Snowden had voluntary access to classified information and had voluntarily signed a non-disclosure agreement. He is bound by that agreement, legally, forever. Contract law has to work that way.
As to the *rest* of your little rant... IF you are a US citizen who is overseas and actively engaged in fighting the USA and a drone strike kills you, to bad, so sad. If you are captured as a combatant on foreign soil you first get adjudicated by the military under their rules and they may or may not be required to ship you back to the states for criminal trial. But REMEMBER that if you are with the sovereign territory of the United States the military is NOT the police, and CANNOT act like law enforcement arresting people and holding them for trial.
So drop all this cloak and dagger stuff and realize that it's not as bad as you make it sound...
IF he really had good and legal reasons to do what he did, take it to court and face the music.
Are you saying that people shouldn't report illegal government activity?
Nope. Report away. Snowden's problem was HOW he reported it and to whom.
As I've said before, if he's really this stand up guy, why did he run?
>
Do you think Snowden would receive a fair trial? Of course he wouldn't
Of course he would receive a fair trial... Unless of course you have already predetermined what the outcome SHOULD be from that trial and have decided to define that as unfair... Look, the system in this country, despite what you think, is generally fair. Snowden would face a trial before a group of peers just like everybody else which would likely be more than fair to him. After all, the legal system in this country is "innocent until PROVEN guilty" and is slanted in favor of the accused in just about every way possible. Even trial procedure is slanted towards the defense, which gets the privilege of "answering" the charges by presenting it's arguments AFTER the prosecution presents it's case. So Snowden would get a fair trial, despite the people who claim otherwise...
Snowden is also afforded a "speedy" trial, so if the defense pushes for a trial ASAP, they get it. Long Delays in a trial only come when the defense agrees to it, otherwise you have grounds for appeal. But I doubt there would be much delay for Snowden. The facts are pretty much not in dispute and well known, getting to a trial quickly is likely what the prosecution would want anyway now...
Don't be so down on the US legal system. We have our issues, but generally it works reasonably well.
As I've said before, if he's really this stand up guy, why did he run? IF he really had good and legal reasons to do what he did, take it to court and face the music.
Snowden seems like a stand-up guy, Assange seems like a moron and a jerk. In either case, focusing on the person distracts from what matters: the problems in the US government.
Well if calling attention to the government's problem was really his motive, there was no need to run away. In fact, running away actually hurt his case, both in court and in public opinion.
He KNEW what the potential punishments where before he broke the law. I say that if you care that much about the cause, do the right thing and don't run, stand and fight injustice in court in front of a jury. You don't run away to avoid trial because it is the trial that lets you air your opinion to a jury of your peers and it is the way you can address the issues with the law.
Anything less just means you are no better than a hoodlum, committing a crime and running away from the law, then claiming the punishment isn't fair when you get caught. REAL civil disobedience is when you break the law, full knowing the consequences, ready to make your case about how the punishment isn't fair to a jury and if you loose, being punished.
Did Rosa Parks say to herself, "I'm going to break the law today and show these people how unfair it is, but when the police show up I'm going to run and hide so they don't punish me!" No, she stood her ground, did what she thought was right, ready to be punished if that's what it took to call attention to the injustice of the law. That's what a valid protest looks like.
Really bad idea. If he was going to do this he should have never bothered leaving in the first place.
As I've said before, if he's really this stand up guy, why did he run? IF he really had good and legal reasons to do what he did, take it to court and face the music.
Civil disobedience has ALWAYS carried the potential for punishment and if you break the law to make your point that the law is unjust you should stand ready to be arrested, imprisoned and tried in court for what you choose to do. You don't break the law and then run away like a coward...
You may be right, but I think South Korea might be a bit miffed if China gets the whole pie and I'm not so sure China wants to get involved in North Korea's struggles if it can avoid it. It will cost a LOT of money and resources to bring the north up to third world standards and I don't think China wants to be forced into spending on this. South Korea, on the other hand, has both the resources and the will to do this. I think the key will be what the USA does in partnership with South Korea and how committed the two countries are to ending the decades long war (or police action or what ever it really is/was). So it will likely fall to who is in the Whitehouse and how the United Nations tries to deal with the crisis.
