Saying "Im stubborn and so Im not going to change" isnt laudable, its a character flaw. Likewise, saying whatever comes to mind isnt a laudable example of "being a man", its showing a lack of restraint.
People will judge you as immature and unprofessional if that is your conduct. It doesnt matter whether you find office politics repressive, thats the impression you will create. If Linus doesnt care, thats his prerogative, but its not wrong to ask for a bit of courtesy and respect on a mailing list.
You're absolutely right that someone can take their ball and go home if they find the disrespect too much to take. Thats actually a pretty good reason not to be disrespectful to them. If you were to respond to this post with profanity, I probably wouldnt bother acknowledging your post, and you'd have yourself a pyrrhic victory. People dont like dealing with abuse, and you cant reason that fact away.
Im sure we held trials for everyone we killed in the civil war, WW1, WW2, the korean war, the vietnam war,.....
And for the record "illegal" doesnt really make any sense when talking about war with foreign actors. Legality is determined by legislature of the sovereign government. There is no sovereign world government, and there is no world legislature.
No matter how many times the prosecution or anyone else insists it, getting out of your vehicle and following someone is not assault. Particularly when they attack you on your way back to your car.
by ending the fight he started by killing the person he assaulted, he committed murder -- or, perhaps, some lesser criminal homicide like manslaughter.
All of the jurors disagreed. The police disagreed. The forensics experts disagreed. So you can keep saying that, but its not true.
You are aware that trying enemy combatants in court is sort of an oddity, and not really the norm? Usually you just shoot them. If theyre POWs, you might give them a tribunal, but usually they stay locked up until the war is over.
Illegal is a term which has no meaning outside of national sovereignty. When conducting war, it has no meaning whatsoever.
The geneva convention is a treaty, and AFAIK it does not say you cant use a drone to kill people, or a gun to kill people, or a howitzer. It lays out an agreement that signatories wont use certain taboo weapons (some kinds of gas), wont commit torture, and will treat captured, uniformed enemy soldiers a certain way.
The folks we are capturing arent wearing uniforms, or part of any recognized army, so parts of the Geneva convention do not apply-- the agreement is specifically that we will treat your POWs a certain way if your soldiers follow certain rules. Al Quaeda is not following those rules.
Perspective time, because a LOT of the people complaining aboyut the "top 1%" also seem to complain a lot about job outsourcing, and that seems like an implicit complaint in your post.
While you complain about not being able to afford a nice house, you are in the top 5% wealthiest in the world, and the problems you describe (having two cars, each somewhat dated; having a dated surround sound system; not having a cushy retirement) are distinctly first world problems.
Perhaps if you ever start feeling bitter about jobs being outsourced to China / India and keeping you from earning more, remember that those jobs are going to people with far far less who could as easily complain about fighting for scraps.
Following someone is not "instigating a fight" in either common or legal usage. If I were to follow you home from work every day, you would have no justification for attacking me. You could possibly get a restraining order, but to my knowledge Martin had not gotten one.
At what point does getting out of your car and pursuing somebody become an aggressive act
When you get a restraining order against that person and they violate it. Until then, you cannot decide that you dont like that someone is following you and attack them without triggering legal consequences.
What I'm wondering is why that law didn't give Martin the right to stand his ground when Zimmerman pursued him?
The claim (and evidence) indicates that Martin attacked first. Theres no "stand your ground" when you initiated the physical confrontation; if you are the attacker you cannot claim self defense.
(like saying it must have been self defense because at the time Martin was shot he was on top
Whether you believe it was self defense or not is prett much the core of the case. If in fact Martin was on top, and was thus likely the instigator, then Zimmerman's account is likely correct, and Martin attacked him. The jury apparently believed so, which is why they ruled as they did.
Everything I've been able to find suggests that Zimmerman was in the wrong and murdered Martin
The parts of the trial I heard had the defense using forensics to demonstrate that ZImmerman's account was in fact correct, and the prosecution using appeals to emotion (" he was unarmed", "his life is gone", etc) and no real counter-evidence to suggest that Zimmerman was not fighting for his life. If in fact it was murder rather than self-defense, the prosecution did a terrible job of demonstrating it, which again is why we got the ruling we did.
