Forget the product but think of reverting back to 30nm. Also from the benchmarks it looks consistently faster in all but one test vs. the 840. With a lower manufacturing costs we're probably truly seeing the end of the line for rotating media in most desktop/server configurations. I'm wondering when I can get a 1TB+ with this new process now.
No qualms about the Ecuadorian embassy. I think the Ecuadorian government was duped into providing him haven though because all they've got to show for it is less space in the embassy and all his upkeep.
I love ACs who don't know what the fuck they're talking about. In the case of Assange and has been demonstrated, he's into self promotion. Now RT (Russia Today) is about the only media outlet he has left and his story is becoming more lame. If he truly thought the charges were trumped up in Sweden, then fight them. Sweden's legal system isn't stacked against him and the whole paranoid illusion that the US Govt. was behind the charges should be proven in court. He chose to hid in the Embassy and stupidly, he's now an Ecuadorian house guest forever locked in there. So what he was afraid of, being imprisoned, has now happened to him and unlike any time he may have served in Sweden, he may still come out so 2 years in the Embassy, then whatever charges in Sweden + the bail/detainment skip he pulled in the UK. Any good attorney would be advising him to face the music and get it over with.
As for contributing, don't think that what Assange has ever done is contribute. The people who've given him the information are the true heroes, not this guy.
“I want to highlight Julian Assange’s plight. What happened to him is totally unfair.”
He's in self-imposed exile and he made it worse on himself by running into the Ecuadorian embassy in the first place. Somebody needs to tell this twit that life is unfair, get used to it.
Actually psychologists call drinking a form of self-medication. Again, having gone through this with my step dad I'm pretty familiar with all of the patterns. Also since your not probably a Paleo Sociologist I doubt you probably knew to any degree with our fore-bearers did, which was probably took things out in an aggressive manner like destroying a village or raping a few women. If you can't find your vice one way you'll find it another.
There are substances, alcohol being one of them, that are addictive and by their nature make it difficult to quit. The fact is because it's accessible and legal there's little control other than having the money to buy it. Cigarettes are the same way and although I've never had the habit I have an 86 year old father who has smoked since he was 12, and despite having died on the way to the hospital for cardiac arrest and being resuscitated he still smokes at least one pack a day. That after having a quad bypass. I've lost two uncles, one aunt and a couple of cousins to lung cancer yet I never saw any of them stop and say "wait I shouldn't smoke" nope, they kept on doing it so it wasn't a matter of will power alone and any substance with an addictive property will get some portion of the population hooked.
Having had an alcoholic step dad and grandfather I can say there's many reasons that people drink. Mostly it's one because they want to and if they don't have alcohol they'll use something else smoking, drugs whatever may be available. Alcohol allows people to self medicate and avoid things in life or help to forget things in life, like the fact that their lives didn't turn out as planned. For others it's just an activity because others are doing it around them and they can't stop because they get addicted to it.
Dependencies Problems = "It builds on my machine"
on
Why Software Builds Fail
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
Once code is checked in and goes through the standard build process, that's where this is expected to occur because in my experience it's the local environment where the developer does the coding that's the root problem. Why? Developers don't refresh their build environment because of the potential for other problems it may create. I had one gig to unfuck some code at a company a couple of years ago and found out that in order to set up a Dev environment in this place could take two weeks or more depending on what team you were on. You had to go through a script, download this, install that, change this.. A nightmare. Updating dependencies on a local desktop created panics amongst the developers who were reluctant to ever change anything they had which "was working" because you could spend days trying to fix what was broken. Naturally any time they migrated code into test or production (there was no build system) things failed there because of dependency related issues. Also depending on who the developer was, they naturally felt that bypassing the Test/QA cycle was a job perk.
I found dozens of dependencies on desktops that were out of date, deprecated or had major vulnerabilities and that went for the production systems as well. It was bad all the way around from a best practices perspective. Daily production crashes were the norm, the VP of Dev had a monitor on his desk so he could "troubleshoot" production problems it was that bad.
Yes there's shops like this that are still out there.
