This is an improvement, in that it actually does have some numbers.
But what I want is a graph with "photons per steradian per eV per scan" on the vertical axis and "eV" on the horizontal axis. (Substitute whatever geometry is appropriate if the device does not use a point source). Such a graph had better well exist.
The TSA has been caught doing bullshit science before. I don't doubt that these things are in fact safe, but let me do the math -- starting with the physical properties of the X-ray source -- to see for myself.
I think if you're talking about legal repercussions for actions then you certainly do need to talk like a lawyer. Saying that you're not a lawyer and you don't need to "talk like a lawyer" when discussing legal matters is about as absurd as coming to an engineering conference and saying that you don't know mathematics and expecting none to be discussed around you.
For instance, you are, as you have clearly demonstrated, a wanker. You're also exhibiting it in public. Should you be arrested for public fornication, which is illegal in a lot of jurisdictions? No, because "wanker" means different things in different contexts.
There have been very, very few prosecutions for treason in US history, leading one to the conclusion that the definition of "aid and comfort to the enemy" is constructed in a rather narrow sense. Note that Daniel Ellsberg was not charged with treason for leaking the Pentagon Papers.
There's a concept in law that you're only guilty of a crime if you had some level of "guilty mind" (Latin: mens rea) to commit that crime. You cannot be charged with murder unless you intended, with a guilty mind, to kill someone. (This is why the crime of manslaughter exists.) I know you're not a lawyer and don't want to consider points of law, but you brought up the law by saying that this fellow needs to be punished for treason.
Even if Manning's release of the documents resulted in some boogeyman "enemy of the US" receiving "aid and comfort" (which has not been shown), he is still not guilty of treason because he did not leak the documents with the intent that enemies of the US should benefit militarily from them. Is he guilty of violating the conditions of his security clearance? Sure. But this is not treason.
If you are talking about accountability, you should be using the legal definition, not the lay definition in the dictionary.
If you want to talk about "betrayal of trust or confidence", then Bush's committed treason a dozen times over in the dictionary sense.
Foreign nations, defined broadly, are not an "enemy", or at least I hope to hell they are not, by the constitutional standard. Such a charge would never hold up in a (fair) court.
In what fantasy world do you think that JAG would respond favorably to someone presenting them with evidence of war crimes committed by the commander-in-chief?
How do you think JAG would respond to a private telling them "I have evidence that we are engaged in an unjust war based on false premises and that our military policy is harming the interests of the United States"?
This private may not have experience. He does, however, have a conscience. That latter is somewhat lacking in the people who call the shots.
Treason is the wrong word here, and the use of it says something very, very worrying.
The Constitution says:
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.
The audience for Manning's leaks was, in large part, the American public. To call his disclosure treason is to say that the American public is the enemy of the American government.
In the US legal system, and presumably in the Canadian one too, a person judged not guilty by reason of mental defect is usually confined during the course of treatment.
If you're nuts and kill someone, you don't go to prison, but you aren't leaving the place with the friendly folks in white coats with the Haldol, either.
Okay, I've not followed the ipad specs carefully, because it's not something I'd ever think about buying.
But -- the damn thing doesn't have a USB port? It's about the most universally useful thing I can imagine adding. USB memory keys, USB hard drives, keyboards, mice, cameras, teledildonics equipment, and all sorts of things that nobody's even thought of yet...
OT, but look at the Panasonic GH1. You can get a used one for a couple of hundred bucks, and then you'll need to pay for whatever lens you want to use with it.
It's got a nice big sensor, lots of video features, can use basically every lens ever made for anything ever (in particular, all the Four Thirds lenses made by Olympus), and doubles as a nice stills camera.
I downloaded Ubuntu a while back because it was simple to install, it was straightforward to use, and it meant I didn't have to spend my time doing sysadmin-y things.
But what is all this bullshit about integrated mp3 stores? I want a fucking operating system with some basic general-purpose tools. If I want to buy mp3's I'll go do that; I don't want my operating system worrying about how I should. (Of course, I expect my distribution to include a media/player/ -- that's something else entirely.)
No, you don't. Getting a clearance simply means that more things are illegal for you. It does not change the way you must be treated if you are accused of doing something illegal.
Writing "Soldier" as a proper noun makes it clear that you have drunk the Kool-Aid. If you want anyone who views US military propaganda with any skepticism at all to give what you have to say a second glance, you should probably not use their bizarre grammar.
My point is that invocation of "natural law" means nothing, since the natural social laws that two people ascribe to may be very different. The reason I cited physics is to point out that these are the only objective natural laws, and that talking about social natural law is absurd.
In Saudi Arabia, people will tell you that natural law includes the fact that it is in woman's nature to make babies and stay at home, and man's nature to do work. In Europe people will tell you that it is natural law that men and women should have equal rights.
You cannot base any sort of claim of universal human rights on "natural law", since the only truly objective natural laws have nothing to do with humans.
Slashdot Mirror
This is an improvement, in that it actually does have some numbers.
But what I want is a graph with "photons per steradian per eV per scan" on the vertical axis and "eV" on the horizontal axis. (Substitute whatever geometry is appropriate if the device does not use a point source). Such a graph had better well exist.
The TSA has been caught doing bullshit science before. I don't doubt that these things are in fact safe, but let me do the math -- starting with the physical properties of the X-ray source -- to see for myself.
Is there data published anywhere that tells exactly what sort of radiation -- what energies and intensities -- these machines emit?
Rather than the TSA telling us they are safe, we should be able to figure this out for ourselves.
