Well the long video I saw on wikileaks shows the infantry talking about an RPG round under a body. The helicopter pilot/gunner also claims to spot someone with an RPG at the very beginning, but the hell if I can see it.
Didn't watch the short video, they might have cut the infantry out altogether. But it's hard to claim selective editing when, you know, the uncut version is presented as well.
No, it's definitely better to know.
They're not calling for wikileaks to reveal anything. They're asking slashdot how it was done.
And your questions are kind of vague. For this video, there might be some information gleamed from the time at which the video goes live, but it's not like waiting really hides anything. But I'd wait 2d6 days just to be safe. And I think any harm that this video does will be outweighed by the good it will do. It'll hopefully hurt the people who tried to cover it up, but hurting them is good for the system. It's kind of that whole "justice" thing at work.
Sorry, but this is an example of lies, damned lies, and polls.
78% oppose our presence. I'm gonna take that mean "they don't want us there". My original statement stands true.
If you think the question: "Should we GTFO or fix something before GTFOing?" shows that Iraqis think that we shouldn't GTFO, then you are mistaken. Re-read it. And man, I hope there's some bad rounding there because that sums up to 101%.
While I don't think the invasion was justified (and presumably 53% of iraqis agree), but that's not really pertinent to the current occupation. It was seven years ago. Get on with it.
Seriously? I know you think you're fighting the anti-american anarchist hippies, but come on. I'm pretty sure everyone here thinks anyone who commits acts of torture should be brought to justice. Whether that justice should be a hellfire missile down a spider hole or life in prison is debatable.
there must be factors we don't, as civilians, understand.
This bugs me.
There are undoubtedly factors we don't know. Things that we are ignorant of and can hopefully learn by various means. Like asking people.
But factors we don't understand? WTF? I can understand PTSD without having to experience it. I can understand how a poor black women felt in the 1960's even though I'm a white engineer.
Maybe I'm just reading too much into a poor choice of words.
And the evil mercenary killing machines known as blackwater don't record their atrocities. That'd be stupid.
You are a RAGING military apologist. What would it take for you to say something bad about the military?
"I see an unarmed UN sanctioned medic administering CPR to a civilian, he's awfully close to that RPG looking stick over there, permission to fire?"
"This is your commanding superior, Lt. Sgt. Brekindalaw. I explicitly give you permission to break the Geneva convention and fire on them."
(followed by GPS tracking, time-stamped video of a helicopter blowing away UN uniformed Medics signed as authentic by 2/3rds of both branches of congress)
To be nitpicky, the war in Iraq was over in a couple of weeks. We're REAL good at war. Good job boys.
Since then its been an occupation, not a war. And to be real technical, it was never a Congressional declared war. Which makes Bush a dick for calling it one when it was his own personal quagmire.
We really suck at occupation. We don't want to be there. They don't want us there. And the only reason we ARE there is inertia and the fear that there would be wide-spread sectarian violence. Ok, so MORE wide-spread sectarian violence.
Let me adjust that to be "some of them hate us because of HOW we control a portion of the world's money and cultural trends".
And you call this a MINOR fuckup!? A minor fuck up is a jeep overturning, a flight deck operator missing something on a checklist, or a grunt getting pissed and taking a swing at a local. This has passed that threshold and had entered into the realm of major fuckups. Furthermore, only countries that deploy their military abroad (the term for this used to be "war") make these fuckups. When was the last time that Peru slaughtered foreign civvies?
Hopefully the person that ordered the cover-up, everyone that covered it up, and last but not least the person who fucked up and ordered the action in the video. Here's hoping for justice.
but I think I responded in the tone of what I replied to.
Now, you see, I swear casually. Fucking kids over really isn't that bad. And it's not directed at you. It's text, you really shouldn't assume tone. But shit happens, I understand.
It's a temporary problem unrelated to the long term effects of the system.
I kinda foresaw this argument in my first post. You've got to understand that temporary problems ARE problems. If a program gets off to a bumpy start then people are going to be unhappy with it and axe it before it has a chance to balance itself out. Or change it in ways you don't want. And this goes double if it's a program that not many schools take part in right off the bat.