"Freedom Is Not Free" was first coined by retired U.S. Air Force Colonel, Walter Hitchcock, of New Mexico Military Institute. The idiom expresses gratitude for the service of members of the military, implicitly stating that the freedoms enjoyed by many citizens in many democracies are only possible through the risks taken and sacrifices made by those in the military, drafted or not. The saying is often used to convey respect specifically to those who gave their lives in defense of freedom.
Unless the draft and amendment to the US Constitution and have the states ratify it. No I can't see them doing this. Of course in the future, the SCOTUS may review another case about some guy who was convicted on what they found on his phone without a warrant yada yada yada..
What's funny is we're creating more and more of these terrorists because we're not winning this war. We're creating more and more people who hate the US, which if it's not Al-Qaeda it'll be ISIS or some other organization. So we've now engaged in a game of whack a mole and we'll go on indiscriminately killing people because of what we think they do vs. what they've done. These drone strikes are an easy, quick, no fuss, no muss way of killing anybody and they are creating more problems for us because of all the civilian casualties that are created and shockingly less than 2% of the kills from these according to this article are high value targets. 2% is not successful by any stretch of the imagination and they're not surgical by any means.
the Stanford-NYU report concludes:
drone strikes, which are conducted by the CIA in a country not at war with the United States, are too harmful to civilians, too sloppy, legally questionable and do more harm to U.S. interests than good.
There's lots of other interesting points in that article but I'm sorry this push button killing is too easy, it has no hope for review or for allowing the other guy to surrender. Terrorism is not a pretty thing but when you kill a US Citizen with that technology we're now saying that anybody, anywhere can be targeted. This country signed up to a little doctrine called the Geneva Conventions specifically in Protocol I which the US did sign. I'm still looking to see if the Senate actually ratified it.
Articles 51 and 54 outlaw indiscriminate attacks on civilian populations, and destruction of food, water, and other materials needed for survival. Indiscriminate attacks include directly attacking civilian (non-military) targets, but also using technology such as biological weapons, nuclear weapons and land mines, whose scope of destruction cannot be limited. A total war that does not distinguish between civilian and military targets is considered a war crime.
So we've declared total war on Terrorism but we're killing innocent civilians and therefore we're committing war crimes. Of course there'll be some sharp DoJ lawyer who's writing another memo saying "naw, we don't have to follow that even though we signed it."
While you don't believe that this could be used in a riot situation, it's now possible that it could be. Sorry, rioters can get weapons, they create loss of life and property and its more chaotic and the lines become blurred. You could ask Reginald Denny about his experience. I'm sure he felt terrorized. Oh and the fuckstick Holder, he thinks it'd be okay to use Drones on US Citizens in the US. There's your due process right out the window. Of course he says it would need to be an "extraordinary situation" with the Administration determining whatever that is. Like I said, there's already a memo sitting in a file somewhere that justifies what and when they'll be used. Of course you and I mere citizens will never see this document because it's a matter of national security and I guess we're too dumb to comprehend those conditions, but trust me it's already been discussed and put on paper so to speak.
Also take these statements into account from a battlefield commander, General McChrystal when it comes to the war on terror.
“The resentment created by American use of unmanned strikesis much greater than the average American appreciates. They are hated on a visceral level, even by people who’ve never seen one or seen the effects of one.”
“for every innocent person you kill, you create 10 ne
Some parts of Yemen are lawless. The Yemeni government wanted to capture the al-Qaeda leaders but could not.
Then Yemen is a nation with laws, thanks for clearing that up. It's okay to ask for help too from one nation to another to accomplish something like capturing fugitives.
They could but it would cause the deaths of many soldiers and civilians. Do you remember the landings in Mogadishu?
Or Omaha Beach? If you're going to commit to going to war go in full or go home. This is somebody who served in the Navy. The last thing you want is a half-assed effort. And if this was an training camp, all the more reason to go in and clean it up.
You continue to draw inaccurate parallels. Bin Laden was trying to hide by keeping a low profile. He had less than 5 guards. The camp in Yemen had hundreds of fighters training. That is a huge difference.
He was a higher value target presumably it would have been better to take him alive.
