I didn't read 'photographed 300 times per day' the way you did. I seriously doubt they're counting every single frame they get of one person on one camera on a single 'encounter'.. I read 300 times by separate cameras, in different locations.
Your reasoning, while valid, by leading to the conclusion that you yourself drew (not much of a survailance scheme) kinda falls flat on its ass when you take into account that, clearly, the intention behind that sentence was to reinforce the notion of widespread CCTV cameras throughout the UK.
Ahh.. in other words, "tradition". Yup, like many others, given enough time, the simple fact that it's been done for so long is reason enough to keep on doing it, regardless of what originated it. And on that regard, my friend, Europe is definitely riddled with more than its fair share of stupid traditions.
Seems like the sensible thing to do then would be to make it a national-level holiday. Sure, it's one less day's worth of productivity, but your economy can certainly take it if the trade-off is that people won't have any work- or time-related constraints stopping them from showing up (and facing the occasional lengthy lines).
Just a final thought: over here (Portugal), holding elections during weekends is especially useful because you get that extra day off (ie, Saturday) to set up all the voting booths and whatnot.. Considering that the whole thing takes some time and that most of the voting assemblies are placed in schools, it keeps the schools from closing (for at least the afternoon before). I suppose you guys over there set it up somewhere else.
Oh, and about "the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November..." I'm supposing it means it can't be the 1st Tuesday if that day happens to be Nov, 1st, right? Any reason why it HAS to be a Tuesday Nov, 2nd to 8th? [sorry, I'm just really curious about these little details -- I'm still fantasizing that that date had some special meaning back in the 1840s]
Yeah, being a "foreign dog" myself, I never really got that about your (american, that is) elections.. Is there any historical reason for you NOT to hold them during the weekend (Sunday to be more exact -- as most countries do)?
Is it always on a fixed day of the month, week, or exactly X days since the last election? Is it a constitutional thing? It's just that the idea of holding elections on an otherwise typical/normal working day seems...well, kinda dumb (no offense meant). Isn't it more disruptive to businesses than holding them during the weekend or even on a national holiday? Even if you do get some abstention from people who are just too busy enjoying their days off to go vote.. Anyway, anyone kind enough to shed some light on this?
Anyway, not being french I really have no idea of what this spells for France, the EU and the international scene.. Can't say I got a good impression from Mrs Royal, but the whole riot issue and Sarkozy's inflammatory stance, at least in the beginning, don't bode well for the many tensions in France's society. Let's just hope he can keep it together. And, judging by all the people I've met and talked to during my stays in several french cities, his apparent overly pro-american stance (pro-american ADMINISTRATION -- not people) isn't something the french will take too kindly, especially if he takes to it like Blair did. In any case, it seems that France is due (and needs) some serious reforms.. Hope he makes it.
On a final note.. The few things I've heard and read about him, the man's not too keen on immigrants (France, not unlike the US, despite the mounting, and probably inevitable, social tension, has gained a whole lot from the many immigrant communities over the years).. Well, I guess good arguments could be made for both sides. But the part in the summary about requiring immigrants to learn how to speak French... Uhh, duh?! Feel free to keep your cultural identity, but how the hell do you plan on making a life on any (foreign) country if you can't/won't even bother learning the language? I mean, this isn't about being for or against immigrants, for or against deporting the whole lot, it's about expecting the very least of efforts to fit in.
While you are technically correct, it doesn't mean that whenever facing an enemy which does not comply with the Geneva Convention, you get a free pass. It means that some dispositions regarding the relationship with the other party may, I stress _may_, be ignored. You're not forced to release enemy combatants once hostilities have ceased. You get to try enemy combatants even if they haven't committed anything that can be construed as a war crime. And so on.. None of which you'd be able to do if the other party was either a signatary or simply followed the rules contained within the Geneva Convention (case in point, the aftermath of a number of "conventional" wars).
But you are nevertheless bound by the more "moral" principles of the Convention. Namely, the definition of PoW and their rights, including the right to a fair trial and the right to legal representation, the definition of what constitutes a valid military target, the absolutely forbidden character of attacking any such structure identified as a medical facility, etc, etc..
Yeah, like most texts (and most laws we've so often discussed here), a lot is left to interpretation.. And the reality is that the Geneva Convention was not made for, nor specifically contemplates, terrorism and how to deal with it. But it is ultimately a statement of principles.. A gentleman's agreement meant to signify that no matter how bad things get, some things will remain sacred. That some common decency will be observed. It is supposed to be a higher road, a broader set of "Rules of Engagement" that any self-respecting state will observe at any time. And when we're talking about situations where apparently NOTHING applies; where neither international nor national law is observed; where constitutional principles are trampled and special jurisdiction, with its own very special rules, is defined, the Convention is supposed to serve as the most basic set of rules.
And in any case, the Convention was always about creating a moral obligation in the minds of people, and little else. When was the last time you saw the _winning_ side's leaders being brought to the International Court for violating the dispositions of the Geneva Convention?
Um, I'm guessing you didn't bother to actually read Article 4.. It starts with this:
Art 4. A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:
[then goes on to define them, including your misnamed "Section 2".. it's actually "Section A, Item 2" of Article 4]
In other words, what you just referenced is not a list of exclusions to the notion of Prisoners of War, or waiver for anything, but actually part of the description of what CONSTITUTES a PoW.
Last time I checked, the US isn't at war with any _culture_.. And I don't know of any culture that has terrorism as one of its exponents. In fact, all "cultures" (as you put it) have given rise to the occasional group of fanatics. To confuse terrorists and their organizations with the entire backdrop/population/region from whence they came is not only very dangerous, but incredibly insulting to the vast majority of people who have nothing to do with what those fanatics do, and that, like you and I, just want to be at peace and try and live a good life.
It seems a lot of people think that terrorism was "invented" by the islamic extremists/fanatics of the likes of Al-Qaeda.. There have been several terrorists organizations (extreme right, extreme left, christian fanatics) born and bred in the western countries. What would you call the Klu Klux Klan (to name just one), pray tell me?
To say that middle-eastern cultures are adverse to the notion of justice and fairness and the "Rules of Engagement", even at a time of war, simply because they currently contain the most infamous terrorists groups is going too far.
And as for the Geneva Convention being "quaint" or "obsolete".. Well, I guess that's a matter of opinion, and if you feel that way then there's probably nothing anyone can say to change your mind. But I put to you that while I may disagree with many laws, I am still obligated to abide by them until such time as they are revoked.
There's more to the "International Humanitarian Law" than the Geneva Convention -- I suggest you browse the International Red Cross' site for more information, but as you can see here, the US voluntarily signed the Convention in 1949, and later ratified it in 1955, with only the following reservation:
"The Government of the United States fully supports the objectives of this Convention.
"I am instructed by my Government to sign, making the following reservation to Article 68:
"The United States reserve the right to impose the death penalty in accordance with the provisions of Article 68, paragraph 2, without regard to whether the offences referred to therein are punishable by death under the law of the occupied territory at the time the occupation begins"
There are no exceptions to the Geneva Convention.. War is war, and when you state that you're at war, even if your enemy is terrorism (a too wide of term, IMHO), then ALL of the rules apply. You can't just pick those that happen to suit you each step of the way, and ignore the rest, or amuse yourself torturing semantics until the words mean what you wish them to mean. Well, as we've seen, you _can_, but then you're not in compliance.