I believe "temporary" in this case is at least a couple of years. So if we did try this program, kids would have a turbulent couple of years, or more likely, districts would have to break the rule where they have to accept everyone. Now, there are quite a few ways to delay or offset this turbulent time, and you mentioned a few. But delaying it doesn't really fix the problem. Perhaps if you start the school selection process a full year in advance, and each month have parents select a school and publish the results. Hopefully that will speed up the balancing effect.
You are assuming that the voucher will remove all funding from where the child would have gone
You're right, I assumed that this voucher program would replace public funding, and would cause schools to compete for students and better themselves. If public funding isn't removed then I'm not sure how this program encourage competition. Please explain.
You are pedantic ass who should die a horrible death
It interesting that you can be so aggressive when we're on the same ideological "side" and both want the same thing. I guess that's what makes you "extreme". If this is your normal disposition, you're going to have problems getting people to care about your ideas. And then all your political ideas, stances, and activism will be for not. Seriously bro, try to play nice.
Correlation is not causation, except when it is.
Are people tweeting about this movie because they're excited about it or are they excited about it because people are tweeting about it? The crowds are fickle and easily swayed, especially by themselves.
I believe the only thing saving the family was the investigation of the stalkers house (and shed). Without that search warrant into a third-parties house, or without the retardedly self-incriminating evidence stored on his computer, the man accused would have been devastated.
Alright, so you can't stand being sworn at. That's understandable.
You self-label as an extremist. Just to let you know, you're extremism is showing. Really, just... relax or something.
But let's have another go at this.
Say there, friend, that's an interesting idea! I'm not too familiar with it, and perhaps you can fill in the holes, but it seems to need a little work.
Here's one foreseeable problem that will cause the program to fail before it really gets started: What if everyone sends their kid to the best school in the city?
-That school will have more kids then it can handle (but a lot of cash).
-The other schools won't have money at all.
Now, this is an extreme example of a problem. Of course not ALL the kids will go to one school. Some will stay local because they can't get across town. But the meat of the problem remains of the good school being overcrowded while the bad schools go broke.
Now, I'm sorry, but I don't have any good ideas about how to fix this that doesn't break the original rule of allowing kids to pick their school. Even if it was something fair like a lotto, I imagine everyone would pick the best school, then the next, and so on. So instead of a competitive system, it's mostly random.
Here is another problem. Traditionally, I believe the whole voucher idea is sham by neo-cons to get public funding for their private schools. That's, you know, a stereo-type or something. But there is definitely a subset of America that has interest in subverting a program like this to their own ends. So on top of the voucher program, I would suggest a well-defined set of rules for determining who controls the voucher program. I believe if it is left up to elected officials, then this program would quickly change to something you hadn't originally intended. I would suggest something that puts the parents and taxpayers in primary control.
I believe this idea hinges on setting up a sort of competitive relationship between schools to give them incentive to do better. That system would probably work better if kids could switch schools often and easily. But switching schools itself is probably hard on the kids as they lose friends and any relationships they had with teachers. So do you think students should be encouraged to switch schools or something is put in place to discourage kids from switching?
Now that I'm super friendly as all fuck, how about it?
Dude, you put forward an idea about vouchers. Just 3 rules really. And then I put forward some potential pitfalls. OF COURSE I'm not drinking the kool-aid and just hoping it works. If your idea has any legs to stand on, you should have ANSWERS to these problems, and not complain that I'm attacking your idea. You're being a whiny little bitch about constructive criticism.
I had actually only heard about this voucher idea in passing. I heard it was something that would let private schools get public money. So, you know, a idea that neoCons would be all over. But here you come in and say that "extreame leftists" also like the idea, with come strings. Well ok, maybe that warrants taking another look at it.
But no, if you can't even deal with very obvious pitfalls and get so bloody defensive at the slightest dissent, then you haven't thought this through, and this is a really bad idea.
So congrats dude, you've confirmed that I'd rather see no voucher system at all.
