There is a very large difference. The examples you've cited are all technical requirements. XYZ must do something that has a technical definition to be accepted.
> And yet the Pentagon has never been able to show a single instance where an "informant" or anyone else was hurt because of WikiLeaks.
Sorry, you do not know that. Such information would likely be classified since the names of those involved are classified. Secondly Wikileaks was severely criticized by other news organizations for their reckless behavior. You are also disregarding secondary effects - potential collaborators now reluctant to come forward after Wikileaks can potentially cause loss of life.
> But more to the point, where was all this Concern over human life when the U.S. was lying its way into multiple wars of choice that resulted in over a million deaths?
I have been an opponent of these wars from day one.
As far as a million deaths, there is scant evidence of any number like that. The logs published in Wikileaks state about 100,000 deaths. This is about the same as many other estimates including the AP and WHO.
I'm sorry, but your position is full of factual errors. As such any conclusions you've reached are likely in error as well.
In order for Mr Manning to have access to classified information he would have had to have gone through significant training and signed a very specific NDA which outlined potential criminal penalties.
He clearly did not live up to the commitments he made during that process.
Most constitutional historians agree that the joint resolutions of Congress cited as the 'Authorization for Use of Military Force' and the 'Authorization for Use of Military Force against Iraq' are in fact declarations of war under the US Constitution. In particular see section 5b of the war powers resolution.
The only difference between this act and one that formally states "The United States of America Declares War" is in the triggering of other legislation, that is emergency powers, or in international law. Such laws govern how reservists can be called up, etc.
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This joint resolution may be cited as the `Authorization for Use of Military Force'.
SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.
(a) IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.
(b) War Powers Resolution Requirements-
(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.
(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS- Nothing in this resolution supercedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution. Passed the Senate September 14, 2001.
Attest:
Secretary.
107th CONGRESS
1st Session
S. J. RES. 23
JOINT RESOLUTION To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States.
Nonsense. Politicians used this money to give rich people tax cuts. Why do you think Social Security taxes went up during Reagan's administration? Why do you think wealth is so highly concentrated in the top percentage now?
Clinton managed to balance off these factors and had a structure in place that would have been able to pay off these benefits. What happened? Bush passed another tax cut for rich people.
I want it back, either in the form of benefits paid periodically, or in a lump sum.
If it means taxing the hell out of rich people, oh well. They have been the primary beneficiaries of the current financial structure.
> It's time to end the two biggest socialist programs in the federal government....Medicare and Social Security.
OK, but first I want a refund plus interest of everything I and my employers paid into the Medicare and Social Security System on my behalf over the past 43 years.
> freedom of religion should not include the right to be free from being insulted or offended.
Um no you can't restrict that. All you can do is restrict the offended people from trying forcibly prevent people from expressing thoughts that they find offensive.
Otherwise you are trying to control people's thoughts. Sorry, but no there is no way to do that.
Thomas Jefferson viewed this as freedom of conscience, that is the state has no authority to dictate a person's thoughts and beliefs. Men have this freedom by their nature. The state cannot remove it.
The inscription on the Jefferson Memorial reads "I have sworn upon the altar of god eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man."
Ultimately this tyranny is what the Pakistan minister intends be enforced by international law.
We should not be supporting or in fact have any relations with a society such as this.
You are citing the Daily Mail as an authority on global warming? These people routinely misquote and distort comments made by scientists on the topic. They are a pack of outright liars.
Dr Julia Taylor, the author of this work, is a co-worker of Prof Frederick S. vom Saal. von Saal is the primary BPA critic and is under a lot of criticism because much of his work has been found to be not reproducable in large multigeneration studies done in national labs both in the United States and Europe.
Lack of reproducability in small volume academic exploratory studies is a big problem in the endocrine literature. It's very worth being aware of when evaluating these papers.