Besides, your point seems to be that since the "other side" (ie, terrorists) respect nothing, then neither should you.. Well, I'm sorry, but aren't you supposed to be the good guys here? Aren't you supposed to be a nation of laws, a beacon of freedom, an example for everyone else to follow? I am not being sarcastic nor glib: it is a genuine question. Because to me it seems like you're saying it's ok, even warranted, to lower yourself to the lowest possible denominator in order to win. But then, all things taken into account, what separates you from "them"? Who wins when you become the evil you sought out to defeat?
I do give you this much.. I'm anti-Bush as one can be, but I too don't appreciate whenever someone gets accolades (ie, mod points) just for making some vague remark in line with the "popular" opinion. It cheapens the entire discussion by voiding it of real arguments and leaves me with the feeling that people don't even bother making up their own minds anymore. As far as I'm concerned, swallowing propaganda or being spoon-fed opinions is just as bad when you agre
Oh, and I should probably point out (in case I didn't make that clear) that you can use those VCCs anywhere you want, not just with VBV-enabled vendors/sellers. As far as the "normal" seller is concerned, the VCC (with your cardholder name, its own number and generated CVV2 code) is as real as your actual physical card.
The banks over here had devised an on-line ATM system for on-line payments which didn't require CCs. You could use it with your CC, if you wanted to, but it was mainly for debit cards.. They had it in place long before VBV which is probably why they just used the already existing framework/infrastructure, made it compliant with VBV, and presto!
But I'm still surprised it's not a more widely-used system since a) it works pretty well, b) doesn't seem all that hard to implement and c) adds a significant layer of security for both bank and client at negligible cost (I mean, if they could do it over here, your banking institutions can certainly afford it).
*drooling* Argh, this is so unfair.. It hasn't been published yet where I live. And even though this means I get to buy the "Special Edition" at a slightly lower price (pre-ordered it through Amazon) that the normal edition will retail for, it also means I'll have to wait an extra 3-4 days before I can get my hands on it. Early May is the best estimate.
But I'm glad you guys think it's at least as rewarding as GoW1 was.. Now, can someone clear this up for me, please? What's the toughest difficulty level on GoW2? Is it God Mode, is there a higher one, or did they just change the toughest difficulty level to "Titan" or whatever? Also, how does that compare to God Mode on GoW1? And finally, do you get to play it from the start, or do you also have to unlock it by beating the game in another mode first like GoW1 did?
As for the final boss discussion: I obviously have no reference to base any comparison, but regarding GoW1.. After beating the game on Hard the first time, the actual 2 fights with Ares on God mode were really easy.. I still died a couple of times, especially in the last fight, but a breeze compared to the first time on Hard. The one that took me a really long time to fine-tune a strategy and make it to the end, was the fight with all those Kratos.. Man, that was frustrating!! On Hard it went by fairly quickly, but on God mode it was completely exasperating.. And this even though I had full health and magic bars for God mode, which I didn't for Hard (completely forgot about the muse keys and the door to it before getting to the top levels of Pandora's Temple.. and by then, since I was saving my saves for the most exciting fights, so I could replay them at will [Hydra, Minotaur], by the time I realized I had forgotten about the keys I was too advanced in the game [Architect's Tomb, I think] to want to do it all over again from the Minotaur fight).
Anyway, really looking forward to it.. Best fun I've had with a game in a really long time (and btw, somehow, I never really liked DMC's style both for storytelling and fighting mechanism.. I guess GoW1 spoiled me).
Ditto.. $9M is really low.. Even if that account is only for Cyber Cafés. I know the hype for CS:S has somewhat passed but even so..
I had a feeling it was a hoax, what with Steam requiring you to always input your CC info everytime you make a purchase (which means it would make no sense for VALVe to store that info any longer than they need to), but if the hacked site was a third-party not affiliated with VALVe, who deals with the Cafés transactions then I guess it's possible. But I hardly see how it's VALVe's fault that they got hacked..
And looking at the pic, either that guy is reaping credit for someone else's handywork, or he/she has some serious self-esteem problems.. All that VALVe bashing BS seems out-of-place somehow, but then again, maybe that's because the hackers (real ones, I mean) I've known are from the old-school, when things were done mostly for bragging rights that were then kept within the circle.. Or just to mess with some clueless, thinks he's a hardcore BOFH admin.. (whatever.. typical "Damn kids, get off my lawn" comment.. Guess I'm getting old:) ).
Anyway, those lines on the right beneath "here's some proof" seem weird. The 1st 4 are marked as "Cash Sale". Well, doesn't "cash sale" usually mean a purchase made with.. cash?! Besides, the values seem too round: 40, 2 x 50, and then one 150 and one (the last) 860?! I'm assuming dollars here so, $860?? What, someone purchased their entire library of games? And even for a Café, it seems too high of a payment, if VALVe charges clients per-hour/per-account. Then there's the order numbers being, well, out-of-order (and that last one without any number at all, just the # sign).
While it doesn't seem that far-fetched that someone hacked into a billing system containing sensitive information, I'm getting the feeling again that at least part of this is an elaborate hoax. We have no way to verify the financial info regarding VALVe's bank accounts, but since VALVe did attibute some credit to the guy's claim, I'm assuming that the screenshots of VALVe's internal system looked real enough for them to investigate. Could that part have been an insider's job? Disgruntled employee, or something?
While you're not entirely wrong, I think you've also misunderstood what he was trying to explain.
I've used Verified by VISA a number of times now (and have dealt with a number of on-line merchants which will only accept payment through it) and it's really quite simple. First of all, you need to tell your bank (I did it through its on-line banking interface) that you want to enable VFV on a given card.
Now, the way it's implemented in my country (don't know if it differs on other countries) is: you then stipulate a password for the VBV system for that card, and an overall daily "allowance" for VBV operations on that card (ie, the total daily amount you're willing to allow your card to be charged through VBV).
Then, for each transaction, you generate a virtual card on-the-fly (stipulating a specific limit for that card) which is good for one, and only one, transaction (after which it becomes unusable) and expires within a month (in case the merchant takes too long to charge you for the transaction). In my case, there's even a toolbar/FF extension-like program you can download, enabling you to generate the virtual card with just a few clicks without having to open a new tab/window/whatever. Which means the vendor/seller never gets his hands on your CC number/account. And he can only charge you for the amount you enabled the VCC to pay for, and not a penny more.
Now, like the GP said, it won't do for monthly/cyclical payments (as you can only use each card once), but for purchases on an unknown vendor/site, it's pretty handy.
Plus, the whole system is completely transparent and lightning-fast. You can create a VBV account (which you can manage through your bank's on-line banking system), delete it, change access password, change daily allowance, create and cancel virtual cards (on the VBV site), all within seconds of each operation. And all of this without paying a single fee.. You only pay what you charge to your card, no added cost.
Which means, at least to me, that it's more than just an added level of security.. First of all, it's a new card for each transaction.. And, because those cards expire within a month of their creation, the system can re-utilize them on a cyclical base (after all, the cardholder's name won't be the same, as well as the 3-digit security code). A card that you can cancel at any time (if it hasn't been charged yet, that is). All through a (secure) system that requires you to use a password (that you choose) and a username that your bank generates (not just the "cardholder's name/CC number/CVV2 security code" combo), all while still enjoying that same "chargeback if you've been ripped off" protection you get with traditional CCs.
