The scanning just tells where the car is an not the exact car in question. Tow truck drivers are told to take vehicles based on license numbers and VINs. They have to check them before taking the vehicle. If they bring in the wrong car they don't get paid and/or can be charged with vehicle theft. If they do it too many times they get fired. It is in the driver's best interest to check tags before taking a vehicle.
Huh? What do you mean? How are those two things related?
If the Crimea had voted against the Act of Declaration of Independence of Ukraine they could vote for independence. Then they could vote to join the Russian Federation.
Please Joe, there's a difference between "assurance" and "guarantee", besides it being an unratified agreement
The difference being that in the case of assurances if one country breaks the agreement the other countries are not bound to come to Ukraine's aid. Had it been a guarantee they would have been. So you are saying it is ok to tell a country what you want to get them to give up their nuclear weapons and then ignore the agreement when it suits you. I don't agree. How about this quote from the text of the memorandums
The Russian Federation, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United States of America reaffirm their obligation to refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of Ukraine, and that none of their weapons will ever be used against Ukraine except in self-defence or otherwise in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations;
Repeat after me: this is not an invasion.
The Kariv pack is about troops on bases and not in the countryside. They may be justified in Sevastopol but not the rest of the Crimea. It became an invasion the second troops left Sevastopol.
the *democratically elected* president of Ukraine asked Russia to use military force
You mean the president who attempted to go against the wishes of the people in signing the trade deal with Russia instead of the one with the EU. The president who used troops to kill 83 Ukrainians. The president that was removed from power by the democratically elected parliament? The Ukrainian parliament has 450 seats of which 380 voted for removal. When the parliament removed him from office he had no authority to authorize foreign troops on Ukrainian soil. Viktor Yanukovych was democratically elected and democratically removed. I also like how you edited the last quote. Here it is in full;
Sergei Aksenov, the pro-Russian prime minister of the Crimea region, has declared that he is in control of all military, police and other security services in the region. But he appealed to Russia's president for help in keeping peace there.
Hiding something? Maybe the Prime Minister is trying to take advantage of the turmoil to get what he wants but not necessarily what the people want. I doubt he was elected with Russian troop deployments in the minds of the voters.
By the way, here is a quote from one of your http://www.wnd.com/2014/03/oh-...">referenced articles
Yeltsen also signed in 1994 the Budapest Memorandum, which was to guarantee the territorial integrity of Ukraine.
The government shouldn't be allowed to say "Based on information provided by XYZ Tracking, your car was in the McDonalds parking lot when it was robbed so you must have committed the crime" without some validity checking.
Any decent defense lawyer would have that information ruled inadmissible if it was not verifiable by pictures. It would be easy to prove that scanners make mistakes.
A better simile is a number of people spread out all over the place who take pictures of everyone and sort them by face. No single person is being followed therefore no stalking. The big difference is that most of the time pictures are not being taken. There is no way to know where is person has been between when the pictures are taken. License plate scanners are not everywhere.
Not quite. Paparazzi are intrusive. They get in people's faces and the constant photo flashes are annoying. There are also paparazzi who insist on asking questions (aka TMZ).This is far different than license place scans.
My worry is that my car will be mistaken for another car on a repo list and towed somewhere.
That would only happen if the tow driver made the same mistake as the scanner. When the scanner pops up the record for the repo and the plates don't match the driver will not take the vehicle.
I will be tracked everywhere all the time with these scanners
Most scanners are mounted on vehicles like parking ticket authorities and tow trucks. The drive up and down the street scanning parked vehicles. There is no way every vehicle will be scanned all the time.
What about stationary cameras?
Where would these tow companies place these stationary cameras and get a lot of coverage? Sure they could try to place them on every light pole but I doubt local authorities would approve. Sure they can scan as people come and go from a lot but if you don't want to be scanned don't use the lot.
I will be tracked everywhere I go
No, your license plate will be tracked when a scanning vehicle comes by or you use a lot that scans. The piece of information that the scanning company does not have is any information about the owner of the license plate. The information can be obtained but only for a few specific reasons. California for example, look at the "Permissible Use" section. I don't see "Because I want to sell tracking information" there as permissible use.
These databases will contain license plate numbers and not people's names.