I believe the kid in question had arms, and was using them ot inflict the head wounds that were one of the focal points of this case. Or were you not paying attention?
continued following TM, even when instructed by 911 operators not to.
Which, as was established in court, carries zero relevance to the case. I could instruct you not to go to work in the morning, but that doesnt carry any legal weight; like 911 operators, I have no legal authority to instruct you to do anything.
Following someone is not against the law. Shooting someone who is using dangerous force against you is a legal right, and "heat of the moment" is pretty important. Shooting a gun randomly in an attempt to intimidate others is illegal. The two are quite different; I thought his refutation summed it up nicely.
Plenty of people were on the side of OJ Simpson as well.
I think you will find that its actually the exact opposite group of people. The ones rooting for OJ are likely to have been rooting for ZImmermans conviction.
What would have them spinning at 5000 rpm in their graves is Guantanamo Bay
Lets just recall that Guantanamo is essentially a holding pen for POWs. Its not exactly the same as a conventional prison.
Im not saying there arent issues, but I also dont think the founding fathers would have thought it reasonable that captured combatants should receive a full civilian trial and taxpayer paid representation.
I would call myself evangelical, and Ive only ever heard the position stated above coming from "the other side of the debate", or the WBC (whom noone takes seriously and can hardly be described as either fundamentalist or evangelical).
Thats a 1.6 on the richter, or around 20 MJ. You taking a step also generates a seismic event, but you wouldnt call it an earthquake-- even Wikipedia classifies things under 2.0 as "microearthqakes" and "rarely felt by people". every ~0.2 on the richter represents a doubling, and every 1.0 represents ~31x stronger quake, so to get to a magnitude that is "commonly felt" you need ~1000x more energy (~20GJ), and to get to a strength that generally damages buildings you need about 200,000x more energy (~2TJ).
I spoke poorly, but the fact is we generally cant cause appreciable earthquakes without nuclear warheads or very large conventional weapons (MOAB).
I dont think you appreciate the scale of energy that any appreciable earthquake represents, and the insignificance of any amount of pumping activity in comparison with that.
For the record, the 2011 east-coast earthquake that caused pretty minor damage was a 6.0 earthquake, at about 15kt / the equivalent of the Hiroshima atomic bomb.
Im not too worried about fracking pumps introducing that much energy into the system, especially when the largest ever "fracking induced" earthquake clocked in at 3.7 on the richter, which equates to about 0.0045kt / 5 orders of magnitude less than that; the average appears to be around 3.0 on the richter, which is about 1/10th of even that strength.
Ah slashdot, where you can always use StarWars physics to back up an argument about real-world geo-physics.
For the record, theres no record or drill out there that could blow up a planet, because to do so WOULD require adding extra energy to Alderan. Even if every nuke and every laser and every conventional weapon known to man were detonated at once, youre not going to do much more than create a few earthquakes and create a few craters.
How about you evaluate for yourself whether we have pumps or drills capable of producing seismically significant pressures that could cause an earthquake.
No, extraction DOESNT cause earthquakes, and short of multi-megaton nuclear warheads, we CANT cause earthquakes.
We can trigger them, but we cant cause them with fracking. This isnt a stupid semantic difference-- the amount of energy released with or without fracking or geothermal extraction will be the same. It may be released in smaller, and more frequent increments with fracking, but it wont CAUSE additional earthquakes.
I suppose its up to you whether youd rather have one damaging earthquake in 2020, or a barely perceptable one in 2010 and another in 2020. Me, Id take the two minor quakes over the big one but I guess thats personal preference.
Slashdot Mirror
That is part of what he is, and he won't change.
Saying "Im stubborn and so Im not going to change" isnt laudable, its a character flaw. Likewise, saying whatever comes to mind isnt a laudable example of "being a man", its showing a lack of restraint.
People will judge you as immature and unprofessional if that is your conduct. It doesnt matter whether you find office politics repressive, thats the impression you will create. If Linus doesnt care, thats his prerogative, but its not wrong to ask for a bit of courtesy and respect on a mailing list.
