Well, the fact that US law says it doesn't automagically make it right, of course. At any rate, you always have options. Why, in your theoretical scenario, shouldn't the would-be slave just get charitable assistance? That's what people do today when they have no resources, I fail to see why it isn't an option in the picture you paint.
First, why does the U.S. Constitution apply to foreign nationals captured and held in places that are not the U.S.? It applies to foreign nationals who are being held by US enforcers (soldiers, police, whatever), whether they're on foreign soil or not. In other words, the Constitution dictates how our government behaves everywhere, whether they're on American soil or not. If, one day, the president goes for a vacation on the moon, he'll still be bound (in his official capacity) by the Constitution there.
Second, will Al Qaeda reciprocate? It absolutely does not matter. The right thing is the right thing, whether the favor is ever returned to you or not.
Also, how do you fight a war under rules that were designed for domestic law enforcement? Then treat them as prisoners of war. That comes with its own set of rules, of course.
Neither. Why are you making this personal? All I'm saying is that US soldiers don't get as much due process in our legal system because they voluntarily agreed to give it up. Nothing wrong with that.
I'm not talking about the prisoners, I'm talking about the US soldiers. They willingly signed away some of their rights as civilians when they joined. If they don't get as much due process in our courts because of it, they knew what they were getting into, so there's no problem.
Since always, but that's just my opinion. "Inalienable" means inalienable by others, not by yourself. If I want to sign myself into slavery (under no duress), that's my prerogative. I can't sign my descendents into slavery, because they have rights I can't take away. I can't press my neighbor into slavery because he has rights I can't take away.
Put another way: "inalienable" means no one can take those rights away. It doesn't say you can't give the rights away freely.
Actually, it's more than that. It isn't a restriction on an otherwise-unlimited government, it's a grant of powers to an otherwise-powerless government.
I'm pretty disappointed as well... also, the NYT's quotes from Scalia's opinion make him sound like a complete raving moron. How does a supposedly well-educated man say things as mind-numbingly stupid as "OMG DIS IS GUNNA KILL AMERICANS!!!11"? At least Roberts' opinion was somewhat reasonable, even if I do disagree.
being GPL... the BSD license wouldn't allow us that freedom BSD is MORE forkable than GPL, not less. Guess you don't really know what you're talking about.
Republicans blocked an increase on taxes to oil companies profits... Thank God they did, too. The Democrats are the biggest idiots in the world if they think that a higher oil tax would result in anything but gas prices going up for the consumer.
b) The people who do care are idiots. Opera is a web browser with enough notoriety that a release is newsworthy, open-source or not. Slashdot isn't "open-source news", it's just about news.
Huh. Years of running IE, and I have yet to have any problems with it automatically loading executables. I'd better be careful with that reasoning, though... one might almost come to the conclusion that being knowledgeable is the best security, far more than any browser!
Fair enough, but you made it sound as though all those who prefer FF7 are graphics whores, and that's why they prefer it (and won't even try FF6). I'm just saying that isn't the case.
Not necessarily true. I played FF6, and I think it is a great game... just inferior to FF7. Say what you will, but I honestly believe, having played both, that FF6 is the inferior of the two games (and not because the graphics are bad, I can overlook that easily).
Eh, the controller is OK. It's adequate, I wouldn't call it special. Now the GameCube controller, that was damn near perfection. Never before had I held a controller that fit my hands as if it were custom-made for them. Damn, that was controller nirvana.
I'm told it's not the best FF out there (FF5/6 apparently are, but I haven't played those) In my experience, it breaks down this way: approximately half the FF fans believe FF6 is the best, approximately half believe FF7 is the best. I fall into the latter camp. You really have no cause to believe what you heard about FF7 being the best, since it's pretty evenly split.
