The seminal work on Vietnam is named The 25-Year-War. Might want to do a little research on that war.
Again, why does the enemy, with its intransigence, get to decide the rules? Surrender and we'll let everyone go. It is quite simple. And there is no such thing as "international law" unless it is a treaty that the US has signed and ratified, and under the US legal system, any treaty is superseded by subsequent conflicting federal law (e.g., the Detainee Treatment Act). I don't recall suspending the US Constitution and surrendering US sovereignty to the United Nations.
Yes, because in the US Civil War the Confederates got trials, in the Spanish-American War prisoners got trials, in WWI enemy prisoners got trials, and the Nazis and Japanese got trials during WWII, and so did the North Koreans and the Viet Kong and...oh wait, they didn't.
You mean every country, including the US, has always held prisoners - without trial - until the end of hostilities? You mean that the Left is holding Bush to an entirely different standard than any previous president in wartime? You mean in past wars, prisoners weren't Mirandized on the battlefield and given one phone call and lawyers and full Constitutional protections including speedy trials?
And to answer your next question [when will they be released?], when al Qaeda surrenders. Oh, but they will never surrender! Sorry, that's the rules in wartime. Why should they be different simply because this enemy flouts all conventions of war and is more tenacious? This is a real war people. I can only hope it doesn't take a Nuke in a major US city - by a released Gitmo prisoner - to convince you.
I honestly believe this. Don't mod troll or flamebait just because you disagree with it. Sometimes things you disagree with sting a little.
It is obvious nobody here listed to/watched Imus's show, because he is no conservative! In fact, I stopped watching it because of all of his Bush bashing and all his liberal guests masquerading as journalists (Johnathan Alter, Howard Feinmann, etc.).
Imus is no conservative. Funny how everyone jumps to that conclusion.
You use the State to define what is "correct," then immediately thereafter cite the ACLU as needed to check government power? How Orwellian. Can you not see the irony? You proved my point, which the lefty mods so predictably and abusively modded down: The government is scary and must be controlled, unless it is doing what *you* want. Hence the ACLU hypocrisy. Big Government must be stopped unless it is doing Big Government things *you* want. That's fine, but don't call it "libertarian."
Now mod abuse away some more, since hypocrisy seems to be the theme of the day.
Injustices cannot be corrected by ignoring them, or even passively allowing them to continue
Does this include Iraq under Saddam? And no, not everything you disagree with is a "troll." This is a serious question. How is the Darfur civil war, albeit horribly tragic, any more fixable than the Shia-Sunni conflict in Iraq?
or vis the UN
The UN? You must be joking. That impotent, decadent, cowardly organization has done zero (or worse) for human rights, and has only made it harder for the few honorable brave countries (like the US) to take action on anything.
He will be remembered not only as a great writer, but also as a staunch civil libertarian (long-term member of the ACLU)
I always laugh at characterizations of the ACLU as "libertarian." Maybe if you want a late-term abortion or to peddle pr0n unregulated. The ACLU uses the Constitution as a means, not an end, to advance its decidedly un-libertarian, left wing agenda in many areas (Second Amendment? Low taxes? School choice?). I'm a First Amendment (speech, not pr0n) absolutist, but I'll bet Don Imus is hearing nothing but crickets from the ACLU right now as Al Sharpton calls for the FCC to regulate shock jocks.
Now, go ahead an mod down that which you disagree with. My karma can take the hit.
Last time I checked, these alleged "friends" of Bush in the oil industry were former competitors of Bush in a past life. By this argument, if Bill Gates became president, as a former "software man" he would conduct policy to benefit to Steve Jobs. And out oil this tenuous, unproven nexus, we are to believe Bush started a war? Only to give the Iraqis their oil back? We even pay the Iraqis for the oil our military uses while defending them! For a war fought for oil, we should at least get the oil we use defending Iraqis for free. We charged Britain for lend lease for 60 years!
If anything, it was the anti-war forces, like France, which wanted to protect its sweetheart oil deals with Saddam. And I assure you that the Iraqi people see a hell of a lot more of the oil revenues now than they did under Saddam's Oil-for-Palaces program.