As said above (and below), poor voter turnout is noticed, but easily put down as lazyness, apathy or just plain ignorance on the part of the "general public" of the "important issues at stake".
In my experience, you usually only get political analysts and former politicians saying that disappointing voter turnout could also be attributed to the parties lack of ability in getting their message across (if they even HAVE a message at all besides bashing the opponent every chance they get) or the public's general distrust of the political class after so many years' worth of scandals and disappointments, as an afterthought.. You know, a couple of hours into the day's election breakdown in a sort of a "..oh yeah, and then there's the parties own shortcommings".
I don't know how you do it in the US, but do they count "spoilt" (null? what is the "legal" term for it?) votes along with blank ones? As in, does the final tally count the two apart or together? 'Cause IMO a spoilt vote is just that: spoilt. It can be someone's idea of a joke or a "stick it to the man", or just an honest fuck-up by a clueless/careless voter (I've no idea how your voting machines work, not being a US citizen, but from what I've heard and read so many times, both the machines themselves, and your ballots seem to be way too impractical/considerably hard to operate).
Whereas a blank vote sends a clearer message: it says "I took the time and trouble of going to the voting assembly, I cared, but no candidate/party was deserving of my vote". A blank vote can hardly be construed as non-intentional, and if a ballot is intentionally left blank, then that means something. Ok, so in most countries I know, blank votes, no matter the percentage, have no legal meaning. But it shouldn't be too hard to change that as those same countries demand a 50%+ voter turnout for a referendum's outcome to be legally binding, although I always thought that any form of rewarding absentism is counter-productive (it should be changed to blank votes).
Voting is more then a right, or a civic duty. It is a priviledge for which many people gave their lives over the years. It should be as obligatory as paying taxes (no, I don't like paying taxes, I just have to). After all, both are important ways of contributing to the state.
"No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time." "The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter." -- both from Sir Winston Churchill (yeah, the guy was full of himself.. doesn't mean he wasn't right, though)
I did say "not *that* impossible".. And what your math doesn't account for is that we're talking about 20 million papers (plus all those "online sources and electronic archives of journals") divided in groups of fairly similar subjects, written by those same 10,000-max-word vocabulary students conveying pretty similar, if not identical, ideas. But I concede the point, it would be very difficult to get an "innocent" word-for-word match. Again, not impossible, just extremely unlikely.
But the point remains that unless you actually KNOW that someone plagiarised someone else, a positive match can potentially wrongfully penalize a student who put his/her own thoughts on paper. It just so happened that the wording chosen (again, not the idea as we're talking about very common, trivial, subjects with very little room for real innovation) was too close to that of someone else's in a previous paper. After all, I doubt the system only flags verbatim matches -- if it does, it would be so easy to circumvent it that it would be rendered pretty much useless, aside from catching the occasional complete slacker who can't even be bothered to do a little bit of editing before submitting someone else's work.
Ok, so they check it against a database comprised of 22 *million* (and counting) papers plus "online sources and electronic archives of journals". We're not talking about graduate students working on their PhDs and whatnot, not even college level papers, we're talking about relatively trivial subjects on High School papers.
When it's becoming increasingly difficult for one to come up with a truly original way to express an opinion which is most likely shared (and has been written down before) by many of one's peers, even when on very specific subjects, out of the General Public's "reach", not to mention to actually come up with something altogether new, I would assume that for your typical High School English Lit. report, which thousands of others are also writing, and millions have done before, it would be nearly impossible to write something that couldn't always, somehow, be construed as plagiarism.
So exactly what constitutes plagiarism? Direct, uncredited, quote from some source posing as your own thoughts? Yes that would be correct, I suppose, but only if you did it *willfully*. And with such an extensive database it's not that impossible to unwillingly write an entire paragraph 'ipsis verbis' to some previous paper. It seems to me a bit like the mess we've got with the software patents and how it's basically impossible for any developer to know whether the code they're writing is infringing a patent. And anyway, how many words are we talking here? How many consecutive verbatim words constitute plagiarism? A whole chapter, a paragraph, 20+ words, a phrase? 'Cause it can't possibly be the general gist of even a small part of a paper.
Does rewriting a paper you found in your own words also count? Again, when your writing a paper on something so widely discussed as 'Othello' (to use TFA's example), you are bound to write something that is nearly copy/paste to many previous papers, no matter how much of your own 'original' input you put in (pun unintended). It might just be me, but I see a huge false-positives potential here.
TFA puts forth the notion that some advocate this as a way to make students more aware that they need to give credit to the sources they use. I obviously agree with this, and I agree that when a teacher is trying to grade a student on a certain subject, and his/her ability to convey and support his/her opinion, he/she (the teacher) should be able to do exactly that, and not end up *just* grading that student's ability to use a search engine or the resources found at your local library. But at High School level I would assume that said teacher would be at least mildly aware of each student's writing skills/techniques as well as the "maximum expected level" of perfomance on that task (ie, writing the paper). And this, much more than a completely automated (read, blind) process, should be the way to sniff out plagiaristic practises. You don't get Lit. Nobel-level material from 100-word-vocabulary students.
I get the IP angle, I see the point and somewhat agree with it, but more importantly, I see a privacy issue. Handing a paper to your teacher is one thing. To have it inserted in a database without your written consent is altogether different. Do we really need shoddy papers we've written in High School to come back and bite us in the ass later on in life?;) Think MySpace/Other-Personal-Pages-Service and the preemptive screening of such public material on the part of would-be employers. After all, we've all done them at one time or another.. And this is just one example I can think of.
All in all, the idea has its merits, but I suppose that if it worked all that well, we'd have a similar system in place for pattent-checking (a whole lot more bucks to be made there, after all).
[quote] The page you have requested was not found. The link is either incorrect or the page no longer exists. If you believe there is a problem, please send a message to newmedia@seattlepi.com. [/quote]
Bad link? Or did someone antecipate the/. effect and preemptively removed the page?
Geez!! You're not going to tell me you truly believe that the millions of HIV-positive worldwide trying to figh off the infection with nasty drugs in the hopes of delaying as far as possible the onset of AIDS, plus the millions that already died as a result of AIDS, are all nothing but an incredibly elaborated hoax?! Exactly what do you think HIV (Human Immunodeficiency Virus) does?
Does its name not say anything to you? Whenever it finds itself in a suitable host, it does pretty much what every other virus does. It attempts to clone itself, as rapidly and violently as possible, using the mechanisms provided by the cells it invades. Only this one does it with a twist: it specializes in attacking certain components of our immune systems, and since our immune systems can't fight it off, we become immuno-compromised over time. That is to say, our body's ability to fight off every other bug decreases dramatically as the HIV infection progresses.
Hence the condition associated with an advanced-stage HIV infection: AIDS. It stands for Acquired Immuno-Deficiency Syndrome. And it HAS been proven that the agent responsible for that 'acquired immunodeficency' is, when we're talking about AIDS, the HIV virus. There are very clear rules defining the criteria you need to meet to associate a pathogen with a specific disease/condition. And these are clealy met when it comes to attributing AIDS to the HIV virus.