1. Power supply. This is currently a tethered suit which is useless in a non-laboratory environment.. 2. Actuator speed. All the movements are very slow. This means that it can not compensate for issues caused by unstable ground. Take this thing onto a rubble pile and it will be flat on the ground in minutes. Even on solid flat ground they do not have enough confidence to let it stand without a safety support rope. 3. Limited movement. All we saw was standing in one spot, squatting slightly, reaching out and lifting one pipe. What are the limits of it's movement. Can it pick something off the ground? can it lift over it's head. What are the limits of rotation. 4. Simple grippers. Watch him try to grasp the pipe. It looks like it takes a lot of concentration and effort. That was an optimized test with the object held in a position that would be easy to pick up. What about odd sized objects in awkward positions?
As a suit to us in a disaster relief in dirty, unstable, non-laboratory situations this suit is useless and it's technology is not readily up-gradable to fit the bill.
Yet another "give me money to throw down the drain" advertisement.
Not quite. All we know is that the majority voted to be part of an independent Ukraine vs. being a Soviet republic.
Being a Soviet republic be the first step in joining the Russian Federation? Putin is trying to annex the Crimea into the Russian Federation right now. He is trying to do it by force and not democratic means.
Again, the way to do this is a democratic vote and not military force. Putin is again using the "protection of Russian citizens" as an excuse to use force. It is the act of a bully and extremely undemocratic. There has been no physical violence against any Russians before the troops were deployed therefore nothing to "protect" against. Yes, some language rights were curtailed but that is no reason for an invasion.
The facts are pretty simple; 1. The Crimea was given to Ukraine. 2. The Ukraine succeeded 3. The population of Crimea supported the Act of Succession. 4. The Russian Federation guaranteed the territorial integrity of the Ukraine. 5. The Russian Federation has now invaded the Crimea. Do you see how points 4 and 5 do not match?
They gave people either information from health authorities about the lack of evidence for a connection, information about the danger of the three diseases the MMR vaccine protects against, pictures of children who had one of those three diseases, or a story about an infant who almost died from measles.
What if people were given some combination of the above information? For example, connection information and picture of children with the disease. The outcome might be different than either information alone. Given alone "connection information" may be detrimental but combined with other information it may be beneficial. All this study shows is that relying on the lack of evidence of connection alone is incorrect.
I would have liked to see the effect of giving a group all the information. I realize we are not all the same but, for me, the more information the better.
This is not a helicopter. Every aircraft with a single propeller is in the scenario you describe. The wings counter the engine torque. What you are talking about is helicopters which rely on contra-rotating blades instead of a tail rotor. Most of those helicopters have both sets of blades running from the same transmission.
full throttle is safer than no throttle.
Full throttle is very dangerous as it can lead to engine failure/fire and aircraft over speed/breakup. Without power the aircraft is a glider.
the question was "Do you want to be independent, or part of the USSR (not part of RSFSR)?" which is a completely different thing.
The actual question was "Do you support the Act of Declaration of Independence of Ukraine?" It seems to me that the independence is linked with being part of the Ukraine. They could have voted no and then they would have been in a good position to lobby for joining the Russian Federation. This referendum was voted on over a year after independence.
From the gut I'd say that on matters of importance, a majority of 2/3 is required.
Do you remember your statement "The majority of the people there identify with being Russian." You seem to think that identifying as Russian means they want to stay in Russia. 55% of those who identified as Russian voter for the referendum. The vote showed that the majority wanted to stay with the Ukraine.
Maybe the other 40% thought, that not voting is a sign of protest?
Maybe they didn't care. We can speculate all we want but without actual knowledge it is meaningless. All we know is that the majority voted to stay with the Ukraine.
My link to the S.6B didn't work. While there is a progression there are major differences between the different aircraft and none of them had enclosed cockpits or retractable landing gear before the Spitfire.
According to Wikipedia the Spitfire was designed from the start as a fighter. It may have been used in races but so was the P-51 (another purpose built fighter). You may have been thinking of this aircraft which contributed to the Spitfire design but was a completely different aircraft.
Lets go a little further into the issues; 1. Size. You talked about this a bit but range was more important. The racing aircraft was designed to take off, fly a few laps around a short course and land. There is no way it had enough fuel to get to England, fight and get back. 2. Armament. The aircraft had none. To add armament would mean weight and stiffening. The wings did not have enough strength to accommodate machine guns, ammunition and the pounding caused by firing. 3. Armor. Most combat aircraft had some of the following things to help it survive being shot at; self sealing fuel tanks, armored cockpits, redundant flight controls armored engine compartment, strengthened structure, etc. A race aircraft would not need any of these ans would be very vulnerable to enemy fire.
The Bugatti was a race aircraft and not a combat aircraft. Yes it could go fast but was useless in combat.