You're absolutely right that someone can take their ball and go home if they find the disrespect too much to take. Thats actually a pretty good reason not to be disrespectful to them. If you were to respond to this post with profanity, I probably wouldnt bother acknowledging your post, and you'd have yourself a pyrrhic victory. People dont like dealing with abuse, and you cant reason that fact away.
Im sure we held trials for everyone we killed in the civil war, WW1, WW2, the korean war, the vietnam war,.....
And for the record "illegal" doesnt really make any sense when talking about war with foreign actors. Legality is determined by legislature of the sovereign government. There is no sovereign world government, and there is no world legislature.
Not war, just kinetic military intervention.
No matter how many times the prosecution or anyone else insists it, getting out of your vehicle and following someone is not assault. Particularly when they attack you on your way back to your car.
by ending the fight he started by killing the person he assaulted, he committed murder -- or, perhaps, some lesser criminal homicide like manslaughter.
All of the jurors disagreed. The police disagreed. The forensics experts disagreed. So you can keep saying that, but its not true.
You are aware that trying enemy combatants in court is sort of an oddity, and not really the norm? Usually you just shoot them. If theyre POWs, you might give them a tribunal, but usually they stay locked up until the war is over.
If you find that they don't and are illegal,
Illegal is a term which has no meaning outside of national sovereignty. When conducting war, it has no meaning whatsoever.
The geneva convention is a treaty, and AFAIK it does not say you cant use a drone to kill people, or a gun to kill people, or a howitzer. It lays out an agreement that signatories wont use certain taboo weapons (some kinds of gas), wont commit torture, and will treat captured, uniformed enemy soldiers a certain way.
The folks we are capturing arent wearing uniforms, or part of any recognized army, so parts of the Geneva convention do not apply-- the agreement is specifically that we will treat your POWs a certain way if your soldiers follow certain rules. Al Quaeda is not following those rules.
There was no need to kill him
What would you have us do with him?
Some things deserve death, and on a battlefield if necessary.
Perspective time, because a LOT of the people complaining aboyut the "top 1%" also seem to complain a lot about job outsourcing, and that seems like an implicit complaint in your post.
While you complain about not being able to afford a nice house, you are in the top 5% wealthiest in the world, and the problems you describe (having two cars, each somewhat dated; having a dated surround sound system; not having a cushy retirement) are distinctly first world problems.
Perhaps if you ever start feeling bitter about jobs being outsourced to China / India and keeping you from earning more, remember that those jobs are going to people with far far less who could as easily complain about fighting for scraps.
Did you even listen to the evidence presented during the case? Or in the case of the prosecution, I guess I should say the lack of evidence....
Following someone is not "instigating a fight" in either common or legal usage. If I were to follow you home from work every day, you would have no justification for attacking me. You could possibly get a restraining order, but to my knowledge Martin had not gotten one.
his white wannabe thoughts got the better of him
I've got to say, this statement right here sounds more racist than anything I heard coming from Zimmerman.
At what point does getting out of your car and pursuing somebody become an aggressive act
When you get a restraining order against that person and they violate it. Until then, you cannot decide that you dont like that someone is following you and attack them without triggering legal consequences.
What I'm wondering is why that law didn't give Martin the right to stand his ground when Zimmerman pursued him?
The claim (and evidence) indicates that Martin attacked first. Theres no "stand your ground" when you initiated the physical confrontation; if you are the attacker you cannot claim self defense.
(like saying it must have been self defense because at the time Martin was shot he was on top
Whether you believe it was self defense or not is prett much the core of the case. If in fact Martin was on top, and was thus likely the instigator, then Zimmerman's account is likely correct, and Martin attacked him. The jury apparently believed so, which is why they ruled as they did.
Everything I've been able to find suggests that Zimmerman was in the wrong and murdered Martin
The parts of the trial I heard had the defense using forensics to demonstrate that ZImmerman's account was in fact correct, and the prosecution using appeals to emotion (" he was unarmed", "his life is gone", etc) and no real counter-evidence to suggest that Zimmerman was not fighting for his life. If in fact it was murder rather than self-defense, the prosecution did a terrible job of demonstrating it, which again is why we got the ruling we did.
