You have the cart before the horse. Customers define the market, not the business. First rule of business isn't starting with a good idea, it's doing market research and seeing what people will buy (how's that world-changing Segway selling?). If GM can't sell Americans what they want at a profit (cars) how the hell can they sell them something they don't want? The Big 3 should be emulating Honda, not Amrtrak.
The solution is not a bailout, by rewarding the same failed business model, but for the Big 3 to declare bankruptcy, shed their ridiculous labor costs (and spare me UAW's FUD and disinformation campaign, already heard it), and actually start making a profit per vehicle again - like all the other "American" auto companies (Toyota, Honda) have done in states outside of UAW's thumb.
BeerSmith.
Every book-specific exam-writing program for classes I teach.
TMPGEnc 4.0 XPress
Lots of other Windows software that I get at a "discounted" rate from work.;-)
Even if there were Mac analogues for all of these, expecting people to switch OSs just because you want them to is unrealistic. People want to use what they know.
But there are millions of Windows users out there who would like some compatibility with their desktop apps. Despite my Slashdot ID, I was a Macophile who had to switch to Windows years ago for work compatibility purposes (long before there was a Boot Camp). I'd love to be able to use various Windows programs on an iPhone. In fact, if I could, it would make me more likely to buy one. There are a lot of Windows programs they just don't make for Apple.
Slashdot is not the universe, people. There are lots of people out there who use Windows, whether they like it or not.
As your legal training has no doubt informed you, British Common Law is where most of our law
evolved from.
Yes, but how is this all relevant to my point, that presumption of innocence is a criminal procedure protection, not some law - or "tenet" as anon coward calls it - that I must follow. I'm still waiting for anon coward to tell me how he'd love to live next door to Michael Jackson and let his kids play over there.
Again, in America, we can think what we want, not what the government tells us to think - or some profane person on the Net who can't even use a handle wants us to think.
Oh, and I live in California, not a common law state.
It's not in the constitution, because it's far older than that. It's deeply embedded in law. You claim to teach law and you don't know this shit?
Which law is that? Point me to American common or statutory law that says this. You simply can't. You are merely projecting and imputing your ignorance of American criminal procedure onto me and the legal system. This is free country. I can think what I want! No law says otherwise.
Of course, as a hysterical, know-it-all anonymous lib with no legal training whatsoever, you screech and call names and completely ignored my entire post. Thanks for proving my point that responding to anon cowards is waste of keystrokes.
And fuck you, I've been anonymous on Slashdot for ten years now. I'm not hiding, I'm right here, just like I've always been.
Very brave, and so very profound. So tough on the Internet, aren't we?
Yeah, and my daddy can beat up your daddy. Grow up, dude. Don't say things anonymously on the Internet wouldn't say to someone's face if you want to be taken seriously.
I make a general policy not to reply to people without the juevos to post using their Slashdot names, but your self-righteous, inaccurate flame deserves a smackdown.
Innocent until proven guilty is a foundational tenet of a free society. It is not just some technical consideration for juries -- it is the safety net whereby individuals are protected from wrongful punishment due to the wrath of society.
Nonsense. Where are these "foundational tenets" listed so I can learn them? Certainly not in the Constitution. I am a free-thinking person, and I do not have to pretend reality didn't happen. The media and the defense bar in America might have fooled you, but innocent until proven guilty does not apply to me so long as I am not on jury service.
If a guy looks weird or scary when I am walking at night, I cross the street to the other side. If I get a bad vibe about a person, I don't do business with him. I wouldn't want my 11-year-old boy going over to Michael Jackson's house to play on his rides, because he is a fucking pedophile, regardless of what any jury says. I wouldn't want my daughter dating OJ Simpson, because he is a fucking murderer, regardless of what a jury says - and I strongly suspect you wouldn't either.
The innocent-until proven guilty system, as well as other aspects of American criminal procedure, are just that - procedures, not substantive law - to protect the innocent. The US criminal justice system would rather let 10 guilty people go free than 1 innocent be convicted, since putting someone in a cage (or killing them, in rare cases) is a very serious thing. But innocent until proven guilty was never intended to prevent societal ostracization. That's what free thinking people do when they think someone is a bad person - just like your juvenile post tried to do with me.
