In what way was he gallant? Read the chatlogs, look into the full reasons he struck out at the military.
above and beyond the call of duty
Yea, thats kind of my point, he completely abdicated his duty when he violated his non-disclosure oath.
while engaged in an action against an enemy of the United States
What enemy would that be, pray tell?
Due to the nature of its criteria, it is often awarded posthumously
We normally dont give it to those we have executed for treason.
Lets be absolutely real here, especially those who lament the former days when folks like him were heroes. If this had happened in 1779, Manning would have been hung as a traitor. If it had happened in 1812, he would have been hung as a traitor. 1862, shot as a traitor. 1916, shot as a traitor. 1944, shot as a traitor.
At no point has our country taken the leaking of that kind of information as anything remotely beneficial to our country, or as deserving anything less than capital punishment. In fact, for those crying "but he was defending the constitution", Manning comes dangerously close to the definition that the constitution lays out for treason (not sure if giving information out to the world counts as "giving them aid").
They have both utterly violated their oath to protect the Constitution.
I may agree on some points-- for example, a number of the things we do with tax money seems, to my eyes, to violate its stated constitutional use-- but until you get a supreme court justice to agree with you, its not unconstitutional.
You are of course free to start a trial to that extent, but generally charges like that need to be proved, and "violating the constitution" is generally something that relies on interpretation. Your point is a complete non-sequitur, Manning's violations were crystal clear, as were his motives which were substantially less noble than they were made out to be.
Manning was not ordered to do anything illegal or unethical AFAIK (unless you can link to such orders?) All evidence I have seen-- including the unedited (not wikileaks edited version) "Collateral murder" video-- points to an attack which was at the time believed to be against insurgents. The helicopter crew's own statements, commander's response, etc indicated their belief that there were armed gunmen whom they were attacking.
Do you honestly believe that the US military has a thing for attacking Reuters reporters? What on earth would the point be?
Do me a favor and tally up the civilian death toll from Afghanistan or Iraq, and then compare it to WW2 or Vietnam. This graph seems to indicate that our civilian casualties are at an astonishingly low number, especially compared to the "anti-government elements", who have roughly 4 times as many civilian casualties. Collateral murder, indeed.
Whistleblowing isn't generally considered a violation of one's oath to a company, it's usually something that someone feels they have no choice but to expose.
That might explain ARGUABLY one or two of the things he leaked. What about embassy wires, what on earth makes those fair game?
And Ive never been clear on what the accusation is here-- that the US is authorizing its forces to go and intentionally kill civilians, as if that somehow furthers our goals? Occams razor would push me to believe "War is hell, civilians sometimes die, its usually not intentional".
"Solemn oaths" don't make massacring a crowd of unarmed civilians and covering it up afterwards okay.
That video, and especially its after-the-fact massive editing, was not particularly impressive. Our civilian casualties for this war are far far far lower than in any prior war that I can think of; trying to paint an unfortunate accident as murder doesnt convince me.
And on that topic, it doesnt impress me in terms of credibility when a supposedly neutral leaking site opens a supposedly journalistic piece of media with a tribute to the men killed, paints them as heroes, and adds a ton of commentary blasting the military. How on earth is that neutral reporting? Why couldnt they have, from the start, just leaked unedited video?
Oh wait, thats right, they have an axe that they just have to grind. Carry on.
Noone forced him to work for any organization. He could have taken a discharge, or simply never taken the oath to begin with. There was no coercion to take the oath, so any court can (and will) find that he was bound by it.
A) the backbones cant support that many people over 10gbps. B) Its not exactly cheap to run that kind of fiber everywhere C) Home PCs wouldnt really be able to use data coming in that fast unless it were streaming media-- hard drive speeds arent really up to the 1.5GB/s mark unless youre running a 4-disk RAID0 array with solid-state drives.
Not to mention, running media capable of 10gbps for a large number of customers is not cheap. Docsis 3.0 is what, 300mbps? How eager are you to pay for installation of a OC-192 line to your house?
The big advantage of 10 base T was not speed, it was the fact that the cheap cable made it feasable to star wire it. That lead to higher reliability and the ability to use switches to increase the effective bandwidth by only sending data where it needed to be sent.
And to limit collision domains, effectively meaning that collisions dont occur on a switched network.
