1 2 3 4 -add- 5 But the people who recognize it as a problem and know that it is being worked on..... will tell you what? To wait until the next release?
The simple answer to your unasked question is, what do you want?
Half the population is dumber than the other half. You'll see lots of answers that you will consider "stupid" if you ask a question on a public forum.
Particularly when there is not an answer that YOU consider to be correct.
In some situations, there will not be a solution that you like.
Linux works great for a small business environment (providing that they don't already have systems/software).
The only market where Linux lacks is the pre-installed home market.
The only market that most "journalists" know about is the pre-installed home market.
So they take the pre-installed home market and extrapolate any flaw they see there to cover the entire industry.
The title of the original article was "Linux's Achilles Heel". Sound will NOT be the factor that kills Linux. Poor sound support MAY slow Linux's progress in the pre-installed home market. Or maybe it won't matter.
Fred did not support the title of his article with the contents of his article.
"Until then, its a hobby OS for anyone other than the hardcore non-nOObs."
Incorrect. Linux can take over the server market yet have very little success in the pre-installed home market and not be a "hobby OS".
You're also focusing on the pre-installed home market and thinking that you're viewing the entire industry.
Yet someone complaining about how Linux users are so immature and petty receives a +5?
I've heard the same thing from developers. They simply CANNOT get the specs from the manufacturers. Not only with sound, but with video cards as well.
This is different in the NIC market.
The fact is that until Linux has 51%+ of the market, the home use items (like sound and modems) will work better with Windows.
This is not "Linux's Achilles Heel" as Fred claims. This is basic economics.
The way around this is to clearly identify what does and what does NOT work with Linux. This is something that Fred has resisted in his articles. Why? Well, only Fred can say for sure.
Hey! Linux SUCKS because it won't recognize my hardware. To find out what hardware it is, I want you to go wading through my online discussion site and DRIVE UP MY AD HITS!!!
So, we're looking for "SoundMAX Digital Audio".
Just by coincidence, that is the same as on the IBM T40 laptops.
Now, I boot a Knoppix 3.3 CD in the T40 I have right here and....... it works. I get sound. I get automatically detected and configured sound. I get automatically detected and configured and working sound on the chipset that HE SAID DID NOT WORK.
And I used a distribution that he said he used.
Now everyone knows why Fred would not Name That Hardware in his articles.
He wants to write a couple of articles about how Linux sucks when compared to Windows.
When the fact is that there seems to be something wrong with the hardware he has, or the virtualization software he is running.
If anyone else wants to try, just download the Knoppix CD (3.3 was out when he was writing, so using the new 3.4 version would not be fair) and try booting it on a machine with the "SoundMAX Digital Audio" onboard chipset.
It works for me with an IBM T40 laptop. Fred says he has lots of problems.
A little research and some experimentation can work wonders.
Okay, I'm looking at this criticism in a positive light.
I'm even willing to fill out the bug report for Fred.
Now, maybe you can help me with some of the specifics. What chipset was it?
Ooooh. It looks like fixing this "problem" will be a little more difficult than you implied. Without knowing WHAT HARDWARE was giving the problem, we won't know WHAT DRIVERS need fixing.
From the article: "There were a few more posts in the "Fred is lying/hiding" vein, but most of those died out when the participants in the discussion saw that the sound system indeed should have worked."
How can they see that it "should have worked" when Fred still won't Name That Hardware?
Once Fred is willing to Name That Hardware, then everyone can progress to the next round!
Is it a BUG in Linux -or- Is it a BUG in the hardware -or- Is it a CONFIGURATION/USER ERROR
But Fred sez: "The omission was simple: I had seen no need to burn space in the original article with a list of the hardware specs because the vendor I was dealing with specifically said the system should work with their distribution (I had provided the support techs with a complete hardware rundown); and the sound chipset in question is listed on the Advanced Linux Sound Architecture (ALSA) site as supported."
It would take Fred less space to Name That Hardware than it took to write that paragraph.
Example: IBM Thinkpad T40 (16 characters plus carriage return) -vs- Fred's reasoning why he shouldn't have to to identify it... (approximately 400 characters)
Most of the PhD's I know of in Math are working as Actuarials or some such.
They aren't doing anything "innovative" or "creative". They picked up the degree because they like math.
Now, not every field can be handled with a notebook and pencil. Chemical engineering. That takes some money for research (and without research, you don't have "innovation" or "creativity").
If those engineering jobs go overseas, where will the people who will make the "innovative" or "creative" discoveries learn?
This article reads like someone falling off of a 100 story building.
10 floors down, doing okay.
25 floors down, doing okay.
50 floors down, doing okay.
75 floors down, doing okay.
90 floors down, doing okay. Based upon evidence collected at this point, there will be no problem when 100 floors have been passed.