Of course, you CAN become immuno-compromised as a result of many different illnesses, you can be born immuno-compromised, the anti-rejection drugs you have to take after a transplant can make you severely immuno-compromised. So there isn't any clear cut way to determine whether an immuno-compromised person (even if they are HIV-positive), has become immuno-compromised as a result of an HIV infection (ie, has AIDS). There are only guidelines, elimination criterias, that allow you to diagnose someone as having the AIDS syndrome. But the same can be said about many other illnesses and syndromes where successful diagnose can only be achieved once a range of other (more likely, less statistically improbable) diseases have been thrown out. Parkinson's, for e.g., can't be diagnosed through a direct lab test or scan. You have to rule out other possible explanations for the symptoms. It doesn't make it any less real (remember the last years of Pope John Paul II?), nor the diagnose any less accurate or scientific.
To say that there is no proof of any link between the HIV virus and AIDS isn't just innacurate. It's just plain stupid. And, if I were you, I would seriously question the validity and merit (if not even the intent) of whomever it is that's feeding these misconceptions to you.
Finally: about HIV infection and AIDS being fatal. Strictly speaking, no one really dies of AIDS nor of an HIV infection, not as such. But you DO die as a RESULT of the syndrome CAUSED by an HIV infection. When your body, as a result of HIV infection, ceases to have a functioning immune system and can't fight off even the most common of viruses or bacterias, it becomes the perfect breeding ground for ANY bug that happens to enter your body. And when this happens, when a stupid, silly, common-cold-like virus/bacteria, finds itself rampaging through your body completely unimpeded, it will only stop when you're dead. It will infect every cell, in every tissue, eventually damaging your vital organs (heart, kidneys, lungs, brain, etc), until your body no longer offers the conditions it needs to proceed (ie, you're a cadaver). So I guess you can accurately say that AIDS does kill, by rendering your body completely defenseless (especially if you take into account the fact that we all have, at any time, a score of germs/pathogens coursing through our bodies).
In any case, although this is just a preliminary study, and the vaccine's efficiency is yet to be proven, and we're yet to know if it works for all sub-types of HIV-I (including the rare recombinant forms), which I seriously doubt, and the fact that this has nothing to do with a cure, but rather a possible future protection for anyone NOT HIV-positive, it's still good news. Every little advance in these areas of Medicine and Pharmacology are good news, doubly so when it pertains to such a terribly wide-spread disease.
Re:Pray [etc] For President Bush
on
Handling the Loads
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Let me just start by stating 2 things:
- I'm portuguese (as in Europe) which means that I might not take things as personal as some of you.
- I don't like the guy (G. W. Bush). I honestly believe you chose an underqualified person for President (although the voting majority didn't actually vote for him, your system made him the winner -- which is ok, it _is_ the same system you've used for years.. if it's wrong, change it and it won't happen again).
First of all, IMHO, there is no excuse, no cause, no ideal, nothing that can justify the killing of people. We define certain circumstances in the law in which this is tolerable: self-defense, etc.. Terrorism, whatever form it may take, isn't one of them. It is intolerable. We all live on the same planet, depend on basically the same things to survive and, most of all, belong to the same species. We all have to accept and live by a certain number of rules in order to make it possible for _everyone_ to have as good of a life as possible. To think that one is superior to any other because you or him/her think/act/feel different is not only stupid, it's a waste of the cognitive faculties we've enhanced, as a species, over thousands of generations.
But the truth is, things don't work. The "system" doesn't work for most people. People die every day of hunger, dehidration, or lack of medicine as common as rain in most industrialized countries. I'm not saying we should try to understand the people who commit acts of terror. At least, not to look for excuses for there are none. But it does seem a terrible waste (not to say an insult to all the deceased) when we fail to realize that any 'normal' human being would never do something as hideous as this Tuesday's attack if things were ok.
The Al-Koran is, unlike 'popular' opinion, a very 'open-minded' text. The message is not about hate, or pain, or punishment, but rather of self-enlightenment, respect and tolerance, much like the "New Testament" for christians or catholics. So why do we see this kind of fanatic behaviour (suicide attacks, I mean) repeatedly associated with arabic people? Could it be that they feel, somehow, _we_ are to blame for a lot of their problems? Could it be that, to some extent, they're actually right?
When you see priests or vicars, like Falwell, feeding intolerance into people do you imediately generalize it to the whole population of priests and vicars? Or their believers? Why don't we extend the same curtesy to arabic people? Why don't we accept the likely possibility that these people have been mis-lead by other people who should know best, but don't? If you feel down, feel that the whole world is against you, wouldn't you be a little more willing to embrace such extremist views?
Should the people involved in the terrorist attacks of the 11th be brought to justice? Damn right! But notice I said 'justice'. We can't fight terrorism with some new form of terrorism (state or country-sponsored assassinations/attacks ARE forms of terrorism). There has been no declaration of war. No state or country or protectorate has declared war against any NATO country. The point I'm trying to make is: you either consider every person in Afghanistan (sorry, can't spell it) a terrorist or otherwise guilty of the attacks on the planes, WTC and Pentagon -- which would justify the envolvement of armies (it _would_ be the same as a declaration of war), or you stipulate that there _are_ people in Afghanistan who have _nothing_ to do with what happened last Tuesday. In this later case, there is nothing that justifies treating those people the same way you/me/we all want to treat terrorists.
What am I trying to say? Generically speaking: I find it already troubling that my country can go to war for reasons I totally disagree with and, I, along with every other citizen of my country (regardless of their views towards that conflict) would pay the price. But it troubles me more to know that, if NATO really gets involved and we end up bombing the hell out of Afghanistan, we will be opening up a precedent whereas any criminal actions by a citizen or group of citizens of any country, or living in any country, can lead to that country becoming extinct. I shudder to think that anyone can be killed because of someone else's actions. In a way, however inexcusable the reasons might have been, the people on the airplanes, Pentagon, WTC towers and those who came to help, who died last Tuesday, died just because of that. They payed the price _someone_ stipulated for things they did not do.
This is the only oportunity we have to really do things right. To show that we DO believe in democracy, in tolerance, and in the principle 'innocent until _proven_ guilty'. And to prove that, no matter how much our hearts call for blood, from sheer shock and pain, we _can_ act as we all say we all should.
I'm not worried if G W Bush is sad because he doesn't want to be the 1st person to use a nuke in a non-war scenario. I'm worried about the thousands, maybe millions of people who will suffer, directly or indirectly should that come to pass.
I sympathise with you all. I may not agree with a lot of the USA's foreign policy, but I do not confuse it with the american people. Please don't do the same with the afghans. If their regime, government, whatever, is somehow responsible (aiding and abeding, for example), then there _are_ solutions out there better than massive destruction. Economic sanctions (Iraq, Germany after WWII), blocking that country out. International Courts to judge all the people suspected of involvement, instead of summary executions (P.R. of China, anyone?). Isn't that how things are supposed to work?
These people have shown they do not know what democracy, freedom and tolerance mean. Let's try to show everyone that we, at least, do.
Slashdot Mirror
I didn't read 'photographed 300 times per day' the way you did. I seriously doubt they're counting every single frame they get of one person on one camera on a single 'encounter'.. I read 300 times by separate cameras, in different locations.
