I agree with you that this should be the outcome of the trial. But the fact that he was charged still makes sense - he violated one rule to uphold another. The fact that he's not had a trial yet is the only real issue.
Yes, this sort of thing is exactly what the justice system was (allegedly) designed for.
IMO, every government official should be tried for treason at some point. The innocent will be exonerated, the guilty will be punished accordingly, and so long as the proceedings are carried out in accordance with the Constitution, everybody is a winner (well, everybody but the traitors).
As a noob in the web programming world, I like to try out a lot of the different tools offered that are supposed to ease development.
I tried Joomla! and the results were... less than satisfactory (less of a learning 'curve,' more like a learning free-fall).
I gave Drupal a shot; not terrible, I think if I work with it enough I'll understand the system well enough to make some damn fine looking blogs... if I were interested in making yet another blog site (I'm not).
Long story short, I ended up hand-coding everything anyway. So it goes.
Do you really think that the Uniform Code of Military Justice has nothing to say about leaking classified information?
As I stated, the oath is an ordered list, and that particular item is the last one - after defending the Constitution and bearing true faith and allegiance to the same.
So the real question here is, were Manning's actions in accordance with defense of the Constitution? I say yes, as outing corrupt and illegal activity engaged in by federal bureaucrats (A.K.A. treason) is tantamount to ensuring the Constitution's validity on the world stage.
That's different. Right or wrong, Manning swore an oath to the effect that he would not do what he did.
Manning swore an oath to defend and uphold the Constitution, not the federal government. In fact, here's the oath he took, verbatim:
"I, Bradley Manning, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God." (Title 10, US Code; Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in 1789, with amendment effective 5 October 1962).
Emphasis mine. Now, taking said oath into account (with the knowledge that it is an ordered list, i.e. the first item is the most important), how exactly did he violate it?
If all interpersonal interactions were based on this very simple notion of resolving our differences in a civilized fashion, and having honest and intelligent debate, 98% of this kind of crap would go away.
In this instance, responding to OP's idiotic assertion, yes. After all, foreskin, hair-lips, and cancer are all perfectly natural occurrences, and to get rid of any of them, one would have to "mutilate" the child "against their will," would they not?
Point being, people that use emotional screeds like "OMG, TEH DOXXORS R HAXXIN MAH YUNGUNS!" to exhort their chagrin with certain perfectly normal, safe, health-related medical procedures, are morons. To be honest, I find it a bit amazing that such ignorant nonsense would be modded 'Insightful,' considering the attitude normally exhibited on/. in regards to people who base their medical reasoning on nonfactual, emotional bullshit.
i.e., say anything about vaccines that so much as hints at doubt, and you're thoroughly beaten into submission; talk about circumcision as though it's akin to amputation, and you're lauded as a fuckin' genius.
Yea, there're some insane folks here, and they ain't me.
And the survival rate of such companies will be, exactly what?
Well, if we're talking about the patent-whoring machines founded by the likes of J.P. Morgan, George Westinghouse, and John Rockefeller... pretty damn good.
I'm not American, and I can't quite understand where does the custom in the US comes from. Is it religious in origin? I know muslims, jews and americans practice it, but that's about it. Does anyone know?
As far as I know, it's not common at all on other countries.
Yea, that's how we distinguish ourselves from you unwashed heathens*.
* in before the negative mods - That's called a JOKE, you humorless assholes!
I'm guessing reading comprehension isn't your strong suit. Either that, or you own a Prius and I touched a nerve.
What, you mean that Japanese piece of ass-backwards engineering? No thanks, I'd rather build my own hybrid that works right, like the 75-mpg Opel GT built back in 1979, than drive one of those gas-engine-supplemented-by-electric-power abominations that manufacturers are pushing on the public.
In either case, what I was *trying* to say is that there are already vehicles that come close to that mandate, but they all involve some pretty significant trade-offs. As you so eloquently pointed out, a bike isn't suitable 365 days a year for everyone (however, you incorrectly assumed that I was one of the people for whom it *does* work -- nice try, but no. 61 degrees 15' N, do the math). For those who opt for a more fuel-efficient vehicle, the jury is still out on the eco-friendliness of them, and from what I can tell by frequently being stuck behind them in traffic, their performance sucks. In either case, mandating that Detroit raise the bar to 54.5 MPG isn't likely to improve either of those cases much, IMHO.
Boy, that sure is a lot of words for "thanks for agreeing with me.":D
FYI (I thought about putting this in my last post, obviously should have), you aren't the one I was referring to as an obnoxious prick - that is reserved for the anti-automobile eco-Nazis.