Just look at Japan. Japan's consumer electronics kick our ass.
The article was nothing more than a feel good rant about how things won't suck in the future.
Creativity and innovation WERE supported in the US. Or copyright and patent laws were put to good use.
NOW it is possible to get a patent without having a working model and that KILLS creativity and innovation. Companies now look to patenting possible concepts in the hope of making money off of court cases and licensing from people who actually produce the item.
The US turns out more lawyers than engineers. That doesn't bode well for innovation and creativity.
Look at all the bogus patent suits around today.
Then look at all the jobs that are leaving.
The author's belief seems to be that someone (a US citizen, of course) will take the time to learn a field so he can create something new, when there aren't very many jobs in that field and there is a high risk of litigation.
And his supporting material for that belief?
Nothing. Just an overly generalized view of our history PRIOR to software and business process patents.
"No, but you can discredit evidence. This is how the defence in a court case works when faced with aparantly good evidence."
Well, in that case, your request is easily complied with.
Go visit a mental hospital. You'll find lots of people who believe that people you can't see are talking to them and telling them what to do.
Go visit a UFO convention. You'll find lots of people who claim to have been abducted by non-human creatures.
"You would also have to establish motive as to why the people who wrote the gospels conspired to create seemingly accurate accounts of something that never happened, and then died for it."
How so "accurate"? The gospels contradict each other about who was there when his grave was checked.
They are no more "accurate" than the Greek or Roman god-stories. Yet not too many people claim that I must believe in Pluto if I cannot disprove that he stole Proserpina.
The same with Ra or Isis.
And so forth.
So, your requirements have been fulfilled. I have shown other individuals who exhibit the same behaviour yet are not accepted as divine or prophets.
If God is omnipotent, then he gets to define morality.
But that does not mean that he acts in a moral fashion.
Unless you define "moral" as being "whatever God does". Which renders "moral" meaningless.
That is because the action becomes divorced from the morality.
The morality is determined by the actor.
"Also, if he is in control, whose idea of morality will ultimately matter, but his?"
That "morality" can be restated as "Might makes Right".
"Oh and why do you assume that morality set out by society is good?"
I don't. I believe that all morality is relative. No matter how finely you grind the Universe, you will never find an atom of Right or Wrong, Good or Evil, Moral or Immoral or Amoral.
"Do you believe in absolute good or absolute evil?"
No.
"If something is wrong for society today, is it perfectly alright for it to be wrong tomorrow?"
200 years ago, slavery was "moral". Today it is not viewed as such.
2000 years ago, slavery was "moral". Jesus did not seem to preach against it. God fully supported it in the Bible. How could God support something we know is immoral now?
"Might makes Right" is not a moral code I can accept.
My statement IN FULL is: "Incorrect. Until someone establishes Heaven or Hell via verifiable (and repeatable) evidence, "true" is this context is "whatever you believe"."
Why are you attempting to take my statement out of context?
What YOU think is "true" is whatever YOU believe. Despite the lack of FACTUAL evidence.
Again, a belief that is not based upon factual evidence is, by definition, irrational.
"Doesn't matter what I believe in. What matters is what's true."
Incorrect. Until someone establishes Heaven or Hell via verifiable (and repeatable) evidence, "true" is this context is "whatever you believe".
"If I'm wrong, you don't have any of the problems I described. Might have other problems, though:)." -and- "Where did you get this idea? Shouldn't beliefs be formed from careful analysis of arguments, reasoning and evidence? Forming beliefs based on emotion is foolish."
Yet you believe as "true" something that has not been established via evidence (Heaven and Hell).
Yes, forming beliefs based on emotion is foolish. But that is what your belief is. Otherwise, it would be a fact and not a belief.
Now, you may have a belief that is later established as a fact, but that does not change the method by which you originally arrived at your belief.
Since there is no verifiable method of determining the existance of Heaven or Hell, then any belief in them is irrational.
I asked: "What choice did I make that resulted in this 'really bad situation that [I] can't escape by [myself]'?"
Your reply was "The only condition for entering Heaven is a desire to enter. God won't force anyone to be there who doesn't want to be."
So, the "choice" I made is not choosing what you believe in?
Since belief is an emotional response, the "choice" I made is the same as the "green" example. If I like green, I go to Heaven, if I like blue, I go to Hell.
"Hell is simply a word for the state of those who choose not to enter Heaven."
Strange, when I read the Bible, I see references to burning.
Maybe you should spend some more time reading the Bible and less time reading C.S. Lewis?
Yep, they come from your parents and the society you were raised in. As such, moral standards change over time. 200 years ago, it was "moral" in the US to own slaves. Today it is not moral to do so.
"Either what God says is good is arbitrary, or God is obeying some higher standard."
The assumption here being that God acts in a moral fashion. Why assume that?
"This doesn't seem at all like a cop-out to me."