Your reasoning, while valid, by leading to the conclusion that you yourself drew (not much of a survailance scheme) kinda falls flat on its ass when you take into account that, clearly, the intention behind that sentence was to reinforce the notion of widespread CCTV cameras throughout the UK.
Ahh.. in other words, "tradition". Yup, like many others, given enough time, the simple fact that it's been done for so long is reason enough to keep on doing it, regardless of what originated it. And on that regard, my friend, Europe is definitely riddled with more than its fair share of stupid traditions.
Seems like the sensible thing to do then would be to make it a national-level holiday. Sure, it's one less day's worth of productivity, but your economy can certainly take it if the trade-off is that people won't have any work- or time-related constraints stopping them from showing up (and facing the occasional lengthy lines).
Just a final thought: over here (Portugal), holding elections during weekends is especially useful because you get that extra day off (ie, Saturday) to set up all the voting booths and whatnot.. Considering that the whole thing takes some time and that most of the voting assemblies are placed in schools, it keeps the schools from closing (for at least the afternoon before). I suppose you guys over there set it up somewhere else.
Oh, and about "the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November..." I'm supposing it means it can't be the 1st Tuesday if that day happens to be Nov, 1st, right? Any reason why it HAS to be a Tuesday Nov, 2nd to 8th? [sorry, I'm just really curious about these little details -- I'm still fantasizing that that date had some special meaning back in the 1840s]
Yeah, being a "foreign dog" myself, I never really got that about your (american, that is) elections.. Is there any historical reason for you NOT to hold them during the weekend (Sunday to be more exact -- as most countries do)?
Is it always on a fixed day of the month, week, or exactly X days since the last election? Is it a constitutional thing? It's just that the idea of holding elections on an otherwise typical/normal working day seems...well, kinda dumb (no offense meant). Isn't it more disruptive to businesses than holding them during the weekend or even on a national holiday? Even if you do get some abstention from people who are just too busy enjoying their days off to go vote.. Anyway, anyone kind enough to shed some light on this?
Anyway, not being french I really have no idea of what this spells for France, the EU and the international scene.. Can't say I got a good impression from Mrs Royal, but the whole riot issue and Sarkozy's inflammatory stance, at least in the beginning, don't bode well for the many tensions in France's society. Let's just hope he can keep it together. And, judging by all the people I've met and talked to during my stays in several french cities, his apparent overly pro-american stance (pro-american ADMINISTRATION -- not people) isn't something the french will take too kindly, especially if he takes to it like Blair did. In any case, it seems that France is due (and needs) some serious reforms.. Hope he makes it.
On a final note.. The few things I've heard and read about him, the man's not too keen on immigrants (France, not unlike the US, despite the mounting, and probably inevitable, social tension, has gained a whole lot from the many immigrant communities over the years).. Well, I guess good arguments could be made for both sides. But the part in the summary about requiring immigrants to learn how to speak French... Uhh, duh?! Feel free to keep your cultural identity, but how the hell do you plan on making a life on any (foreign) country if you can't/won't even bother learning the language? I mean, this isn't about being for or against immigrants, for or against deporting the whole lot, it's about expecting the very least of efforts to fit in.
While you are technically correct, it doesn't mean that whenever facing an enemy which does not comply with the Geneva Convention, you get a free pass. It means that some dispositions regarding the relationship with the other party may, I stress _may_, be ignored. You're not forced to release enemy combatants once hostilities have ceased. You get to try enemy combatants even if they haven't committed anything that can be construed as a war crime. And so on.. None of which you'd be able to do if the other party was either a signatary or simply followed the rules contained within the Geneva Convention (case in point, the aftermath of a number of "conventional" wars).
But you are nevertheless bound by the more "moral" principles of the Convention. Namely, the definition of PoW and their rights, including the right to a fair trial and the right to legal representation, the definition of what constitutes a valid military target, the absolutely forbidden character of attacking any such structure identified as a medical facility, etc, etc..
Yeah, like most texts (and most laws we've so often discussed here), a lot is left to interpretation.. And the reality is that the Geneva Convention was not made for, nor specifically contemplates, terrorism and how to deal with it. But it is ultimately a statement of principles.. A gentleman's agreement meant to signify that no matter how bad things get, some things will remain sacred. That some common decency will be observed. It is supposed to be a higher road, a broader set of "Rules of Engagement" that any self-respecting state will observe at any time. And when we're talking about situations where apparently NOTHING applies; where neither international nor national law is observed; where constitutional principles are trampled and special jurisdiction, with its own very special rules, is defined, the Convention is supposed to serve as the most basic set of rules.
And in any case, the Convention was always about creating a moral obligation in the minds of people, and little else. When was the last time you saw the _winning_ side's leaders being brought to the International Court for violating the dispositions of the Geneva Convention?
Source: "International Humanitarian Law - Third 1949 Geneva Convention" pertaining to the treatment of PoWs at the International Committee of the Red Cross' site.
In other words, what you just referenced is not a list of exclusions to the notion of Prisoners of War, or waiver for anything, but actually part of the description of what CONSTITUTES a PoW.
Last time I checked, the US isn't at war with any _culture_.. And I don't know of any culture that has terrorism as one of its exponents. In fact, all "cultures" (as you put it) have given rise to the occasional group of fanatics. To confuse terrorists and their organizations with the entire backdrop/population/region from whence they came is not only very dangerous, but incredibly insulting to the vast majority of people who have nothing to do with what those fanatics do, and that, like you and I, just want to be at peace and try and live a good life.
It seems a lot of people think that terrorism was "invented" by the islamic extremists/fanatics of the likes of Al-Qaeda.. There have been several terrorists organizations (extreme right, extreme left, christian fanatics) born and bred in the western countries. What would you call the Klu Klux Klan (to name just one), pray tell me?
To say that middle-eastern cultures are adverse to the notion of justice and fairness and the "Rules of Engagement", even at a time of war, simply because they currently contain the most infamous terrorists groups is going too far.
And as for the Geneva Convention being "quaint" or "obsolete".. Well, I guess that's a matter of opinion, and if you feel that way then there's probably nothing anyone can say to change your mind. But I put to you that while I may disagree with many laws, I am still obligated to abide by them until such time as they are revoked.
There's more to the "International Humanitarian Law" than the Geneva Convention -- I suggest you browse the International Red Cross' site for more information, but as you can see here, the US voluntarily signed the Convention in 1949, and later ratified it in 1955, with only the following reservation:
"The Government of the United States fully supports the objectives of this Convention.
"I am instructed by my Government to sign, making the following reservation to Article 68:
"The United States reserve the right to impose the death penalty in accordance with the provisions of Article 68, paragraph 2, without regard to whether the offences referred to therein are punishable by death under the law of the occupied territory at the time the occupation begins"
There are no exceptions to the Geneva Convention.. War is war, and when you state that you're at war, even if your enemy is terrorism (a too wide of term, IMHO), then ALL of the rules apply. You can't just pick those that happen to suit you each step of the way, and ignore the rest, or amuse yourself torturing semantics until the words mean what you wish them to mean. Well, as we've seen, you _can_, but then you're not in compliance.