Either way, we will be very lucky if the Korean war doesn't start up again... China will want something so they won't let the whole country go, but South Korea *will* make noticeable gains though this process.
Of course this is assuming things are similar in the world as they are now.... Things could change and if the USA is occupied elsewhere or incapable of controlling events, obviously China will drive the outcome more. However, I don't see the USA in that condition right now...
Well, I hold out hope that *something* will happen, eventually.
The Kim's do hold power based on two things, intimidation and information. They control information flow in and out and intimidate their way though rebellion. However, their grip on information is starting to crumble and the fabric of their control over information is fraying around the edges so the Kim's have to step up the intimidation part of the game which they still control. Eventually there won't be any intimidation left to ramp up and the information part will play out.
You are right that the military is the key because it is a double sided blade. Kim is walking a fine line and should the officers start to get tainted by the information that is more and more freely flowing in the country, he will be forced to eliminate the upper ranks at a quicker and quicker rate to stay ahead of it. The harder he presses, the more likely he is to force an armed rebellion.
Kim is caught between a rock and a hard place, he must maintain the appearance of absolute control in the face of mounting internal pressure for change and free market reforms which are already (illegally) taking place inside his country in some places. He can start ramping up the killing, but that will eventually be his undoing. Once the country tips and Kim is removed from power, the resulting violent struggle will happen quickly, but the problem is, nobody will really be able to tell you exactly when the tip will take place.
I think your defector is likely correct in that the *current* conditions are not yet ripe for this tip and Kim will stay in power for the foreseeable future. However, I think change will eventually come to NK though internal forces, barring it being forced into change though external forces. Will it be a decade, two or three? I don't know, but it's pretty clear that change is coming to NK and that change will likely happen while the current Kim is alive..
We wish.... Actually NK is one of the few places the CIA is unlikely to have that much influence over. The time to get assets into the country was long ago and where I'm betting we have *some* local help, the nature of NK society is going to make it really hard to have much direct involvement.
Of course, this leaking in of foreign entertainment and information via USB sticks is becoming harder and harder to control and once the Kim family looses control of the propaganda war, things will change on their own. I think we are actually pretty close to the tipping point in some places in NK, but for now the fear of the Kim family is keeping things under control. Once the country tips though, there will be a short and intense period of violence that I hope stays contained within the country, but I fear will spill out to the south. Once that is over, North Korea will be split into two parts, one unified with the south and a portion annexed into China. I have no idea where the split will be.
I'm sure we could if we wanted too, but ask yourself a few "what happens then" questions and I think it will be pretty easy to figure out why he's still alive. What's the point of killing this guy if his replacement isn't any better and in the fight to see who's left in charge a lot of people die? Then there is the question about what this means for the Korean War, which is technically still NOT over. North Korea might (Or likely would) see this action as a provocation and reignite the war. Now THAT would not be a pleasant turn of events, even if the conflict would likely be pretty short and one sided.
No, Kim lives.... As much as we might want change in NK, I don't think killing Kim is the way to get the change we want..
Java is not the Swiss Army knife of programming languages... There are things it just isn't well suited for... But generally, not a bad choice for most run of the mill projects where performance and foot print don't really matter. However, if you are on limited hardware or have tight response time constraints, Java is not for you (but you hardware and embedded guys know this already.)
I think you are over generalizing like the original poster that drew my comments.
I'm not saying that LOTS of religion isn't what you see from the outside, only that there are some people who hold very different views and that the practice of humility is *really* practiced. You don't likely see these people much because they are generally not about flashy shows or in your face about it like the people you DO notice. In other words, take the time to look past the flashy and see what's really going on. I think you might be surprised.