It is because you're ascribing "good" to God regardless of God's actions.
This started out about "contractors" / "mercenaries". You said:
"The Iraqi court system of course. They don't have any sort of diplomatic immunity to speak of."
I had pointed out the there were cases where such did not happen. A civilian contractor for a US government organization killed an Iraqi and nothing was done.
I also stated: "The US government should NOT have anyone in theatre who does not have a clearly defined chain of command."
I think that was fairly clearly written. But YOU had a problem understanding it. You replied:
"So, reporters should be banned completely?"
To which I replied: "Reporters are not sent by the government."
So, I state that the US government should NOT have anyone in Iraq who does not have a clearly defined chain of command and YOU ask about reports who have NOT been sent by the government.
If they are not sent by the government, then my point does not apply to them, does it?
Now you're going on about how you're "not talking about reporters sent by government."
So, I posted the pertinant sections of the Geneva Conventions to help you with your little problem.
Do a google search on CIA CACI death prisoner Iraq
"Is there really any difference in the atrocities if the people who commit them were sent to the country by the government or not?"
Yes, there is. Read the Geneva Conventions. If a soldier shoots an enemy soldier, that soldier CANNOT be tried for murder.
There is a HUGE difference.
"Now, what was the point of posting the articles above?"
Don't worry about them. You don't understand the situation so you wouldn't understand the references to legalities behind it.
To summarize: Lots of very ordinary people become viscous and sadistic in the absence of external controls.
The only way to counter this is with training and a clearly defined chain of command / chain of support which provides leadership.
#1. Those soldiers need to burn. #2. Their commanders need to burn. #3. The civilian contractors telling them they were doing a good job need to burn.
And I'm not talking about letting the officers get off with "retiring" from service. I'm talking Leavenworth.
and, #4. Bush needs to get off the bullshit about "unlawful enemy combatants" and say that EVERY prisoner is covered under EITHER the Geneva Conventions OR the US's criminal justice system with all the rights and protections of one or the other.
The only reporters sent by the government are military personnel with a journalist MOS.
DUH!
"They can't be tried by military tribunal, US court, etc. They may not be typically be armed with weapons, but they still have the ability to get a hold of one and start killing/torturing people."
Incorrect.
Art. 64. The penal laws of the occupied territory shall remain in force, with the exception that they may be repealed or suspended by the Occupying Power in cases where they constitute a threat to its security or an obstacle to the application of the present Convention.
Subject to the latter consideration and to the necessity for ensuring the effective administration of justice, the tribunals of the occupied territory shall continue to function in respect of all offences covered by the said laws.
The Occupying Power may, however, subject the population of the occupied territory to provisions which are essential to enable the Occupying Power to fulfil its obligations under the present Convention, to maintain the orderly government of the territory, and to ensure the security of the Occupying Power, of the members and property of the occupying forces or administration, and likewise of the establishments and lines of communication used by them.
Art. 65. The penal provisions enacted by the Occupying Power shall not come into force before they have been published and brought to the knowledge of the inhabitants in their own language. The effect of these penal provisions shall not be retroactive.
Art. 66. In case of a breach of the penal provisions promulgated by it by virtue of the second paragraph of Article 64 the Occupying Power may hand over the accused to its properly constituted, non-political military courts, on condition that the said courts sit in the occupied country. Courts of appeal shall preferably sit in the occupied country.
Art. 67. The courts shall apply only those provisions of law which were applicable prior to the offence, and which are in accordance with general principles of law, in particular the principle that the penalty shall be proportionate to the offence. They shall take into consideration the fact the accused is not a national of the Occupying Power.
Art. 68. Protected persons who commit an offence which is solely intended to harm the Occupying Power, but which does not constitute an attempt on the life or limb of members of the occupying forces or administration, nor a grave collective danger, nor seriously damage the property of the occupying forces or administration or the installations used by them, shall be liable to internment or simple imprisonment, provided the duration of such internment or imprisonment is proportionate to the offence committed. Furthermore, internment or imprisonment shall, for such offences, be the only measure adopted for depriving protected persons of liberty. The courts provided for under Article 66 of the present Convention may at their discretion convert a sentence of imprisonment to one of internment for the same period.
The penal provisions promulgated by the Occupying Power in accordance with Articles 64 and 65 may impose the death penalty against a protected person only in cases where the person is guilty of espionage, of serious acts of sabotage against the military installations of the Occupying Power or of intentional offences which have caused the death of one or more persons, provided that such offences were punishable by death under the law of the occupied territory in force before the occupation began.
The death penalty may not be pronounced against a protected person unless the attention of the court has been particularly called to the fact that since the accused is not a national of the Occupying Power, he is not bound to it by any duty of allegiance.
In any case, the death penalty may not be pronounced on a protected person who was under eighteen years of age at the time of the offence.
