It is certainly not the business of a private to determine what type of classified information should or should not be distributed.
Not sure what the word is in the military, but no matter what they say, it is everyone's responsibility to follow their own morals regardless of what their orders are. If Manning felt that this was something the public must know, then it was absolutely his business to decide that, ethically speaking.
Obviously that's not a valid reason to suspend his punishment, you're right that discipline must be upheld in the military. Just pointing out that discipline and personal morals have a balance that must be considered. If you don't want a private to leak information that he feels the public should be aware of, either don't give it to the private or don't do things he's likely to consider immoral.
perform techniques that are above their skill level
Not a rider, so I don't know, but if you perform the "technique" of turning, isn't that "your skill level?" How else do you learn to take a corner well, if not trying to corner well?
Indeed. Here, the HMO would NEVER have admitted it so plainly. They would have found a way to make it sound like it wasn't their decision. MUCH BETTER.
The stance that makes the most sense to me, given their claims of not liking big government, is to let people do what they want as long as it doesn't impact others. I realize they'd argue abortion falls into this, but contraception and gay marriage do not. Forcing morals on the nation is not small government. Social issues, their position should be "sort it out for yourself."
I don't think a candidate that your base likes and a candidate that other people can get behind are mutually exclusive things. It just requires someone to have political positions which are based on reasons they can effectively communicate.
The problem is that so many primary voters want a candidate who is telling them what they already want to hear, and the media isn't helping them listen to candidates who are telling them what they NEED to hear.
You'd be surprised how many Republican-leaning voters are not social conservatives at all...I'd say 1/3rd of the total...
No, I'm just surprised at how little influence they seem to have over the party. Fiscal conservatism, that makes plenty of sense to me. Social conservatism makes absolutely no sense to me. But it's all the republicans seem to be serious about on at the national level, gay marriage and abortion. I thought after W that "Cut taxes, worry about cutting spending when it's someone else's problem" would have run it's full course. Yet even with the debt ceiling and other issues, the party wasted it in favor of attacking democrats, and the balanced budget amendment went nowhere with the GOP.
I think it's a bit simpler than that. Antibodies are very specific to a protein, and must be, you don't want your antibodies recognizing a protein you make yourself. Retroviruses mutate extremely fast as a result of going backwards, from RNA to DNA. I forget the numbers, but a professor in a molecular biology class I was in calculated it on the board. Given the rate of mutation, the number of viruses in an infected patient, and how fast the immune system responds, the odds of the immune system destroying all the viruses before the protein mutates and is no longer recognized by the immune system is extremely unlikely. He concluded with "That is why traditional vaccines will never succeed against HIV."
I guess the concept here is that there are so many targets given with the current vaccine that it's unlikely a virus will have them all mutated enough to not be recognized by one of them.
The voters want that too, and thus it will always be an issue independent of party lines, until we change the voter mindset. Perhaps a strong, convincing third party candidate could do such a thing, but I suspect that if he or she were that convincing, they could do it as a candidate in either party as well. Ross Perot brought up the issue of budget deficit, but I personally think he could have raised the issue equally well as part of the republican or democrat parties.
I'd also point out that we have the rights we say we have. It's not like the right to life, liberty, and property/pursuit of hapiness is handed down by nature. Nature would allow trillions of things to deprive you of life, doesn't give a fuck about your liberty, has no concept of property, and has designed your brain to make hapiness fleeting.
Rights as they are defined in the constitution were people agreeing that those rights were a good idea. I think most people would agree that we have a right to privacy today. They would have agreed to it back when the constitution was being drafted were it a question. But it probably wouldn't occur to them that 200 years later, it would be so easy to see nearly everything that everyone does.
I wonder what rights we enjoy as a default today that will come into question due to technology in the next 200 years. Rights not to have your consciousness electronically amalgamated into a collective mind? Maybe we should put an amendment to that effect into place now. The Borg were pretty creepy.
Ross Perot got about 20% of the vote in 1992 running largely on deficit reduction and balanced budget. The budget was shortly thereafter balanced for a while and a balanced budget amendment almost passed. But I'd argue you're mixing up cause and effect. Perot changed the national discourse. He got voters caring about it, almost enough to take a quarter of the votes. Gary Johnson has not made voters care enough about ending the wars, or civil liberties, much to my dismay.
Voters caring about issues impacts percentages, not vice versa.
Seems like the real problem with the planet mentioned by Mr. Prefect is that people aren't running in the election, not that people are voting for the lizards. Or perhaps they are running, but none of the sane people voted in the primaries for them, so they were left with choosing between two lizards when they finally decided to vote.
In the recent republican primary, I saw one or two decent candidates, one or two that were pretty lousy, and a handful that were shockingly terrible. Why so few people registered for the primaries and voted for Huntsman or Ron Paul, I have no idea. It's not like you had to make an oath to the Tea Party Gods. I suppose some people told themselves it was futile because the media was ignoring them, but that strikes me as mixing up cause and effect. The media wasn't promoting Gingrich, Bachmann, Cain, or Santorum while they were leading the primaries.