Most common home NAS devices dont come anywhere close to saturating a gbps link, and filesharing off of a standard desktop will hit about 1gbps on top-end mechanicals.
Adrian Lamo and Kevin Poulsen are rats and not to be trusted,
What about that dude who lied during his security clearance (violated oath of non-disclosure), as well as his military oath? Should he be trusted?
Honestly its a little crazy that people are making Lamo's lie the worst crime imaginable and completely ignoring the fact that Manning violated his word and the military's faith in him repeatedly. I dont believe Lamo took a "solemn oath" to Manning; but his implied promise carries more weight than Manning's explicit one?
There was far too much information marked top secret for no true reason other than protecting the image of certain diplomats doing stuff they shouldn't be.
And this terrible crime is truly worth having our clearanced military personelle deciding that its time to violate his oaths and divulge whatever information he saw fit-- even that which shows no "horrible crimes"-- to the entire world.
Truly we want a vigilante system where oaths arent worth the paper theyre printed on.
My agreement with the woman does not include everything she ever said. "Its not xray" is exactly what she said, and what I said. Yes, I did stop after reading that, because the rest is irrelevant; all of these comments are about how Xrays are bad, when they have absolutely nothing to do with this case.
Reading skills fail. I never said sonograms use millimeter wave technology, I said that one of the body scanners used (context-- at airports) is millimeter-wave.
Nashville airport doesnt use backscatter machines. It uses millimeter-wave-- and yes, so far as anyone is aware, they are safe (Source). The only valid complaints are privacy and the patdown issue; let that stupid health myth die please.
"Cancer, strokes, and heart disease"? And the diagnoses coming a mere few years after the scanners are implemented? Color me skeptical. Even if you get a nearly lethal dose of radiation, you dont just get cancer the next day.
Not to mention, these are millimeter wave scanners, not X-ray (like the ones you linked to), so the entire mention of such scanners is a non-sequitur, as they have 0 chance of causing cancer.
You know, if youre really against the scanners, it helps your case if you dont spout utter BS about non-ionizing radiation mysteriously causing a combination of strokes (which is caused by blood clots), heart disease (which is a blanket term for a zillion different pathologies), and cancer (which is caused by cells that have damaged DNA and become essentially immortal, malfunctioning versions of themselves).
There are two types of scanners out there, X-ray backscatter and milimeter-wave. Millimeter wave is non-ionizing, and is similar to microwave radiation. Backscatter Xray gives a dosage far far lower than the dosage you will receive on your flight.
According to some quick google-fu, Nashville airport uses millimeter wave, not x-ray, which is exactly what that quote is saying.
So no, they werent full of crap. But dont let reality interrupt; proceed with your factually incorrect bashing.
I did not use the word fallacy. I did use "No True Scotsman" to imply that I don't take your definition seriously, as you use "Christian" to mean not merely one who follows Christ's teachings, but one who interprets those teachings exactly as you do.
No True Scotsman is the term for a particular fallacy, whether or not you used the word. I never said they need to interpret the teachings as I do (as even the Bible would reinforce my imperfection and tendency to err), but they need to believe Christ's teachings about himself and his teachings in general, otherwise they are by definition not Christian.
If I can show that it is rational for you to respect a certain right, then that's the whole game right there
I agree because I believe there IS a higher authority, which puts us back where we started. Rationality is somewhat different anyways, because it isnt really something you argue about whether someone "has"; not being a philosopher, I would hazard that rationality are rules of communication that are inherent in the way we think, not something that we think we deserve (ie, something external to us).
If I am understanding you right, however, you are saying that you do not believe in universal or fundamental rights, which I would have no qualm with from a consistency standpoint-- my beef is with those who deny a higher authority, and then in the next breath appeal to one in their assertion of higher truth (in the form of absolute rights).
Im 6'5, and my hands are in proportion to my body. That is, theyre freakishly large. It doesnt matter with blackberries, theyre miles ahead of trying to get my fat fingers to hit the right spot on a touch screen.
If I'm going to need 8 hours of talking and data usage, I'm going to be somewhere I can plug in.
Not all of us have that option. The point of a mobile smart phone was, I thought, to have a device both more reliable and more mobile than a laptop for communication. A phone with a 4 hour battery doesnt even beat out my laptop.