I guess, because the turnout was only 60% [wikipedia.org]?
If you don't vote you don't count. It was the choice of the people not to vote and pure speculation on which way they would vote. Military might should never override a democratic vote. If they wanted to do it right they would have lobbied for a referendum to succeed from the Ukraine and not trump up an excuse for the Russian military to yet again violate the sovereignty of the Ukraine (Something which Russia guaranteed they would never do).
The two districts dragging the average "yes" votes down are Crimea and Sevastopol'.
But both votes were still over 50% which means that the majority who voted decided to leave Russia and join teh Ukraine.
If the Crimea ia so staunchly Russian then why did they vote 54% in crimea and 57% in Sevastopol to separate from Russia? That was the last democratic vote on the issue
Crimea was part of Russia until 1964 when Nikita Khrusjtsjov arbitrarily gave it away to Ukraine (according to some historians he did so while drunk).
According to this it was a vote in the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR that caused the transfer and not Khrusjtsjov alone.
By a decree issued February 19, 1954 of the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR, the Crimea was transferred from the RSFSR to the Ukrainian SSR. This decree was passed amid solemn circumstances. There were many speeches, which as far as one could tell had one purpose: to explain to the peoples of the USSR the reasons which made this act essential. According to the speakers the chief reasons were these: 1) The Crimea's economy is closely linked with the economy of the Ukrainian Republic; 2) The Crimea forms, as it were, a natural extension of the southern Ukrainian steppes.
The majority of the people there identify with being Russian.
Perhaps because most of the Tartars were exiled and may Ukrainians were starved in 1932 and 33. This followed by Russians moving to the area to support the Black Sea Fleet may be the reason for so many Russians on Ukrainian land.
Yes there was famine elsewhere but the Russian policies exacerbated the issue. According to Encyclopedia Britanica:
Encyclopædia Britannica estimates that 6 to 8 million people died from hunger in the Soviet Union during this period, of whom 4 to 5 million were Ukrainians.
Why such a high proportion from the Ukraine? Because Russia took the grain to feed Russians and let the Ukrainians die. Dr. Michael Ellman of the University of Amsterdam argues that there is evidence that Stalin used starvation as a weapon in his war against the peasantry;
He analyses the actions of the Soviet authorities, two of commission and one of omission: (i) exporting 1.8 million tonnes of grain during the mass starvation (enough to feed more than five million people for one year), (ii) preventing migration from famine afflicted areas (which may have cost an estimated 150,000 lives) and (iii) making no effort to secure grain assistance from abroad (which caused an estimated 1.5 million excess deaths), as well as the attitude of the Stalinist regime in 1932–33 (that many of those starving to death were "counterrevolutionaries", "idlers" or "thieves" who fully deserved their fate).
So Russia stole the grain, didn't allow people to move and didn't even ask for aid from other countries. It seems that Russia is to blame for most of not all those deaths. Just because something is disputed does not mean that it is false. How many countries do you know who readily admit they committed atricities and if they do admit it it usually takes a long time. Look at this map. Those are the nations that consider the Holodomor to be genocide.
It does not even matter about the fine details. In the Ukraine at that time the belief was that Russia killed millions of their people and they acted according to that belief. You try to tell starving people who are watching trains loaded with grain leave their farms that their plight is not caused by the people taking the grain.
The matter is highly disputed, it didn't help that the Ukrainians ones used the photos from US Great Depression to illustrate the atrocities of the Russians.
Are you really basing the voracity of a genocide claim on one poorly planned PR campaign? Millions died during the famine and that is a fact. Whether or not Russia made it worse is pretty clear. Perhaps they used that photo because they could not find a good photo of the real situation. Remember it was Stalinist Russia and anyone with a camera could be a counter-revolutionary and summarily executed.
You need to go back a little further and read a little history. In 1932-1933 there was a famine caused by Russia which killed over 2 million Ukrainians. When the Germans invaded they were seen as liberators by many as they were kicking out the hated Russians. The enemy of my enemy is my friend. I also wonder if Russia is spinning WW2 ties with the German army to make their case look better.
All the ruling says is that particular law does not apply to smart phones displaying maps. It says nothing about the law that deals with devices that can display video and do not have a vehicle interlock. The driver was just charged with the incorrect offence.
Slashdot Mirror
The scanning just tells where the car is an not the exact car in question. Tow truck drivers are told to take vehicles based on license numbers and VINs. They have to check them before taking the vehicle. If they bring in the wrong car they don't get paid and/or can be charged with vehicle theft. If they do it too many times they get fired. It is in the driver's best interest to check tags before taking a vehicle.
