If the amount of radiation didn't even kill the guy, it sounds like razing the building and securely storing all the towels that touched him is a bit overkill.
If they blew off the rules of the Geneva Conventions and then still expected to be treated according to them when captured, that would be undeniably two-faced (although the U.S. in general flouts a lot of the international treaties it has--or has refused to--signed so can't say it's surprising). Isn't a lot of the controversy that many of those held at Gitmo are not demonstrably guilty?
I didn't mean in an existing civilian prison per se; they could have a separate facility. Although naturally nobody would want that in their back yard.
To say that they voted in Hitler is grossly oversimplifying the issue. He was appointed--not elected--prime minister first.
In addition to political campaigning, the NSDAP engaged in paramilitary violence and the spread of anti-communist propaganda in the days preceding the election. On election day, 6 March 1933, the NSDAP's share of the vote increased to 43.9 per cent, and the party acquired the largest number of seats in parliament. Hitler's party failed to secure an absolute majority, necessitating another coalition with the DNVP.
To achieve full political control despite not having an absolute majority in parliament, Hitler's government brought the Ermächtigungsgesetz (Enabling Act) to a vote in the newly elected Reichstag. The act gave Hitler's cabinet full legislative powers for a period of four years and (with certain exceptions) allowed deviations from the constitution.[153] The bill required a two-thirds majority to pass. Leaving nothing to chance, the Nazis used the provisions of the Reichstag Fire Decree to keep several Social Democratic deputies from attending; the Communists had already been banned.
So after Hitler had twisted Hindenburg's arm into making the Reichstag Fire Decree, they physically barred the opposing voters from entering the voting chamber and voting down the last barrier. But yeah, it was all democratic.
I'm interested to hear what you think the U.S. voters should have done if none of Bush, Gore, Kerry, Obama, McCain, or Romney were worth our votes (not that I really disagree with you on that point).
Inside the U.S. in a prison system or something that actually obeys the laws we've made for keeping prisoners. The whole point of Gitmo is that it's not inside the U.S. so we don't have to follow our own rules, right?
Interesting link, but the article doesn't say they hijacked the aircraft, only that they boarded and confirmed there were prisoners onboard.
I'm also trying to figure out what they mean by "carried out without the knowledge of the Americans." If the Americans knew about it, why would the Swedes even bother going in undercover? Unless they knew about it and chose to do nothing I suppose, since it sounds like it was on Swedish soil.
Gitmo shouldn't exist at all. The fact that is does means I don't assume those in charge will studiously adhere to their guidelines about who they can and can't illegally detain there.
I'm not entirely convinced that a governmental group thoroughly bungling an operation proves that they weren't attempting the operation. Assuming that conspiracies have to be totally effective seems unrealistic. It's like saying that because the Masons didn't take over the world, they weren't a secret society. No, they just didn't accomplish their goals (that we know of).
But deciding whether the rape charges were a happy coincidence or a happy "coincidence" seems to be more or less a matter of paranoia at this point.
Asking for evidence of favors is also rather iffy. It's a favor; of course they're not going to document it.
Probably because if we could pick and choose which channels we wanted and there were no barriers in the way, several dozen better channels than the big ones would immediately pop up and "steal" all the money. Can't have them destroying the big guys' market.
When you spend all your effort on legally quashing competition instead of trying to offer a good product is when you lose any sort of ethical standing. Fortunately, money is a decent substitute for ethical standing these days.
I bet the current entrenched entertainment industry would have loved it if all these restrictions were around when *they* were first getting off the ground. C'est la vie.
It is incredible how much americans will put up with(I am thinking about the barrage of commercial breaks also).
I love all these comments that equate to, "Well, you Americans should just stop doing that. Duh!" It's not like there's an entrenched multibillion-dollar industry dedicated to preventing that exact eventuality or anything.
One day Mal-2 asked the messenger spirit Saint Gulik to approach the Goddess and request Her presence for some desperate advice. Shortly afterwards the radio came on by itself, and an ethereal female Voice said YES?
"O! Eris! Blessed Mother of Man! Queen of Chaos! Daughter of Discord! Concubine of Confusion! O! Exquisite Lady, I beseech You to lift a heavy burden from my heart!"