Funny. On my Droid, the stuff I use most is trivial to get to as well. The top 8 things I do are a homescreen touch away. That's a lot of things.
Same on a blackberry, but not what i was referring to. From the main screen, I can type "jo sm" and press the phone button, and im calling joe smith. No opening a phone app, just productivity bliss. I can open "messages", press "t enter r" and ive zoomed to the top of email list, opened the message, and started replying. Possibly android has this, but it has been polished to a shine on blackberries.
You're insane. BES is expensive, barely workable, wonky as hell crap that gives our server admins nightmares.
BES Express is free, and the functional equivalent of BES. If BES Express is insufficient for your needs, then active sync was never even a contender. Barely workable? Takes about 1 hour to install. Server admin nightmares? They need to learn to admin the thing. iPhone+active sync is a far greater source of woes.
For comparison, I have many clients with BES Ex deployments that I have not seen or had to fix in months, or even years, and when they need a new device connected, no longer do I need to figure out what the mailbox name is (its different than user account name for some clients), figure out whether the device wants the full OWA URL or just the FQDN, make sure the password is correct, etc. All i have to do is add them to the BES, and give them an activation password.
If your BES is breaking often, you need new support staff.
Funny, we have yet to have an iPhone have a problem connecting. Likewise with Droids. Supply username, password, server name, and they sync right up.
You havent dealt with enough iPhones then. Google "iphone activesync connection to the server failed".
For Blackberries, meanwhile, you have to provide:...- the EXACT https OWA link...- Username/password...- User's "box" name,... which could be anything at all and is likely different from the username
Thats Activesync. Blackberries require NONE of that data, unless you are referring to BIS, which is essentially web-based POP. It has nothing whatsoever in common with BES, and tells me you have no experience administering a BES.
BES activation requires a quick server "add user", and then 2 things: An activation password, and your email address. I often have my contacts email me with "we have a new user tomorrow, i need an activation password", and they perform the activation themselves. That is not possible with activesync, particularly when self-signed certs are in use.
Email, calendar, and contacts all sync. What else are you looking to sync?
Blackberries also sync task, memo, password, bookmark, and app information. Basically the only thing you ever have to back up is your photos. Once again, you clearly have no experience with a BES.
I'm now convinced you have never actually seen an AD/OWA implementation, and are simply talking out your ass.
In the past week, I have dealt with at least 4 different AD networks, Exchange ranging from 2003 to 2010 (having done some migrations of my own mailbox from 2007 to 2010, and fixed some cert issues on a 2007 deployment). Im quite familiar with
Meta-discussion really isnt my idea of a fun time, but I will simply say that when you quote other people repeatedly there is an assumption that you generally agree with them. My misunderstanding, if there was one, was because of that-- you quoted someone who off the top made a statement that contradicted all of your following posts.
Your No True Scotsman definition of Christian is besides the point.
While a real "No True Scotsman" argument is indeed a falacy, it is equally falacious to declare that all categories have no distinctions-- that there IS no "true" Scotsman (for example, if I declared "all true Scotsman come from Scotland", that would NOT be fallacious).
A VERY clear definition of what a Christian is can be found in the Christian's long time authoratative text, in their very name, in the words of Him whom they are named after, etc. One who is Christian is one who follows Christ, by very definition-- NOT one who was born to Christian parents, NOT one who was baptised, NOT one who tries to live a good life. These definitions have historically NEVER been accepted by anyone with any sort of education about the matter (ie, read the relevant parts of the historical texts, studied 1st century christianity, etc).
Please do not claim fallacies without understanding what they are, and what your opposite is saying. By your allegation there could be no distinction between Buddhist and Christian in any meaningful way-- any attempt by me to say "but true buddhists follow Buddah" would be labeled as a No True Scotsman by you, which is ridiculous.
That people might disagree over what is rational doesn't mean rationality is meaningless, anymore than disagreement of Christ's words makes those words meaningless.
Slashdot Mirror
THeres nothing to discuss, he made no claims other than a broad and vague "I think the US is a bad guy" type of claim.
Perhaps instead of a witty one-liner he could have made some discussable assertions.
In what way was he gallant? Read the chatlogs, look into the full reasons he struck out at the military.
above and beyond the call of duty
Yea, thats kind of my point, he completely abdicated his duty when he violated his non-disclosure oath.
while engaged in an action against an enemy of the United States
What enemy would that be, pray tell?
