Prisoners of war are always treated differently than regular criminals. Soldiers aren't generally charged with anything. Their release is arranged after the enemy government surrenders or dissolves.
You can't have it both ways. If they are POWs they should be handled according to the Geneva Convention. If they are not POWs they deserve a fair trial so that they have the chance to establish their innocence.
Anything else is an evil and utterly Unamerican abuse of power and that is how things stand right now.
Your ignorance is stunning and the morals you put up for display despicable. So as long as there are worse prisons in the world Guantanmo is OK? Way to go. Just show me one prison anywhere in Europe where prisoners have to be force fed through their nostrils. As the parent post was pointing out many of the inmates have been sold by bounty hunters for cash. There is no way to know if they deserve to be imprisoned because there was no trial. This goes against every ideal America stands for. The fact that you can not see this bodes ill for the country. Too many Unamericans like you have lost their moral compass and are happy to trash all the principles this country was founded on.
... does not reference Podkletnov's basic article from 1995 since this seems to be pretty much a reproduction and validation of what he described as an accidentally discovered "gravity shielding" effect when experementing with a rotating superconducting disk.
Now the wording of an article already tries to whip up nationalistic frenzy. What happened to this site? Am I the only one who remembers that/. used to be about cool open source technology? Technology that brings us together across all borders rather than drive us apart.
Switch to a real bank. Fortunatelly there is more competition in the banking sector than in the personal computer space. For instance both of my banks Citibank and Wacovia work fine with Firefox.
Appreciate your reasoning and your well thought out response. Yet, I still think that the absence of eco-system is a plus to test very fundamental assumptions about climate modeling. On earth you always have to correct for the CO2 absorption by the biosphere and the sea. That is why a climate model for Venus could be much simpler because you can strip out all those parameters - essentially I think Venus could help to validate the core assumptions of climate modeling. Don't really expect a surprise there and you very well may argue that this is not worth the price tag - but it will be part of the science that comes out of the mission. Probably was also overplayed when soliciting the money for the mission in the first place.
Testing the accuracy of climate modeling approaches by checking how well they can explain and predict the conditions on another planet is anything but useless. Mars does not offer all that much in this respect because its atmosphere is so thin. Venus on the other hand is an ideal test object for that purpose especially since it does not have a biosphere or seas.
Since you seem to know a bit about venus it surprises me that you fail to see that point. But then again you assume that the BBC follows some "agenda" - are you one of those global warming deniers?
Look, my link was in response to an AC claiming that the EU was officially doing something that your government on the other hand has actually been looking into to do to us (I am a EU citizen).
Now, if you can provide me with any evidence that the EU ever wasted any of my taxpayer's money on trying to sway public opinion in the US I'd be inclined to listen.
What this AC was spouting was borderline hysterical drivel. That you have nothing better to do than to attack my response to him reinforces my impression that you seem to have a wee bit of a problem with Xenophobia in your country.
Lucky you, that we do not take this very serious. No, in my view that was really stupid on part of the Bush administration, but it certainly was not an act of war.
But then again in your world view I probably may as well be one of those foreign agents trying to influence the/. crowd, so why would you believe anything I write anyway.
Please wrap your head a bit tighter with your tin foil, after all the EU Galileo satellites are clearly out to get you.
Boy, it really is people like you that are obviously so far divorced from reality that make the world fear (for) the US.
But don't think that because you do and can that the US government is worse than some other half-baked government out there.
Sorry, but I think this speaks of lack of real world experience in international settings on your part. The US winner take all election system can produce some really nasty outliers when it comes to the quality of your government. BTW I mean the whole selection process - just imagine McCaine winning the 2000 primaries.
In the EU all member nations need to compromise to get anything done. This process certainly squashes all brilliance but it also quite reliably squashes complete and utter idiocy. And guess what, because the EU only moves by compromise the government that yells the loudest hardly ever wins. It is the ones that can moderate compromises the best that end up with the most influence.
I am quite happy the way that the system works in Germany. It also provides great entertainment when it produces cliff hangers like the one we currently have.
Of course Winston Churchill said it best:
"Democracy is the worst form of government except for all those others that have been tried."
Let's see Germany had a brain-dead emperor, fascism and then communism in one half of the country. Governments always suck but I assure you our current system is much better then any of those.