Because it could be done by a couple of helicopters full of Seals. The assault on the Yemen base would take many more.
So you'd risk a Seal team rather than using the old push a button method? I thought you didn't want to have soldiers (in this case sailors) die?
Those wars are over. Al-Qaeda is still working.
So as long as there's a 5 year old kid out there with an AK-47 Al-Qaeda is still a threat? What if it's a different name, like ISIS for example? Wait, this is the perfect thing for the military and all the spooks in DC. I never ending war because if you don't like the US you're a terrorist, so the budget will continue to flow and we'll continue to kill people indiscriminately on a global scale!
Those Japanese citizens didn't go on television extolling their followers to attack US citizens anywhere in the world. They are very different situations. Al-qaeda is a real threat as seen by their actions. The Japanese Americans were never a threat.
History proved that point, at the time everybody believed that the Japanese Americans were a threat, read up on that one. The people at the time thought it was the right thing to do.
Look up any of the targets on the internet. It will take a few minutes to find plenty of evidence.
So why didn't the administration put that together and include it in the memo?
Now you are changing the subject. You seem to be OK with sending in hundreds of soldiers in to kill him and now have issues with secrecy. Those are different issues.
I find that offensive, I never said go send in the soldiers to kill him but if that's what happened during his apprehension then at least he was given the chance to surrender but if there's a camp full of his pupils running around the job wasn't completed, so what good was it? All it did was create a constitutional conundrum and I do believe even the SCOTUS would have issue with how this was done.
These are linked, killing an American and leaving a camp full of hostiles to continue the fight is a bit problematic. You don't think any of the other subordinates could carry out an attack? No, we just took out the American guy with a drone and we had the DoJ come up with the reasons on why it's a good thing. Of course we weren't proud of that fact and we cloaked it in secrecy. There's no intelligence data in that memo and probably what was redacted was all smoke and mirrors anyway. We'll never know because evidence was never presented at a hearing or trial on this guys crimes. We crossed a big line here in this country by killing one of our own citizens and in a way that just made it really easy for the government to do it. This doesn't instill any trust as far as I'm concerned that it couldn't be turned around one day in the future to take care of anybody the government doesn't like. Without any kind o
The courts get involved in justifiable homicide cases only after the homicide happens and not before. They also do not get involved when the homicide is obviously justifiably. There are many cases of people killing other people that never go to court.
You're forgetting folks like prosecutors, coroners and grand juries. These are checks and balances to folks just going out and randomly taking the law into their own hands.
It is the executive branch that prosecutes wars. Al-Qaeda was the one to declare war.
The difference between Al-Awlaki and Manson is that Manson did not sit in a lawless land surrounded by a large number of armed guards planning attacks on US citizens and bragging about it. There were only two ways to stop him. Kill him or send hundreds of men in to capture him. While you might want the latter, the loss of life would have been much higher on both sides. An assault on a well guarded compound would take hundreds of soldiers. In the end there is a very good chance that the target would be killed in the combat. You tell the spouses and families of the soldiers that were killed in the assault that we had the technology to do the same thing without loss of their loved one's life but chose to send him/her into battle. How is this different than the precision bombing of Iraqi headquarters during the First Gulf War?
So Yemen is a lawless country? If this was so why couldn't the US land troops there and apprehend Al-Awlaki? If he was surrounded by criminal elements then aren't those the same threat? Therefore it would seem more prudent to do it the old fashioned way. We seemed to go after Bin Laden with a small team of special forces, so what makes Pakistan different from Yemen. I mean, why not take out Bin Laden's compound with a drone? I'm not saying Al-Awlaki was a poster child for the Boy Scouts but he was a US Citizen, a bad US Citizen but this was a surgical murder by The DoD blessed by the Justice Department in a country where we have not declared any hostilities. We have now set a dangerous precedent where the Executive Branch of the government can conduct unlawful killings of US citizens anywhere, there's a real distinction here and I'm sorry if you're not seeing that. If a police officer shoots a suspect who's holding a knife at somebody's throat, that's justifiable but the officer would also go through a review afterwards. That's a check on the system, in this case there is no check because the White House said "ooh threat kill it."
