Isn't the UCMJ, and in fact all of the government, subject to the Constitution?!
Not as much as you think. The UCMJ provides some of the protections of the Constitution, but not exactly the same. For instance, you're entitled to be represented by counsel only in the case of certain types of courts-martial. That's a broad generalization, but we're straying pretty off topic and I want to keep it short.
I hope you took care of your buddy after that experience. I've been on both ends of the need for someone to look out for someone else. Once, it was my (then) wife, who had an ovarian cyst. She was in incredible pain, and the idiot doctor wouldn't make room in his precious schedule to see her. I politely pointed out to the office manager of the clinic that if she wasn't admitted RIGHT NOW, I'd simply take her to the emergency room, and their office would never, ever, get our business again. It's sad that an appeal to their bottom line had more of an impact than to the doctor's Hypocratic Oath.
The second time I was visiting a friend in a different city, and contracted pink eye. Within hours, I was all but blind and completely disoriented. If my buddy hadn't taken me to the emergency room and been the voice of reason, making sure I got the care I needed, I feel pretty sure that I would've lost my eyesite permanently, the infection was that bad.
To American slashdotters : this is what you get when you have 45 million uninsured Americans
Considering how many doctors this guy has been to in the last few years, he either has health insurance, or the lack of it hasn't effected his quality of life in the least. Rather, it's been arrogant doctors who think they know everything, when in fact they don't. Gee, why does that seem so familiar?
Reminds me of a message on a secure chat channel during the war. It read (I kid you not): "4ID mad skillz 0wnz Republican Guard". That was how someone reported that the 4th Infantry Division had routed the Republican Guard. Another report, of the effect of a missile strike, was just "target pwned".
I wish I had kept a log of some of those messages. For posterity's sake. The first major clash between armies during the Counter-Strike age deserves to be memoralized in some way.
The US may be claiming that democracy is its goal, but few in the outside world believe that claim.
So? Who cares what the outside believes?
People see the occupiers as the 'bad guys' largely because they committed the supreme crime against international law - an unprovoked war of aggression.
Umm, last time I checked, the UN gave us permission when the Security Council passed resolution 1441. That resolution promised "serious consequences" if Saddam didn't open his doors. Well, I'd say having your country taken away from you and given back to the people you were oppressing, the same people who are now sitting in judgement of you, is pretty fucking serious.
Are the Iraqi resistance worse that the occupiers of Fallujah?
Yeah, 'cause we go around cutting people's heads off all the time.
Well done, Marine. It's always good to hear from the people who were there and not the trolls on Slashdot who accept whatever CNN or the BBC tell them that day.
Anyone who lands aboard an aircraft carrier is required by Navy regulations to wear a flight suit. They contain important pieces of equipment, such as locators, in case you have to ditch. So it's not a fiasco to wear a flight suit when landing on an aircraft carrier, it's the law.
i can slam him for being disingenuous as hell is what i can do.
Our nation's leader is a criminal: he was awol from the national guard
You really need to stop watching CBS.
Here's a clue for those not in the know: in the Reserves and National Guard, you are required to attend a certain number of drills per year. There was no year in which Bush did not meet his required minimum. Anyone who insists Bush was at any time AWOL either doesn't understand how the Guard works, or just wants to find something, somewhere, to slam him with, regardless of the truth.
The best way to avoid war with the U.S. (or just about anyone else) is to have nukes.
If that were true, no one would've started wars with any nuclear powers, ever. However, this is not the case. Without looking up recent history, I can think of several wars in the last sixty years involving nuclear armed powers, including the Falklands War and the Chechnian-Russia civil war that's still running.
Being in the process of developing nukes (or bluffing like Saddam) may be risky, but if you pull it off, like Pakistan, there's a payoff called MAD.
Since Pakistan doesn't have an effective delivery vehicle that can hit the US, MAD doesn't apply between those two countries. And since they probably don't have enough warheads to destroy India or China, it doesn't apply there, either.
Besides, MAD is a Mexican stand-off, and only works when both countries care about self-survival. It doesn't work in the case of, say, North Korea, who's leader is as loopy as the rides at Six Flags. Or Iran, who's leaders believe they'll go to heaven if they die in battle.
For another, I work with some banking applications and having data sent cleartext, even on an inside network directly connected to load balancers is NOT a valid option.
My last sysadmin job (I'm in bizdev now) was at a brokerage firm. While the solution wasn't implemented before the higher ups pillaged the company, I and the network engineer came up with a way around this issue: use the F5 SSL accelerator to encrypt/decrypt the SSL stream, then use SSH port forwarding to make sure the cleartext data was encrypted between the machines. We never got it into production, but it worked great in the lab.