The article you linked to is baloney. 1,4 dioxane is not a particularly toxic material. It's a trace contaminant in a minor component of RoundUp. It's LD50 is over 5gm/kg and it's IARC rating is 2B. That designation is generally used for things that there is inconclusive evidence of carcinogenicity in animals and no evidence in humans.
The fact of the matter is there is no real evidence of mammal toxicity in RoundUp despite decades of testing in independent labs. Some aquatic life is affected because the surfactants interfere with gill function, and in fact there are other glyphosate formulations sold for use in areas where that may be an issue.
The lead investigator of this study is Gilles-Eric Seralini of the University of Caen. He's been the author of a variety of papers that have been repudiated by national regulatory agencies for use of shaky data and questionable statistical methods in the past.
He also usually receives his funding from Greenpeace, an activist organization with a strong agenda.
Personally I would attach very little credibility to anything with this author's name on it.
The ratings you see in the OECD summary are averages. The thing is that the US has a much more diverse population and spread in economic status than most other, often much smaller countries in this measurement.
Results in US suburban schools are generally as good as the top rated countries, and the results of the top students in these schools ranks very highly indeed.
In any society you don't really need that many innovators to propel growth - and the US has a good population of high achievers due to the broadness of the distribution of educational results it gets.
The real problem with US society is the size of the tail on the other side of the curve. This represents a real drag on the US economy.
Slashdot Mirror
There is a very large difference. The examples you've cited are all technical requirements. XYZ must do something that has a technical definition to be accepted.
This is not a technical requirement.
> And yet the Pentagon has never been able to show a single instance where an "informant" or anyone else was hurt because of WikiLeaks.
Sorry, you do not know that. Such information would likely be classified since the names of those involved are classified. Secondly Wikileaks was severely criticized by other news organizations for their reckless behavior. You are also disregarding secondary effects - potential collaborators now reluctant to come forward after Wikileaks can potentially cause loss of life.
> But more to the point, where was all this Concern over human life when the U.S. was lying its way into multiple wars of choice that resulted in over a million deaths?
I have been an opponent of these wars from day one.
As far as a million deaths, there is scant evidence of any number like that. The logs published in Wikileaks state about 100,000 deaths. This is about the same as many other estimates including the AP and WHO.
I'm sorry, but your position is full of factual errors. As such any conclusions you've reached are likely in error as well.
In order for Mr Manning to have access to classified information he would have had to have gone through significant training and signed a very specific NDA which outlined potential criminal penalties.
He clearly did not live up to the commitments he made during that process.
So you with rather go with a bunch of liars?
> Details that were materially damaging to the war effort - names of informants, etc - were carefully excised before the documents were leaked.
Not all of these names were redacted.
http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/07/30/taliban-study-wikileaks-to-hunt-informants/
For Mr Manning this is very bad indeed.
Apparently.
Most constitutional historians agree that the joint resolutions of Congress cited as the 'Authorization for Use of Military Force' and the 'Authorization for Use of Military Force against Iraq' are in fact declarations of war under the US Constitution. In particular see section 5b of the war powers resolution.
http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2011/09/4004
The only difference between this act and one that formally states "The United States of America Declares War" is in the triggering of other legislation, that is emergency powers, or in international law. Such laws govern how reservists can be called up, etc.
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This joint resolution may be cited as the `Authorization for Use of Military Force'.
SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.
(a) IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.
(b) War Powers Resolution Requirements-
(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.
(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS- Nothing in this resolution supercedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.
Passed the Senate September 14, 2001.
Attest:
Secretary.
107th CONGRESS
1st Session
S. J. RES. 23
JOINT RESOLUTION
To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States.
Do you know what an externality is?
It's when something you choose to do has consequences for people other than yourself.
You aren't allowed to dump your trash out the car window while you are driving down the highway, no matter how convenient that may seem.
That's why 'they' can tell you what the fuck you can do.
Uh, you do know that a Republican president signed this into law, right?
Hmm the whole thing about the EU Constitution and it's Fundamental Rights provisions not being binding makes it a bit less so, I think.