Also bombing the Iraqi headquarters was an act of war, with a country where all the provocations, declarations, warnings and other aspects had been fully vetted not only with congress but the UN. This is not the same thing, not by a long shot.
We've held enemy combatants in Guantanamo without due process of law because they're not US citizens
And in WW2, Vietnam, etc we held thousands of enemy combatants without due process of law. You do not seem to see a difference between individuals breaking laws and an organization committing terrorist attacks. The latter are treated as prisoners of wars not suspects.
And we've released them or held trials and put them in prison or executed them. We haven't held them indefinitely and we only do so because Guantanamo is not on US soil, so it's a legal technicality. I'm not aware of any Vietnam POWs or German POWs still being held are you? From a more contemporary ear how about any Iraqi POWs from the Gulf War(s)? So where terrorists are concerned until we've vanquished them all, keep them forever? Trade them like playing cards? You should have just shot them on the field of battle so to speak.
You also brought up WWII anybody remember when we put our own Japanese citizens in camps because we thought they were a threat? It didn't make it right that we were at war with Japan and history has proven that it w
Interesting but it's been proven that multitasking is a myth so operating a vehicle and a cell phone are mutually exclusive activities. Do one or the other but not both.
Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by incompetency. Or something like that.
I'm sure that the best system admins around the world have deleted a file, mistakenly reused a backup tape out of order, or otherwise screwed up and lost something irretrievable sometime in their careers.
Yeah, that makes me feel much better considering how unbiased and accurate the IRS is supposed to be. The whole e-mail fiasco doesn't pass the smell test.
Slashdot Mirror
The only case where being short wins.
Forget the product but think of reverting back to 30nm. Also from the benchmarks it looks consistently faster in all but one test vs. the 840. With a lower manufacturing costs we're probably truly seeing the end of the line for rotating media in most desktop/server configurations. I'm wondering when I can get a 1TB+ with this new process now.
No qualms about the Ecuadorian embassy. I think the Ecuadorian government was duped into providing him haven though because all they've got to show for it is less space in the embassy and all his upkeep.
The guest that came to dinner.. And stayed..
I love ACs who don't know what the fuck they're talking about. In the case of Assange and has been demonstrated, he's into self promotion. Now RT (Russia Today) is about the only media outlet he has left and his story is becoming more lame. If he truly thought the charges were trumped up in Sweden, then fight them. Sweden's legal system isn't stacked against him and the whole paranoid illusion that the US Govt. was behind the charges should be proven in court. He chose to hid in the Embassy and stupidly, he's now an Ecuadorian house guest forever locked in there. So what he was afraid of, being imprisoned, has now happened to him and unlike any time he may have served in Sweden, he may still come out so 2 years in the Embassy, then whatever charges in Sweden + the bail/detainment skip he pulled in the UK. Any good attorney would be advising him to face the music and get it over with.
As for contributing, don't think that what Assange has ever done is contribute. The people who've given him the information are the true heroes, not this guy.
then let him face the charges a good lawyer can do wonders
“I want to highlight Julian Assange’s plight. What happened to him is totally unfair.”
He's in self-imposed exile and he made it worse on himself by running into the Ecuadorian embassy in the first place. Somebody needs to tell this twit that life is unfair, get used to it.
The Feds and State governments get a lot of revenue from Alcohol taxes. They don't have an interest in curtailing its consumption.
Actually psychologists call drinking a form of self-medication. Again, having gone through this with my step dad I'm pretty familiar with all of the patterns. Also since your not probably a Paleo Sociologist I doubt you probably knew to any degree with our fore-bearers did, which was probably took things out in an aggressive manner like destroying a village or raping a few women. If you can't find your vice one way you'll find it another.