Due to the nature of its criteria, it is often awarded posthumously
We normally dont give it to those we have executed for treason.
Lets be absolutely real here, especially those who lament the former days when folks like him were heroes. If this had happened in 1779, Manning would have been hung as a traitor. If it had happened in 1812, he would have been hung as a traitor. 1862, shot as a traitor. 1916, shot as a traitor. 1944, shot as a traitor.
At no point has our country taken the leaking of that kind of information as anything remotely beneficial to our country, or as deserving anything less than capital punishment. In fact, for those crying "but he was defending the constitution", Manning comes dangerously close to the definition that the constitution lays out for treason (not sure if giving information out to the world counts as "giving them aid").
They have both utterly violated their oath to protect the Constitution.
I may agree on some points-- for example, a number of the things we do with tax money seems, to my eyes, to violate its stated constitutional use-- but until you get a supreme court justice to agree with you, its not unconstitutional.
You are of course free to start a trial to that extent, but generally charges like that need to be proved, and "violating the constitution" is generally something that relies on interpretation. Your point is a complete non-sequitur, Manning's violations were crystal clear, as were his motives which were substantially less noble than they were made out to be.
Manning was not ordered to do anything illegal or unethical AFAIK (unless you can link to such orders?) All evidence I have seen-- including the unedited (not wikileaks edited version) "Collateral murder" video-- points to an attack which was at the time believed to be against insurgents. The helicopter crew's own statements, commander's response, etc indicated their belief that there were armed gunmen whom they were attacking.
Do you honestly believe that the US military has a thing for attacking Reuters reporters? What on earth would the point be?
Do me a favor and tally up the civilian death toll from Afghanistan or Iraq, and then compare it to WW2 or Vietnam.
This graph seems to indicate that our civilian casualties are at an astonishingly low number, especially compared to the "anti-government elements", who have roughly 4 times as many civilian casualties. Collateral murder, indeed.
What articles of the constitution were violated, pray tell?
Whistleblowing isn't generally considered a violation of one's oath to a company, it's usually something that someone feels they have no choice but to expose.
That might explain ARGUABLY one or two of the things he leaked. What about embassy wires, what on earth makes those fair game?
And Ive never been clear on what the accusation is here-- that the US is authorizing its forces to go and intentionally kill civilians, as if that somehow furthers our goals? Occams razor would push me to believe "War is hell, civilians sometimes die, its usually not intentional".
"Solemn oaths" don't make massacring a crowd of unarmed civilians and covering it up afterwards okay.
That video, and especially its after-the-fact massive editing, was not particularly impressive. Our civilian casualties for this war are far far far lower than in any prior war that I can think of; trying to paint an unfortunate accident as murder doesnt convince me.
And on that topic, it doesnt impress me in terms of credibility when a supposedly neutral leaking site opens a supposedly journalistic piece of media with a tribute to the men killed, paints them as heroes, and adds a ton of commentary blasting the military. How on earth is that neutral reporting? Why couldnt they have, from the start, just leaked unedited video?
Oh wait, thats right, they have an axe that they just have to grind. Carry on.
Too bad none of the stuff he leaked showed (AFAIK) any violations of the constitution.
Feel free to post links to examples if you can correct me on that, of course.
Noone forced him to work for any organization. He could have taken a discharge, or simply never taken the oath to begin with. There was no coercion to take the oath, so any court can (and will) find that he was bound by it.
95% of users would not be able to utilize 10gbps.
A) the backbones cant support that many people over 10gbps.
B) Its not exactly cheap to run that kind of fiber everywhere
C) Home PCs wouldnt really be able to use data coming in that fast unless it were streaming media-- hard drive speeds arent really up to the 1.5GB/s mark unless youre running a 4-disk RAID0 array with solid-state drives.
Not to mention, running media capable of 10gbps for a large number of customers is not cheap. Docsis 3.0 is what, 300mbps? How eager are you to pay for installation of a OC-192 line to your house?
The big advantage of 10 base T was not speed, it was the fact that the cheap cable made it feasable to star wire it. That lead to higher reliability and the ability to use switches to increase the effective bandwidth by only sending data where it needed to be sent.
And to limit collision domains, effectively meaning that collisions dont occur on a switched network.