What kind of Democracy you prefer is a matter of taste. I really dislike the UK brand of Parliamentarism because it always produces a clear winner. Much prefer if parties have to form coalitions.
This is not because Europeans are inherently smarter. Rather I attribute it to three facts:
1) Non corporate media is dominant (i.e. more news vs. sensationalism) 2) European countries are much smaller i.e. Europeans have lots of 1st hand experience with foreigners and foreign countries. 3) Class struggle has shaped much of Europeans societies. Even hobos on the street know whom to vote for is in their best interest and in fact do vote
Oppenheimer is kind of a two edged example. From his Wikipedia bio:
While at Harvard, Oppenheimer was introduced to experimental physics during a course on thermodynamics taught by Percy Bridgman, and was encouraged to go to Europe for future study, as a world-class education in the subject could not then be obtained in the United States.
This is very much talking semantics, but I think it makes sense to say that theoretical physicists will not spend decades on an unproven theory if they do not strongly believe in its merits as a truthful representation of reality.
Usage of the word 'believe' in this context should make clear that we are not talking about religious believes etc.
I do not share the passion for superstrings. Personally I find the loop theory much more enticing.
Anyway, I am glad that a superstring proponent finally came up with a way to test the theory.
Marbury vs. Madison is 200 year old news. I don't want to set the clock 200 years back. I don't understand how you can possibly feel comfortable with a federal government that strips judicial review.
As an Anonymous Coward in this thread has already been pointing out this means that the DHS is above the law because no court can review their actions.
This goes against 200 years oonstitutional practice as established by the Marbury v. Madison decision.
Slashdot Mirror
Indeed - with the stock market well over 10,000 and unemployment under 5%, it's an absolute disaster.
Enjoy it while it lasts.
Prisoners of war are always treated differently than regular criminals. Soldiers aren't generally charged with anything. Their release is arranged after the enemy government surrenders or dissolves.
You can't have it both ways. If they are POWs they should be handled according to the Geneva Convention. If they are not POWs they deserve a fair trial so that they have the chance to establish their innocence.
Anything else is an evil and utterly Unamerican abuse of power and that is how things stand right now.
Your ignorance is stunning and the morals you put up for display despicable. So as long as there are worse prisons in the world Guantanmo is OK? Way to go. Just show me one prison anywhere in Europe where prisoners have to be force fed through their nostrils. As the parent post was pointing out many of the inmates have been sold by bounty hunters for cash. There is no way to know if they deserve to be imprisoned because there was no trial. This goes against every ideal America stands for. The fact that you can not see this bodes ill for the country. Too many Unamericans like you have lost their moral compass and are happy to trash all the principles this country was founded on.
... if that was a good thing is also rather questionable.
Happy to stand corrected. Hopefully this will have a positive impact on Podkletnov's reputation.
... does not reference Podkletnov's basic article from 1995 since this seems to be pretty much a reproduction and validation of what he described as an accidentally discovered "gravity shielding" effect when experementing with a rotating superconducting disk.
Now the wording of an article already tries to whip up nationalistic frenzy. What happened to this site? Am I the only one who remembers that /. used to be about cool open source technology? Technology that brings us together across all borders rather than drive us apart.
Switch to a real bank. Fortunatelly there is more competition in the banking sector than in the personal computer space. For instance both of my banks Citibank and Wacovia work fine with Firefox.
Appreciate your reasoning and your well thought out response. Yet, I still think that the absence of eco-system is a plus to test very fundamental assumptions about climate modeling. On earth you always have to correct for the CO2 absorption by the biosphere and the sea. That is why a climate model for Venus could be much simpler because you can strip out all those parameters - essentially I think Venus could help to validate the core assumptions of climate modeling. Don't really expect a surprise there and you very well may argue that this is not worth the price tag - but it will be part of the science that comes out of the mission. Probably was also overplayed when soliciting the money for the mission in the first place.
Testing the accuracy of climate modeling approaches by checking how well they can explain and predict the conditions on another planet is anything but useless. Mars does not offer all that much in this respect because its atmosphere is so thin. Venus on the other hand is an ideal test object for that purpose especially since it does not have a biosphere or seas.