There are substances, alcohol being one of them, that are addictive and by their nature make it difficult to quit. The fact is because it's accessible and legal there's little control other than having the money to buy it. Cigarettes are the same way and although I've never had the habit I have an 86 year old father who has smoked since he was 12, and despite having died on the way to the hospital for cardiac arrest and being resuscitated he still smokes at least one pack a day. That after having a quad bypass. I've lost two uncles, one aunt and a couple of cousins to lung cancer yet I never saw any of them stop and say "wait I shouldn't smoke" nope, they kept on doing it so it wasn't a matter of will power alone and any substance with an addictive property will get some portion of the population hooked.
Having had an alcoholic step dad and grandfather I can say there's many reasons that people drink. Mostly it's one because they want to and if they don't have alcohol they'll use something else smoking, drugs whatever may be available. Alcohol allows people to self medicate and avoid things in life or help to forget things in life, like the fact that their lives didn't turn out as planned. For others it's just an activity because others are doing it around them and they can't stop because they get addicted to it.
Sanford and Son episode: "Half the calories of regular beer. Humm, that means I can have two." - Fred G. Sanford (Redd Foxx)
I was thinking Burrito too.
Which one is he? Diana? Mary? or Florence?
Once code is checked in and goes through the standard build process, that's where this is expected to occur because in my experience it's the local environment where the developer does the coding that's the root problem. Why? Developers don't refresh their build environment because of the potential for other problems it may create. I had one gig to unfuck some code at a company a couple of years ago and found out that in order to set up a Dev environment in this place could take two weeks or more depending on what team you were on. You had to go through a script, download this, install that, change this.. A nightmare. Updating dependencies on a local desktop created panics amongst the developers who were reluctant to ever change anything they had which "was working" because you could spend days trying to fix what was broken. Naturally any time they migrated code into test or production (there was no build system) things failed there because of dependency related issues. Also depending on who the developer was, they naturally felt that bypassing the Test/QA cycle was a job perk.
I found dozens of dependencies on desktops that were out of date, deprecated or had major vulnerabilities and that went for the production systems as well. It was bad all the way around from a best practices perspective. Daily production crashes were the norm, the VP of Dev had a monitor on his desk so he could "troubleshoot" production problems it was that bad.
Yes there's shops like this that are still out there.
That's not the right use. of "Freedom isn't Free"
"Freedom Is Not Free" was first coined by retired U.S. Air Force Colonel, Walter Hitchcock, of New Mexico Military Institute. The idiom expresses gratitude for the service of members of the military, implicitly stating that the freedoms enjoyed by many citizens in many democracies are only possible through the risks taken and sacrifices made by those in the military, drafted or not. The saying is often used to convey respect specifically to those who gave their lives in defense of freedom.
Unless the draft and amendment to the US Constitution and have the states ratify it. No I can't see them doing this. Of course in the future, the SCOTUS may review another case about some guy who was convicted on what they found on his phone without a warrant yada yada yada..
That's another silly constitutional matter, so Awlaki needs to just come forward with his lawyers and.. Oh wait, he's dead so he can't.
Only if he and four others agree, otherwise he'll write the dissent for the minority.
It's too bad we can't nominate justices to the supreme court, I'd put her name on the list.
it amounts to totalitarianism.
No, it is totalitarianism.
What's funny is we're creating more and more of these terrorists because we're not winning this war. We're creating more and more people who hate the US, which if it's not Al-Qaeda it'll be ISIS or some other organization. So we've now engaged in a game of whack a mole and we'll go on indiscriminately killing people because of what we think they do vs. what they've done. These drone strikes are an easy, quick, no fuss, no muss way of killing anybody and they are creating more problems for us because of all the civilian casualties that are created and shockingly less than 2% of the kills from these according to this article are high value targets. 2% is not successful by any stretch of the imagination and they're not surgical by any means.
the Stanford-NYU report concludes:
drone strikes, which are conducted by the CIA in a country not at war with the United States, are too harmful to civilians, too sloppy, legally questionable and do more harm to U.S. interests than good.
There's lots of other interesting points in that article but I'm sorry this push button killing is too easy, it has no hope for review or for allowing the other guy to surrender. Terrorism is not a pretty thing but when you kill a US Citizen with that technology we're now saying that anybody, anywhere can be targeted. This country signed up to a little doctrine called the Geneva Conventions specifically in Protocol I which the US did sign. I'm still looking to see if the Senate actually ratified it.