BTW, IAAL; in fact I teach law, and I make this exact point in my classes. The police, the prosecutors, people watching TV, all do not have to presume anyone innocent. In fact, police and prosecutors must presume you guilty (i.e., believe they have probable cause you committed a crime) if they arrest you, otherwise it would be a felony for them to do so! Only the jury and trial judge must presume a defendant innocent.
And why can't I, free-thinking guy, use the same probable cause the police did to arrest and the prosecutor did to charge, and think the guy is guilty, so long as I am not a juror? Do I really need to sit in the courtroom as a jury to understand reality? Most times, jurors hear less about a case than the general public (e.g., the low speed chase in the OJ case). I can draw my own conclusions about people. Employers, potential dates, school admissions officers, customers all make these evaluations of people every day. But I can't about some guy who has his blood inside a mosquito locked inside a stolen car?
that Marxists always say about failed, despotic Marxist-Leninist regimes: "They just didn't do it right."
I'm sorry, but when every single example of a Marxist-Leninist-based regime leads to vast human suffering, corruption, and human rights atrocities, maybe it's time to just admit that Marxist-Leninist governments do not work, as they ignore human nature and the nature of capital.
But leftists always let their dogma run over their karma, and want to try it again and again. If only you had so much patience with capitalism!
Capitalism, regardless of what you think of its fairness, just works. You don't need dictatorships, mind control through force, secret police, informants, or re-education camps. Just let people do their thing, and it goes. Now which system is consistent with human nature? Which one is free and which one requires compulsion?
Marxism must be instituted and kept pure by force. Because no matter what, sooner or later, that little girl is going to want to open a lemonade stand. And what are you going to do then?
God forbid we actually catch bad guys. Why isn't anyone here concerned about the bad things crooks do? Are we really afraid that the government is going to round up people based on mosquitoes?
Even the article submitter:
I'm wondering if the suspect should have denied any association with the car at all.
Well, I'm wondering if the suspect should have 1) not stolen the car or 2) confessed and taken responsibility for the crime and turned his life around. Yes he fucking did it - presumption of innocence is for juries, not Slashdot denizens.
It's like you guys all want the crooks to get away. I know they say 'a liberal is a conservative who's been arrested' and 'a conservative is a liberal who's been robbed', but in all my years, I have never been wrongfully accused of a crime, but I have been a victim of crimes a lot of times.
Now go ahead and mod me down for daring to dissent from the Slashdot Zeitgeist.
At least if you look at how things were actually done during the Cultural Revolution, or even today in Cuba and North Korea. Local party members inform on those whose political purity is questioned.
And what does the government do a little girl opens a lemonade stand and tries to keep the profits? Little handcuffs and off to the gulag!
There's a very scary scene depicting what these local committees were like in the movie The Red Violin. Go rent that and see how local government worked under Mao.
Of course, these elections never actually happened anyway, or any elections for that matter, local or national, under any Marxist regimes. Or a single, fixed election, like in Venezuela.
Sorry brother, but when I hear "Marx," I don't think "democracy."
You'd be hard-pressed to find anyone who says the history of the Independent Counsel was non-political. Lawrence Walsh and Ken Starr. Or the grandstanding of Patrick Fitzgerald in the modern incarnation of the IC.
Now the Justice Department has a Civil Rights division, and it isn't staffed by Hoover acolytes. It's run by liberals mostly (who else would join the FBI to ensure civil liberties rather than to catch crooks?)
I'll take the modern incarnation of the FBI over some independent counsel initiated by Congress. Lesser of evils.
You want to read about Watergate, read G. Gordon Liddy's biography, since he planned and executed Watergate. Then Read Stephen Ambrose's Nixon biography (the third one). Ambrose is the only one who gives a reason why Nixon would want to wiretap Larry O'Brien, not that I am convinced Nixon knew in advance (none of the principles involved have ever claimed this). Silent Coup is an incredibly detailed chronicle of Watergate, but I disagree with its conclusions, other than John Dean was a little rat (Dean was the president's lawyer while working as an FBI informant). Never trust a word that comes out of Dean's mouth.