Besides, your point seems to be that since the "other side" (ie, terrorists) respect nothing, then neither should you.. Well, I'm sorry, but aren't you supposed to be the good guys here? Aren't you supposed to be a nation of laws, a beacon of freedom, an example for everyone else to follow? I am not being sarcastic nor glib: it is a genuine question. Because to me it seems like you're saying it's ok, even warranted, to lower yourself to the lowest possible denominator in order to win. But then, all things taken into account, what separates you from "them"? Who wins when you become the evil you sought out to defeat?
I do give you this much.. I'm anti-Bush as one can be, but I too don't appreciate whenever someone gets accolades (ie, mod points) just for making some vague remark in line with the "popular" opinion. It cheapens the entire discussion by voiding it of real arguments and leaves me with the feeling that people don't even bother making up their own minds anymore. As far as I'm concerned, swallowing propaganda or being spoon-fed opinions is just as bad when you agre
Oh, and I should probably point out (in case I didn't make that clear) that you can use those VCCs anywhere you want, not just with VBV-enabled vendors/sellers. As far as the "normal" seller is concerned, the VCC (with your cardholder name, its own number and generated CVV2 code) is as real as your actual physical card.
Yeah, I guess..
The banks over here had devised an on-line ATM system for on-line payments which didn't require CCs. You could use it with your CC, if you wanted to, but it was mainly for debit cards.. They had it in place long before VBV which is probably why they just used the already existing framework/infrastructure, made it compliant with VBV, and presto!
But I'm still surprised it's not a more widely-used system since a) it works pretty well, b) doesn't seem all that hard to implement and c) adds a significant layer of security for both bank and client at negligible cost (I mean, if they could do it over here, your banking institutions can certainly afford it).
*drooling* Argh, this is so unfair.. It hasn't been published yet where I live. And even though this means I get to buy the "Special Edition" at a slightly lower price (pre-ordered it through Amazon) that the normal edition will retail for, it also means I'll have to wait an extra 3-4 days before I can get my hands on it. Early May is the best estimate.
But I'm glad you guys think it's at least as rewarding as GoW1 was.. Now, can someone clear this up for me, please? What's the toughest difficulty level on GoW2? Is it God Mode, is there a higher one, or did they just change the toughest difficulty level to "Titan" or whatever? Also, how does that compare to God Mode on GoW1? And finally, do you get to play it from the start, or do you also have to unlock it by beating the game in another mode first like GoW1 did?
As for the final boss discussion: I obviously have no reference to base any comparison, but regarding GoW1.. After beating the game on Hard the first time, the actual 2 fights with Ares on God mode were really easy.. I still died a couple of times, especially in the last fight, but a breeze compared to the first time on Hard. The one that took me a really long time to fine-tune a strategy and make it to the end, was the fight with all those Kratos.. Man, that was frustrating!! On Hard it went by fairly quickly, but on God mode it was completely exasperating.. And this even though I had full health and magic bars for God mode, which I didn't for Hard (completely forgot about the muse keys and the door to it before getting to the top levels of Pandora's Temple.. and by then, since I was saving my saves for the most exciting fights, so I could replay them at will [Hydra, Minotaur], by the time I realized I had forgotten about the keys I was too advanced in the game [Architect's Tomb, I think] to want to do it all over again from the Minotaur fight).
Anyway, really looking forward to it.. Best fun I've had with a game in a really long time (and btw, somehow, I never really liked DMC's style both for storytelling and fighting mechanism.. I guess GoW1 spoiled me).
Ditto.. $9M is really low.. Even if that account is only for Cyber Cafés. I know the hype for CS:S has somewhat passed but even so..
:) ).
I had a feeling it was a hoax, what with Steam requiring you to always input your CC info everytime you make a purchase (which means it would make no sense for VALVe to store that info any longer than they need to), but if the hacked site was a third-party not affiliated with VALVe, who deals with the Cafés transactions then I guess it's possible. But I hardly see how it's VALVe's fault that they got hacked..
And looking at the pic, either that guy is reaping credit for someone else's handywork, or he/she has some serious self-esteem problems.. All that VALVe bashing BS seems out-of-place somehow, but then again, maybe that's because the hackers (real ones, I mean) I've known are from the old-school, when things were done mostly for bragging rights that were then kept within the circle.. Or just to mess with some clueless, thinks he's a hardcore BOFH admin.. (whatever.. typical "Damn kids, get off my lawn" comment.. Guess I'm getting old
Anyway, those lines on the right beneath "here's some proof" seem weird. The 1st 4 are marked as "Cash Sale". Well, doesn't "cash sale" usually mean a purchase made with.. cash?! Besides, the values seem too round: 40, 2 x 50, and then one 150 and one (the last) 860?! I'm assuming dollars here so, $860?? What, someone purchased their entire library of games? And even for a Café, it seems too high of a payment, if VALVe charges clients per-hour/per-account. Then there's the order numbers being, well, out-of-order (and that last one without any number at all, just the # sign).
While it doesn't seem that far-fetched that someone hacked into a billing system containing sensitive information, I'm getting the feeling again that at least part of this is an elaborate hoax. We have no way to verify the financial info regarding VALVe's bank accounts, but since VALVe did attibute some credit to the guy's claim, I'm assuming that the screenshots of VALVe's internal system looked real enough for them to investigate. Could that part have been an insider's job? Disgruntled employee, or something?
While you're not entirely wrong, I think you've also misunderstood what he was trying to explain.
I've used Verified by VISA a number of times now (and have dealt with a number of on-line merchants which will only accept payment through it) and it's really quite simple. First of all, you need to tell your bank (I did it through its on-line banking interface) that you want to enable VFV on a given card.
Now, the way it's implemented in my country (don't know if it differs on other countries) is: you then stipulate a password for the VBV system for that card, and an overall daily "allowance" for VBV operations on that card (ie, the total daily amount you're willing to allow your card to be charged through VBV).
Then, for each transaction, you generate a virtual card on-the-fly (stipulating a specific limit for that card) which is good for one, and only one, transaction (after which it becomes unusable) and expires within a month (in case the merchant takes too long to charge you for the transaction). In my case, there's even a toolbar/FF extension-like program you can download, enabling you to generate the virtual card with just a few clicks without having to open a new tab/window/whatever. Which means the vendor/seller never gets his hands on your CC number/account. And he can only charge you for the amount you enabled the VCC to pay for, and not a penny more.
Now, like the GP said, it won't do for monthly/cyclical payments (as you can only use each card once), but for purchases on an unknown vendor/site, it's pretty handy.
Plus, the whole system is completely transparent and lightning-fast. You can create a VBV account (which you can manage through your bank's on-line banking system), delete it, change access password, change daily allowance, create and cancel virtual cards (on the VBV site), all within seconds of each operation. And all of this without paying a single fee.. You only pay what you charge to your card, no added cost.
Which means, at least to me, that it's more than just an added level of security.. First of all, it's a new card for each transaction.. And, because those cards expire within a month of their creation, the system can re-utilize them on a cyclical base (after all, the cardholder's name won't be the same, as well as the 3-digit security code). A card that you can cancel at any time (if it hasn't been charged yet, that is). All through a (secure) system that requires you to use a password (that you choose) and a username that your bank generates (not just the "cardholder's name/CC number/CVV2 security code" combo), all while still enjoying that same "chargeback if you've been ripped off" protection you get with traditional CCs.
As said above (and below), poor voter turnout is noticed, but easily put down as lazyness, apathy or just plain ignorance on the part of the "general public" of the "important issues at stake".