Huh? What do you mean? How are those two things related?
If the Crimea had voted against the Act of Declaration of Independence of Ukraine they could vote for independence. Then they could vote to join the Russian Federation.
Please Joe, there's a difference between "assurance" and "guarantee", besides it being an unratified agreement
The difference being that in the case of assurances if one country breaks the agreement the other countries are not bound to come to Ukraine's aid. Had it been a guarantee they would have been. So you are saying it is ok to tell a country what you want to get them to give up their nuclear weapons and then ignore the agreement when it suits you. I don't agree.
How about this quote from the text of the memorandums
The Russian Federation, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United States of America reaffirm their obligation to refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of Ukraine, and that none of their weapons will ever be used against Ukraine except in self-defence or otherwise in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations;
Repeat after me: this is not an invasion.
The Kariv pack is about troops on bases and not in the countryside. They may be justified in Sevastopol but not the rest of the Crimea. It became an invasion the second troops left Sevastopol.
the *democratically elected* president of Ukraine asked Russia to use military force
You mean the president who attempted to go against the wishes of the people in signing the trade deal with Russia instead of the one with the EU. The president who used troops to kill 83 Ukrainians. The president that was removed from power by the democratically elected parliament? The Ukrainian parliament has 450 seats of which 380 voted for removal. When the parliament removed him from office he had no authority to authorize foreign troops on Ukrainian soil. Viktor Yanukovych was democratically elected and democratically removed.
I also like how you edited the last quote. Here it is in full;
Sergei Aksenov, the pro-Russian prime minister of the Crimea region, has declared that he is in control of all military, police and other security services in the region. But he appealed to Russia's president for help in keeping peace there.
Hiding something? Maybe the Prime Minister is trying to take advantage of the turmoil to get what he wants but not necessarily what the people want. I doubt he was elected with Russian troop deployments in the minds of the voters.
By the way, here is a quote from one of your http://www.wnd.com/2014/03/oh-...">referenced articles
Yeltsen also signed in 1994 the Budapest Memorandum, which was to guarantee the territorial integrity of Ukraine.
The government shouldn't be allowed to say "Based on information provided by XYZ Tracking, your car was in the McDonalds parking lot when it was robbed so you must have committed the crime" without some validity checking.
Any decent defense lawyer would have that information ruled inadmissible if it was not verifiable by pictures. It would be easy to prove that scanners make mistakes.
A better simile is a number of people spread out all over the place who take pictures of everyone and sort them by face. No single person is being followed therefore no stalking. The big difference is that most of the time pictures are not being taken. There is no way to know where is person has been between when the pictures are taken. License plate scanners are not everywhere.
Not quite. Paparazzi are intrusive. They get in people's faces and the constant photo flashes are annoying. There are also paparazzi who insist on asking questions (aka TMZ).This is far different than license place scans.
My worry is that my car will be mistaken for another car on a repo list and towed somewhere.
That would only happen if the tow driver made the same mistake as the scanner. When the scanner pops up the record for the repo and the plates don't match the driver will not take the vehicle.
I will be tracked everywhere all the time with these scanners
Most scanners are mounted on vehicles like parking ticket authorities and tow trucks. The drive up and down the street scanning parked vehicles. There is no way every vehicle will be scanned all the time.
What about stationary cameras?
Where would these tow companies place these stationary cameras and get a lot of coverage? Sure they could try to place them on every light pole but I doubt local authorities would approve. Sure they can scan as people come and go from a lot but if you don't want to be scanned don't use the lot.
I will be tracked everywhere I go
No, your license plate will be tracked when a scanning vehicle comes by or you use a lot that scans. The piece of information that the scanning company does not have is any information about the owner of the license plate. The information can be obtained but only for a few specific reasons. California for example, look at the "Permissible Use" section. I don't see "Because I want to sell tracking information" there as permissible use.
These databases will contain license plate numbers and not people's names.
1. Power supply. This is currently a tethered suit which is useless in a non-laboratory environment..
2. Actuator speed. All the movements are very slow. This means that it can not compensate for issues caused by unstable ground. Take this thing onto a rubble pile and it will be flat on the ground in minutes. Even on solid flat ground they do not have enough confidence to let it stand without a safety support rope.
3. Limited movement. All we saw was standing in one spot, squatting slightly, reaching out and lifting one pipe. What are the limits of it's movement. Can it pick something off the ground? can it lift over it's head. What are the limits of rotation.