You'd also want to read Bob Haldeman's and John Erlichman's biographies.
ATPM gets a lot wrong. The bottom line is Nixon wasn't brought down by Woodward and Bernstein, they just kept up the heat.
Nixon was brought down by a guy named Alexander Butterfield announcing to the Senate Watergate Committee that Nixon taped his conversations, which led to the smoking gun tape about Nixon telling the FBI that Watergate was a CIA operation, back-off. Nixon scuttled that idea the next day, but that tape is what brought him down, not W&B. Once Nixon finally released the tapes, that particular tape is what turned Barry Goldwater to support impeachment, and Nixon's goose was cooked. After Nixon heard he lost Goldwater, he turned to his SecState Al Haig and said, "Well, there goes the presidency, Al."
BTW, when Haig dies, I'm betting he was a Woodward source too. Haig, when NSA for Nixon, was given his military briefings by a young Naval Intelligence officer named Bob Woodward. To this day, Woodward will not talk about those briefings.
To portray Felt as some heroic whistle-blower is nonsense. For one, Felt hid in the shadows for 30 years, until he was senile and his daughter pulled him into the daylight to capitalize on his fame. Heroes put themselves at personal risk for a higher cause. Felt hid to protect his reputation among his FBI cronies (think cigarette-smoking man types).
More importantly, he was J. Edgar Hoover's #2 at a time when the FBI was wiretapping MLK and John Lennon - and presidents. Yes, there is a reason that Hoover stayed as FBI director, a huge plum appointment for any president, for 48 friggin years. Hoover blackmailed presidents, and everyone else he could wiretap and burglarize. You think his #2 wasn't in on that?
When Hoover died, Nixon did the right thing, what any of the 44 presidents would have done, cleaned house and got the Hoover cronies the hell out of there. And what did Felt do once he didn't get the director job? He did exactly what every president for 48 years was afraid of about Hoover - Felt released dirt on Nixon.
Say what you want about Nixon, but Hoover was the antithesis of a democracy, an unelected guy who abused his power and blackmailed presidents to stay in office for half a century. Appointing Felt to replace him would have been, in retrospect, politically expedient. Felt thought he was entitled to the job and brought Nixon down for it. To suggest that Felt, the ultimate black-bag guy, was appalled at Nixon's shenanigans, when Hoover freaking invented it, is like saying Linsday Lohan is offended by Paris Hilton's public tramp behavior. Ludicrous!
It is interesting that most news reports do not talk about Felt's illegal wiretapping of the Weather Underground (not that I have sympathy for that domestic terror group, but I am not running around claiming to be some civil liberties hero), or they mention it at the very end of the story like AP did.
God knows all of the shit Hoover pulled. Maybe someday it will all come to light. It would make a great movie, but would probably have to be a mini-series or TV show on HBO, as it would likely be impossible to chronicle in 2 hours.
And they named the FBI building after the sumbitch.
and he predictably calls you names instead of debating.
If you even attempted to inform yourself enough in the issue, you'd know that Geneva gives less protections to the unlawful combatant status than to the POW. The point of Geneva is carrot and stick. Sign the Convention, and abide by it, get all of its protections. Don't sign and/or commit warfare outside of its requirements, you don't get the vast majority of its protections.
Anyone who would say an unlawful combatant should be treated better than a POW certainly doesn't have Geneva or history or law in his side. Not to mention the moral hazard of actually encouraging combatants (and countries, by supporting terrorists) to violate Geneva since unlawful combatants will be treated better than POWs!
But of course you don't really want a good faith debate. If Congress had formally declared war in this conflict (which should have no impact anyway, since the war declaration clause was meant as a check on the president, not as a check on warfare itself), you'd still find something to complain about. This isn't about procedure, it's about substance, since you hate:
1) America
2) Bush
3) The "War on Terror"
4) All of the above
(pick one).