As to taxes, I'm not paying any less taxes because I'm on a bike. The gas pump doesn't differentiate between car, truck, or bike and property taxes are based on the worth of the vehicle, not what sort of damage it can do to the road. Since a bike does significantly less road damage, we're actually shouldering more of a tax burden than folks who drive on four or more wheels.
Fair enough, which I only say because we all know which vehicles cause the most damage to roads, and I don't know anyone keen on paying more for their groceries.
... which I posted before realizing that since bikes use less fuel, bikers in turn pay less highway tax... but wait, if the gov't mandates higher fuel mileage standards, that means everyone will be paying less fuel tax, which means even less money to pay for road maintenance...
Actually I live in Colorado and ride year round. There are a very few days that I'm not able to take the bike out for which I take the bicycle, truck, or public transportation (depending on destination). And I've hauled quite a bit of stuff from clothes, books, groceries, and even my electric guitar (in a hard case). As with every, it's a question of being prepared.
I would probably be able to get around fine with a bike on a normal day (the most I carry to the office is a laptop case and sack lunch), if not for the fact that the people in this town seem to fucking aim for bikes (coming from a family of riders, I actually try and protect the bikes from asshole drivers). However, you and I both know that motorcycles just aren't practical for the majority of the population the majority of the time.
My current lowest temperature ride is 30 minutes at 70mph at -10F with my normal gear plus heated gloves. It's not that hard.
Yea, on you. Try telling that to my 60 year old mother... just be ready to duck when she swings on you for being a smart ass.
BTW, how much did all that fancy riding gear cost? My car requires no special clothing, and is equally comfortable to travel in regardless of the outside temps (OK, when it hits 120+, the AC struggles a bit).
As to taxes, I'm not paying any less taxes because I'm on a bike. The gas pump doesn't differentiate between car, truck, or bike and property taxes are based on the worth of the vehicle, not what sort of damage it can do to the road. Since a bike does significantly less road damage, we're actually shouldering more of a tax burden than folks who drive on four or more wheels.
Fair enough, which I only say because we all know which vehicles cause the most damage to roads, and I don't know anyone keen on paying more for their groceries.
In 2004, cognitive neoroscientist Itiel Dror set out to examine whether the process of fingerprint analysis, long considered one of the most reliable forms of forensic science, can be biased by the knowledge examiners have when they attempt to find a match for prints from a crime scene... Dror constructed an experiment using the case of Brandon Mayfield. Mayfield, an Oregon lawyer, was at the center of international controversy in 2004 after the FBI and an independent analyst incorrectly matched his prints to a partial print found on a bag of detonators from the Madrid terrorist bombings.
Dror asked five fingerprint experts to examine what they were told were the erroneously matched prints of Mayfield. In fact, they were re-examining prints from their own past cases. Only one of the experts stuck by their previous judgments. Three reversed their previous decisions and one deemed them “inconclusive.”
true but building a car that has a frame with the same capabilities of a roll cage should not be a problem and should be integrated as standard on all vehicles.
This, which I assumed was a given, considering we're talking about commercial street cars, not custom off-road crawlers.
This is just an effort to get the greenies to reelect the big O.
This is something I've never, and probably will never, understand about politicians: Where do they get the idea that pandering to the people who are going to vote for them anyway is somehow going to sway an election?
I assume it's a side effect of their detachment from reality.
That's may be a workable solution for you, but not everyone in the country lives in your neighborhood.
Pretty much my thoughts exactly.
If you can live a car-free lifestyle without detriment, good for you, but please try not to be the obnoxious prick you really want to be to those of us who aren't so 'fortunate.'
Motorcycles are great, provided you live somewhere with 90% favorable weather, and never have to haul anything bigger than a backpack.
For the other 99.9999999% of the population, however...
Not that I have an issue with bikes, but FTR, my wife drives a Jetta TDI, and gets almost the same highway mileage as your 'Busa.
I'd love to see more folks on bikes. Have motorcycle only lanes just like there are bike only lanes; split a current full sized lane into two dedicated motorcycle lanes
Hey, so long as they lower my highway taxes and jack them up on bikes to compensate, I have no problem with it. Now, if you're expecting your own private lane paid for at the car driver's expense...
Slashdot Mirror
I agree with you that this should be the outcome of the trial. But the fact that he was charged still makes sense - he violated one rule to uphold another. The fact that he's not had a trial yet is the only real issue.
Yes, this sort of thing is exactly what the justice system was (allegedly) designed for.
IMO, every government official should be tried for treason at some point. The innocent will be exonerated, the guilty will be punished accordingly, and so long as the proceedings are carried out in accordance with the Constitution, everybody is a winner (well, everybody but the traitors).