Frankly, I do not blame Haliburton for leaving the US, if they are. All they get is grief from the left, then they want to leave and you wonder why? I hope they take all their jobs with them to another country, just another example of the business-unfriendly left chasing away an American company.
But with murder or accidental killing, there is still criminal charges. Homicide is a lesser punishment and yet there are justified/justifiable homicide laws for when the killing is a public service.
Homicide itself is not a crime. A homicide is the taking of a life of another. There are criminal (murder, manslaughter), excused (non-criminal negligent), and justifiable (self-defense) homicides. And there aren't "always" charges filed in homicides. Accidental deaths are often excused.
The biased article suggests it's an attempt to run Apple off the road, simply ratfuck them for anti-competitive reasons; when in reality Gates wants to do business with Apple, and is just playing hardball. That is a huge difference.
Makes you wonder if submitter even read the e-mail before he posted the story!
--Madsen et al. (2002) conducted a study of all children born in Denmark from January 1991 through December 1998. There were a total of 537,303 children in the study; 440,655 of the children were vaccinated with MMR and 96,648 were not. The researchers did not find a higher risk of autism in the vaccinated than in the unvaccinated group of children.
--A study by Gillberg and Heijbel (1998) examined the prevalence of autism in children born in Sweden from 1975-1984. There was no difference in the prevalence of autism among children born before the introduction of the MMR vaccine in Sweden and those born after the vaccine was introduced.
An RF alarm at the door going off is NOT probable cause that a theft has occurred (since the dumb cashiers often forget to deactivate them after purchases, and due to false alarms). So any retails store dumb enough to allow its employees to detain a person based on such an alarm had better get their checkbooks out for false arrest, battery, and defamation claims...
The UCC is controlling, and it places a duty of good faith and fair dealing on every sales of goods contract (both consumer and merchant). I think it is is a losing argument for a customer claim he thought that Amazon meant to give him two DVDs for free. You know it's a mistake, so you aren't being fair and honest. BTW, a breach of the duty of good faith can carry punitive damages. Plus, I'd guess that Amazon has a policy on this in the contract you agree to when you sign up with them.
I am a lawyer but not your lawyer. Do not rely on this, as it is not legal advice, but merely another/. poster pretending to be an expert on something.
There is a big difference between observing a vehicle on a highway, and planting an electronic device on your property to track your exact location from second to second.
And as Judge Posner pointed out (based on well-settled law), the police are not required to remain locked in the technology of the 18th Century.
I guess Judge Posner should ignore well-settled constitutional law and base his legal reasoning on the opinions of/. privacy zealots, or he's an idiot. Nice logic. Do you even understand or care about the US case law system or stare decisis? One of the most brilliant, respected jurists in the country is an idiot because he disagrees with you, some anonymous Internet poster. Now that's nonsense.
Your comments about SCOTUS are even more ludicrous. There have been numerous pro-defendant/suspect decisions made by this court, including the one I linked, Kyllo v US. Read Kyllo and then come back and pop-off about a "rubber stamp." Riley is but one case, and it seems very reasonable to me. The police in helicopters should shield their eyes from pot growing outside a person's home? Where does it say anything about outdoor, uncovered greenhouses in the Constitution?
Judge Posner is widely recognized as one of the most brilliant jurists in America. Just because he isn't a privacy zealot or disagrees with you doesn't make him an idiot.
This is a no-brainer under 4th Amendment law if you understand the test: Reasonable Expectation of Privacy (REP). Police only need Fourth Amendment justification when the suspect has an expectation of privacy. You have no expectation that where you driving your car - in public - is a private matter any more than you have a right not to have a license plate. People can see you driving! Of course, if you were driving on some private land, outside of the eyes of your neighbors, that may be a different matter. But who has that large of property, Bill Gates?
Whether you like it or not, this is a slam dunk case, not some "idiot judge." Read the opinion and you'll see it is based on well-settled law. You simply do not have a REP as to where you are driving on public roads. As far as what is going on within the car, that is of course an entirely different matter, which Kyllo v. US, inter alia, would likely control.
and everyone here goes apeshit when Microsoft cracks down on Linux XBox hackers.