The process of life creates waste, and the process of cleaning up that waste creates more life. We need to use biomimicry and smart manufacturing techniques if we're going to survive past the next 2-3 hundred years. Otherwise we're just making the world a little more poisonous every year...
We have more carbon and methane than ever in the atmosphere, yet temps are down? This means there must be another variable in global temperatures than carbon emissions.
I prefer Apple's performance over the last 15 years over Microsoft's. Even at 50% of its all-time high, Apple is still trading at 25 times what I paid for it, and runs the most profitable retail business per square foot in America.
Compare: The glory days of MSFT are over. It is no longer a growth company. That stock made a lot of early adopters rich, but MS is a victim of its own monopoly. Where do they go from here, other than forcing needless OS upgrades down XP users' throats?
Mein Kampf kind of laid it out folks. I guess if Hitler's book was on Amazon people would have read it more? Believed it more?
If England had been able to send a "Stop Hitler Now!" petition to 10 friendly countries, those countries could have each sent it to 10 more friendly countries before the invasion of Poland, and one of history's greatest tragedies might have been averted.
This has got to be the dumbest thing ever posted on Slashdot. So we are to believe that the international community of appeasers would have taken him more seriously with an Internet?
1) Send a "Stop Hitler Now!" petition to 10 friendly countries
2) Those countries could have each sent it to 10 more friendly countries before the invasion of Poland
3) Appease Hitler
4) ???
5) Profit.
And why again are we even posting the silly ramblings of a friggin poet on Slashdot?
Slashdot Mirror
You have the cart before the horse. Customers define the market, not the business. First rule of business isn't starting with a good idea, it's doing market research and seeing what people will buy (how's that world-changing Segway selling?). If GM can't sell Americans what they want at a profit (cars) how the hell can they sell them something they don't want? The Big 3 should be emulating Honda, not Amrtrak.
The solution is not a bailout, by rewarding the same failed business model, but for the Big 3 to declare bankruptcy, shed their ridiculous labor costs (and spare me UAW's FUD and disinformation campaign, already heard it), and actually start making a profit per vehicle again - like all the other "American" auto companies (Toyota, Honda) have done in states outside of UAW's thumb.
In Iraq, Afghanistan, and all parts of the globe.
Thank you for your service. Hope you get home to your families soon.
I have a plan and you all will soon bow down before me:
/.'er to lose virginity
1) Create perfect woman in petri dish
2) First
3) Patent troll
4) ?
5) Profit
Not a few people who use Windows, ha ha.
;-)
BeerSmith.
Every book-specific exam-writing program for classes I teach.
TMPGEnc 4.0 XPress
Lots of other Windows software that I get at a "discounted" rate from work.
Even if there were Mac analogues for all of these, expecting people to switch OSs just because you want them to is unrealistic. People want to use what they know.
But there are millions of Windows users out there who would like some compatibility with their desktop apps. Despite my Slashdot ID, I was a Macophile who had to switch to Windows years ago for work compatibility purposes (long before there was a Boot Camp). I'd love to be able to use various Windows programs on an iPhone. In fact, if I could, it would make me more likely to buy one. There are a lot of Windows programs they just don't make for Apple.
Slashdot is not the universe, people. There are lots of people out there who use Windows, whether they like it or not.
As your legal training has no doubt informed you, British Common Law is where most of our law evolved from.
Yes, but how is this all relevant to my point, that presumption of innocence is a criminal procedure protection, not some law - or "tenet" as anon coward calls it - that I must follow. I'm still waiting for anon coward to tell me how he'd love to live next door to Michael Jackson and let his kids play over there.
Again, in America, we can think what we want, not what the government tells us to think - or some profane person on the Net who can't even use a handle wants us to think.
Oh, and I live in California, not a common law state.
But I live off of protein bars and Rockstar. ;-p
It's not in the constitution, because it's far older than that. It's deeply embedded in law. You claim to teach law and you don't know this shit?
Which law is that? Point me to American common or statutory law that says this. You simply can't. You are merely projecting and imputing your ignorance of American criminal procedure onto me and the legal system. This is free country. I can think what I want! No law says otherwise.