Since you seem to know a bit about venus it surprises me that you fail to see that point. But then again you assume that the BBC follows some "agenda" - are you one of those global warming deniers?
Look, my link was in response to an AC claiming that the EU was officially doing something that your government on the other hand has actually been looking into to do to us (I am a EU citizen).
Now, if you can provide me with any evidence that the EU ever wasted any of my taxpayer's money on trying to sway public opinion in the US I'd be inclined to listen.
What this AC was spouting was borderline hysterical drivel. That you have nothing better to do than to attack my response to him reinforces my impression that you seem to have a wee bit of a problem with Xenophobia in your country.
Do you mean kind of what your government tried recently in order to influence EU media?
/. crowd, so why would you believe anything I write anyway.
Lucky you, that we do not take this very serious. No, in my view that was really stupid on part of the Bush administration, but it certainly was not an act of war.
But then again in your world view I probably may as well be one of those foreign agents trying to influence the
Please wrap your head a bit tighter with your tin foil, after all the EU Galileo satellites are clearly out to get you.
Boy, it really is people like you that are obviously so far divorced from reality that make the world fear (for) the US.
But don't think that because you do and can that the US government is worse than some other half-baked government out there.
Sorry, but I think this speaks of lack of real world experience in international settings on your part. The US winner take all election system can produce some really nasty outliers when it comes to the quality of your government. BTW I mean the whole selection process - just imagine McCaine winning the 2000 primaries.
In the EU all member nations need to compromise to get anything done. This process certainly squashes all brilliance but it also quite reliably squashes complete and utter idiocy. And guess what, because the EU only moves by compromise the government that yells the loudest hardly ever wins. It is the ones that can moderate compromises the best that end up with the most influence.
He found a laywer to represent him on a pro bono basis.
I am quite happy the way that the system works in Germany. It also provides great entertainment when it produces cliff hangers like the one we currently have.
Of course Winston Churchill said it best:
"Democracy is the worst form of government except for all those others that have been tried."
Let's see Germany had a brain-dead emperor, fascism and then communism in one half of the country. Governments always suck but I assure you our current system is much better then any of those.
What kind of Democracy you prefer is a matter of taste. I really dislike the UK brand of Parliamentarism because it always produces a clear winner. Much prefer if parties have to form coalitions.
Your statement demonstrates clearly that you never lived in a functioning democracy.
It is easy to become cosmopolitan if it only takes a couple of hours drive to cross into another country. And that is the reality for most Europeans.
To some extent your country is just too large for its own good.
... I respectfully have to disagree.
This is not because Europeans are inherently smarter. Rather I attribute it to three facts:
1) Non corporate media is dominant (i.e. more news vs. sensationalism)
2) European countries are much smaller i.e. Europeans have lots of 1st hand experience with foreigners and foreign countries.
3) Class struggle has shaped much of Europeans societies. Even hobos on the street know whom to vote for is in their best interest and in fact do vote
Oppenheimer is kind of a two edged example. From his Wikipedia bio:
While at Harvard, Oppenheimer was introduced to experimental physics during a course on thermodynamics taught by Percy Bridgman, and was encouraged to go to Europe for future study, as a world-class education in the subject could not then be obtained in the United States.
... <SARCASM> have this particular disorder so that you have to metatag anything approaching humor </SARCASM>?
This is very much talking semantics, but I think it makes sense to say that theoretical physicists will not spend decades on an unproven theory if they do not strongly believe in its merits as a truthful representation of reality.
Usage of the word 'believe' in this context should make clear that we are not talking about religious believes etc.
I do not share the passion for superstrings. Personally I find the loop theory much more enticing.
Anyway, I am glad that a superstring proponent finally came up with a way to test the theory.
... so I am very curious to see if they will come up with anything.
Marbury vs. Madison is 200 year old news. I don't want to set the clock 200 years back. I don't understand how you can possibly feel comfortable with a federal government that strips judicial review.
As an Anonymous Coward in this thread has already been pointing out this means that the DHS is above the law because no court can review their actions.
This goes against 200 years oonstitutional practice as established by the Marbury v. Madison decision.
Well, the dicey part is that Congress never acted on this, and I don't see how check and balances can continue to work if they start doing this now.