So I don't really own my Tivo box? That's interesting. So they can knock on my door and come in and take it? How many years do I have to pay for the service for my rights to vest? 1? 10? 100? Oh BTW, I still have the original box the Tivo came in, and there is not a damn thing on it that says that it won't work AT ALL without the service.
The reality is I don't give a shit what Tivo's business model is, since I am the end user and not a Tivo stockholder. I am concerned with my rights. A business model is not a protectible interest via copyright, as the Lexmark case makes clear.
Jesus, I cannot believe I am having this debate on/.
That stands for Hardware Rights Management. TiVos (series 2 and above) are paperweights without this endless subscription "service." As much crap as everyone here gives Microsoft, at least Linux is an option to make PC hardware bundled with Windows operable. TiVos are so locked down via hardware that they are virtually uncrackable and useless without the TiVo extortion payments. Go on the TiVo forums, and all the sheep there call you a thief for merely wanting to use your TiVo without the "service," even as a push-to-record DVR. TiVo has all the sheep fooled into thinking their eternal fees are justified for the privilege of using hardware that the end user bought and owns! Imagine if Microsoft - or GM - tried locking up your hardware (including locking out linux) if you didn't pay an eternal license fee!
Who has to answer for breaking a NDA is the person that did so, not the person reporting the disclosure, they did not sign anithing with Apple.
Of course, the Web site contributes to the disclosure and therefore loss of the trade secret. That's like saying a getaway driver in a car doesn't rob the bank, so he should get off scott free!
I know that your clearly unbiased point of view is making your blood boil
As opposed to the fair-and-balanced/. crowd when it comes to IP? I am actually a helluva lot more objective than 90% of the anti-IP zealots here, for whom open source is a religion rather than an experiment. I hate what Microsoft is doing with Vista's EULA; the difference is, I believe in the law and freedom of contract. If you don't like MS, use Linux, don't tell MS how to write it's contracts, and don't make up the law how you want it to be. What makes my blood oil is being an AAPL stockholder and having financially disinterested nincompoops trying to force their jihadist viewpoint on a stock I hold in the name of ideology.
but frankly we can afford that in the interest of allowing free dissemination of important information by whistle blowers.
The legal system is sophisticated enough to discern between whistleblowers and gossips. There are already laws protecting the former. That's a strawman.
I thought you could connect the dots that Echelon was alive & well during the Clinton administration, yet Hillary was silent. I guess I gave you too much credit. 60 Minutes even ran a story on Echelon when Bill Clinton was in office, not to mention extensive coverage of the Aldrich Ames investigation. I didn't see Hillary's outrage about personal liberty then. But now that she is playing to the left by attacking GWB, you call her the privacy candidate? Wake up!
Slashdot Mirror
Again, why does the enemy, with its intransigence, get to decide the rules? Surrender and we'll let everyone go. It is quite simple. And there is no such thing as "international law" unless it is a treaty that the US has signed and ratified, and under the US legal system, any treaty is superseded by subsequent conflicting federal law (e.g., the Detainee Treatment Act). I don't recall suspending the US Constitution and surrendering US sovereignty to the United Nations.
You mean every country, including the US, has always held prisoners - without trial - until the end of hostilities? You mean that the Left is holding Bush to an entirely different standard than any previous president in wartime? You mean in past wars, prisoners weren't Mirandized on the battlefield and given one phone call and lawyers and full Constitutional protections including speedy trials?
And to answer your next question [when will they be released?], when al Qaeda surrenders. Oh, but they will never surrender! Sorry, that's the rules in wartime. Why should they be different simply because this enemy flouts all conventions of war and is more tenacious? This is a real war people. I can only hope it doesn't take a Nuke in a major US city - by a released Gitmo prisoner - to convince you.
I honestly believe this. Don't mod troll or flamebait just because you disagree with it. Sometimes things you disagree with sting a little.
Imus is no conservative. Funny how everyone jumps to that conclusion.