Of course, as a hysterical, know-it-all anonymous lib with no legal training whatsoever, you screech and call names and completely ignored my entire post. Thanks for proving my point that responding to anon cowards is waste of keystrokes.
And fuck you, I've been anonymous on Slashdot for ten years now. I'm not hiding, I'm right here, just like I've always been.
Very brave, and so very profound. So tough on the Internet, aren't we?
End (attempt at rational) discussion.
Wow. You are one fucked up asshole
Yeah, and my daddy can beat up your daddy. Grow up, dude. Don't say things anonymously on the Internet wouldn't say to someone's face if you want to be taken seriously.
I make a general policy not to reply to people without the juevos to post using their Slashdot names, but your self-righteous, inaccurate flame deserves a smackdown.
Innocent until proven guilty is a foundational tenet of a free society. It is not just some technical consideration for juries -- it is the safety net whereby individuals are protected from wrongful punishment due to the wrath of society.
Nonsense. Where are these "foundational tenets" listed so I can learn them? Certainly not in the Constitution. I am a free-thinking person, and I do not have to pretend reality didn't happen. The media and the defense bar in America might have fooled you, but innocent until proven guilty does not apply to me so long as I am not on jury service.
If a guy looks weird or scary when I am walking at night, I cross the street to the other side. If I get a bad vibe about a person, I don't do business with him. I wouldn't want my 11-year-old boy going over to Michael Jackson's house to play on his rides, because he is a fucking pedophile, regardless of what any jury says. I wouldn't want my daughter dating OJ Simpson, because he is a fucking murderer, regardless of what a jury says - and I strongly suspect you wouldn't either.
The innocent-until proven guilty system, as well as other aspects of American criminal procedure, are just that - procedures, not substantive law - to protect the innocent. The US criminal justice system would rather let 10 guilty people go free than 1 innocent be convicted, since putting someone in a cage (or killing them, in rare cases) is a very serious thing. But innocent until proven guilty was never intended to prevent societal ostracization. That's what free thinking people do when they think someone is a bad person - just like your juvenile post tried to do with me.
BTW, IAAL; in fact I teach law, and I make this exact point in my classes. The police, the prosecutors, people watching TV, all do not have to presume anyone innocent. In fact, police and prosecutors must presume you guilty (i.e., believe they have probable cause you committed a crime) if they arrest you, otherwise it would be a felony for them to do so! Only the jury and trial judge must presume a defendant innocent.
And why can't I, free-thinking guy, use the same probable cause the police did to arrest and the prosecutor did to charge, and think the guy is guilty, so long as I am not a juror? Do I really need to sit in the courtroom as a jury to understand reality? Most times, jurors hear less about a case than the general public (e.g., the low speed chase in the OJ case). I can draw my own conclusions about people. Employers, potential dates, school admissions officers, customers all make these evaluations of people every day. But I can't about some guy who has his blood inside a mosquito locked inside a stolen car?
Stop feeling and start thinking.
My 110lbs mutt is eating me out of house and home.
that Marxists always say about failed, despotic Marxist-Leninist regimes: "They just didn't do it right."
I'm sorry, but when every single example of a Marxist-Leninist-based regime leads to vast human suffering, corruption, and human rights atrocities, maybe it's time to just admit that Marxist-Leninist governments do not work, as they ignore human nature and the nature of capital.
But leftists always let their dogma run over their karma, and want to try it again and again. If only you had so much patience with capitalism!
Capitalism, regardless of what you think of its fairness, just works. You don't need dictatorships, mind control through force, secret police, informants, or re-education camps. Just let people do their thing, and it goes. Now which system is consistent with human nature? Which one is free and which one requires compulsion?
Marxism must be instituted and kept pure by force. Because no matter what, sooner or later, that little girl is going to want to open a lemonade stand. And what are you going to do then?
God forbid we actually catch bad guys. Why isn't anyone here concerned about the bad things crooks do? Are we really afraid that the government is going to round up people based on mosquitoes?