Most common home NAS devices dont come anywhere close to saturating a gbps link, and filesharing off of a standard desktop will hit about 1gbps on top-end mechanicals.
Adrian Lamo and Kevin Poulsen are rats and not to be trusted,
What about that dude who lied during his security clearance (violated oath of non-disclosure), as well as his military oath? Should he be trusted?
Honestly its a little crazy that people are making Lamo's lie the worst crime imaginable and completely ignoring the fact that Manning violated his word and the military's faith in him repeatedly. I dont believe Lamo took a "solemn oath" to Manning; but his implied promise carries more weight than Manning's explicit one?
There was far too much information marked top secret for no true reason other than protecting the image of certain diplomats doing stuff they shouldn't be.
And this terrible crime is truly worth having our clearanced military personelle deciding that its time to violate his oaths and divulge whatever information he saw fit-- even that which shows no "horrible crimes"-- to the entire world.
Truly we want a vigilante system where oaths arent worth the paper theyre printed on.
You also dont generally get a Medal of Honor for violating your solemnly given oaths.
My agreement with the woman does not include everything she ever said. "Its not xray" is exactly what she said, and what I said. Yes, I did stop after reading that, because the rest is irrelevant; all of these comments are about how Xrays are bad, when they have absolutely nothing to do with this case.
Reading skills fail. I never said sonograms use millimeter wave technology, I said that one of the body scanners used (context-- at airports) is millimeter-wave.
No, but the parent poster has no such excuse for spouting nonsense, and the woman WAS told this by the airport staff.
Nashville airport doesnt use backscatter machines. It uses millimeter-wave-- and yes, so far as anyone is aware, they are safe (Source). The only valid complaints are privacy and the patdown issue; let that stupid health myth die please.
"Cancer, strokes, and heart disease"? And the diagnoses coming a mere few years after the scanners are implemented? Color me skeptical. Even if you get a nearly lethal dose of radiation, you dont just get cancer the next day.
Not to mention, these are millimeter wave scanners, not X-ray (like the ones you linked to), so the entire mention of such scanners is a non-sequitur, as they have 0 chance of causing cancer.
You know, if youre really against the scanners, it helps your case if you dont spout utter BS about non-ionizing radiation mysteriously causing a combination of strokes (which is caused by blood clots), heart disease (which is a blanket term for a zillion different pathologies), and cancer (which is caused by cells that have damaged DNA and become essentially immortal, malfunctioning versions of themselves).
There are two types of scanners out there, X-ray backscatter and milimeter-wave. Millimeter wave is non-ionizing, and is similar to microwave radiation. Backscatter Xray gives a dosage far far lower than the dosage you will receive on your flight.
According to some quick google-fu, Nashville airport uses millimeter wave, not x-ray, which is exactly what that quote is saying.
So no, they werent full of crap. But dont let reality interrupt; proceed with your factually incorrect bashing.
I did not use the word fallacy. I did use "No True Scotsman" to imply that I don't take your definition seriously, as you use "Christian" to mean not merely one who follows Christ's teachings, but one who interprets those teachings exactly as you do.
No True Scotsman is the term for a particular fallacy, whether or not you used the word. I never said they need to interpret the teachings as I do (as even the Bible would reinforce my imperfection and tendency to err), but they need to believe Christ's teachings about himself and his teachings in general, otherwise they are by definition not Christian.
If I can show that it is rational for you to respect a certain right, then that's the whole game right there
I agree because I believe there IS a higher authority, which puts us back where we started. Rationality is somewhat different anyways, because it isnt really something you argue about whether someone "has"; not being a philosopher, I would hazard that rationality are rules of communication that are inherent in the way we think, not something that we think we deserve (ie, something external to us).
If I am understanding you right, however, you are saying that you do not believe in universal or fundamental rights, which I would have no qualm with from a consistency standpoint-- my beef is with those who deny a higher authority, and then in the next breath appeal to one in their assertion of higher truth (in the form of absolute rights).
You must have womanly-small fingers.
Im 6'5, and my hands are in proportion to my body. That is, theyre freakishly large. It doesnt matter with blackberries, theyre miles ahead of trying to get my fat fingers to hit the right spot on a touch screen.
If I'm going to need 8 hours of talking and data usage, I'm going to be somewhere I can plug in.