WHAT BOTHERS YOU, MAL? YOU DON'T SOUND WELL.
"I am filled with fear and tormented with terrible visions of pain. Everywhere people are hurting one another, the planet is rampant with injustices, whole societies plunder groups of their own people, mothers imprison sons, children perish while brothers war. O, woe."
WHAT IS THE MATTER WITH THAT, IF IT IS WHAT YOU WANT TO DO?
"But nobody wants it! Everybody hates it."
OH. WELL, THEN STOP.
At which moment She turned herself into an aspirin commercial and left The Polyfather stranded alone with his species.
My point was that when you "buy" the software, you don't "own" it. You typically own a single copy of it and licensed rights necessary to use that single copy.
You're being pointlessly pedantic. That was obviously what AK Marc was talking about.
By that logic, only one copy of any given movie or album would ever be sold, because the person would promptly throw it up on the torrents. And that "should be" legal.
Not that that doesn't already happen to some degree.
Old does not always equal worse. You ever hear the saying, "Those who do not know UNIX are doomed to reimplement it, poorly?" Similar to how rewriting code from scratch is very rarely the correct approach because you'll make a lot of the same mistakes over again.
Can someone explain to me why all these program manpage references have e.g. "(1)" after them? Is it referring to a specific prototype with X number of arguments to invoke it or something? There aren't multiple programs in the PATH with the same name in a Linux install AFAIK.
Slashdot Mirror
Sounds like a good way to go out to me.
Can you die from being foul odored?
Jargon would require it to be technical and, y'know, correct.
I think the word we're looking for is "slang."
If the amount of radiation didn't even kill the guy, it sounds like razing the building and securely storing all the towels that touched him is a bit overkill.
If they blew off the rules of the Geneva Conventions and then still expected to be treated according to them when captured, that would be undeniably two-faced (although the U.S. in general flouts a lot of the international treaties it has--or has refused to--signed so can't say it's surprising). Isn't a lot of the controversy that many of those held at Gitmo are not demonstrably guilty?
I didn't mean in an existing civilian prison per se; they could have a separate facility. Although naturally nobody would want that in their back yard.
To say that they voted in Hitler is grossly oversimplifying the issue. He was appointed--not elected--prime minister first.
In addition to political campaigning, the NSDAP engaged in paramilitary violence and the spread of anti-communist propaganda in the days preceding the election. On election day, 6 March 1933, the NSDAP's share of the vote increased to 43.9 per cent, and the party acquired the largest number of seats in parliament. Hitler's party failed to secure an absolute majority, necessitating another coalition with the DNVP.
To achieve full political control despite not having an absolute majority in parliament, Hitler's government brought the Ermächtigungsgesetz (Enabling Act) to a vote in the newly elected Reichstag. The act gave Hitler's cabinet full legislative powers for a period of four years and (with certain exceptions) allowed deviations from the constitution.[153] The bill required a two-thirds majority to pass. Leaving nothing to chance, the Nazis used the provisions of the Reichstag Fire Decree to keep several Social Democratic deputies from attending; the Communists had already been banned.
So after Hitler had twisted Hindenburg's arm into making the Reichstag Fire Decree, they physically barred the opposing voters from entering the voting chamber and voting down the last barrier. But yeah, it was all democratic.
I'm interested to hear what you think the U.S. voters should have done if none of Bush, Gore, Kerry, Obama, McCain, or Romney were worth our votes (not that I really disagree with you on that point).
Inside the U.S. in a prison system or something that actually obeys the laws we've made for keeping prisoners. The whole point of Gitmo is that it's not inside the U.S. so we don't have to follow our own rules, right?
I dare say I smell the distinct aroma of a fucking Pulitzer from your florid fucking loquaciousness.
FTFY
So *that's* what the ??? always stands for! It all makes so much sense in retrospect.
*eliciting
You both have a point, but you don't need to be so in our faces about it. They have entire teams of people working on making interfaces more friendly.
Just because he broke local laws doesn't mean the U.S. isn't also out to get him.
Interesting link, but the article doesn't say they hijacked the aircraft, only that they boarded and confirmed there were prisoners onboard.