Art. 69. In all cases the duration of the period during which a protected person accused of an offence is under arrest awaiting trial or punishment shall be deducted from any period of imprisonment of awarded.
I agree with everything you've said. You should read the report. It will disgust you. Their brigade commander (BG Karpinski) seems to have LIED to the investigators about when she was at the various prisons.
Other officers are described as "dysfunctional".
Which would have been bad enough, but then you have civilian contractors telling the troops to soften up the prisoners and telling them that they're doing a good job at it and that they're getting good information because of the abuses.
Non-existant leadership. No training on what the limits are. Asking to help with intelligence operations. Bush claiming that some prisoners are NOT subject to the Geneva Conventions. Hostile environment. No idea when they'll be going home.
So, a few enlisted will burn and the officers will be allowed to retire from service.
I think that their entire chain of command should be doing a few years in Leavenworth.
I can see how some worthless fucks could do what they did. I can see burning said worthless fucks. And the responsibility goes up the chain. Their commander should burn. Their commander's commander should burn.
And Bush needs to shut up about "unlawful enemy combatants" and state that EVERY prisoner is subject to either the US criminal justice system OR the Geneva Conventions.
Interestingly enough, in the OFFICIAL REPORT, several instances of admiral behaviour on the part of other MP units and individuals were noted.
I will now quote from that OFFICIAL REPORT:
"3. (U) Throughout the investigation, we observed many individual Soldiers and some subordinate units under the 800th MP Brigade that overcame significant obstacles, persevered in extremely poor conditions, and upheld the Army Values. We discovered numerous examples of Soldiers and Sailors taking the initiative in the absence of leadership and accomplishing their assigned tasks.
a. (U) The 744th MP Battalion, commanded by LTC Dennis McGlone, efficiently operated the HVD Detention Facility at Camp Cropper and met mission requirements with little to no guidance from the 800th MP Brigade. The unit was disciplined, proficient, and appeared to understand their basic tasks.
b. (U) The 530th MP Battalion, commanded by LTC Stephen J. Novotny, effectively maintained the MEK Detention Facility at Camp Ashraf. His Soldiers were proficient in their individual tasks and adapted well to this highly unique and non-doctrinal operation.
c. (U) The 165th MI Battalion excelled in providing perimeter security and force protection at Abu Ghraib (BCCF). LTC Robert P. Walters, Jr., demanded standards be enforced and worked endlessly to improve discipline throughout the FOB.
4. (U) The individual Soldiers and Sailors that we observed and believe should be favorably noted include:
a. (U) Master-at-Arms First Class William J. Kimbro, US Navy Dog Handler, knew his duties and refused to participate in improper interrogations despite significant pressure from the MI personnel at Abu Ghraib.
b. (U) SPC Joseph M. Darby, 372nd MP Company discovered evidence of abuse and turned it over to military law enforcement.
c. (U) 1LT David O. Sutton, 229th MP Company, took immediate action and stopped an abuse, then reported the incident to the chain of command."
So, individuals and units that received the same training that you claim turns them into cogs and were under the same brigade that had the problems still had completely different behaviours.
Leadership is the key. From the top down, everyone has to understand what they're doing and why they're doing it.
When leadership at the top fails (as was noted in the official report), then the problem gets worse as it goes down the chain of command.
Certain individuals and commanders were able to resist this and retain/re-establish control over their units.
These people received the same training to "[perpetuate] inhumane values and actions" that the others did. But their behaviour was completely different.
Slashdot Mirror
1
2
3
4
-add-
5 But the people who recognize it as a problem and know that it is being worked on..... will tell you what? To wait until the next release?
The simple answer to your unasked question is, what do you want?
Half the population is dumber than the other half. You'll see lots of answers that you will consider "stupid" if you ask a question on a public forum.
Particularly when there is not an answer that YOU consider to be correct.
In some situations, there will not be a solution that you like.
Linux works great for a small business environment (providing that they don't already have systems/software).
The only market where Linux lacks is the pre-installed home market.
The only market that most "journalists" know about is the pre-installed home market.
So they take the pre-installed home market and extrapolate any flaw they see there to cover the entire industry.
The title of the original article was "Linux's Achilles Heel". Sound will NOT be the factor that kills Linux. Poor sound support MAY slow Linux's progress in the pre-installed home market. Or maybe it won't matter.
Fred did not support the title of his article with the contents of his article.
"Until then, its a hobby OS for anyone other than the hardcore non-nOObs."
Incorrect. Linux can take over the server market yet have very little success in the pre-installed home market and not be a "hobby OS".
You're also focusing on the pre-installed home market and thinking that you're viewing the entire industry.
IBM T40 laptop with the SoundMAX Digital Audio integrated.
Knoppix 3.3
Automatically detected and working.