4. Simple grippers. Watch him try to grasp the pipe. It looks like it takes a lot of concentration and effort. That was an optimized test with the object held in a position that would be easy to pick up. What about odd sized objects in awkward positions?
As a suit to us in a disaster relief in dirty, unstable, non-laboratory situations this suit is useless and it's technology is not readily up-gradable to fit the bill.
Yet another "give me money to throw down the drain" advertisement.
Which is why any lead shielding would be covered with epoxy to contain the lead.
Not quite. All we know is that the majority voted to be part of an independent Ukraine vs. being a Soviet republic.
Being a Soviet republic be the first step in joining the Russian Federation? Putin is trying to annex the Crimea into the Russian Federation right now. He is trying to do it by force and not democratic means.
Again, the way to do this is a democratic vote and not military force. Putin is again using the "protection of Russian citizens" as an excuse to use force. It is the act of a bully and extremely undemocratic. There has been no physical violence against any Russians before the troops were deployed therefore nothing to "protect" against. Yes, some language rights were curtailed but that is no reason for an invasion.
The facts are pretty simple;
1. The Crimea was given to Ukraine.
2. The Ukraine succeeded
3. The population of Crimea supported the Act of Succession.
4. The Russian Federation guaranteed the territorial integrity of the Ukraine.
5. The Russian Federation has now invaded the Crimea.
Do you see how points 4 and 5 do not match?
They gave people either information from health authorities about the lack of evidence for a connection, information about the danger of the three diseases the MMR vaccine protects against, pictures of children who had one of those three diseases, or a story about an infant who almost died from measles.
What if people were given some combination of the above information? For example, connection information and picture of children with the disease. The outcome might be different than either information alone. Given alone "connection information" may be detrimental but combined with other information it may be beneficial. All this study shows is that relying on the lack of evidence of connection alone is incorrect.
I would have liked to see the effect of giving a group all the information. I realize we are not all the same but, for me, the more information the better.
This is not a helicopter. Every aircraft with a single propeller is in the scenario you describe. The wings counter the engine torque. What you are talking about is helicopters which rely on contra-rotating blades instead of a tail rotor. Most of those helicopters have both sets of blades running from the same transmission.
full throttle is safer than no throttle.
Full throttle is very dangerous as it can lead to engine failure/fire and aircraft over speed/breakup. Without power the aircraft is a glider.
the question was "Do you want to be independent, or part of the USSR (not part of RSFSR)?" which is a completely different thing.
The actual question was "Do you support the Act of Declaration of Independence of Ukraine?" It seems to me that the independence is linked with being part of the Ukraine. They could have voted no and then they would have been in a good position to lobby for joining the Russian Federation. This referendum was voted on over a year after independence.
From the gut I'd say that on matters of importance, a majority of 2/3 is required.
Do you remember your statement "The majority of the people there identify with being Russian." You seem to think that identifying as Russian means they want to stay in Russia. 55% of those who identified as Russian voter for the referendum. The vote showed that the majority wanted to stay with the Ukraine.
Maybe the other 40% thought, that not voting is a sign of protest?
Maybe they didn't care. We can speculate all we want but without actual knowledge it is meaningless. All we know is that the majority voted to stay with the Ukraine.
My link to the S.6B didn't work. While there is a progression there are major differences between the different aircraft and none of them had enclosed cockpits or retractable landing gear before the Spitfire.
According to Wikipedia the Spitfire was designed from the start as a fighter. It may have been used in races but so was the P-51 (another purpose built fighter). You may have been thinking of this aircraft which contributed to the Spitfire design but was a completely different aircraft.
Lets go a little further into the issues;
1. Size. You talked about this a bit but range was more important. The racing aircraft was designed to take off, fly a few laps around a short course and land. There is no way it had enough fuel to get to England, fight and get back.
2. Armament. The aircraft had none. To add armament would mean weight and stiffening. The wings did not have enough strength to accommodate machine guns, ammunition and the pounding caused by firing.
3. Armor. Most combat aircraft had some of the following things to help it survive being shot at; self sealing fuel tanks, armored cockpits, redundant flight controls armored engine compartment, strengthened structure, etc. A race aircraft would not need any of these ans would be very vulnerable to enemy fire.
The Bugatti was a race aircraft and not a combat aircraft. Yes it could go fast but was useless in combat.
I guess, because the turnout was only 60% [wikipedia.org]?