Articles 51 and 54 outlaw indiscriminate attacks on civilian populations, and destruction of food, water, and other materials needed for survival. Indiscriminate attacks include directly attacking civilian (non-military) targets, but also using technology such as biological weapons, nuclear weapons and land mines, whose scope of destruction cannot be limited. A total war that does not distinguish between civilian and military targets is considered a war crime.
So we've declared total war on Terrorism but we're killing innocent civilians and therefore we're committing war crimes. Of course there'll be some sharp DoJ lawyer who's writing another memo saying "naw, we don't have to follow that even though we signed it."
While you don't believe that this could be used in a riot situation, it's now possible that it could be. Sorry, rioters can get weapons, they create loss of life and property and its more chaotic and the lines become blurred. You could ask Reginald Denny about his experience. I'm sure he felt terrorized. Oh and the fuckstick Holder, he thinks it'd be okay to use Drones on US Citizens in the US. There's your due process right out the window. Of course he says it would need to be an "extraordinary situation" with the Administration determining whatever that is. Like I said, there's already a memo sitting in a file somewhere that justifies what and when they'll be used. Of course you and I mere citizens will never see this document because it's a matter of national security and I guess we're too dumb to comprehend those conditions, but trust me it's already been discussed and put on paper so to speak.
Also take these statements into account from a battlefield commander, General McChrystal when it comes to the war on terror.
“The resentment created by American use of unmanned strikesis much greater than the average American appreciates. They are hated on a visceral level, even by people who’ve never seen one or seen the effects of one.”
“for every innocent person you kill, you create 10 ne
Some parts of Yemen are lawless. The Yemeni government wanted to capture the al-Qaeda leaders but could not.
Then Yemen is a nation with laws, thanks for clearing that up. It's okay to ask for help too from one nation to another to accomplish something like capturing fugitives.
They could but it would cause the deaths of many soldiers and civilians. Do you remember the landings in Mogadishu?
Or Omaha Beach? If you're going to commit to going to war go in full or go home. This is somebody who served in the Navy. The last thing
you want is a half-assed effort. And if this was an training camp, all the more reason to go in and clean it up.
You continue to draw inaccurate parallels. Bin Laden was trying to hide by keeping a low profile. He had less than 5 guards. The camp in Yemen had hundreds of fighters training. That is a huge difference.
He was a higher value target presumably it would have been better to take him alive.
Because it could be done by a couple of helicopters full of Seals. The assault on the Yemen base would take many more.
So you'd risk a Seal team rather than using the old push a button method? I thought you didn't want to have soldiers (in this case sailors) die?
Those wars are over. Al-Qaeda is still working.
So as long as there's a 5 year old kid out there with an AK-47 Al-Qaeda is still a threat? What if it's a different name, like ISIS for example? Wait, this is the
perfect thing for the military and all the spooks in DC. I never ending war because if you don't like the US you're a terrorist, so the budget will continue to flow and we'll continue to kill people indiscriminately on a global scale!
Those Japanese citizens didn't go on television extolling their followers to attack US citizens anywhere in the world. They are very different situations. Al-qaeda is a real threat as seen by their actions. The Japanese Americans were never a threat.
History proved that point, at the time everybody believed that the Japanese Americans were a threat, read up on that one. The people at the time thought it was
the right thing to do.
Look up any of the targets on the internet. It will take a few minutes to find plenty of evidence.
So why didn't the administration put that together and include it in the memo?
Now you are changing the subject. You seem to be OK with sending in hundreds of soldiers in to kill him and now have issues with secrecy. Those are different issues.
I find that offensive, I never said go send in the soldiers to kill him but if that's what happened during his apprehension then at least he was given the chance to surrender but if there's a camp full of his pupils running around the job wasn't completed, so what good was it? All it did was create a constitutional conundrum and I do believe even the SCOTUS would have issue with how this was done.