As a noob in the web programming world, I like to try out a lot of the different tools offered that are supposed to ease development.
I tried Joomla! and the results were... less than satisfactory (less of a learning 'curve,' more like a learning free-fall).
I gave Drupal a shot; not terrible, I think if I work with it enough I'll understand the system well enough to make some damn fine looking blogs... if I were interested in making yet another blog site (I'm not).
Long story short, I ended up hand-coding everything anyway.
So it goes.
Do you really think that the Uniform Code of Military Justice has nothing to say about leaking classified information?
As I stated, the oath is an ordered list, and that particular item is the last one - after defending the Constitution and bearing true faith and allegiance to the same.
So the real question here is, were Manning's actions in accordance with defense of the Constitution? I say yes, as outing corrupt and illegal activity engaged in by federal bureaucrats (A.K.A. treason) is tantamount to ensuring the Constitution's validity on the world stage.
That's different. Right or wrong, Manning swore an oath to the effect that he would not do what he did.
Manning swore an oath to defend and uphold the Constitution, not the federal government. In fact, here's the oath he took, verbatim:
Emphasis mine. Now, taking said oath into account (with the knowledge that it is an ordered list, i.e. the first item is the most important), how exactly did he violate it?
I just think my country would be great and I don't understand why none of the small-time dictators, not even once, have seen it my way.
They have, precisely once.
Is there some new way science is able to quantify happiness? They can measure it?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endocrinology
Gives a whole new meaning to the old saying, 'Take my wife, please!'
"Don't be a douchebag."
If all interpersonal interactions were based on this very simple notion of resolving our differences in a civilized fashion, and having honest and intelligent debate, 98% of this kind of crap would go away.
FTFY.
You can't have a rational argument with someone with irrational views. I don't know how to solve that problem.
I do - find something more productive to do than waste your time screaming at a wall.
The fret work is an order of magnitude harder than plucking or strumming the strings.
I'm fully ambidextrous.
Suddenly I hate you very much (being the sad owner of 'stupid fingers').
You liken the foreskin to a hairlip and cancer?
You people are insane.
In this instance, responding to OP's idiotic assertion, yes. After all, foreskin, hair-lips, and cancer are all perfectly natural occurrences, and to get rid of any of them, one would have to "mutilate" the child "against their will," would they not?
/. in regards to people who base their medical reasoning on nonfactual, emotional bullshit.
Point being, people that use emotional screeds like "OMG, TEH DOXXORS R HAXXIN MAH YUNGUNS!" to exhort their chagrin with certain perfectly normal, safe, health-related medical procedures, are morons. To be honest, I find it a bit amazing that such ignorant nonsense would be modded 'Insightful,' considering the attitude normally exhibited on
i.e., say anything about vaccines that so much as hints at doubt, and you're thoroughly beaten into submission; talk about circumcision as though it's akin to amputation, and you're lauded as a fuckin' genius.
Yea, there're some insane folks here, and they ain't me.
Police can detain you for any reason for 24 hours.
... and strip search anyone and everyone they 'detain.'
Nope, no police state to see here, move along Citizen...
And the survival rate of such companies will be, exactly what?
Well, if we're talking about the patent-whoring machines founded by the likes of J.P. Morgan, George Westinghouse, and John Rockefeller...
pretty
damn
good.
I'm not American, and I can't quite understand where does the custom in the US comes from. Is it religious in origin? I know muslims, jews and americans practice it, but that's about it. Does anyone know? As far as I know, it's not common at all on other countries.
Yea, that's how we distinguish ourselves from you unwashed heathens*.
* in before the negative mods - That's called a JOKE, you humorless assholes!
Just practice good hygiene. How about we don't mutilate anyone's private parts against their will?
Yea! And if your kid is born with a hair-lip, don't you dare mutilate that poor child by making him look like everyone else!
Childhood cancer? Too fuckin' bad, chief, we ain't torturing your kid by cutting out that perfectly natural tumor!
Jumpin' Jesus on a pogo-stick, the ignorant shit some people expound...
I'm guessing reading comprehension isn't your strong suit. Either that, or you own a Prius and I touched a nerve.
What, you mean that Japanese piece of ass-backwards engineering? No thanks, I'd rather build my own hybrid that works right, like the 75-mpg Opel GT built back in 1979, than drive one of those gas-engine-supplemented-by-electric-power abominations that manufacturers are pushing on the public.