One of the nice side effects of F5 boxes being built around FreeBSD (even if the kernel has evolved so much over the years that it's a completely different beast now).
They'll spend 1/4 of the money on doing a study on how to best spend the money, spend an eighth on actually hiring someone, and the last quarter on how it effects their mandator test results, and the rest quarter for raises for the upper management.
Next time leave that crap out and you'll have a much stronger argument.
And how do you describe people who posture and try to pick fights with the most powerful country on earth? Especially since they have zero to gain from it, and tangible benefits from playing nice. Honestly, a little chihuahua that goes around nipping the ankles of a rottweiller is just asking to get eaten. If that isn't the textbook definition of "brainless", I don't know what is.
Should we invest billions in a system to prevent invasion by mutant frogs equipped with lasers, developed by radical french anti-globalization forces?
Why? Do you know something the rest of us don't?
We need to look at every issue
Yeah, like where are those frogs now? How long before the lasers are working? And will the lasers be on their heads, or maybe hidden in their eyes? Damn it man, we need to know!
Chrisianity went through the same thing where they killed off millions because they would not convert.
Bzzzt. Wrong, thanks for playing. Most estimates put the maximum number of dead during the entire Inquisition at about 30,000. That sounds horrible, but it works out to about 100 per year. Yes, it's still bad, but considering how many people were killed by secular authorities during the same period, it's relatively tame.
This is your queue to throw in the Aztecs and such. Technically, those poor souls weren't killed because they refused to convert, they were killed during a brutal conquest of their nation. To my recollection, they weren't even offered the option of converting for at least several decades, as the Church powers had to debate whether Indians had souls. Not exactly a shining moment in the history of Christianity, I'll grant you, but a far cry from the "convert or die" scenario you posited.
The problem is the difference in philosophies between the founders of each religion, more than the application of either. Jesus taught primarily about love and forgiveness; Mohammed (mhrih*), OTOH, taught primarily about conquest and how to split the booty.
*My little twist on "pbuh", or "peace be upon him", the traditional addition Moslims put to any prophet's name. Mine works out to "may he rot in hell". Cute, huh?:)
It allows the US to be more agressive in attacking countries which are just developing nuclear weapons - not a good thing since it entails a war.
Well, if someone wants to avoid war with the US, the first they should do is not develop nuclear weapons. I know, seems like a no brainer, but most of the people working on nukes these days (Iran, North Korea) don't actually have any brains to speak of.
On the other hand this system is completely unable to protect against low-tech delivery methods (shipping a nuke in a cargo container to New York City) so the system is more or less a waste of money.
By your logic, inspecting cargo vessels for nuclear weapons, being completely useless against even lower tech delivery like, say, hijacking a plane, is more or less a waste of money. It's called "defense in depth", look it up sometime.
Also, I wasn't implying we shouldn't have a defense against ICBMs, but I don't think the laser idea is a good one. I think it sounds cool, and might be feasible, but there must be better solutions that would cost far less, like smaller faster missles with EMP bombs on them or something...
Then get crackin' and submit your idea to DARPA. I'm sure if you come up with a feasible idea that's cheaper than what they're doing now, they'll listen. In the meantime, quit yer bitchin'.
Really? Are you sure, Mr. Coward? If you're so smart, can you do me a favor? Next time you want to give out lessons on important stuff, can you include a definition of "sarcasm". I'm a little hazy on the meaning of that term, though I do see an awful lot of it around here.
Slashdot Mirror
Isn't the UCMJ, and in fact all of the government, subject to the Constitution?!
Not as much as you think. The UCMJ provides some of the protections of the Constitution, but not exactly the same. For instance, you're entitled to be represented by counsel only in the case of certain types of courts-martial. That's a broad generalization, but we're straying pretty off topic and I want to keep it short.
I hope you took care of your buddy after that experience. I've been on both ends of the need for someone to look out for someone else. Once, it was my (then) wife, who had an ovarian cyst. She was in incredible pain, and the idiot doctor wouldn't make room in his precious schedule to see her. I politely pointed out to the office manager of the clinic that if she wasn't admitted RIGHT NOW, I'd simply take her to the emergency room, and their office would never, ever, get our business again. It's sad that an appeal to their bottom line had more of an impact than to the doctor's Hypocratic Oath.
