And answer came there none. How deeply ironic, that you accuse me of trolling, but refuse to identify anything I've said as untrue, and then resort to rhetoric and name-calling.
I'm not said that you're not replying anymore, but feel free to come back when you're prepared to debate with adults, by supporting your accusations with something other than a tantrum, you silly little boy.
The fact you cannot distinguish between strategic and geopolitical "ethics" of the Bush Adminisitration
Abu Ghraib was not top down from the Bush administration. It was the ethical decision of various NCO's in the US army. I haven't even mentioned the Bush Administration. In fact, I explicitly said "some sections of the US Army".
You do realize that the Geneva Convention is a treaty that only applies to the treatment of soldiers of signatories to the treaty, don't you? Wrong. The fourth Geneva Convention governs treatment of civilian personnel. And besides, some of the internees at Abu Ghraib are former soldiers of Saddam. And Iraq is a signatory to all the Geneva Conventions, even though they showed scant regard for them themselves.
Saddam had certain conditions he was bound to fulfill under the terms of a cease-filre (not a peace treaty), which he did not fulfill.
This would be true had the US not proceeded unilaterally, but obtained a second resolution from the UN.
Which they didn't. And why not? Because the UN member states said "Where's the evidence Saddam has/is developing WMDs in breach of the ceasefire".
And the US said : "Oh, we know he has WMDs, we're going to invade anyway."
Turns out the UN member states were right, and the US was lying. Hence, illegal invasion.
Lets see : sections of the US Army are happily breaking the UN accord on Human Rights (detention without trial), various articles of the Geneva Convention (treatment of prisoners), international law concerning invading sovereign nations [yes, this even covers ones run by genocidal bastards] and the 6th Commandment.
Why should a stupid, fictional law of robotics bother me?
George Orwell was a life long socialist. He wasn't a Communist, and he certainly wasn't a Stalinist, but your implicit that Orwell's ideal of statehood is unconstrained laissez-faire capitalism is utterly hilarious.
Not strictly true. It criminalises copyright infringement on a commercial scale. That's an important distinction. That means it may be possible to share things with your friends, as long as you don't run it like a company (or on the scale of a company).
I think that's reasonable. A little sharing doesn't hurt "content providers" (an ugly phrase) much; wide ranging, large scale, profit making, illegal duplication operations can easily steal genuine sales.
Hey, that's not any old decrepit siding. That's the former site of "Crewe Heritage Centre", opened by her Majesty the Queen. Needless to say, it's now a bloody great Tesco. The rusting APT and the old signal box are all that remains.
Pedrick bombarded his former employers with legendarily screwball designs in the 60s and 70s - one of which was a catflap fitted with a colour sensor to allow his cat Ginger through, to the exclusion of his neighbour's black moggie.
And besides, I didn't call his integrity into question. I merely provided additional information with which interested readers could make up their own minds. Additional information is never a bad thing.
That would be a valid point if the author had constructed a coherent, fact-based argument. But in fact, the article is little more than a list of unsupported assertions about other peoples motives.
And the natural reaction to such an article is to ask "Why would someone write such a thing?"
Whether he was paid or not has absolutely no bearing on the accuracy of his statements.
Of course it does. It doesn't invalidate his opinions (again, I never said it did), but it certainly has some bearing on why he might hold those opinions.
It doesn't necessarily invalidate his opinion (and I never said it did -- that would be argument ad hominem) but it should cast a certain amount of doubt as to whether he reached those opinions through research, or is just parroting his employers opinions.
Who would you trust more : a NASA scientist who warned you about global warning, or an Exxon scientist who told you that global warming was a myth? Why?
Tell me : if you were on trial, would you like the witnesses against you to have been paid by the prosecution?
It's not ad hominem to point out that someone may have been paid to hold a certain opinion, any more than it's ad hominem to point out that the White House press secretary's statements may be phrased in such a way to reflect well on the President.
Slashdot Mirror
... when informed that some people in poverty have no bread, Gates replied Let Them Eat Cake"
Yes he was.
But that impeachment was never going to result in a conviction, and everyone knew it.
And answer came there none. How deeply ironic, that you accuse me of trolling, but refuse to identify anything I've said as untrue, and then resort to rhetoric and name-calling.
I'm not said that you're not replying anymore, but feel free to come back when you're prepared to debate with adults, by supporting your accusations with something other than a tantrum, you silly little boy.
But it was not the US's role to unilaterally enforce that.
The original ceasefire was not the US's to enforce.
Now tell, which facts of mine are wrong?
How so, oh enlightened being?
I love slashdot. Uncomfortable facts immediately become "Troll".
Seriously, if youe biggest worry about Bush's Iraqi quagmire is related you Isaac Asimov, you're a complete idiot.
Which they didn't. And why not? Because the UN member states said "Where's the evidence Saddam has/is developing WMDs in breach of the ceasefire".
And the US said : "Oh, we know he has WMDs, we're going to invade anyway."
Turns out the UN member states were right, and the US was lying. Hence, illegal invasion.
Lets see : sections of the US Army are happily breaking the UN accord on Human Rights (detention without trial), various articles of the Geneva Convention (treatment of prisoners), international law concerning invading sovereign nations [yes, this even covers ones run by genocidal bastards] and the 6th Commandment.
Why should a stupid, fictional law of robotics bother me?
George Orwell was a life long socialist. He wasn't a Communist, and he certainly wasn't a Stalinist, but your implicit that Orwell's ideal of statehood is unconstrained laissez-faire capitalism is utterly hilarious.
Not strictly true. It criminalises copyright infringement on a commercial scale. That's an important distinction. That means it may be possible to share things with your friends, as long as you don't run it like a company (or on the scale of a company).
I think that's reasonable. A little sharing doesn't hurt "content providers" (an ugly phrase) much; wide ranging, large scale, profit making, illegal duplication operations can easily steal genuine sales.
Hey, that's not any old decrepit siding.
That's the former site of "Crewe Heritage Centre", opened by her Majesty the Queen. Needless to say, it's now a bloody great Tesco. The rusting APT and the old signal box are all that remains.
It's not a criticism of the author to point out the name of his employer. It's simply a fact about the author.
Whether that fact reflects badly on him is left as an individual decision for each reader.
I haven't made any statements, pro or anti, about the opinions Mr Zuck expressed.
That's why its not ad hominem. For all you know, I may agree with him.
It would still be wise to consider the source: this is politics, not formal logic.
I did provide additional, accurate information. And its never a bad idea to consider the source.
And besides, I didn't call his integrity into question. I merely provided additional information with which interested readers could make up their own minds. Additional information is never a bad thing.
That would be a valid point if the author had constructed a coherent, fact-based argument. But in fact, the article is little more than a list of unsupported assertions about other peoples motives.
And the natural reaction to such an article is to ask "Why would someone write such a thing?"
And the answer is invariably the same : "Money".
"Consider the source."
It doesn't necessarily invalidate his opinion (and I never said it did -- that would be argument ad hominem) but it should cast a certain amount of doubt as to whether he reached those opinions through research, or is just parroting his employers opinions.
Who would you trust more : a NASA scientist who warned you about global warning, or an Exxon scientist who told you that global warming was a myth? Why?
Tell me : if you were on trial, would you like the witnesses against you to have been paid by the prosecution?
When reading any socio-political article, be sure you know who the author works for.