Homeschooling would be a better argument if it weren't for the majority of the home-schooled I've met. I'm sure it's possible to come out of homeschooling as a confident social butterfly, but my limited experience in the matter sees a trend in the other direction.
So uh, what do you do when 100,000 kids apply to a school for made for 1,000? "It'll balance out eventually" isn't a good argument as you fuck over a whole year of schooling, and all the other schools go bust. Furthermore, let's say you apply to a school because Jaime Escalante is a teacher there. There is only one of him, he can't be everyone's personal hero. It's a scarce resource, I think people are going to get picky about it.
must accept vouchers as payment in full for all services
So, it's not a voucher, it's a full scholarship to any highschool. I mean, I thought the definition of a voucher was that it was like a education coupon. $500 towards a school of your choice. Poor kids go to the school that's $500 (or less and the pocket the diff), and rich kids get a fraction off their private school (and the private schools get $500xnum(students) for free). Does everything have to get paid for out of this $500 or does the voucher cover all costs? If the voucher is strictly $500 (or whatever), then goodbye uniforms, science labs, and music programs.
OOOoohhhhh, I get it. It HAS to pay for everything. So the rich avoid it like the plague and the "public" schools compete to squeeze in more bodies. This opposes parents want for a good education and move them to the best school. I dunno dude, that is one of many ways that this idea could play out.
Yeah, well professionalism is a little tough when you're dying of cancer and can't afford the treatment. The actors from the movie and his former students had to pool together to help him out.
All the high and mighty ideals go out the window when push comes to shove and you're broke.
Slashdot Mirror
Well the long video I saw on wikileaks shows the infantry talking about an RPG round under a body. The helicopter pilot/gunner also claims to spot someone with an RPG at the very beginning, but the hell if I can see it.
Didn't watch the short video, they might have cut the infantry out altogether. But it's hard to claim selective editing when, you know, the uncut version is presented as well.
No, it's definitely better to know.
They're not calling for wikileaks to reveal anything. They're asking slashdot how it was done.
And your questions are kind of vague. For this video, there might be some information gleamed from the time at which the video goes live, but it's not like waiting really hides anything. But I'd wait 2d6 days just to be safe. And I think any harm that this video does will be outweighed by the good it will do. It'll hopefully hurt the people who tried to cover it up, but hurting them is good for the system. It's kind of that whole "justice" thing at work.
But I'm wearing my tinfoil! I'm safe, right?
ga buh wha?
It's YOUR bloody poll! You ran to wikipedia and posted that here.
What am I ignoring? What statistic shows that Iraqi citizens want us there?
Sorry, but this is an example of lies, damned lies, and polls.
78% oppose our presence. I'm gonna take that mean "they don't want us there". My original statement stands true.
If you think the question: "Should we GTFO or fix something before GTFOing?" shows that Iraqis think that we shouldn't GTFO, then you are mistaken. Re-read it. And man, I hope there's some bad rounding there because that sums up to 101%.
While I don't think the invasion was justified (and presumably 53% of iraqis agree), but that's not really pertinent to the current occupation. It was seven years ago. Get on with it.
Well alright, I take it back, you sir are not a raging military apologist.
Really? Polls of Iraqi civilians show that they want the US military to stay in Iraq?
That's interesting. You uh... got a source on that?
Seriously? I know you think you're fighting the anti-american anarchist hippies, but come on. I'm pretty sure everyone here thinks anyone who commits acts of torture should be brought to justice. Whether that justice should be a hellfire missile down a spider hole or life in prison is debatable.
Also, please define who "the enemy" is.
Those are really good traits for a soldier in a war to have.
And really bad traits for a guard in an occupation.
there must be factors we don't, as civilians, understand.
This bugs me.
There are undoubtedly factors we don't know. Things that we are ignorant of and can hopefully learn by various means. Like asking people.
But factors we don't understand? WTF? I can understand PTSD without having to experience it. I can understand how a poor black women felt in the 1960's even though I'm a white engineer.
Maybe I'm just reading too much into a poor choice of words.
And the evil mercenary killing machines known as blackwater don't record their atrocities. That'd be stupid.