Fred could have saved himself a whole article if he had just included that. Hee hee hee.
Unless he wanted to write another article about it.
Yet someone complaining about how Linux users are so immature and petty receives a +5?
I've heard the same thing from developers. They simply CANNOT get the specs from the manufacturers. Not only with sound, but with video cards as well.
This is different in the NIC market.
The fact is that until Linux has 51%+ of the market, the home use items (like sound and modems) will work better with Windows.
This is not "Linux's Achilles Heel" as Fred claims. This is basic economics.
The way around this is to clearly identify what does and what does NOT work with Linux. This is something that Fred has resisted in his articles. Why? Well, only Fred can say for sure.
Hey! Linux SUCKS because it won't recognize my hardware. To find out what hardware it is, I want you to go wading through my online discussion site and DRIVE UP MY AD HITS!!!
So, we're looking for "SoundMAX Digital Audio".
Just by coincidence, that is the same as on the IBM T40 laptops.
Now, I boot a Knoppix 3.3 CD in the T40 I have right here and....... it works. I get sound. I get automatically detected and configured sound. I get automatically detected and configured and working sound on the chipset that HE SAID DID NOT WORK.
And I used a distribution that he said he used.
Now everyone knows why Fred would not Name That Hardware in his articles.
He wants to write a couple of articles about how Linux sucks when compared to Windows.
When the fact is that there seems to be something wrong with the hardware he has, or the virtualization software he is running.
If anyone else wants to try, just download the Knoppix CD (3.3 was out when he was writing, so using the new 3.4 version would not be fair) and try booting it on a machine with the "SoundMAX Digital Audio" onboard chipset.
It works for me with an IBM T40 laptop.
Fred says he has lots of problems.
A little research and some experimentation can work wonders.
Okay, I'm looking at this criticism in a positive light.
I'm even willing to fill out the bug report for Fred.
Now, maybe you can help me with some of the specifics. What chipset was it?
Ooooh. It looks like fixing this "problem" will be a little more difficult than you implied. Without knowing WHAT HARDWARE was giving the problem, we won't know WHAT DRIVERS need fixing.
From the article:
"There were a few more posts in the "Fred is lying/hiding" vein, but most of those died out when the participants in the discussion saw that the sound system indeed should have worked."
How can they see that it "should have worked" when Fred still won't Name That Hardware?
Once Fred is willing to Name That Hardware, then everyone can progress to the next round!
Is it a BUG in Linux
-or-
Is it a BUG in the hardware
-or-
Is it a CONFIGURATION/USER ERROR
But Fred sez:
"The omission was simple: I had seen no need to burn space in the original article with a list of the hardware specs because the vendor I was dealing with specifically said the system should work with their distribution (I had provided the support techs with a complete hardware rundown); and the sound chipset in question is listed on the Advanced Linux Sound Architecture (ALSA) site as supported."
It would take Fred less space to Name That Hardware than it took to write that paragraph.
Example:
IBM Thinkpad T40
(16 characters plus carriage return)
-vs-
Fred's reasoning why he shouldn't have to to identify it...
(approximately 400 characters)
What was that about not wanting to "burn space"?
Hmmmm.......?
After many interviews with astronauts and rocket scientists, I have determined that the moon is probably made of cheese.
I tell all in my soon-to-be-released book.
Find out how NASA lied!
Excerpts to be published on my website.
(Note: This is not a shameless self-promotion gimmick. It's not. Really.)
Most of the PhD's I know of in Math are working as Actuarials or some such.
They aren't doing anything "innovative" or "creative". They picked up the degree because they like math.
Now, not every field can be handled with a notebook and pencil. Chemical engineering. That takes some money for research (and without research, you don't have "innovation" or "creativity").
If those engineering jobs go overseas, where will the people who will make the "innovative" or "creative" discoveries learn?
This article reads like someone falling off of a 100 story building.
10 floors down, doing okay.
25 floors down, doing okay.
50 floors down, doing okay.
75 floors down, doing okay.
90 floors down, doing okay. Based upon evidence collected at this point, there will be no problem when 100 floors have been passed.
splat
Just look at Japan. Japan's consumer electronics kick our ass.
The article was nothing more than a feel good rant about how things won't suck in the future.
Creativity and innovation WERE supported in the US. Or copyright and patent laws were put to good use.
NOW it is possible to get a patent without having a working model and that KILLS creativity and innovation. Companies now look to patenting possible concepts in the hope of making money off of court cases and licensing from people who actually produce the item.
The US turns out more lawyers than engineers. That doesn't bode well for innovation and creativity.
Look at all the bogus patent suits around today.
Then look at all the jobs that are leaving.
The author's belief seems to be that someone (a US citizen, of course) will take the time to learn a field so he can create something new, when there aren't very many jobs in that field and there is a high risk of litigation.