It's your choice to believe or not, I cannot force you or debate you into it. As long as you are alive, God won't either. Google Josh McDowell and look at his research. He started out with the same idea you currently have...
Free gifts must be accepted as offered, so no. Salvation is NOT universal.. But you already knew that right?
It's a concept called "free will" which says YOU have a choice, and although God *could* force you to do anything He wanted, He lets you decide for yourself. Eternal life, or death, what will it be?
Yea, it was really when the apple was USED that things went badly for Adam.. "
He got thrown out of the garden and the life of ease where he was in charge and everything he needed was provided, where there was no sickness or death and into a world where he had to toil in the fields to eat, endure sickness to eventually die in a world ruled by another.
So where the fruit was "good for food" it was a bad idea to use it as such... "
Generally Fundamental Evangelical Christians teach humility and service to others and subscribe to the view that others are more important than me. That's exactly opposite to what you claim "ALL" religion is.
Quit focusing on the supposed virtues that are "extolled" and look at things which are fundamentally more important than surface teachings.
Surface teachings... Sir, I believe you are *confused* about the level of the teacher being quoted. This was a quote from THE teacher, head honcho, primary authority etc. Others may assume to speak for him, but if what they do or say conflicts with what HE did or said, they don't represent Him accurately. HE is teaching that if you want to be first, you must serve others. What's more HE demonstrated this by taking on the role of a servant multiple times, and it is His example we look too. So if somebody is telling you to submit to them and their teaching they are NOT students of or followers of this same teacher.
1. Look at the power-structure within the group organization. Typically each church or congregation has a few leader which tells everyone else what to believe, how to behave and promotes a very specific culture. This is structure is all about power and dominance. It is not egalitarian.
That may be typical, but I can assure you it is NOT universal. The person who you would consider to be "in charge" in the church (Head Pastor/Elder) I go to is often heard to say "Don't take MY word for it! Go figure out what it means to you on your own. I want you to be INDEPENDANT seekers of truth!" Which is not what you are describing. This person does teach, but the students are expected to be independently looking at things themselves and making up their own minds not just swallowing the opinions of the teacher.
2. Look at what a person has to believe about themselves in order to be a Fundamental Evangelical Christian. The fundamental premise is that we are inherently tainted by sin. This is a direct attack on the self-esteem of the individual in order to dominate how they think, reason, and move through the world. You are fed a story about how bad you are and how much you must be saved. This is tremendously about thought-control. Power.
I really don't agree with you on this part. Where sin is indeed inborn and we earn punishment for sin, the story does NOT end there. You also misunderstand the means of salvation to be somehow feeling sorry enough or do enough good to meet some kind of standard. This is incorrect thinking, which is inconsistent with both the historical tenants of Christianity and with the declarations of the Apostle Paul who said: "The wages of sin is death" (you got that part, but you miss the next part) "But the free gift of God is Eternal life though Jesus Christ our lord." So salvation is not earned, it is free. And something given for free does not require the receiver to pay by word, deed or even cash to receive it so it cannot be about what you claim, control or power.
Further, this free gift which comes at no cost to me and you was actually purchased for us at GREAT cost. Legally, death is the required payment for sin, any sin, so the free gift being offered cost the purchaser death, and not just any death, but the death of the sinless. What would motivate someone to die for me? After all, I am a sinner, worthy of death.
Which leads me to my objection to your "self esteem" statement. What kind of value must I have if someone was willing to pay such a high price for me? You see, it's like I was a slave, old and weary, having nothing left and somebody comes up to my owner and offers to trade for my freedom. I know I'm worthless, but how does that slave feel when this somebody offers to become a slave and take my plac
Generally Fundamental Evangelical Christians teach humility and service to others and subscribe to the view that others are more important than me. That's exactly opposite to what you claim "ALL" religion is.
To Quote Christ on this: "You know that those who are recognized as rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them; and their great men exercise authority over them. But it is not this way among you, but whoever wishes to become great among you shall be your servant; "For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many."