You didn't vote presumably because you saw no differences in the lizards who were running. If you bothered to vote in the primaries, you've done more of your civic duty in my opinion than those who didn't, but even then, you have no preference? This is slashdot, where heated arguments are held about which is better: Windows XP, Vista, 7, or 8. You honestly think there's nothing to distinguish Romney against Obama?
We have no business being in any of these rebellions from Libya all through the middle east.
That's just insanity and screw you main stream media and leftists and democrats for not screaming bloody murder about it.
I was under the quite possibly underinformed impression that we were staying out of most of the rebellions. We provided air support in Libya to keep civilians from being slaughtered by government aircraft, yes. And yes, that means that some of the people we were protecting from being vaporized were bad people. But I thought that was a far cry from giving weapons to insurgents, or fighting alongside of them. Which is, by the way, not a partisan issue, see above posts about Regan and Saddam.
We don't seem to be doing much in Syria besides embargoes, I don't recall us going into Egypt. Bahrain, the media is actively ignoring as they torture and kill their own citizens, because we have a base there and because they're paying CNN to ignore it. So tell me, which rebellions did the oh-so-powerful liberal conspiracy and media get us into which you disagree with?
So if I'm not mistaken, screw you for screaming bloody murder about not allowing bloody murder of innocent civilians.
Is the Bar hoping that this will keep people from voting in the elections and incumbents will always win, or does the Bar just really like rolling the dice?
Is this based on polling data where everyone assumes
-they will not be told they lack sufficient ID to exercise their right to vote
-they will not be told they failed to register through the proper procedure
-the polling location was open during normal business hours
-their eligibility to vote has not been challenged by "Americans for Happy Fun Love" funded by conservative activists to accuse voters of being felons and therefore unable to vote
-they have not been notified via a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying 'Beware of the Leopard' that they weren't able to vote for some other reason
-the electronic voting machine will register their vote for someone who is not closely associated with the owner of the machine and software
-other reasonable-sounding assumptions that may not be safe assumptions?
Slashdot Mirror
It is certainly not the business of a private to determine what type of classified information should or should not be distributed.
Not sure what the word is in the military, but no matter what they say, it is everyone's responsibility to follow their own morals regardless of what their orders are. If Manning felt that this was something the public must know, then it was absolutely his business to decide that, ethically speaking.
Obviously that's not a valid reason to suspend his punishment, you're right that discipline must be upheld in the military. Just pointing out that discipline and personal morals have a balance that must be considered. If you don't want a private to leak information that he feels the public should be aware of, either don't give it to the private or don't do things he's likely to consider immoral.
perform techniques that are above their skill level
Not a rider, so I don't know, but if you perform the "technique" of turning, isn't that "your skill level?" How else do you learn to take a corner well, if not trying to corner well?
Indeed. Here, the HMO would NEVER have admitted it so plainly. They would have found a way to make it sound like it wasn't their decision. MUCH BETTER.
but survey any high school and see how chaste your average teen is
That strikes me as a good way to get invited to test out this new internet offender law...
The stance that makes the most sense to me, given their claims of not liking big government, is to let people do what they want as long as it doesn't impact others. I realize they'd argue abortion falls into this, but contraception and gay marriage do not. Forcing morals on the nation is not small government. Social issues, their position should be "sort it out for yourself."
I'm guessing starting by sincerely apologizing to the rest of us.
I don't think a candidate that your base likes and a candidate that other people can get behind are mutually exclusive things. It just requires someone to have political positions which are based on reasons they can effectively communicate.
The problem is that so many primary voters want a candidate who is telling them what they already want to hear, and the media isn't helping them listen to candidates who are telling them what they NEED to hear.
some of us have no problem killing anything that is not and never was sentient.
Yeah, but they keep coming back each election cycle.
Thank you, remember to tip your waitress!
You'd be surprised how many Republican-leaning voters are not social conservatives at all ...I'd say 1/3rd of the total...
No, I'm just surprised at how little influence they seem to have over the party. Fiscal conservatism, that makes plenty of sense to me. Social conservatism makes absolutely no sense to me. But it's all the republicans seem to be serious about on at the national level, gay marriage and abortion. I thought after W that "Cut taxes, worry about cutting spending when it's someone else's problem" would have run it's full course. Yet even with the debt ceiling and other issues, the party wasted it in favor of attacking democrats, and the balanced budget amendment went nowhere with the GOP.
I think it's a bit simpler than that. Antibodies are very specific to a protein, and must be, you don't want your antibodies recognizing a protein you make yourself. Retroviruses mutate extremely fast as a result of going backwards, from RNA to DNA. I forget the numbers, but a professor in a molecular biology class I was in calculated it on the board. Given the rate of mutation, the number of viruses in an infected patient, and how fast the immune system responds, the odds of the immune system destroying all the viruses before the protein mutates and is no longer recognized by the immune system is extremely unlikely. He concluded with "That is why traditional vaccines will never succeed against HIV."
I guess the concept here is that there are so many targets given with the current vaccine that it's unlikely a virus will have them all mutated enough to not be recognized by one of them.
I'm skeptical that there isn't a metric you could use that would be better than taxable income. Net worth of the company for instance.