Nonsense. Politicians used this money to give rich people tax cuts. Why do you think Social Security taxes went up during Reagan's administration? Why do you think wealth is so highly concentrated in the top percentage now?
Clinton managed to balance off these factors and had a structure in place that would have been able to pay off these benefits. What happened? Bush passed another tax cut for rich people.
I want it back, either in the form of benefits paid periodically, or in a lump sum.
If it means taxing the hell out of rich people, oh well. They have been the primary beneficiaries of the current financial structure.
> It's time to end the two biggest socialist programs in the federal government....Medicare and Social Security.
OK, but first I want a refund plus interest of everything I and my employers paid into the Medicare and Social Security System on my behalf over the past 43 years.
> freedom of religion should not include the right to be free from being insulted or offended.
Um no you can't restrict that. All you can do is restrict the offended people from trying forcibly prevent people from expressing thoughts that they find offensive.
Otherwise you are trying to control people's thoughts. Sorry, but no there is no way to do that.
http://jim.com/rights.html
Thomas Jefferson viewed this as freedom of conscience, that is the state has no authority to dictate a person's thoughts and beliefs. Men have this freedom by their nature. The state cannot remove it.
The inscription on the Jefferson Memorial reads "I have sworn upon the altar of god eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man."
Ultimately this tyranny is what the Pakistan minister intends be enforced by international law.
We should not be supporting or in fact have any relations with a society such as this.
Some people haven't learned the lessons of history.
Meanwhile Google is furiously patenting everything about Google Maps that they possibly can.
The are buying agency issued MBS. That means they are buying from Federal Government, not the banks.
You are citing the Daily Mail as an authority on global warming? These people routinely misquote and distort comments made by scientists on the topic. They are a pack of outright liars.
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/14/daily-mail-caught-in-another-l/
Just get one of the inexpensive commercial subs for GitHub. This solves all sorts of issues. Remote backup, robust version system, issue tracking etc.
Dr Julia Taylor, the author of this work, is a co-worker of Prof Frederick S. vom Saal. von Saal is the primary BPA critic and is under a lot of criticism because much of his work has been found to be not reproducable in large multigeneration studies done in national labs both in the United States and Europe.
Lack of reproducability in small volume academic exploratory studies is a big problem in the endocrine literature. It's very worth being aware of when evaluating these papers.
http://ukpmc.ac.uk/articles/PMC3135059//reload=0;jsessionid=SXzQiL3qssivuEwafSgl.24
30% of the control group also had tumors.
The article you linked to is baloney. 1,4 dioxane is not a particularly toxic material. It's a trace contaminant in a minor component of RoundUp. It's LD50 is over 5gm/kg and it's IARC rating is 2B. That designation is generally used for things that there is inconclusive evidence of carcinogenicity in animals and no evidence in humans.
The fact of the matter is there is no real evidence of mammal toxicity in RoundUp despite decades of testing in independent labs. Some aquatic life is affected because the surfactants interfere with gill function, and in fact there are other glyphosate formulations sold for use in areas where that may be an issue.
The lead investigator of this study is Gilles-Eric Seralini of the University of Caen. He's been the author of a variety of papers that have been repudiated by national regulatory agencies for use of shaky data and questionable statistical methods in the past.
He also usually receives his funding from Greenpeace, an activist organization with a strong agenda.
Personally I would attach very little credibility to anything with this author's name on it.
The Enterprise is being replaced.
I am saying the standard deviation of the US distribution is larger.
The ratings you see in the OECD summary are averages. The thing is that the US has a much more diverse population and spread in economic status than most other, often much smaller countries in this measurement.
Results in US suburban schools are generally as good as the top rated countries, and the results of the top students in these schools ranks very highly indeed.
In any society you don't really need that many innovators to propel growth - and the US has a good population of high achievers due to the broadness of the distribution of educational results it gets.
The real problem with US society is the size of the tail on the other side of the curve. This represents a real drag on the US economy.