the world to stop confiding in diplomatic contacts throughout the western world - people to whom they can no longer entrust sensitive communications, lest Julian Assange use them for another Look At Me I'm Famous ploy.
So your solution is to randomly dump hundreds of thousands of documents, including a lot of very sensitive stuff involving ongoing relationships with allies and people in dangerous situations, out into the hands of people who like to murder protesters and sabotage diplomatic relationships with violence?
That's a nice story, but those things weren't in the Wikileaks cables. Try again.
Not even a good straw man complaint, there. I'm replying (as you obviously know) to the GP's implication that government shouldn't do things in secret. Which is nonsense on the face of it. And you know that, but you're trying to change the topic so that reality doesn't get in the way of your politics. You try again.
Oh, and just in case you don't know about (though you do, and you're just asserting an alternate reality for bogus political points), the leaked cables absolutely do give up details of all sorts of covert operations, quiet conversations between nations, at-risk protesters with families living under brutal regimes like Iran, etc. Exactly the sort of stuff that's kept out of the public discourse for a reason. It must me relaxing to think there's nothing at stake in the world, and that none of people who risk their necks to get things done are of any worry to you. But then, that's what it's like to be in junior high school, right? Let me guess - 9th grade? Ah, those were the days.
charges being piled against him by various governments
Which charges have been piled against him by which governments? Please be specific.
Of course you know you're being a shrill, bleating goat-troll, since no charges have been made against him by any government, only complaints by two women about which police in Sweden simply want to interview him. Which you know. Which makes your frantic panties-in-a-knot rhetoric exactly as silly as it sounds.
Borderline date rape doesn't have multiple governments involved
You mean, like, the government investigating the alleged sexual misconduct, and the government of the country where he ran in order to avoid beinn interviewed? Yeah, I guess "two" is "multiple."
... because that's the part of the government that gets involved in exactly such matters.
Assange himself is the only person who's decided to drag yet another country into it, again to avoid being interviewed by the first country where the alleged rape-ish behavior took place.
The only reason higher levels of government are involved (you mean the courts in Britain, right?) is for the same reason they always get involved in contested extradtion matters
people shouldn't know what their government is up to
You're right. I suggest that we publish the names and photos of all undercover cops working against organized crime. Also, home addresses of the wives of people working covertly in places like North Korea or Yemen. Also, we should circulate a spreadsheet showing the schedule and routes of moving nuclear material. And when the government acts to put someone in protective custody or witness protecction, such covert activities - where the public doesn't get to know where the person is and what they're doing - should definitely be considered the sleazy act of an insufficiently GNU-Open-Secrecy-Is-Bad government.
Or is it possible that there are benefits, when doing things like talking to political parties in countries that are on the brink of a civil war, in being able to assure such a group that they can speak frankly while policy matters are hashed out?
What ever was I thinking?
Don't beat yourself up about it. Most other people don't think about reality, either.
Here's a guy saying that we should stop paying attention to the fact that he and his team helped deliver to regimes like Iran and North Korea thousands of sensitive documents having nothing in common other than the fact that a wish-I-hadn't-joined-the-military drama queen stole a giant, un-focused heap of them in a fit a pique... and then he spends months trolling through them looking for anything he can find that might make his idealogical opponents look bad, no matter the consequences for people under cover or working against oppressive regimes ... and then he says, "the witch hunt must end!"
He wants the "witch hunt" (what which hunt? the one where we already know exactly what happened and who did it?) to end so that he can continue his own actual witch hunt in peace and go back to having contentious sexual relations with groupies and getting fawning media coverage from his designated approved media desciples.
I always find it funny that the generations of people who grew up living in absolute terror of all things nuclear are the same generations that believed hiding under a piece of furniture would protect them from all things nuclear.
No, what's funny is people pretending - even though they know better - that cover-seeking drills aimed at mitigating injuries from marginal damage like shockwave roof collapses from shockwaves were really people thinking that it would save them from "all things nuclear." Please just stop with that idiotic meme.