In my experience, you usually only get political analysts and former politicians saying that disappointing voter turnout could also be attributed to the parties lack of ability in getting their message across (if they even HAVE a message at all besides bashing the opponent every chance they get) or the public's general distrust of the political class after so many years' worth of scandals and disappointments, as an afterthought.. You know, a couple of hours into the day's election breakdown in a sort of a "..oh yeah, and then there's the parties own shortcommings".
I don't know how you do it in the US, but do they count "spoilt" (null? what is the "legal" term for it?) votes along with blank ones? As in, does the final tally count the two apart or together? 'Cause IMO a spoilt vote is just that: spoilt. It can be someone's idea of a joke or a "stick it to the man", or just an honest fuck-up by a clueless/careless voter (I've no idea how your voting machines work, not being a US citizen, but from what I've heard and read so many times, both the machines themselves, and your ballots seem to be way too impractical/considerably hard to operate).
Whereas a blank vote sends a clearer message: it says "I took the time and trouble of going to the voting assembly, I cared, but no candidate/party was deserving of my vote". A blank vote can hardly be construed as non-intentional, and if a ballot is intentionally left blank, then that means something. Ok, so in most countries I know, blank votes, no matter the percentage, have no legal meaning. But it shouldn't be too hard to change that as those same countries demand a 50%+ voter turnout for a referendum's outcome to be legally binding, although I always thought that any form of rewarding absentism is counter-productive (it should be changed to blank votes).
Voting is more then a right, or a civic duty. It is a priviledge for which many people gave their lives over the years. It should be as obligatory as paying taxes (no, I don't like paying taxes, I just have to). After all, both are important ways of contributing to the state.
"No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time."
"The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter."
-- both from Sir Winston Churchill (yeah, the guy was full of himself.. doesn't mean he wasn't right, though)
Off-topic, I know, but what the heck.. And no, I'm not a joke-nazi (derivative of spelling-nazi?!)!
I think you mixed 2 jokes in that first one:
#1
Q: What do you call 1.000 lawyers chained to the bottom of the sea?
A: A good start!
#2
Mixed Feelings: A busload of lawyers plunges off a cliff leaving no survivor.
-- there were 5 empty seats.
I did say "not *that* impossible".. And what your math doesn't account for is that we're talking about 20 million papers (plus all those "online sources and electronic archives of journals") divided in groups of fairly similar subjects, written by those same 10,000-max-word vocabulary students conveying pretty similar, if not identical, ideas. But I concede the point, it would be very difficult to get an "innocent" word-for-word match. Again, not impossible, just extremely unlikely.
But the point remains that unless you actually KNOW that someone plagiarised someone else, a positive match can potentially wrongfully penalize a student who put his/her own thoughts on paper. It just so happened that the wording chosen (again, not the idea as we're talking about very common, trivial, subjects with very little room for real innovation) was too close to that of someone else's in a previous paper. After all, I doubt the system only flags verbatim matches -- if it does, it would be so easy to circumvent it that it would be rendered pretty much useless, aside from catching the occasional complete slacker who can't even be bothered to do a little bit of editing before submitting someone else's work.
Ok, so they check it against a database comprised of 22 *million* (and counting) papers plus "online sources and electronic archives of journals". We're not talking about graduate students working on their PhDs and whatnot, not even college level papers, we're talking about relatively trivial subjects on High School papers.
;) Think MySpace/Other-Personal-Pages-Service and the preemptive screening of such public material on the part of would-be employers. After all, we've all done them at one time or another.. And this is just one example I can think of.
When it's becoming increasingly difficult for one to come up with a truly original way to express an opinion which is most likely shared (and has been written down before) by many of one's peers, even when on very specific subjects, out of the General Public's "reach", not to mention to actually come up with something altogether new, I would assume that for your typical High School English Lit. report, which thousands of others are also writing, and millions have done before, it would be nearly impossible to write something that couldn't always, somehow, be construed as plagiarism.
So exactly what constitutes plagiarism? Direct, uncredited, quote from some source posing as your own thoughts? Yes that would be correct, I suppose, but only if you did it *willfully*. And with such an extensive database it's not that impossible to unwillingly write an entire paragraph 'ipsis verbis' to some previous paper. It seems to me a bit like the mess we've got with the software patents and how it's basically impossible for any developer to know whether the code they're writing is infringing a patent. And anyway, how many words are we talking here? How many consecutive verbatim words constitute plagiarism? A whole chapter, a paragraph, 20+ words, a phrase? 'Cause it can't possibly be the general gist of even a small part of a paper.
Does rewriting a paper you found in your own words also count? Again, when your writing a paper on something so widely discussed as 'Othello' (to use TFA's example), you are bound to write something that is nearly copy/paste to many previous papers, no matter how much of your own 'original' input you put in (pun unintended). It might just be me, but I see a huge false-positives potential here.
TFA puts forth the notion that some advocate this as a way to make students more aware that they need to give credit to the sources they use. I obviously agree with this, and I agree that when a teacher is trying to grade a student on a certain subject, and his/her ability to convey and support his/her opinion, he/she (the teacher) should be able to do exactly that, and not end up *just* grading that student's ability to use a search engine or the resources found at your local library. But at High School level I would assume that said teacher would be at least mildly aware of each student's writing skills/techniques as well as the "maximum expected level" of perfomance on that task (ie, writing the paper). And this, much more than a completely automated (read, blind) process, should be the way to sniff out plagiaristic practises. You don't get Lit. Nobel-level material from 100-word-vocabulary students.
I get the IP angle, I see the point and somewhat agree with it, but more importantly, I see a privacy issue. Handing a paper to your teacher is one thing. To have it inserted in a database without your written consent is altogether different. Do we really need shoddy papers we've written in High School to come back and bite us in the ass later on in life?
All in all, the idea has its merits, but I suppose that if it worked all that well, we'd have a similar system in place for pattent-checking (a whole lot more bucks to be made there, after all).
Anyway, just my two cents.
Thanks.. Glad to see _someone_ is on these things. ;)
/.'s piece should be edited to point to the IGN story.
Dunno if you submitted the story, or can do it, but the link on the
Nope.. Right now, all I get is:
/. effect and preemptively removed the page?
[quote]
The page you have requested was not found. The link is either incorrect or the page no longer exists. If you believe there is a problem, please send a message to newmedia@seattlepi.com.
[/quote]
Bad link? Or did someone antecipate the
Geez!! You're not going to tell me you truly believe that the millions of HIV-positive worldwide trying to figh off the infection with nasty drugs in the hopes of delaying as far as possible the onset of AIDS, plus the millions that already died as a result of AIDS, are all nothing but an incredibly elaborated hoax?! Exactly what do you think HIV (Human Immunodeficiency Virus) does?
Does its name not say anything to you? Whenever it finds itself in a suitable host, it does pretty much what every other virus does. It attempts to clone itself, as rapidly and violently as possible, using the mechanisms provided by the cells it invades. Only this one does it with a twist: it specializes in attacking certain components of our immune systems, and since our immune systems can't fight it off, we become immuno-compromised over time. That is to say, our body's ability to fight off every other bug decreases dramatically as the HIV infection progresses.