The voters want that too, and thus it will always be an issue independent of party lines, until we change the voter mindset. Perhaps a strong, convincing third party candidate could do such a thing, but I suspect that if he or she were that convincing, they could do it as a candidate in either party as well. Ross Perot brought up the issue of budget deficit, but I personally think he could have raised the issue equally well as part of the republican or democrat parties.
I'd also point out that we have the rights we say we have. It's not like the right to life, liberty, and property/pursuit of hapiness is handed down by nature. Nature would allow trillions of things to deprive you of life, doesn't give a fuck about your liberty, has no concept of property, and has designed your brain to make hapiness fleeting.
Rights as they are defined in the constitution were people agreeing that those rights were a good idea. I think most people would agree that we have a right to privacy today. They would have agreed to it back when the constitution was being drafted were it a question. But it probably wouldn't occur to them that 200 years later, it would be so easy to see nearly everything that everyone does.
I wonder what rights we enjoy as a default today that will come into question due to technology in the next 200 years. Rights not to have your consciousness electronically amalgamated into a collective mind? Maybe we should put an amendment to that effect into place now. The Borg were pretty creepy.
You've already completed step one, which is to move to someplace rural. Step two is to become an ISP. So basically, you're halfway there.
Ross Perot got about 20% of the vote in 1992 running largely on deficit reduction and balanced budget. The budget was shortly thereafter balanced for a while and a balanced budget amendment almost passed. But I'd argue you're mixing up cause and effect. Perot changed the national discourse. He got voters caring about it, almost enough to take a quarter of the votes. Gary Johnson has not made voters care enough about ending the wars, or civil liberties, much to my dismay.
Voters caring about issues impacts percentages, not vice versa.
Seems like the real problem with the planet mentioned by Mr. Prefect is that people aren't running in the election, not that people are voting for the lizards. Or perhaps they are running, but none of the sane people voted in the primaries for them, so they were left with choosing between two lizards when they finally decided to vote.
In the recent republican primary, I saw one or two decent candidates, one or two that were pretty lousy, and a handful that were shockingly terrible. Why so few people registered for the primaries and voted for Huntsman or Ron Paul, I have no idea. It's not like you had to make an oath to the Tea Party Gods. I suppose some people told themselves it was futile because the media was ignoring them, but that strikes me as mixing up cause and effect. The media wasn't promoting Gingrich, Bachmann, Cain, or Santorum while they were leading the primaries.
You didn't vote presumably because you saw no differences in the lizards who were running. If you bothered to vote in the primaries, you've done more of your civic duty in my opinion than those who didn't, but even then, you have no preference? This is slashdot, where heated arguments are held about which is better: Windows XP, Vista, 7, or 8. You honestly think there's nothing to distinguish Romney against Obama?
The mods have deemed your post to be insightful: they're doing their part.
Learjets? I could be wrong, but I think those are jets you give to your daughters before going crazy.
Blast! Our nefarious efforts to use EMP to block electronics in the voting booths have been completely foiled by one lone AC and his obsolete camera!
We have no business being in any of these rebellions from Libya all through the middle east. That's just insanity and screw you main stream media and leftists and democrats for not screaming bloody murder about it.
I was under the quite possibly underinformed impression that we were staying out of most of the rebellions. We provided air support in Libya to keep civilians from being slaughtered by government aircraft, yes. And yes, that means that some of the people we were protecting from being vaporized were bad people. But I thought that was a far cry from giving weapons to insurgents, or fighting alongside of them. Which is, by the way, not a partisan issue, see above posts about Regan and Saddam.
We don't seem to be doing much in Syria besides embargoes, I don't recall us going into Egypt. Bahrain, the media is actively ignoring as they torture and kill their own citizens, because we have a base there and because they're paying CNN to ignore it. So tell me, which rebellions did the oh-so-powerful liberal conspiracy and media get us into which you disagree with?
So if I'm not mistaken, screw you for screaming bloody murder about not allowing bloody murder of innocent civilians.
The idea being what, that after they were all dead it would be super easy to come in and claim all the oil?
Is the Bar hoping that this will keep people from voting in the elections and incumbents will always win, or does the Bar just really like rolling the dice?
I hate it when I'm facing an enemy helicopter and the DRM on my game decides to quit, leaving me staring at an error message.
I REALLY hate it when I'm facing an enemy helicopter and the DRM on my rocket launcher decides to quit, leaving me staring at an enemy helicopter.
Flaccid of course being a completely relative term. "Hard as a rock? Uh... you should probably see a doctor. That's not natural."
Is this based on polling data where everyone assumes
-they will not be told they lack sufficient ID to exercise their right to vote
-they will not be told they failed to register through the proper procedure
-the polling location was open during normal business hours
-their eligibility to vote has not been challenged by "Americans for Happy Fun Love" funded by conservative activists to accuse voters of being felons and therefore unable to vote
-they have not been notified via a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying 'Beware of the Leopard' that they weren't able to vote for some other reason
-the electronic voting machine will register their vote for someone who is not closely associated with the owner of the machine and software
-other reasonable-sounding assumptions that may not be safe assumptions?