The second time I was visiting a friend in a different city, and contracted pink eye. Within hours, I was all but blind and completely disoriented. If my buddy hadn't taken me to the emergency room and been the voice of reason, making sure I got the care I needed, I feel pretty sure that I would've lost my eyesite permanently, the infection was that bad.
To American slashdotters : this is what you get when you have 45 million uninsured Americans
Considering how many doctors this guy has been to in the last few years, he either has health insurance, or the lack of it hasn't effected his quality of life in the least. Rather, it's been arrogant doctors who think they know everything, when in fact they don't. Gee, why does that seem so familiar?
Ahhh, but you have quickly forogtten Marg Helgenberger!
Screw that. Gimme Emily Proctor from Miami any day of the week, and twice on Sundays.
He easily manipulates the evil (and stupid) terrorists without the reverse ever happening.
Unless the evil terrorist is a red headed woman.
Illegal arrests and confinement? Illegal, taninted searches? Pah!
Um, "NCIS" stands for "Naval Criminal Investigative Service". The UCMJ is a little more forgiving of things like that than is the Constitution.
Unless he's willing to just Nuke the country
Hey, it's the only way to be sure.
Reminds me of a message on a secure chat channel during the war. It read (I kid you not): "4ID mad skillz 0wnz Republican Guard". That was how someone reported that the 4th Infantry Division had routed the Republican Guard. Another report, of the effect of a missile strike, was just "target pwned".
I wish I had kept a log of some of those messages. For posterity's sake. The first major clash between armies during the Counter-Strike age deserves to be memoralized in some way.
and women were well treated.
You and I have a different definition of "well treated".
The US may be claiming that democracy is its goal, but few in the outside world believe that claim.
So? Who cares what the outside believes?
People see the occupiers as the 'bad guys' largely because they committed the supreme crime against international law - an unprovoked war of aggression.
Umm, last time I checked, the UN gave us permission when the Security Council passed resolution 1441. That resolution promised "serious consequences" if Saddam didn't open his doors. Well, I'd say having your country taken away from you and given back to the people you were oppressing, the same people who are now sitting in judgement of you, is pretty fucking serious.
Are the Iraqi resistance worse that the occupiers of Fallujah?
Yeah, 'cause we go around cutting people's heads off all the time.
Well done, Marine. It's always good to hear from the people who were there and not the trolls on Slashdot who accept whatever CNN or the BBC tell them that day.
Actully, Antarctica is the second coldest place on Earth, the first being my bed! HA! HA! HA!
For a second there I thought you might be my ex-wife.
Maybe so, but Rome didn't have no moon base did they now?
They also didn't have sharks with frickin' lasers on their heads. What's your point?
You honestly think the US will remain the leading superpower forever?
Well, if we established a moon base, it would go a long way to keeping us on the scene for much longer than we could expect to now.
Of course, even Rome eventually fell, so it's a given that we'll pass the torch to someone else someday.
or perhaps i can blame him for trying to pass his guard days off as some military service that gives him credibility.
Yeah, 'cause no one in the Guard ever faces the possibilities of being called to go to war.
the flight suit 'mission accomplished' fiasco?
Anyone who lands aboard an aircraft carrier is required by Navy regulations to wear a flight suit. They contain important pieces of equipment, such as locators, in case you have to ditch. So it's not a fiasco to wear a flight suit when landing on an aircraft carrier, it's the law.
i can slam him for being disingenuous as hell is what i can do.
Hello Mr. Pot, have you met Mr. Kettle?
Our nation's leader is a criminal: he was awol from the national guard
You really need to stop watching CBS.
Here's a clue for those not in the know: in the Reserves and National Guard, you are required to attend a certain number of drills per year. There was no year in which Bush did not meet his required minimum. Anyone who insists Bush was at any time AWOL either doesn't understand how the Guard works, or just wants to find something, somewhere, to slam him with, regardless of the truth.
The best way to avoid war with the U.S. (or just about anyone else) is to have nukes.
If that were true, no one would've started wars with any nuclear powers, ever. However, this is not the case. Without looking up recent history, I can think of several wars in the last sixty years involving nuclear armed powers, including the Falklands War and the Chechnian-Russia civil war that's still running.
Being in the process of developing nukes (or bluffing like Saddam) may be risky, but if you pull it off, like Pakistan, there's a payoff called MAD.
Since Pakistan doesn't have an effective delivery vehicle that can hit the US, MAD doesn't apply between those two countries. And since they probably don't have enough warheads to destroy India or China, it doesn't apply there, either.
Besides, MAD is a Mexican stand-off, and only works when both countries care about self-survival. It doesn't work in the case of, say, North Korea, who's leader is as loopy as the rides at Six Flags. Or Iran, who's leaders believe they'll go to heaven if they die in battle.