I think if you're talking about legal repercussions for actions then you certainly do need to talk like a lawyer. Saying that you're not a lawyer and you don't need to "talk like a lawyer" when discussing legal matters is about as absurd as coming to an engineering conference and saying that you don't know mathematics and expecting none to be discussed around you.
For instance, you are, as you have clearly demonstrated, a wanker. You're also exhibiting it in public. Should you be arrested for public fornication, which is illegal in a lot of jurisdictions? No, because "wanker" means different things in different contexts.
There have been very, very few prosecutions for treason in US history, leading one to the conclusion that the definition of "aid and comfort to the enemy" is constructed in a rather narrow sense. Note that Daniel Ellsberg was not charged with treason for leaking the Pentagon Papers.
There's a concept in law that you're only guilty of a crime if you had some level of "guilty mind" (Latin: mens rea) to commit that crime. You cannot be charged with murder unless you intended, with a guilty mind, to kill someone. (This is why the crime of manslaughter exists.) I know you're not a lawyer and don't want to consider points of law, but you brought up the law by saying that this fellow needs to be punished for treason.
Even if Manning's release of the documents resulted in some boogeyman "enemy of the US" receiving "aid and comfort" (which has not been shown), he is still not guilty of treason because he did not leak the documents with the intent that enemies of the US should benefit militarily from them. Is he guilty of violating the conditions of his security clearance? Sure. But this is not treason.
If you are talking about accountability, you should be using the legal definition, not the lay definition in the dictionary.
If you want to talk about "betrayal of trust or confidence", then Bush's committed treason a dozen times over in the dictionary sense.
Foreign nations, defined broadly, are not an "enemy", or at least I hope to hell they are not, by the constitutional standard. Such a charge would never hold up in a (fair) court.
In what fantasy world do you think that JAG would respond favorably to someone presenting them with evidence of war crimes committed by the commander-in-chief?
I believe you're thinking of Mubarak. Mugabe is the dictator in Zimbabwe, and one of the worst bastards in Africa.
How do you think JAG would respond to a private telling them "I have evidence that we are engaged in an unjust war based on false premises and that our military policy is harming the interests of the United States"?
This private may not have experience. He does, however, have a conscience. That latter is somewhat lacking in the people who call the shots.
Breaking the law may be a solution of last resort to defy unjust laws, but don't you think that we've reached that point?
What does Mugabe have to do with the Suez Canal, other than being on the same continent?
Mugabe has used starvation as a weapon against his own people.
Treason is the wrong word here, and the use of it says something very, very worrying.
The Constitution says:
The audience for Manning's leaks was, in large part, the American public. To call his disclosure treason is to say that the American public is the enemy of the American government.
How is that sanity if it would result in no action being taken?
In the US legal system, and presumably in the Canadian one too, a person judged not guilty by reason of mental defect is usually confined during the course of treatment.
If you're nuts and kill someone, you don't go to prison, but you aren't leaving the place with the friendly folks in white coats with the Haldol, either.
So, in other words, it's not supposed to be a device that is useful; it's supposed to be a device that's trendy.
Right, it's Apple.
Okay, I've not followed the ipad specs carefully, because it's not something I'd ever think about buying.
But -- the damn thing doesn't have a USB port? It's about the most universally useful thing I can imagine adding. USB memory keys, USB hard drives, keyboards, mice, cameras, teledildonics equipment, and all sorts of things that nobody's even thought of yet...
You're forgetting that your average Apple user cares very much about alpha blending on drop shadows.
Why pay $30 for a dongle that does something that most every netbook ever made has built in?
OT, but look at the Panasonic GH1. You can get a used one for a couple of hundred bucks, and then you'll need to pay for whatever lens you want to use with it.
It's got a nice big sensor, lots of video features, can use basically every lens ever made for anything ever (in particular, all the Four Thirds lenses made by Olympus), and doubles as a nice stills camera.
Many of them seem to be doing okay with selling support. It's not like there is a shortage of linux distros.
I downloaded Ubuntu a while back because it was simple to install, it was straightforward to use, and it meant I didn't have to spend my time doing sysadmin-y things.
But what is all this bullshit about integrated mp3 stores? I want a fucking operating system with some basic general-purpose tools. If I want to buy mp3's I'll go do that; I don't want my operating system worrying about how I should. (Of course, I expect my distribution to include a media /player/ -- that's something else entirely.)
No, you don't. Getting a clearance simply means that more things are illegal for you. It does not change the way you must be treated if you are accused of doing something illegal.
Does it include the waiver of the right to presumption of innocence and the right to be treated humanely when in captivity?
Patriotic?
Patriotism is standing up for the ideal that any person accused of a crime deserves a vigorous defense.
Just some advice:
Writing "Soldier" as a proper noun makes it clear that you have drunk the Kool-Aid. If you want anyone who views US military propaganda with any skepticism at all to give what you have to say a second glance, you should probably not use their bizarre grammar.
The question is whether Sweden or the United Kingdom is more likely to actually follow their laws about extradition to the US in this case.
My point is that invocation of "natural law" means nothing, since the natural social laws that two people ascribe to may be very different. The reason I cited physics is to point out that these are the only objective natural laws, and that talking about social natural law is absurd.
In Saudi Arabia, people will tell you that natural law includes the fact that it is in woman's nature to make babies and stay at home, and man's nature to do work. In Europe people will tell you that it is natural law that men and women should have equal rights.
You cannot base any sort of claim of universal human rights on "natural law", since the only truly objective natural laws have nothing to do with humans.