I'm also trying to figure out what they mean by "carried out without the knowledge of the Americans." If the Americans knew about it, why would the Swedes even bother going in undercover? Unless they knew about it and chose to do nothing I suppose, since it sounds like it was on Swedish soil.
Gitmo shouldn't exist at all. The fact that is does means I don't assume those in charge will studiously adhere to their guidelines about who they can and can't illegally detain there.
I'm not entirely convinced that a governmental group thoroughly bungling an operation proves that they weren't attempting the operation. Assuming that conspiracies have to be totally effective seems unrealistic. It's like saying that because the Masons didn't take over the world, they weren't a secret society. No, they just didn't accomplish their goals (that we know of).
But deciding whether the rape charges were a happy coincidence or a happy "coincidence" seems to be more or less a matter of paranoia at this point.
Asking for evidence of favors is also rather iffy. It's a favor; of course they're not going to document it.
Probably because if we could pick and choose which channels we wanted and there were no barriers in the way, several dozen better channels than the big ones would immediately pop up and "steal" all the money. Can't have them destroying the big guys' market.
When you spend all your effort on legally quashing competition instead of trying to offer a good product is when you lose any sort of ethical standing. Fortunately, money is a decent substitute for ethical standing these days.
I bet the current entrenched entertainment industry would have loved it if all these restrictions were around when *they* were first getting off the ground. C'est la vie.
It is incredible how much americans will put up with(I am thinking about the barrage of commercial breaks also).
I love all these comments that equate to, "Well, you Americans should just stop doing that. Duh!" It's not like there's an entrenched multibillion-dollar industry dedicated to preventing that exact eventuality or anything.
One day Mal-2 asked the messenger spirit Saint Gulik to approach the Goddess and request Her presence for some desperate advice. Shortly afterwards the radio came on by itself, and an ethereal female Voice said YES?
"O! Eris! Blessed Mother of Man! Queen of Chaos! Daughter of Discord! Concubine of Confusion! O! Exquisite Lady, I beseech You to lift a heavy burden from my heart!"
WHAT BOTHERS YOU, MAL? YOU DON'T SOUND WELL.
"I am filled with fear and tormented with terrible visions of pain. Everywhere people are hurting one another, the planet is rampant with injustices, whole societies plunder groups of their own people, mothers imprison sons, children perish while brothers war. O, woe."
WHAT IS THE MATTER WITH THAT, IF IT IS WHAT YOU WANT TO DO?
"But nobody wants it! Everybody hates it."
OH. WELL, THEN STOP.
At which moment She turned herself into an aspirin commercial and left The Polyfather stranded alone with his species.
http://principiadiscordia.com/...
You don't have to like it, but you're not entitled to make up crap and present it as fact.
Funny, I missed the part where he said anything other than Firefly's cancellation was fact.
"Good" and "famous" are both entirely subjective and thus opinion.
My point was that when you "buy" the software, you don't "own" it. You typically own a single copy of it and licensed rights necessary to use that single copy.
You're being pointlessly pedantic. That was obviously what AK Marc was talking about.
By that logic, only one copy of any given movie or album would ever be sold, because the person would promptly throw it up on the torrents. And that "should be" legal.
Not that that doesn't already happen to some degree.
Five identical responses and counting. Read the replies before you post, people :P
Interesting that point 7 is the first time they offer an example.
wat
Linux/Unix are an old design of an OS.
Old does not always equal worse. You ever hear the saying, "Those who do not know UNIX are doomed to reimplement it, poorly?" Similar to how rewriting code from scratch is very rarely the correct approach because you'll make a lot of the same mistakes over again.
Can someone explain to me why all these program manpage references have e.g. "(1)" after them? Is it referring to a specific prototype with X number of arguments to invoke it or something? There aren't multiple programs in the PATH with the same name in a Linux install AFAIK.
after swearing at my terminal for a while before resorting to reading the rm man page.
I find that half the time the swearing comes after trying to read the man page. Then it's time to fire up the old Google...
If by "promptly" you mean "9 months later." Well, this is government bureaucracy we're talking about, I guess.