And who exactly are you calling brainless?
Sorry, thought that was clear from the context: the leaders of the countries who hurredly developing nukes.
For another, I work with some banking applications and having data sent cleartext, even on an inside network directly connected to load balancers is NOT a valid option.
My last sysadmin job (I'm in bizdev now) was at a brokerage firm. While the solution wasn't implemented before the higher ups pillaged the company, I and the network engineer came up with a way around this issue: use the F5 SSL accelerator to encrypt/decrypt the SSL stream, then use SSH port forwarding to make sure the cleartext data was encrypted between the machines. We never got it into production, but it worked great in the lab.
One of the nice side effects of F5 boxes being built around FreeBSD (even if the kernel has evolved so much over the years that it's a completely different beast now).
They'll spend 1/4 of the money on doing a study on how to best spend the money, spend an eighth on actually hiring someone, and the last quarter on how it effects their mandator test results, and the rest quarter for raises for the upper management.
;)
And then lose an eighth in the accounting?
Next time leave that crap out and you'll have a much stronger argument.
And how do you describe people who posture and try to pick fights with the most powerful country on earth? Especially since they have zero to gain from it, and tangible benefits from playing nice. Honestly, a little chihuahua that goes around nipping the ankles of a rottweiller is just asking to get eaten. If that isn't the textbook definition of "brainless", I don't know what is.
There are over 70 schools in the Oakland school system 20 million dollars would barely hire an extra janitor per school a year.
$20million divided by 70 schools is over $285k per year. If that's what they're paying janitors, no wonder they've got problems!
Now, where'd I put that mop? Time to brush up my cleanin' skills and look for houses in Oakland.
Should we invest billions in a system to prevent invasion by mutant frogs equipped with lasers, developed by radical french anti-globalization forces?
Why? Do you know something the rest of us don't?
We need to look at every issue
Yeah, like where are those frogs now? How long before the lasers are working? And will the lasers be on their heads, or maybe hidden in their eyes? Damn it man, we need to know!
Chrisianity went through the same thing where they killed off millions because they would not convert.
:)
Bzzzt. Wrong, thanks for playing. Most estimates put the maximum number of dead during the entire Inquisition at about 30,000. That sounds horrible, but it works out to about 100 per year. Yes, it's still bad, but considering how many people were killed by secular authorities during the same period, it's relatively tame.
This is your queue to throw in the Aztecs and such. Technically, those poor souls weren't killed because they refused to convert, they were killed during a brutal conquest of their nation. To my recollection, they weren't even offered the option of converting for at least several decades, as the Church powers had to debate whether Indians had souls. Not exactly a shining moment in the history of Christianity, I'll grant you, but a far cry from the "convert or die" scenario you posited.
The problem is the difference in philosophies between the founders of each religion, more than the application of either. Jesus taught primarily about love and forgiveness; Mohammed (mhrih*), OTOH, taught primarily about conquest and how to split the booty.
*My little twist on "pbuh", or "peace be upon him", the traditional addition Moslims put to any prophet's name. Mine works out to "may he rot in hell". Cute, huh?
It allows the US to be more agressive in attacking countries which are just developing nuclear weapons - not a good thing since it entails a war.
Well, if someone wants to avoid war with the US, the first they should do is not develop nuclear weapons. I know, seems like a no brainer, but most of the people working on nukes these days (Iran, North Korea) don't actually have any brains to speak of.
On the other hand this system is completely unable to protect against low-tech delivery methods (shipping a nuke in a cargo container to New York City) so the system is more or less a waste of money.
By your logic, inspecting cargo vessels for nuclear weapons, being completely useless against even lower tech delivery like, say, hijacking a plane, is more or less a waste of money. It's called "defense in depth", look it up sometime.
Also, I wasn't implying we shouldn't have a defense against ICBMs, but I don't think the laser idea is a good one. I think it sounds cool, and might be feasible, but there must be better solutions that would cost far less, like smaller faster missles with EMP bombs on them or something...
Then get crackin' and submit your idea to DARPA. I'm sure if you come up with a feasible idea that's cheaper than what they're doing now, they'll listen. In the meantime, quit yer bitchin'.
The Saudi government is a dictatorship.
Really? Are you sure, Mr. Coward? If you're so smart, can you do me a favor? Next time you want to give out lessons on important stuff, can you include a definition of "sarcasm". I'm a little hazy on the meaning of that term, though I do see an awful lot of it around here.
Thanks bunches.