These are linked, killing an American and leaving a camp full of hostiles to continue the fight is a bit problematic. You don't think any of the other subordinates could carry out an attack? No, we just took out the American guy with a drone and we had the DoJ come up with the reasons on why it's a good thing. Of course
we weren't proud of that fact and we cloaked it in secrecy. There's no intelligence data in that memo and probably what was redacted was all smoke and mirrors anyway. We'll never know because evidence was never presented at a hearing or trial on this guys crimes. We crossed a big line here in this country by killing one of our own citizens and in a way that just made it really easy for the government to do it. This doesn't instill any trust as far as I'm concerned that it couldn't be turned around one day in the future to take care of anybody the government doesn't like. Without any kind o
The courts get involved in justifiable homicide cases only after the homicide happens and not before. They also do not get involved when the homicide is obviously justifiably. There are many cases of people killing other people that never go to court.
You're forgetting folks like prosecutors, coroners and grand juries. These are checks and balances to folks just going out and randomly taking the law into their own hands.
It is the executive branch that prosecutes wars. Al-Qaeda was the one to declare war.
The difference between Al-Awlaki and Manson is that Manson did not sit in a lawless land surrounded by a large number of armed guards planning attacks on US citizens and bragging about it. There were only two ways to stop him. Kill him or send hundreds of men in to capture him. While you might want the latter, the loss of life would have been much higher on both sides. An assault on a well guarded compound would take hundreds of soldiers. In the end there is a very good chance that the target would be killed in the combat. You tell the spouses and families of the soldiers that were killed in the assault that we had the technology to do the same thing without loss of their loved one's life but chose to send him/her into battle. How is this different than the precision bombing of Iraqi headquarters during the First Gulf War?
So Yemen is a lawless country? If this was so why couldn't the US land troops there and apprehend Al-Awlaki? If he was surrounded by criminal elements then aren't those the same threat? Therefore it would seem more prudent to do it the old fashioned way. We seemed to go after Bin Laden with a small team of special forces, so what makes Pakistan different from Yemen. I mean, why not take out Bin Laden's compound with a drone? I'm not saying Al-Awlaki was a poster child for the Boy Scouts but he was a US Citizen, a bad US Citizen but this was a surgical murder by The DoD blessed by the Justice Department in a country where we have not declared any hostilities. We have now set a dangerous precedent where the Executive Branch of the government can conduct unlawful killings of US citizens anywhere, there's a real distinction here and I'm sorry if you're not seeing that. If a police officer shoots a suspect who's holding a knife at somebody's throat, that's justifiable but the officer would also go through a review afterwards. That's a check on the system, in this case there is no check because the White House said "ooh threat kill it."
Also bombing the Iraqi headquarters was an act of war, with a country where all the provocations, declarations, warnings and other aspects had been fully vetted not only with congress but the UN. This is not the same thing, not by a long shot.
We've held enemy combatants in Guantanamo without due process of law because they're not US citizens
And in WW2, Vietnam, etc we held thousands of enemy combatants without due process of law. You do not seem to see a difference between individuals breaking laws and an organization committing terrorist attacks. The latter are treated as prisoners of wars not suspects.
And we've released them or held trials and put them in prison or executed them. We haven't held them indefinitely and we only do so because Guantanamo is not on US soil, so it's a legal technicality. I'm not aware of any Vietnam POWs or German POWs still being held are you? From a more contemporary ear how about any Iraqi POWs from the Gulf War(s)? So where terrorists are concerned until we've vanquished them all, keep them forever? Trade them like playing cards? You should have just shot them on the field of battle so to speak.
You also brought up WWII anybody remember when we put our own Japanese citizens in camps because we thought they were a threat? It didn't make it right that we were at war with Japan and history has proven that it w
Interesting but it's been proven that multitasking is a myth so operating a vehicle and a cell phone are mutually exclusive activities. Do one or the other but not both.
Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by incompetency. Or something like that.
I'm sure that the best system admins around the world have deleted a file, mistakenly reused a backup tape out of order, or otherwise screwed up and lost something irretrievable sometime in their careers.
Yeah, that makes me feel much better considering how unbiased and accurate the IRS is supposed to be. The whole e-mail fiasco doesn't pass the smell test.