Now mod abuse away some more, since hypocrisy seems to be the theme of the day.
Nothing new. Both HardOCP and Bit-Tech did experiments on submersion oil cooling years ago.
That you would reply AC.
Does this include Iraq under Saddam? And no, not everything you disagree with is a "troll." This is a serious question. How is the Darfur civil war, albeit horribly tragic, any more fixable than the Shia-Sunni conflict in Iraq?
or vis the UN
The UN? You must be joking. That impotent, decadent, cowardly organization has done zero (or worse) for human rights, and has only made it harder for the few honorable brave countries (like the US) to take action on anything.
I always laugh at characterizations of the ACLU as "libertarian." Maybe if you want a late-term abortion or to peddle pr0n unregulated. The ACLU uses the Constitution as a means, not an end, to advance its decidedly un-libertarian, left wing agenda in many areas (Second Amendment? Low taxes? School choice?). I'm a First Amendment (speech, not pr0n) absolutist, but I'll bet Don Imus is hearing nothing but crickets from the ACLU right now as Al Sharpton calls for the FCC to regulate shock jocks.
Now, go ahead an mod down that which you disagree with. My karma can take the hit.
Last time I checked, these alleged "friends" of Bush in the oil industry were former competitors of Bush in a past life. By this argument, if Bill Gates became president, as a former "software man" he would conduct policy to benefit to Steve Jobs. And out oil this tenuous, unproven nexus, we are to believe Bush started a war? Only to give the Iraqis their oil back? We even pay the Iraqis for the oil our military uses while defending them! For a war fought for oil, we should at least get the oil we use defending Iraqis for free. We charged Britain for lend lease for 60 years!
If anything, it was the anti-war forces, like France, which wanted to protect its sweetheart oil deals with Saddam. And I assure you that the Iraqi people see a hell of a lot more of the oil revenues now than they did under Saddam's Oil-for-Palaces program.
Frankly, I do not blame Haliburton for leaving the US, if they are. All they get is grief from the left, then they want to leave and you wonder why? I hope they take all their jobs with them to another country, just another example of the business-unfriendly left chasing away an American company.
But with murder or accidental killing, there is still criminal charges. Homicide is a lesser punishment and yet there are justified/justifiable homicide laws for when the killing is a public service.
Homicide itself is not a crime. A homicide is the taking of a life of another. There are criminal (murder, manslaughter), excused (non-criminal negligent), and justifiable (self-defense) homicides. And there aren't "always" charges filed in homicides. Accidental deaths are often excused.
Makes you wonder if submitter even read the e-mail before he posted the story!
We know he gets killed first, especially if he is black.
--A study by Gillberg and Heijbel (1998) examined the prevalence of autism in children born in Sweden from 1975-1984. There was no difference in the prevalence of autism among children born before the introduction of the MMR vaccine in Sweden and those born after the vaccine was introduced.
Sorry, no links.
Lorenzo's Oil? But I am no fatty acid expert.
A study showed that Denmark used the same Themarisol-based vaccination with nowhere near the levels of autism in the US. This is nonsense.
An RF alarm at the door going off is NOT probable cause that a theft has occurred (since the dumb cashiers often forget to deactivate them after purchases, and due to false alarms). So any retails store dumb enough to allow its employees to detain a person based on such an alarm had better get their checkbooks out for false arrest, battery, and defamation claims...
I am a lawyer but not your lawyer. Do not rely on this, as it is not legal advice, but merely another
There is a big difference between observing a vehicle on a highway, and planting an electronic device on your property to track your exact location from second to second.
/. privacy zealots, or he's an idiot. Nice logic. Do you even understand or care about the US case law system or stare decisis ? One of the most brilliant, respected jurists in the country is an idiot because he disagrees with you, some anonymous Internet poster. Now that's nonsense.
And as Judge Posner pointed out (based on well-settled law), the police are not required to remain locked in the technology of the 18th Century.