You are a RAGING military apologist. What would it take for you to say something bad about the military?
"I see an unarmed UN sanctioned medic administering CPR to a civilian, he's awfully close to that RPG looking stick over there, permission to fire?"
"This is your commanding superior, Lt. Sgt. Brekindalaw. I explicitly give you permission to break the Geneva convention and fire on them."
(followed by GPS tracking, time-stamped video of a helicopter blowing away UN uniformed Medics signed as authentic by 2/3rds of both branches of congress)
To be nitpicky, the war in Iraq was over in a couple of weeks. We're REAL good at war. Good job boys.
Since then its been an occupation, not a war. And to be real technical, it was never a Congressional declared war. Which makes Bush a dick for calling it one when it was his own personal quagmire.
We really suck at occupation. We don't want to be there. They don't want us there. And the only reason we ARE there is inertia and the fear that there would be wide-spread sectarian violence. Ok, so MORE wide-spread sectarian violence.
Let me adjust that to be "some of them hate us because of HOW we control a portion of the world's money and cultural trends".
And you call this a MINOR fuckup!? A minor fuck up is a jeep overturning, a flight deck operator missing something on a checklist, or a grunt getting pissed and taking a swing at a local. This has passed that threshold and had entered into the realm of major fuckups. Furthermore, only countries that deploy their military abroad (the term for this used to be "war") make these fuckups. When was the last time that Peru slaughtered foreign civvies?
Hopefully the person that ordered the cover-up, everyone that covered it up, and last but not least the person who fucked up and ordered the action in the video.
Here's hoping for justice.
War is full of justifications for murder.
but I think I responded in the tone of what I replied to.
Now, you see, I swear casually. Fucking kids over really isn't that bad. And it's not directed at you. It's text, you really shouldn't assume tone. But shit happens, I understand.
It's a temporary problem unrelated to the long term effects of the system.
I kinda foresaw this argument in my first post. You've got to understand that temporary problems ARE problems. If a program gets off to a bumpy start then people are going to be unhappy with it and axe it before it has a chance to balance itself out. Or change it in ways you don't want. And this goes double if it's a program that not many schools take part in right off the bat.
I believe "temporary" in this case is at least a couple of years. So if we did try this program, kids would have a turbulent couple of years, or more likely, districts would have to break the rule where they have to accept everyone. Now, there are quite a few ways to delay or offset this turbulent time, and you mentioned a few. But delaying it doesn't really fix the problem.
Perhaps if you start the school selection process a full year in advance, and each month have parents select a school and publish the results. Hopefully that will speed up the balancing effect.
You are assuming that the voucher will remove all funding from where the child would have gone
You're right, I assumed that this voucher program would replace public funding, and would cause schools to compete for students and better themselves. If public funding isn't removed then I'm not sure how this program encourage competition. Please explain.
You are pedantic ass who should die a horrible death
It interesting that you can be so aggressive when we're on the same ideological "side" and both want the same thing. I guess that's what makes you "extreme". If this is your normal disposition, you're going to have problems getting people to care about your ideas. And then all your political ideas, stances, and activism will be for not. Seriously bro, try to play nice.
Stop all this fuckery and explain law and enforcement of that law pertaining to a specific action of the police for someone who is ignorant about it.
Oh wait, while you were fucking, Mr. Nurb explained it. Never mind. Bloody gits.
Correlation is not causation, except when it is.
Are people tweeting about this movie because they're excited about it or are they excited about it because people are tweeting about it? The crowds are fickle and easily swayed, especially by themselves.
I believe the only thing saving the family was the investigation of the stalkers house (and shed). Without that search warrant into a third-parties house, or without the retardedly self-incriminating evidence stored on his computer, the man accused would have been devastated.
Wait, this is UK, do they even need a warrant?
Alright, so you can't stand being sworn at. That's understandable.
You self-label as an extremist. Just to let you know, you're extremism is showing. Really, just... relax or something.
But let's have another go at this.
Say there, friend, that's an interesting idea! I'm not too familiar with it, and perhaps you can fill in the holes, but it seems to need a little work.