Hence the condition associated with an advanced-stage HIV infection: AIDS. It stands for Acquired Immuno-Deficiency Syndrome. And it HAS been proven that the agent responsible for that 'acquired immunodeficency' is, when we're talking about AIDS, the HIV virus. There are very clear rules defining the criteria you need to meet to associate a pathogen with a specific disease/condition. And these are clealy met when it comes to attributing AIDS to the HIV virus.
Of course, you CAN become immuno-compromised as a result of many different illnesses, you can be born immuno-compromised, the anti-rejection drugs you have to take after a transplant can make you severely immuno-compromised. So there isn't any clear cut way to determine whether an immuno-compromised person (even if they are HIV-positive), has become immuno-compromised as a result of an HIV infection (ie, has AIDS). There are only guidelines, elimination criterias, that allow you to diagnose someone as having the AIDS syndrome. But the same can be said about many other illnesses and syndromes where successful diagnose can only be achieved once a range of other (more likely, less statistically improbable) diseases have been thrown out. Parkinson's, for e.g., can't be diagnosed through a direct lab test or scan. You have to rule out other possible explanations for the symptoms. It doesn't make it any less real (remember the last years of Pope John Paul II?), nor the diagnose any less accurate or scientific.
To say that there is no proof of any link between the HIV virus and AIDS isn't just innacurate. It's just plain stupid. And, if I were you, I would seriously question the validity and merit (if not even the intent) of whomever it is that's feeding these misconceptions to you.
Finally: about HIV infection and AIDS being fatal. Strictly speaking, no one really dies of AIDS nor of an HIV infection, not as such. But you DO die as a RESULT of the syndrome CAUSED by an HIV infection. When your body, as a result of HIV infection, ceases to have a functioning immune system and can't fight off even the most common of viruses or bacterias, it becomes the perfect breeding ground for ANY bug that happens to enter your body. And when this happens, when a stupid, silly, common-cold-like virus/bacteria, finds itself rampaging through your body completely unimpeded, it will only stop when you're dead. It will infect every cell, in every tissue, eventually damaging your vital organs (heart, kidneys, lungs, brain, etc), until your body no longer offers the conditions it needs to proceed (ie, you're a cadaver). So I guess you can accurately say that AIDS does kill, by rendering your body completely defenseless (especially if you take into account the fact that we all have, at any time, a score of germs/pathogens coursing through our bodies).
In any case, although this is just a preliminary study, and the vaccine's efficiency is yet to be proven, and we're yet to know if it works for all sub-types of HIV-I (including the rare recombinant forms), which I seriously doubt, and the fact that this has nothing to do with a cure, but rather a possible future protection for anyone NOT HIV-positive, it's still good news. Every little advance in these areas of Medicine and Pharmacology are good news, doubly so when it pertains to such a terribly wide-spread disease.
Let me just start by stating 2 things:
- I'm portuguese (as in Europe) which means that I might not take things as personal as some of you.
- I don't like the guy (G. W. Bush). I honestly believe you chose an underqualified person for President (although the voting majority didn't actually vote for him, your system made him the winner -- which is ok, it _is_ the same system you've used for years.. if it's wrong, change it and it won't happen again).
First of all, IMHO, there is no excuse, no cause, no ideal, nothing that can justify the killing of people. We define certain circumstances in the law in which this is tolerable: self-defense, etc.. Terrorism, whatever form it may take, isn't one of them. It is intolerable. We all live on the same planet, depend on basically the same things to survive and, most of all, belong to the same species. We all have to accept and live by a certain number of rules in order to make it possible for _everyone_ to have as good of a life as possible. To think that one is superior to any other because you or him/her think/act/feel different is not only stupid, it's a waste of the cognitive faculties we've enhanced, as a species, over thousands of generations.
But the truth is, things don't work. The "system" doesn't work for most people. People die every day of hunger, dehidration, or lack of medicine as common as rain in most industrialized countries. I'm not saying we should try to understand the people who commit acts of terror. At least, not to look for excuses for there are none. But it does seem a terrible waste (not to say an insult to all the deceased) when we fail to realize that any 'normal' human being would never do something as hideous as this Tuesday's attack if things were ok.
The Al-Koran is, unlike 'popular' opinion, a very 'open-minded' text. The message is not about hate, or pain, or punishment, but rather of self-enlightenment, respect and tolerance, much like the "New Testament" for christians or catholics. So why do we see this kind of fanatic behaviour (suicide attacks, I mean) repeatedly associated with arabic people? Could it be that they feel, somehow, _we_ are to blame for a lot of their problems? Could it be that, to some extent, they're actually right?
When you see priests or vicars, like Falwell, feeding intolerance into people do you imediately generalize it to the whole population of priests and vicars? Or their believers? Why don't we extend the same curtesy to arabic people? Why don't we accept the likely possibility that these people have been mis-lead by other people who should know best, but don't? If you feel down, feel that the whole world is against you, wouldn't you be a little more willing to embrace such extremist views?
Should the people involved in the terrorist attacks of the 11th be brought to justice? Damn right! But notice I said 'justice'. We can't fight terrorism with some new form of terrorism (state or country-sponsored assassinations/attacks ARE forms of terrorism). There has been no declaration of war. No state or country or protectorate has declared war against any NATO country. The point I'm trying to make is: you either consider every person in Afghanistan (sorry, can't spell it) a terrorist or otherwise guilty of the attacks on the planes, WTC and Pentagon -- which would justify the envolvement of armies (it _would_ be the same as a declaration of war), or you stipulate that there _are_ people in Afghanistan who have _nothing_ to do with what happened last Tuesday. In this later case, there is nothing that justifies treating those people the same way you/me/we all want to treat terrorists.
What am I trying to say? Generically speaking: I find it already troubling that my country can go to war for reasons I totally disagree with and, I, along with every other citizen of my country (regardless of their views towards that conflict) would pay the price. But it troubles me more to know that, if NATO really gets involved and we end up bombing the hell out of Afghanistan, we will be opening up a precedent whereas any criminal actions by a citizen or group of citizens of any country, or living in any country, can lead to that country becoming extinct. I shudder to think that anyone can be killed because of someone else's actions. In a way, however inexcusable the reasons might have been, the people on the airplanes, Pentagon, WTC towers and those who came to help, who died last Tuesday, died just because of that. They payed the price _someone_ stipulated for things they did not do.
This is the only oportunity we have to really do things right. To show that we DO believe in democracy, in tolerance, and in the principle 'innocent until _proven_ guilty'. And to prove that, no matter how much our hearts call for blood, from sheer shock and pain, we _can_ act as we all say we all should.
I'm not worried if G W Bush is sad because he doesn't want to be the 1st person to use a nuke in a non-war scenario. I'm worried about the thousands, maybe millions of people who will suffer, directly or indirectly should that come to pass.
I sympathise with you all. I may not agree with a lot of the USA's foreign policy, but I do not confuse it with the american people. Please don't do the same with the afghans. If their regime, government, whatever, is somehow responsible (aiding and abeding, for example), then there _are_ solutions out there better than massive destruction. Economic sanctions (Iraq, Germany after WWII), blocking that country out. International Courts to judge all the people suspected of involvement, instead of summary executions (P.R. of China, anyone?). Isn't that how things are supposed to work?
These people have shown they do not know what democracy, freedom and tolerance mean. Let's try to show everyone that we, at least, do.