And his supporting material for that belief?
Nothing. Just an overly generalized view of our history PRIOR to software and business process patents.
"No, but you can discredit evidence. This is how the defence in a court case works when faced with aparantly good evidence."
Well, in that case, your request is easily complied with.
Go visit a mental hospital. You'll find lots of people who believe that people you can't see are talking to them and telling them what to do.
Go visit a UFO convention. You'll find lots of people who claim to have been abducted by non-human creatures.
"You would also have to establish motive as to why the people who wrote the gospels conspired to create seemingly accurate accounts of something that never happened, and then died for it."
How so "accurate"? The gospels contradict each other about who was there when his grave was checked.
They are no more "accurate" than the Greek or Roman god-stories. Yet not too many people claim that I must believe in Pluto if I cannot disprove that he stole Proserpina.
The same with Ra or Isis.
And so forth.
So, your requirements have been fulfilled. I have shown other individuals who exhibit the same behaviour yet are not accepted as divine or prophets.
If God is omnipotent, then he gets to define morality.
But that does not mean that he acts in a moral fashion.
Unless you define "moral" as being "whatever God does". Which renders "moral" meaningless.
That is because the action becomes divorced from the morality.
The morality is determined by the actor.
"Also, if he is in control, whose idea of morality will ultimately matter, but his?"
That "morality" can be restated as "Might makes Right".
"Oh and why do you assume that morality set out by society is good?"
I don't. I believe that all morality is relative. No matter how finely you grind the Universe, you will never find an atom of Right or Wrong, Good or Evil, Moral or Immoral or Amoral.
"Do you believe in absolute good or absolute evil?"
No.
"If something is wrong for society today, is it perfectly alright for it to be wrong tomorrow?"
200 years ago, slavery was "moral". Today it is not viewed as such.
2000 years ago, slavery was "moral". Jesus did not seem to preach against it. God fully supported it in the Bible. How could God support something we know is immoral now?
"Might makes Right" is not a moral code I can accept.
Read the subject line.
My statement IN FULL is:
"Incorrect. Until someone establishes Heaven or Hell via verifiable (and repeatable) evidence, "true" is this context is "whatever you believe"."
Why are you attempting to take my statement out of context?
What YOU think is "true" is whatever YOU believe. Despite the lack of FACTUAL evidence.
Again, a belief that is not based upon factual evidence is, by definition, irrational.
Such as your belief in Heaven and Hell.
Irrational.
"Doesn't matter what I believe in. What matters is what's true."
:)."
Incorrect. Until someone establishes Heaven or Hell via verifiable (and repeatable) evidence, "true" is this context is "whatever you believe".
"If I'm wrong, you don't have any of the problems I described. Might have other problems, though
-and-
"Where did you get this idea? Shouldn't beliefs be formed from careful analysis of arguments, reasoning and evidence? Forming beliefs based on emotion is foolish."
Yet you believe as "true" something that has not been established via evidence (Heaven and Hell).
Yes, forming beliefs based on emotion is foolish. But that is what your belief is. Otherwise, it would be a fact and not a belief.
Now, you may have a belief that is later established as a fact, but that does not change the method by which you originally arrived at your belief.
Since there is no verifiable method of determining the existance of Heaven or Hell, then any belief in them is irrational.
Right/Wrong are concepts.
No matter how fine you grind the Universe, you will never find a single atom of "Right" or "Wrong".
The same with Moral/Immoral/Amoral.
Nor Evil/Good.
From the original article:
"There is evil in the world, that's an observed fact."
He is incorrect. Unless by "an observed fact" he means "my opinion".
Also from the original article:
"The point is, if you're going to convert somebody, you have to treat them as an equal."
Incorrect. The easiest way is to beat them into submission and then indoctrinate their children.
There is no universal morality.
There is no universal right.
There is no universal good.
They are all judgement calls based upon each person's beliefs and values.
I asked:
"What choice did I make that resulted in this 'really bad situation that [I] can't escape by [myself]'?"
Your reply was "The only condition for entering Heaven is a desire to enter. God won't force anyone to be there who doesn't want to be."
So, the "choice" I made is not choosing what you believe in?
Since belief is an emotional response, the "choice" I made is the same as the "green" example. If I like green, I go to Heaven, if I like blue, I go to Hell.
"Hell is simply a word for the state of those who choose not to enter Heaven."
Strange, when I read the Bible, I see references to burning.
Maybe you should spend some more time reading the Bible and less time reading C.S. Lewis?
"It really is a matter of life and death so the challenge I set to you is this."
No, you believe it is because that is what you believe.
"Prove with documentary evidence that is didn't happen."
You cannot prove that something didn't happen. The most you can show is that there is no physical evidence that it happened.
"If you fail, then you must accept that there is a God and he loves you, if you succeed than you will be the most famous man alive."