Here's one foreseeable problem that will cause the program to fail before it really gets started: What if everyone sends their kid to the best school in the city?
-That school will have more kids then it can handle (but a lot of cash).
-The other schools won't have money at all.
Now, this is an extreme example of a problem. Of course not ALL the kids will go to one school. Some will stay local because they can't get across town. But the meat of the problem remains of the good school being overcrowded while the bad schools go broke.
Now, I'm sorry, but I don't have any good ideas about how to fix this that doesn't break the original rule of allowing kids to pick their school. Even if it was something fair like a lotto, I imagine everyone would pick the best school, then the next, and so on. So instead of a competitive system, it's mostly random.
Here is another problem. Traditionally, I believe the whole voucher idea is sham by neo-cons to get public funding for their private schools. That's, you know, a stereo-type or something. But there is definitely a subset of America that has interest in subverting a program like this to their own ends. So on top of the voucher program, I would suggest a well-defined set of rules for determining who controls the voucher program. I believe if it is left up to elected officials, then this program would quickly change to something you hadn't originally intended. I would suggest something that puts the parents and taxpayers in primary control.
I believe this idea hinges on setting up a sort of competitive relationship between schools to give them incentive to do better. That system would probably work better if kids could switch schools often and easily. But switching schools itself is probably hard on the kids as they lose friends and any relationships they had with teachers. So do you think students should be encouraged to switch schools or something is put in place to discourage kids from switching?
Now that I'm super friendly as all fuck, how about it?
Wut?
Dude, you put forward an idea about vouchers. Just 3 rules really. And then I put forward some potential pitfalls. OF COURSE I'm not drinking the kool-aid and just hoping it works. If your idea has any legs to stand on, you should have ANSWERS to these problems, and not complain that I'm attacking your idea. You're being a whiny little bitch about constructive criticism.
I had actually only heard about this voucher idea in passing. I heard it was something that would let private schools get public money. So, you know, a idea that neoCons would be all over. But here you come in and say that "extreame leftists" also like the idea, with come strings. Well ok, maybe that warrants taking another look at it.
But no, if you can't even deal with very obvious pitfalls and get so bloody defensive at the slightest dissent, then you haven't thought this through, and this is a really bad idea.
So congrats dude, you've confirmed that I'd rather see no voucher system at all.
Homeschooling would be a better argument if it weren't for the majority of the home-schooled I've met. I'm sure it's possible to come out of homeschooling as a confident social butterfly, but my limited experience in the matter sees a trend in the other direction.
Well school is mandatory. In a city of 10 schools worth of kids you need 10 schools. Or you need to squeeze them in like sardines.
Ok, or you need to squeeze them in like sardines, more so.
must accept any and all students that apply.
So uh, what do you do when 100,000 kids apply to a school for made for 1,000?
"It'll balance out eventually" isn't a good argument as you fuck over a whole year of schooling, and all the other schools go bust. Furthermore, let's say you apply to a school because Jaime Escalante is a teacher there. There is only one of him, he can't be everyone's personal hero. It's a scarce resource, I think people are going to get picky about it.
must accept vouchers as payment in full for all services
So, it's not a voucher, it's a full scholarship to any highschool. I mean, I thought the definition of a voucher was that it was like a education coupon. $500 towards a school of your choice. Poor kids go to the school that's $500 (or less and the pocket the diff), and rich kids get a fraction off their private school (and the private schools get $500xnum(students) for free). Does everything have to get paid for out of this $500 or does the voucher cover all costs? If the voucher is strictly $500 (or whatever), then goodbye uniforms, science labs, and music programs.
OOOoohhhhh, I get it. It HAS to pay for everything. So the rich avoid it like the plague and the "public" schools compete to squeeze in more bodies. This opposes parents want for a good education and move them to the best school. I dunno dude, that is one of many ways that this idea could play out.
Yeah, well professionalism is a little tough when you're dying of cancer and can't afford the treatment. The actors from the movie and his former students had to pool together to help him out.
All the high and mighty ideals go out the window when push comes to shove and you're broke.