Even the article submitter:
I'm wondering if the suspect should have denied any association with the car at all.
Well, I'm wondering if the suspect should have 1) not stolen the car or 2) confessed and taken responsibility for the crime and turned his life around. Yes he fucking did it - presumption of innocence is for juries, not Slashdot denizens.
It's like you guys all want the crooks to get away. I know they say 'a liberal is a conservative who's been arrested' and 'a conservative is a liberal who's been robbed', but in all my years, I have never been wrongfully accused of a crime, but I have been a victim of crimes a lot of times.
Now go ahead and mod me down for daring to dissent from the Slashdot Zeitgeist.
At least if you look at how things were actually done during the Cultural Revolution, or even today in Cuba and North Korea. Local party members inform on those whose political purity is questioned.
And what does the government do a little girl opens a lemonade stand and tries to keep the profits? Little handcuffs and off to the gulag!
There's a very scary scene depicting what these local committees were like in the movie The Red Violin. Go rent that and see how local government worked under Mao.
Of course, these elections never actually happened anyway, or any elections for that matter, local or national, under any Marxist regimes. Or a single, fixed election, like in Venezuela.
Sorry brother, but when I hear "Marx," I don't think "democracy."
You'd be hard-pressed to find anyone who says the history of the Independent Counsel was non-political. Lawrence Walsh and Ken Starr. Or the grandstanding of Patrick Fitzgerald in the modern incarnation of the IC.
Now the Justice Department has a Civil Rights division, and it isn't staffed by Hoover acolytes. It's run by liberals mostly (who else would join the FBI to ensure civil liberties rather than to catch crooks?)
I'll take the modern incarnation of the FBI over some independent counsel initiated by Congress. Lesser of evils.
You want to read about Watergate, read G. Gordon Liddy's biography, since he planned and executed Watergate. Then Read Stephen Ambrose's Nixon biography (the third one). Ambrose is the only one who gives a reason why Nixon would want to wiretap Larry O'Brien, not that I am convinced Nixon knew in advance (none of the principles involved have ever claimed this). Silent Coup is an incredibly detailed chronicle of Watergate, but I disagree with its conclusions, other than John Dean was a little rat (Dean was the president's lawyer while working as an FBI informant). Never trust a word that comes out of Dean's mouth.
You'd also want to read Bob Haldeman's and John Erlichman's biographies.
ATPM gets a lot wrong. The bottom line is Nixon wasn't brought down by Woodward and Bernstein, they just kept up the heat.
Nixon was brought down by a guy named Alexander Butterfield announcing to the Senate Watergate Committee that Nixon taped his conversations, which led to the smoking gun tape about Nixon telling the FBI that Watergate was a CIA operation, back-off. Nixon scuttled that idea the next day, but that tape is what brought him down, not W&B. Once Nixon finally released the tapes, that particular tape is what turned Barry Goldwater to support impeachment, and Nixon's goose was cooked. After Nixon heard he lost Goldwater, he turned to his SecState Al Haig and said, "Well, there goes the presidency, Al."
BTW, when Haig dies, I'm betting he was a Woodward source too. Haig, when NSA for Nixon, was given his military briefings by a young Naval Intelligence officer named Bob Woodward. To this day, Woodward will not talk about those briefings.
To portray Felt as some heroic whistle-blower is nonsense. For one, Felt hid in the shadows for 30 years, until he was senile and his daughter pulled him into the daylight to capitalize on his fame. Heroes put themselves at personal risk for a higher cause. Felt hid to protect his reputation among his FBI cronies (think cigarette-smoking man types).
More importantly, he was J. Edgar Hoover's #2 at a time when the FBI was wiretapping MLK and John Lennon - and presidents. Yes, there is a reason that Hoover stayed as FBI director, a huge plum appointment for any president, for 48 friggin years. Hoover blackmailed presidents, and everyone else he could wiretap and burglarize. You think his #2 wasn't in on that?
When Hoover died, Nixon did the right thing, what any of the 44 presidents would have done, cleaned house and got the Hoover cronies the hell out of there. And what did Felt do once he didn't get the director job? He did exactly what every president for 48 years was afraid of about Hoover - Felt released dirt on Nixon.