In either case, what I was *trying* to say is that there are already vehicles that come close to that mandate, but they all involve some pretty significant trade-offs. As you so eloquently pointed out, a bike isn't suitable 365 days a year for everyone (however, you incorrectly assumed that I was one of the people for whom it *does* work -- nice try, but no. 61 degrees 15' N, do the math). For those who opt for a more fuel-efficient vehicle, the jury is still out on the eco-friendliness of them, and from what I can tell by frequently being stuck behind them in traffic, their performance sucks. In either case, mandating that Detroit raise the bar to 54.5 MPG isn't likely to improve either of those cases much, IMHO.
Boy, that sure is a lot of words for "thanks for agreeing with me." :D
FYI (I thought about putting this in my last post, obviously should have), you aren't the one I was referring to as an obnoxious prick - that is reserved for the anti-automobile eco-Nazis.
As to taxes, I'm not paying any less taxes because I'm on a bike. The gas pump doesn't differentiate between car, truck, or bike and property taxes are based on the worth of the vehicle, not what sort of damage it can do to the road. Since a bike does significantly less road damage, we're actually shouldering more of a tax burden than folks who drive on four or more wheels.
Fair enough, which I only say because we all know which vehicles cause the most damage to roads, and I don't know anyone keen on paying more for their groceries.
... which I posted before realizing that since bikes use less fuel, bikers in turn pay less highway tax... but wait, if the gov't mandates higher fuel mileage standards, that means everyone will be paying less fuel tax, which means even less money to pay for road maintenance...
Diminishing returns?
Actually I live in Colorado and ride year round. There are a very few days that I'm not able to take the bike out for which I take the bicycle, truck, or public transportation (depending on destination). And I've hauled quite a bit of stuff from clothes, books, groceries, and even my electric guitar (in a hard case). As with every, it's a question of being prepared.
I would probably be able to get around fine with a bike on a normal day (the most I carry to the office is a laptop case and sack lunch), if not for the fact that the people in this town seem to fucking aim for bikes (coming from a family of riders, I actually try and protect the bikes from asshole drivers). However, you and I both know that motorcycles just aren't practical for the majority of the population the majority of the time.
My current lowest temperature ride is 30 minutes at 70mph at -10F with my normal gear plus heated gloves. It's not that hard.
Yea, on you. Try telling that to my 60 year old mother... just be ready to duck when she swings on you for being a smart ass.
BTW, how much did all that fancy riding gear cost? My car requires no special clothing, and is equally comfortable to travel in regardless of the outside temps (OK, when it hits 120+, the AC struggles a bit).
As to taxes, I'm not paying any less taxes because I'm on a bike. The gas pump doesn't differentiate between car, truck, or bike and property taxes are based on the worth of the vehicle, not what sort of damage it can do to the road. Since a bike does significantly less road damage, we're actually shouldering more of a tax burden than folks who drive on four or more wheels.
Fair enough, which I only say because we all know which vehicles cause the most damage to roads, and I don't know anyone keen on paying more for their groceries.
You'll be hard pressed to find a single peer reviewed study that shows finger prints to be a valid means of identification
challenge accepted
http://lpr.oxfordjournals.org/content/7/2/87.short
Counter example:
true but building a car that has a frame with the same capabilities of a roll cage should not be a problem and should be integrated as standard on all vehicles.
This, which I assumed was a given, considering we're talking about commercial street cars, not custom off-road crawlers.
1) Airbags work in conjunction with seat belts, not opposition to.
2) That still doesn't explain why roll cages and multi-point harnesses aren't standard equipment.
This is just an effort to get the greenies to reelect the big O.
This is something I've never, and probably will never, understand about politicians: Where do they get the idea that pandering to the people who are going to vote for them anyway is somehow going to sway an election?
I assume it's a side effect of their detachment from reality.
That's may be a workable solution for you, but not everyone in the country lives in your neighborhood.
Pretty much my thoughts exactly.
If you can live a car-free lifestyle without detriment, good for you, but please try not to be the obnoxious prick you really want to be to those of us who aren't so 'fortunate.'
For the other 99.9999999% of the population, however...
Not that I have an issue with bikes, but FTR, my wife drives a Jetta TDI, and gets almost the same highway mileage as your 'Busa.
I'd love to see more folks on bikes. Have motorcycle only lanes just like there are bike only lanes; split a current full sized lane into two dedicated motorcycle lanes
Hey, so long as they lower my highway taxes and jack them up on bikes to compensate, I have no problem with it. Now, if you're expecting your own private lane paid for at the car driver's expense...
The last time the gov't raised CAFE standards in such a way, manufacturers just cheated their way into compliance by stretching the roofs on their subcompact sedans, and labeling them as light trucks, thus increasing the average mileage of their lines just enough to meet the new standard.
What gives anyone the idea that they won't use the exact same workaround this time?