From TFA: The prototypical "enemy" of the twenty-first century is an urban guerilla who is mobile, adaptive, and draws his strength and resources primarily from the indigenous population. (emphasis mine)
If the prototypical enemy of the US these days is backed by the indigenous population, then the US is not "liberating" anyone.
I'd be the first that if all that matters is to win a war, then well, go ahead and kill, maim and torture to your hearts content.
But winning the war is just a mean to and end. And the REASONS and OBJECTIVES you had for starting the war in the first place are the real end.
Let's admit for a second that I'm willing to buy that the reason for Iraks war was protecting US freedom and way of life. How suppressing civilian rights is going to help that end? That will only get US more enemies, not less. Unless you want apply a Final Solution, that is.
So all those "war is hell", "you fight to win" guys, please tell me: After you win the war, then WHAT? You've just got x10 more guys willing to kill US citizens than before.
BS.
So you're telling that just because tortures are not detailed in this SOP (though tortures do happend there, do not fool yourself), everything is fine. That it doesn't matter that there's a lot of innocent people. That a lot of people is there based just in "being at the wrong place at the wrong moment". Or that those guilty are held without charges.
For God's sake, the US is running a concentration camp and half the US population agrees or just doesn't care! There's something really really bad going on in that society.
And then your only argument is that "we're treating them better than they would treat us", and using bold... You should be ashamed of yourself.
So if some nation soldiers just went into your country, kidnapped you, kept you in prison for years without charges, and tortured you, it would be OK cos you're not a citizen of said nation nor you're an uniformed soldier of your country. Yeah, right.
When the "good guys" have such takes on ethics, one wonders what's the different between both sides in the so called "war on terror":'(
It's just me, or microsoft report (pdf available in the article) just says "Firefox fixes more problems than we do, so that must mean their software has more errors". That just a piece of crap. That only means that Firefox makes their vulnerabilities public or, worse for MS, that Mozilla team fixes things while MS just keeps IE vulnerable.
Counting bugs means nothing. It's the overall quality and how fast those critical bugs get fixed what counts. And IMHO firefox still has a nice edge over MS.
I like gamespot reviews because they're usually quite tough with the games. Most games get an inferior mark on gamespot that in most other sites, which I find nice. I like to know that if they give a game an 8, it's probably a really good game. And that if they give it a 7, and I like the genre, it's a solid buy too.
Now I'll start questioning their reviews. If I see a game advertising at gamespot, then I'll go to read that game review somewhere else, just in case.
I think it refers to the fact that Google OWNS youtube. And that google motto is "do no evil" (why so many people still believe that google, a private company, gives a f about ethics is beyond my understanding). Hence the irony.
And of course, this is/.,and every geek should know that '!' is the standard notation for logical negation in most programming languages:D
If you RTFA, there's expressed what I think is a very valid point.
If youtube forbids vids containing graphical violence, then why aren't all those people uploading videos of people getting tasered by police officers (for example) getting their accounts banned.
IMHO It's not a matter of "Terms of Service". It's a matter of a company choosing to apply those Terms with a double standard. A double standard that get's a the account of a guy who uses youtube to denounce torture banned. And that is wrong both ethically and legally.
Should you be able to sell arms to Burma?
Yes. I'm a capitalist. From a market perspective, you're right. That's why many people don't consider capitalism a good system. When all you care about it's profit, morality goes down the basin.
Of course, in a perfect world with a perfect capitalist system, that would be self-regulated. As other ppl have posted, those with morals would stop making business with companies that sell guns/censorship sw/whatever to such a government. But we know it just doesn't work that way.
Yep, my account dates back to when invitations where really scarce (maybe 7-8 years ago, I don't know) and I have that option. In fact, I was surprised this was news, as I think I've had that IMAP option for some time already.
Slashdot Mirror
...by this?
From TFA: The prototypical "enemy" of the twenty-first century is an urban guerilla who is mobile, adaptive, and draws his strength and resources primarily from the indigenous population. (emphasis mine)
If the prototypical enemy of the US these days is backed by the indigenous population, then the US is not "liberating" anyone.
You're 100% right Dhalka. I still use the "cost too much excuse" to feel better when I download something, but you're right.
Now that was really a +5 informative post.
I've installed GPG and the firefox plugin, generated the keys, and it's just 1-click to cypher, 1-click to decypher mails using GMail.
I'd be the first that if all that matters is to win a war, then well, go ahead and kill, maim and torture to your hearts content.
But winning the war is just a mean to and end. And the REASONS and OBJECTIVES you had for starting the war in the first place are the real end.
Let's admit for a second that I'm willing to buy that the reason for Iraks war was protecting US freedom and way of life. How suppressing civilian rights is going to help that end? That will only get US more enemies, not less. Unless you want apply a Final Solution, that is.
So all those "war is hell", "you fight to win" guys, please tell me: After you win the war, then WHAT? You've just got x10 more guys willing to kill US citizens than before.
Yeah, great job.
BS.
:'(
So you're telling that just because tortures are not detailed in this SOP (though tortures do happend there, do not fool yourself), everything is fine. That it doesn't matter that there's a lot of innocent people. That a lot of people is there based just in "being at the wrong place at the wrong moment". Or that those guilty are held without charges.
Just have a look at a google
http://www.google.es/search?hl=es&q=released+guantanamo+innocent&btnG=Buscar&meta=
http://digg.com/world_news/Seventeen_Innocent_Guantanamo_Detainees_Released
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6515701.stm
For God's sake, the US is running a concentration camp and half the US population agrees or just doesn't care! There's something really really bad going on in that society.
And then your only argument is that "we're treating them better than they would treat us", and using bold... You should be ashamed of yourself.
So if some nation soldiers just went into your country, kidnapped you, kept you in prison for years without charges, and tortured you, it would be OK cos you're not a citizen of said nation nor you're an uniformed soldier of your country. Yeah, right.
When the "good guys" have such takes on ethics, one wonders what's the different between both sides in the so called "war on terror"
It's just me, or microsoft report (pdf available in the article) just says "Firefox fixes more problems than we do, so that must mean their software has more errors". That just a piece of crap. That only means that Firefox makes their vulnerabilities public or, worse for MS, that Mozilla team fixes things while MS just keeps IE vulnerable. Counting bugs means nothing. It's the overall quality and how fast those critical bugs get fixed what counts. And IMHO firefox still has a nice edge over MS.
I like gamespot reviews because they're usually quite tough with the games. Most games get an inferior mark on gamespot that in most other sites, which I find nice. I like to know that if they give a game an 8, it's probably a really good game. And that if they give it a 7, and I like the genre, it's a solid buy too. Now I'll start questioning their reviews. If I see a game advertising at gamespot, then I'll go to read that game review somewhere else, just in case.
I think it refers to the fact that Google OWNS youtube. And that google motto is "do no evil" (why so many people still believe that google, a private company, gives a f about ethics is beyond my understanding). Hence the irony. And of course, this is /. ,and every geek should know that '!' is the standard notation for logical negation in most programming languages :D
If you RTFA, there's expressed what I think is a very valid point. If youtube forbids vids containing graphical violence, then why aren't all those people uploading videos of people getting tasered by police officers (for example) getting their accounts banned. IMHO It's not a matter of "Terms of Service". It's a matter of a company choosing to apply those Terms with a double standard. A double standard that get's a the account of a guy who uses youtube to denounce torture banned. And that is wrong both ethically and legally.
Yep, my account dates back to when invitations where really scarce (maybe 7-8 years ago, I don't know) and I have that option. In fact, I was surprised this was news, as I think I've had that IMAP option for some time already.