Say what you want about Nixon, but Hoover was the antithesis of a democracy, an unelected guy who abused his power and blackmailed presidents to stay in office for half a century. Appointing Felt to replace him would have been, in retrospect, politically expedient. Felt thought he was entitled to the job and brought Nixon down for it. To suggest that Felt, the ultimate black-bag guy, was appalled at Nixon's shenanigans, when Hoover freaking invented it, is like saying Linsday Lohan is offended by Paris Hilton's public tramp behavior. Ludicrous!
It is interesting that most news reports do not talk about Felt's illegal wiretapping of the Weather Underground (not that I have sympathy for that domestic terror group, but I am not running around claiming to be some civil liberties hero), or they mention it at the very end of the story like AP did.
God knows all of the shit Hoover pulled. Maybe someday it will all come to light. It would make a great movie, but would probably have to be a mini-series or TV show on HBO, as it would likely be impossible to chronicle in 2 hours.
And they named the FBI building after the sumbitch.
and he predictably calls you names instead of debating.
If you even attempted to inform yourself enough in the issue, you'd know that Geneva gives less protections to the unlawful combatant status than to the POW. The point of Geneva is carrot and stick. Sign the Convention, and abide by it, get all of its protections. Don't sign and/or commit warfare outside of its requirements, you don't get the vast majority of its protections.
Anyone who would say an unlawful combatant should be treated better than a POW certainly doesn't have Geneva or history or law in his side. Not to mention the moral hazard of actually encouraging combatants (and countries, by supporting terrorists) to violate Geneva since unlawful combatants will be treated better than POWs!
But of course you don't really want a good faith debate. If Congress had formally declared war in this conflict (which should have no impact anyway, since the war declaration clause was meant as a check on the president, not as a check on warfare itself), you'd still find something to complain about. This isn't about procedure, it's about substance, since you hate:
1) America
2) Bush
3) The "War on Terror"
4) All of the above
(pick one).
The process of life creates waste, and the process of cleaning up that waste creates more life. We need to use biomimicry and smart manufacturing techniques if we're going to survive past the next 2-3 hundred years. Otherwise we're just making the world a little more poisonous every year...
I think you need to read this article.
But I was trying to be concise in my submission, and I did say, "best known as." Besides, I knew all you nerds would fill in the blanks.
We'll miss you, Majel. - Submitter.
We have more carbon and methane than ever in the atmosphere, yet temps are down? This means there must be another variable in global temperatures than carbon emissions.
So more carbon, yet lower temps. Hmm.
The new model was demonstrated by its creator
Wow, a 2,100 guy demonstrating it? I'd pay to see that!
subspace for its communication needs.
I'm confused.
Let alone free citizenship. Now POWs not only get trials, they get greencards!
Funny how new rules apply to America that no country has ever extended to POWs.
I prefer Apple's performance over the last 15 years over Microsoft's. Even at 50% of its all-time high, Apple is still trading at 25 times what I paid for it, and runs the most profitable retail business per square foot in America.
Compare: The glory days of MSFT are over. It is no longer a growth company. That stock made a lot of early adopters rich, but MS is a victim of its own monopoly. Where do they go from here, other than forcing needless OS upgrades down XP users' throats?
Mein Kampf kind of laid it out folks. I guess if Hitler's book was on Amazon people would have read it more? Believed it more?
If England had been able to send a "Stop Hitler Now!" petition to 10 friendly countries, those countries could have each sent it to 10 more friendly countries before the invasion of Poland, and one of history's greatest tragedies might have been averted.
This has got to be the dumbest thing ever posted on Slashdot. So we are to believe that the international community of appeasers would have taken him more seriously with an Internet?
1) Send a "Stop Hitler Now!" petition to 10 friendly countries
2) Those countries could have each sent it to 10 more friendly countries before the invasion of Poland
3) Appease Hitler
4) ???
5) Profit.
And why again are we even posting the silly ramblings of a friggin poet on Slashdot?