If you don't vote you don't count. It was the choice of the people not to vote and pure speculation on which way they would vote. Military might should never override a democratic vote. If they wanted to do it right they would have lobbied for a referendum to succeed from the Ukraine and not trump up an excuse for the Russian military to yet again violate the sovereignty of the Ukraine (Something which Russia guaranteed they would never do).
The two districts dragging the average "yes" votes down are Crimea and Sevastopol'.
But both votes were still over 50% which means that the majority who voted decided to leave Russia and join teh Ukraine.
If the Crimea ia so staunchly Russian then why did they vote 54% in crimea and 57% in Sevastopol to separate from Russia? That was the last democratic vote on the issue
Did the new law strip Russians of the right to speak Russian? All they did was remove the Russian languages's special status within the Ukraine.
Crimea was part of Russia until 1964 when Nikita Khrusjtsjov arbitrarily gave it away to Ukraine (according to some historians he did so while drunk).
According to this it was a vote in the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR that caused the transfer and not Khrusjtsjov alone.
By a decree issued February 19, 1954 of the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR, the Crimea was transferred from the RSFSR to the Ukrainian SSR. This decree was passed amid solemn circumstances. There were many speeches, which as far as one could tell had one purpose: to explain to the peoples of the USSR the reasons which made this act essential. According to the speakers the chief reasons were these: 1) The Crimea's economy is closely linked with the economy of the Ukrainian Republic; 2) The Crimea forms, as it were, a natural extension of the southern Ukrainian steppes.
The majority of the people there identify with being Russian.
Perhaps because most of the Tartars were exiled and may Ukrainians were starved in 1932 and 33. This followed by Russians moving to the area to support the Black Sea Fleet may be the reason for so many Russians on Ukrainian land.
Yes there was famine elsewhere but the Russian policies exacerbated the issue. According to Encyclopedia Britanica :
Encyclopædia Britannica estimates that 6 to 8 million people died from hunger in the Soviet Union during this period, of whom 4 to 5 million were Ukrainians.
Why such a high proportion from the Ukraine? Because Russia took the grain to feed Russians and let the Ukrainians die.
Dr. Michael Ellman of the University of Amsterdam argues that there is evidence that Stalin used starvation as a weapon in his war against the peasantry;
He analyses the actions of the Soviet authorities, two of commission and one of omission: (i) exporting 1.8 million tonnes of grain during the mass starvation (enough to feed more than five million people for one year), (ii) preventing migration from famine afflicted areas (which may have cost an estimated 150,000 lives) and (iii) making no effort to secure grain assistance from abroad (which caused an estimated 1.5 million excess deaths), as well as the attitude of the Stalinist regime in 1932–33 (that many of those starving to death were "counterrevolutionaries", "idlers" or "thieves" who fully deserved their fate).
So Russia stole the grain, didn't allow people to move and didn't even ask for aid from other countries. It seems that Russia is to blame for most of not all those deaths. Just because something is disputed does not mean that it is false. How many countries do you know who readily admit they committed atricities and if they do admit it it usually takes a long time. Look at this map. Those are the nations that consider the Holodomor to be genocide.
It does not even matter about the fine details. In the Ukraine at that time the belief was that Russia killed millions of their people and they acted according to that belief. You try to tell starving people who are watching trains loaded with grain leave their farms that their plight is not caused by the people taking the grain.
The matter is highly disputed, it didn't help that the Ukrainians ones used the photos from US Great Depression to illustrate the atrocities of the Russians.
Are you really basing the voracity of a genocide claim on one poorly planned PR campaign? Millions died during the famine and that is a fact. Whether or not Russia made it worse is pretty clear. Perhaps they used that photo because they could not find a good photo of the real situation. Remember it was Stalinist Russia and anyone with a camera could be a counter-revolutionary and summarily executed.
They. Fought. Side-by-side. With. Nazis.
You need to go back a little further and read a little history. In 1932-1933 there was a famine caused by Russia which killed over 2 million Ukrainians. When the Germans invaded they were seen as liberators by many as they were kicking out the hated Russians. The enemy of my enemy is my friend. I also wonder if Russia is spinning WW2 ties with the German army to make their case look better.
All the ruling says is that particular law does not apply to smart phones displaying maps. It says nothing about the law that deals with devices that can display video and do not have a vehicle interlock. The driver was just charged with the incorrect offence.
According to this I am correct;
On December 11, 1995, the House of Commons adopted a resolution in which the House recognizes that “Québec is a distinct society within Canada”
Care to cite that motion?