Not all of us have that option. The point of a mobile smart phone was, I thought, to have a device both more reliable and more mobile than a laptop for communication. A phone with a 4 hour battery doesnt even beat out my laptop.
Funny. On my Droid, the stuff I use most is trivial to get to as well. The top 8 things I do are a homescreen touch away. That's a lot of things.
Same on a blackberry, but not what i was referring to. From the main screen, I can type "jo sm" and press the phone button, and im calling joe smith. No opening a phone app, just productivity bliss. I can open "messages", press "t enter r" and ive zoomed to the top of email list, opened the message, and started replying. Possibly android has this, but it has been polished to a shine on blackberries.
You're insane. BES is expensive, barely workable, wonky as hell crap that gives our server admins nightmares.
BES Express is free, and the functional equivalent of BES. If BES Express is insufficient for your needs, then active sync was never even a contender. Barely workable? Takes about 1 hour to install. Server admin nightmares? They need to learn to admin the thing. iPhone+active sync is a far greater source of woes.
For comparison, I have many clients with BES Ex deployments that I have not seen or had to fix in months, or even years, and when they need a new device connected, no longer do I need to figure out what the mailbox name is (its different than user account name for some clients), figure out whether the device wants the full OWA URL or just the FQDN, make sure the password is correct, etc. All i have to do is add them to the BES, and give them an activation password.
If your BES is breaking often, you need new support staff.
Funny, we have yet to have an iPhone have a problem connecting. Likewise with Droids. Supply username, password, server name, and they sync right up.
You havent dealt with enough iPhones then. Google "iphone activesync connection to the server failed".
For Blackberries, meanwhile, you have to provide:...- the EXACT https OWA link...- Username/password...- User's "box" name,... which could be anything at all and is likely different from the username
Thats Activesync. Blackberries require NONE of that data, unless you are referring to BIS, which is essentially web-based POP. It has nothing whatsoever in common with BES, and tells me you have no experience administering a BES.
BES activation requires a quick server "add user", and then 2 things: An activation password, and your email address. I often have my contacts email me with "we have a new user tomorrow, i need an activation password", and they perform the activation themselves. That is not possible with activesync, particularly when self-signed certs are in use.
Email, calendar, and contacts all sync. What else are you looking to sync?
Blackberries also sync task, memo, password, bookmark, and app information. Basically the only thing you ever have to back up is your photos. Once again, you clearly have no experience with a BES.
I'm now convinced you have never actually seen an AD/OWA implementation, and are simply talking out your ass.
In the past week, I have dealt with at least 4 different AD networks, Exchange ranging from 2003 to 2010 (having done some migrations of my own mailbox from 2007 to 2010, and fixed some cert issues on a 2007 deployment). Im quite familiar with
Meta-discussion really isnt my idea of a fun time, but I will simply say that when you quote other people repeatedly there is an assumption that you generally agree with them. My misunderstanding, if there was one, was because of that-- you quoted someone who off the top made a statement that contradicted all of your following posts.
Your No True Scotsman definition of Christian is besides the point.
While a real "No True Scotsman" argument is indeed a falacy, it is equally falacious to declare that all categories have no distinctions-- that there IS no "true" Scotsman (for example, if I declared "all true Scotsman come from Scotland", that would NOT be fallacious).
A VERY clear definition of what a Christian is can be found in the Christian's long time authoratative text, in their very name, in the words of Him whom they are named after, etc. One who is Christian is one who follows Christ, by very definition-- NOT one who was born to Christian parents, NOT one who was baptised, NOT one who tries to live a good life. These definitions have historically NEVER been accepted by anyone with any sort of education about the matter (ie, read the relevant parts of the historical texts, studied 1st century christianity, etc).
Please do not claim fallacies without understanding what they are, and what your opposite is saying. By your allegation there could be no distinction between Buddhist and Christian in any meaningful way-- any attempt by me to say "but true buddhists follow Buddah" would be labeled as a No True Scotsman by you, which is ridiculous.
That people might disagree over what is rational doesn't mean rationality is meaningless, anymore than disagreement of Christ's words makes those words meaningless.
I fully agree with THAT.
Sometimes its the n00bs who blindly slam the router with bogus traffic. I mean, unless you like letting your target know youre targetting them...