I use Windows because I'm not brain-dead and can keep my machine secure. For those of us who know what we're doing, it doesn't matter what OS we use. For those of us who don't know what we're doing, similarly, it doesn't matter what OS we use: you're only kidding yourself if you think that widespread Linux adoption would result in there not being many/any pwned machines. The user is, and always will be the biggest computer vulnerability.
I don't think that this law is a good idea, nor do I think current copyright laws are just. My point is, there's nothing wrong with copyright law itself, contrary to what my parent poster was saying.
No, I didn't know, and I still don't. Care to elaborate? Having respect is actually thinking highly of someone. Showing respect is treating them nicely: politely listening when they speak, refraining from name-calling... you know, civility.
So one should show everyone respect even though they don't earn it? That does not make sense. Yes, you should. You should do it because acting respectfully towards others is the right thing to do. More pragmatically, you'll win far less people to your cause if you run around acting rude toward everyone you don't like. The first step to changing someone's thinking is to establish a peaceful relationship with them.
Besides, I don't know about you, but I'd far rather have people in my society treating each other with respect than with hostility.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, the fact that US law says it doesn't automagically make it right, of course. At any rate, you always have options. Why, in your theoretical scenario, shouldn't the would-be slave just get charitable assistance? That's what people do today when they have no resources, I fail to see why it isn't an option in the picture you paint.
Neither. Why are you making this personal? All I'm saying is that US soldiers don't get as much due process in our legal system because they voluntarily agreed to give it up. Nothing wrong with that.
I'm not talking about the prisoners, I'm talking about the US soldiers. They willingly signed away some of their rights as civilians when they joined. If they don't get as much due process in our courts because of it, they knew what they were getting into, so there's no problem.
Put another way: "inalienable" means no one can take those rights away. It doesn't say you can't give the rights away freely.
Actually, it's more than that. It isn't a restriction on an otherwise-unlimited government, it's a grant of powers to an otherwise-powerless government.
I'm pretty disappointed as well... also, the NYT's quotes from Scalia's opinion make him sound like a complete raving moron. How does a supposedly well-educated man say things as mind-numbingly stupid as "OMG DIS IS GUNNA KILL AMERICANS!!!11"? At least Roberts' opinion was somewhat reasonable, even if I do disagree.
There's nothing wrong with that. They voluntarily signed those rights away when they became soldiers.
Come on mods, that was funny. Lighten up a bit.
b) The people who do care are idiots. Opera is a web browser with enough notoriety that a release is newsworthy, open-source or not. Slashdot isn't "open-source news", it's just about news.
ActiveX controls don't run until you give them explicit permission... unless you have your security settings set wide-open, of course.
Which, of course, would be crazy talk. Right?
Fair enough, but you made it sound as though all those who prefer FF7 are graphics whores, and that's why they prefer it (and won't even try FF6). I'm just saying that isn't the case.
I'm playing Tactics on the PSP at the moment, and it is really damn good. Also really damn hard, unfortunately.
Not necessarily true. I played FF6, and I think it is a great game... just inferior to FF7. Say what you will, but I honestly believe, having played both, that FF6 is the inferior of the two games (and not because the graphics are bad, I can overlook that easily).
Eh, the controller is OK. It's adequate, I wouldn't call it special. Now the GameCube controller, that was damn near perfection. Never before had I held a controller that fit my hands as if it were custom-made for them. Damn, that was controller nirvana.
Well duh. Beating the shit out of people is the oldest method of brute-force attacks.
I use Windows because I'm not brain-dead and can keep my machine secure. For those of us who know what we're doing, it doesn't matter what OS we use. For those of us who don't know what we're doing, similarly, it doesn't matter what OS we use: you're only kidding yourself if you think that widespread Linux adoption would result in there not being many/any pwned machines. The user is, and always will be the biggest computer vulnerability.
I don't think that this law is a good idea, nor do I think current copyright laws are just. My point is, there's nothing wrong with copyright law itself, contrary to what my parent poster was saying.
Besides, I don't know about you, but I'd far rather have people in my society treating each other with respect than with hostility.