So, if you cannot prove that there is no Bigfoot, then you must accept anything I say about Bigfoot as fact?
That isn't logical.
"Until then you're just another man who is too afraid of what you might find, and what it might mean to your life."
And end with the personal attack.
"Moral standards have to come from some place."
Yep, they come from your parents and the society you were raised in. As such, moral standards change over time. 200 years ago, it was "moral" in the US to own slaves. Today it is not moral to do so.
"Either what God says is good is arbitrary, or God is obeying some higher standard."
The assumption here being that God acts in a moral fashion. Why assume that?
"This doesn't seem at all like a cop-out to me."
It is because you're ascribing "good" to God regardless of God's actions.
What choice did I make that resulted in this "really bad situation that [I] can't escape by [myself]"?
And isn't the "threat" the eternal burning in Hell?
Now, if there wasn't a threat, then believers and others would BOTH end up in Heaven forever.
"Okay, that's certainly a bad thing, but it's not the end of the world. There are plenty of unresolved murder cases in the US as well."
It's not unresolved. We know who was killed. We know who killed him. We know when, where and how.
The only thing "unresolved" about this is that the killer will not be tried as a murderer by either the US government nor the Iraqi government.
Since you seem to have trouble understanding this simple fact, I don't feel the need to waste any more time educating you on this.
This started out about "contractors" / "mercenaries". You said:
"The Iraqi court system of course. They don't have any sort of diplomatic immunity to speak of."
I had pointed out the there were cases where such did not happen. A civilian contractor for a US government organization killed an Iraqi and nothing was done.
I also stated:
"The US government should NOT have anyone in theatre who does not have a clearly defined chain of command."
I think that was fairly clearly written. But YOU had a problem understanding it. You replied:
"So, reporters should be banned completely?"
To which I replied:
"Reporters are not sent by the government."
So, I state that the US government should NOT have anyone in Iraq who does not have a clearly defined chain of command and YOU ask about reports who have NOT been sent by the government.
If they are not sent by the government, then my point does not apply to them, does it?
Now you're going on about how you're "not talking about reporters sent by government."
So, I posted the pertinant sections of the Geneva Conventions to help you with your little problem.
Do a google search on CIA CACI death prisoner Iraq
"Is there really any difference in the atrocities if the people who commit them were sent to the country by the government or not?"
Yes, there is. Read the Geneva Conventions. If a soldier shoots an enemy soldier, that soldier CANNOT be tried for murder.
There is a HUGE difference.
"Now, what was the point of posting the articles above?"
Don't worry about them. You don't understand the situation so you wouldn't understand the references to legalities behind it.
http://www.prisonexp.org/
And that only took 6 days.
To summarize: Lots of very ordinary people become viscous and sadistic in the absence of external controls.
The only way to counter this is with training and a clearly defined chain of command / chain of support which provides leadership.
#1. Those soldiers need to burn.
#2. Their commanders need to burn.
#3. The civilian contractors telling them they were doing a good job need to burn.
And I'm not talking about letting the officers get off with "retiring" from service. I'm talking Leavenworth.
and, #4. Bush needs to get off the bullshit about "unlawful enemy combatants" and say that EVERY prisoner is covered under EITHER the Geneva Conventions OR the US's criminal justice system with all the rights and protections of one or the other.
The only reporters sent by the government are military personnel with a journalist MOS.
DUH!
"They can't be tried by military tribunal, US court, etc. They may not be typically be armed with weapons, but they still have the ability to get a hold of one and start killing/torturing people."
Incorrect.
Art. 64. The penal laws of the occupied territory shall remain in force, with the exception that they may be repealed or suspended by the Occupying Power in cases where they constitute a threat to its security or an obstacle to the application of the present Convention.
Subject to the latter consideration and to the necessity for ensuring the effective administration of justice, the tribunals of the occupied territory shall continue to function in respect of all offences covered by the said laws.
The Occupying Power may, however, subject the population of the occupied territory to provisions which are essential to enable the Occupying Power to fulfil its obligations under the present Convention, to maintain the orderly government of the territory, and to ensure the security of the Occupying Power, of the members and property of the occupying forces or administration, and likewise of the establishments and lines of communication used by them.
Art. 65. The penal provisions enacted by the Occupying Power shall not come into force before they have been published and brought to the knowledge of the inhabitants in their own language. The effect of these penal provisions shall not be retroactive.
Art. 66. In case of a breach of the penal provisions promulgated by it by virtue of the second paragraph of Article 64 the Occupying Power may hand over the accused to its properly constituted, non-political military courts, on condition that the said courts sit in the occupied country. Courts of appeal shall preferably sit in the occupied country.
Art. 67. The courts shall apply only those provisions of law which were applicable prior to the offence, and which are in accordance with general principles of law, in particular the principle that the penalty shall be proportionate to the offence. They shall take into consideration the fact the accused is not a national of the Occupying Power.