I believe the kid in question had arms, and was using them ot inflict the head wounds that were one of the focal points of this case. Or were you not paying attention?
continued following TM, even when instructed by 911 operators not to.
Which, as was established in court, carries zero relevance to the case. I could instruct you not to go to work in the morning, but that doesnt carry any legal weight; like 911 operators, I have no legal authority to instruct you to do anything.
Following someone is not against the law. Shooting someone who is using dangerous force against you is a legal right, and "heat of the moment" is pretty important. Shooting a gun randomly in an attempt to intimidate others is illegal. The two are quite different; I thought his refutation summed it up nicely.
Plenty of people were on the side of OJ Simpson as well.
I think you will find that its actually the exact opposite group of people. The ones rooting for OJ are likely to have been rooting for ZImmermans conviction.
What would have them spinning at 5000 rpm in their graves is Guantanamo Bay
Lets just recall that Guantanamo is essentially a holding pen for POWs. Its not exactly the same as a conventional prison.
Im not saying there arent issues, but I also dont think the founding fathers would have thought it reasonable that captured combatants should receive a full civilian trial and taxpayer paid representation.
He'll always be "that guy that got away with murder",
Baloney. For the jobs where you would actually want to be employed, he will always be "that guy who narrowly avoided mob justice".
I would call myself evangelical, and Ive only ever heard the position stated above coming from "the other side of the debate", or the WBC (whom noone takes seriously and can hardly be described as either fundamentalist or evangelical).
Thats a 1.6 on the richter, or around 20 MJ. You taking a step also generates a seismic event, but you wouldnt call it an earthquake-- even Wikipedia classifies things under 2.0 as "microearthqakes" and "rarely felt by people". every ~0.2 on the richter represents a doubling, and every 1.0 represents ~31x stronger quake, so to get to a magnitude that is "commonly felt" you need ~1000x more energy (~20GJ), and to get to a strength that generally damages buildings you need about 200,000x more energy (~2TJ).
I spoke poorly, but the fact is we generally cant cause appreciable earthquakes without nuclear warheads or very large conventional weapons (MOAB).
I dont think you appreciate the scale of energy that any appreciable earthquake represents, and the insignificance of any amount of pumping activity in comparison with that.
That pressure can add a whole lot of energy to an already unstable fault line
Going by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richter_magnitude_scale, quakes that cause minor damage to poorly constructed buildings tend to be in the .5+ kilotons range.
For the record, the 2011 east-coast earthquake that caused pretty minor damage was a 6.0 earthquake, at about 15kt / the equivalent of the Hiroshima atomic bomb.
Im not too worried about fracking pumps introducing that much energy into the system, especially when the largest ever "fracking induced" earthquake clocked in at 3.7 on the richter, which equates to about 0.0045kt / 5 orders of magnitude less than that; the average appears to be around 3.0 on the richter, which is about 1/10th of even that strength.
Ah slashdot, where you can always use StarWars physics to back up an argument about real-world geo-physics.
For the record, theres no record or drill out there that could blow up a planet, because to do so WOULD require adding extra energy to Alderan. Even if every nuke and every laser and every conventional weapon known to man were detonated at once, youre not going to do much more than create a few earthquakes and create a few craters.
How about you evaluate for yourself whether we have pumps or drills capable of producing seismically significant pressures that could cause an earthquake.
Hint-- not by many, many orders of magnitude.
No, extraction DOESNT cause earthquakes, and short of multi-megaton nuclear warheads, we CANT cause earthquakes.
We can trigger them, but we cant cause them with fracking. This isnt a stupid semantic difference-- the amount of energy released with or without fracking or geothermal extraction will be the same. It may be released in smaller, and more frequent increments with fracking, but it wont CAUSE additional earthquakes.
I suppose its up to you whether youd rather have one damaging earthquake in 2020, or a barely perceptable one in 2010 and another in 2020. Me, Id take the two minor quakes over the big one but I guess thats personal preference.
Thats sort of like saying "only math can add these two numbers together".