I guess Judge Posner should ignore well-settled constitutional law and base his legal reasoning on the opinions of
Your comments about SCOTUS are even more ludicrous. There have been numerous pro-defendant/suspect decisions made by this court, including the one I linked, Kyllo v US . Read Kyllo and then come back and pop-off about a "rubber stamp." Riley is but one case, and it seems very reasonable to me. The police in helicopters should shield their eyes from pot growing outside a person's home? Where does it say anything about outdoor, uncovered greenhouses in the Constitution?
Judge Posner is widely recognized as one of the most brilliant jurists in America. Just because he isn't a privacy zealot or disagrees with you doesn't make him an idiot.
This is a no-brainer under 4th Amendment law if you understand the test: Reasonable Expectation of Privacy (REP). Police only need Fourth Amendment justification when the suspect has an expectation of privacy. You have no expectation that where you driving your car - in public - is a private matter any more than you have a right not to have a license plate. People can see you driving! Of course, if you were driving on some private land, outside of the eyes of your neighbors, that may be a different matter. But who has that large of property, Bill Gates?
Whether you like it or not, this is a slam dunk case, not some "idiot judge." Read the opinion and you'll see it is based on well-settled law. You simply do not have a REP as to where you are driving on public roads. As far as what is going on within the car, that is of course an entirely different matter, which Kyllo v. US, inter alia, would likely control.
and everyone here goes apeshit when Microsoft cracks down on Linux XBox hackers.
/.
So I don't really own my Tivo box? That's interesting. So they can knock on my door and come in and take it? How many years do I have to pay for the service for my rights to vest? 1? 10? 100? Oh BTW, I still have the original box the Tivo came in, and there is not a damn thing on it that says that it won't work AT ALL without the service.
The reality is I don't give a shit what Tivo's business model is, since I am the end user and not a Tivo stockholder. I am concerned with my rights. A business model is not a protectible interest via copyright, as the Lexmark case makes clear.
Jesus, I cannot believe I am having this debate on
That stands for Hardware Rights Management. TiVos (series 2 and above) are paperweights without this endless subscription "service." As much crap as everyone here gives Microsoft, at least Linux is an option to make PC hardware bundled with Windows operable. TiVos are so locked down via hardware that they are virtually uncrackable and useless without the TiVo extortion payments. Go on the TiVo forums, and all the sheep there call you a thief for merely wanting to use your TiVo without the "service," even as a push-to-record DVR. TiVo has all the sheep fooled into thinking their eternal fees are justified for the privilege of using hardware that the end user bought and owns! Imagine if Microsoft - or GM - tried locking up your hardware (including locking out linux) if you didn't pay an eternal license fee!
or at least living in a jurisdiction that doesn't criminalize practicing law without a license, because you just did.
Who has to answer for breaking a NDA is the person that did so, not the person reporting the disclosure, they did not sign anithing with Apple.
/. crowd when it comes to IP? I am actually a helluva lot more objective than 90% of the anti-IP zealots here, for whom open source is a religion rather than an experiment. I hate what Microsoft is doing with Vista's EULA; the difference is, I believe in the law and freedom of contract. If you don't like MS, use Linux, don't tell MS how to write it's contracts, and don't make up the law how you want it to be. What makes my blood oil is being an AAPL stockholder and having financially disinterested nincompoops trying to force their jihadist viewpoint on a stock I hold in the name of ideology.
Of course, the Web site contributes to the disclosure and therefore loss of the trade secret. That's like saying a getaway driver in a car doesn't rob the bank, so he should get off scott free!
I know that your clearly unbiased point of view is making your blood boil
As opposed to the fair-and-balanced
but frankly we can afford that in the interest of allowing free dissemination of important information by whistle blowers.
The legal system is sophisticated enough to discern between whistleblowers and gossips. There are already laws protecting the former. That's a strawman.
I thought you could connect the dots that Echelon was alive & well during the Clinton administration, yet Hillary was silent. I guess I gave you too much credit. 60 Minutes even ran a story on Echelon when Bill Clinton was in office, not to mention extensive coverage of the Aldrich Ames investigation. I didn't see Hillary's outrage about personal liberty then. But now that she is playing to the left by attacking GWB, you call her the privacy candidate? Wake up!