Art. 68. Protected persons who commit an offence which is solely intended to harm the Occupying Power, but which does not constitute an attempt on the life or limb of members of the occupying forces or administration, nor a grave collective danger, nor seriously damage the property of the occupying forces or administration or the installations used by them, shall be liable to internment or simple imprisonment, provided the duration of such internment or imprisonment is proportionate to the offence committed. Furthermore, internment or imprisonment shall, for such offences, be the only measure adopted for depriving protected persons of liberty. The courts provided for under Article 66 of the present Convention may at their discretion convert a sentence of imprisonment to one of internment for the same period.
The penal provisions promulgated by the Occupying Power in accordance with Articles 64 and 65 may impose the death penalty against a protected person only in cases where the person is guilty of espionage, of serious acts of sabotage against the military installations of the Occupying Power or of intentional offences which have caused the death of one or more persons, provided that such offences were punishable by death under the law of the occupied territory in force before the occupation began.
The death penalty may not be pronounced against a protected person unless the attention of the court has been particularly called to the fact that since the accused is not a national of the Occupying Power, he is not bound to it by any duty of allegiance.
In any case, the death penalty may not be pronounced on a protected person who was under eighteen years of age at the time of the offence.
Art. 69. In all cases the duration of the period during which a protected person accused of an offence is under arrest awaiting trial or punishment shall be deducted from any period of imprisonment of awarded.
I agree with everything you've said. You should read the report. It will disgust you. Their brigade commander (BG Karpinski) seems to have LIED to the investigators about when she was at the various prisons.
Other officers are described as "dysfunctional".
Which would have been bad enough, but then you have civilian contractors telling the troops to soften up the prisoners and telling them that they're doing a good job at it and that they're getting good information because of the abuses.
Non-existant leadership.
No training on what the limits are.
Asking to help with intelligence operations.
Bush claiming that some prisoners are NOT subject to the Geneva Conventions.
Hostile environment.
No idea when they'll be going home.
So, a few enlisted will burn and the officers will be allowed to retire from service.
I think that their entire chain of command should be doing a few years in Leavenworth.
I can see how some worthless fucks could do what they did. I can see burning said worthless fucks. And the responsibility goes up the chain. Their commander should burn. Their commander's commander should burn.
And Bush needs to shut up about "unlawful enemy combatants" and state that EVERY prisoner is subject to either the US criminal justice system OR the Geneva Conventions.
No, your point does not apply.
Interestingly enough, in the OFFICIAL REPORT, several instances of admiral behaviour on the part of other MP units and individuals were noted.
I will now quote from that OFFICIAL REPORT:
"3. (U) Throughout the investigation, we observed many individual Soldiers and some subordinate units under the 800th MP Brigade that overcame significant obstacles, persevered in extremely poor conditions, and upheld the Army Values. We discovered numerous examples of Soldiers and Sailors taking the initiative in the absence of leadership and accomplishing their assigned tasks.
a. (U) The 744th MP Battalion, commanded by LTC Dennis McGlone, efficiently operated the HVD Detention Facility at Camp Cropper and met mission requirements with little to no guidance from the 800th MP Brigade. The unit was disciplined, proficient, and appeared to understand their basic tasks.
b. (U) The 530th MP Battalion, commanded by LTC Stephen J. Novotny, effectively maintained the MEK Detention Facility at Camp Ashraf. His Soldiers were proficient in their individual tasks and adapted well to this highly unique and non-doctrinal operation.
c. (U) The 165th MI Battalion excelled in providing perimeter security and force protection at Abu Ghraib (BCCF). LTC Robert P. Walters, Jr., demanded standards be enforced and worked endlessly to improve discipline throughout the FOB.
4. (U) The individual Soldiers and Sailors that we observed and believe should be favorably noted include:
a. (U) Master-at-Arms First Class William J. Kimbro, US Navy Dog Handler, knew his duties and refused to participate in improper interrogations despite significant pressure from the MI personnel at Abu Ghraib.
b. (U) SPC Joseph M. Darby, 372nd MP Company discovered evidence of abuse and turned it over to military law enforcement.
c. (U) 1LT David O. Sutton, 229th MP Company, took immediate action and stopped an abuse, then reported the incident to the chain of command."
So, individuals and units that received the same training that you claim turns them into cogs and were under the same brigade that had the problems still had completely different behaviours.
Leadership is the key. From the top down, everyone has to understand what they're doing and why they're doing it.
When leadership at the top fails (as was noted in the official report), then the problem gets worse as it goes down the chain of command.
Certain individuals and commanders were able to resist this and retain/re-establish control over their units.
These people received the same training to "[perpetuate] inhumane values and actions" that the others did. But their behaviour was completely different.