So if you would mind allowing for a few exceptions to the "ALL" part and say "MOST" instead I think your sentiment would be more accurate.
Well, there *will* be a undeniable argument for "intelligent design" behind their creation... Somehow, I don't think it will mean the same thing though..
Slashdot Mirror
NASA officials were unavailable for comment on how Curiosity seems to have gotten a bottle of Wild Turkey, a keg, and a beer bong.
They obviously got smuggled onto the launch behind the back-shell by Neal Armstrong...
Dude, seriously?
Snowden had voluntary access to classified information and had voluntarily signed a non-disclosure agreement. He is bound by that agreement, legally, forever. Contract law has to work that way.
As to the *rest* of your little rant... IF you are a US citizen who is overseas and actively engaged in fighting the USA and a drone strike kills you, to bad, so sad. If you are captured as a combatant on foreign soil you first get adjudicated by the military under their rules and they may or may not be required to ship you back to the states for criminal trial. But REMEMBER that if you are with the sovereign territory of the United States the military is NOT the police, and CANNOT act like law enforcement arresting people and holding them for trial.
So drop all this cloak and dagger stuff and realize that it's not as bad as you make it sound...
Are you saying that people shouldn't report illegal government activity?
Nope. Report away. Snowden's problem was HOW he reported it and to whom.
>
Do you think Snowden would receive a fair trial? Of course he wouldn't
Of course he would receive a fair trial... Unless of course you have already predetermined what the outcome SHOULD be from that trial and have decided to define that as unfair... Look, the system in this country, despite what you think, is generally fair. Snowden would face a trial before a group of peers just like everybody else which would likely be more than fair to him. After all, the legal system in this country is "innocent until PROVEN guilty" and is slanted in favor of the accused in just about every way possible. Even trial procedure is slanted towards the defense, which gets the privilege of "answering" the charges by presenting it's arguments AFTER the prosecution presents it's case. So Snowden would get a fair trial, despite the people who claim otherwise...
Snowden is also afforded a "speedy" trial, so if the defense pushes for a trial ASAP, they get it. Long Delays in a trial only come when the defense agrees to it, otherwise you have grounds for appeal. But I doubt there would be much delay for Snowden. The facts are pretty much not in dispute and well known, getting to a trial quickly is likely what the prosecution would want anyway now...
Don't be so down on the US legal system. We have our issues, but generally it works reasonably well.
As I've said before, if he's really this stand up guy, why did he run? IF he really had good and legal reasons to do what he did, take it to court and face the music.
Snowden seems like a stand-up guy, Assange seems like a moron and a jerk. In either case, focusing on the person distracts from what matters: the problems in the US government.
Well if calling attention to the government's problem was really his motive, there was no need to run away. In fact, running away actually hurt his case, both in court and in public opinion.
He KNEW what the potential punishments where before he broke the law. I say that if you care that much about the cause, do the right thing and don't run, stand and fight injustice in court in front of a jury. You don't run away to avoid trial because it is the trial that lets you air your opinion to a jury of your peers and it is the way you can address the issues with the law.
Anything less just means you are no better than a hoodlum, committing a crime and running away from the law, then claiming the punishment isn't fair when you get caught. REAL civil disobedience is when you break the law, full knowing the consequences, ready to make your case about how the punishment isn't fair to a jury and if you loose, being punished.
Did Rosa Parks say to herself, "I'm going to break the law today and show these people how unfair it is, but when the police show up I'm going to run and hide so they don't punish me!" No, she stood her ground, did what she thought was right, ready to be punished if that's what it took to call attention to the injustice of the law. That's what a valid protest looks like.
Really bad idea. If he was going to do this he should have never bothered leaving in the first place.
As I've said before, if he's really this stand up guy, why did he run? IF he really had good and legal reasons to do what he did, take it to court and face the music.
Civil disobedience has ALWAYS carried the potential for punishment and if you break the law to make your point that the law is unjust you should stand ready to be arrested, imprisoned and tried in court for what you choose to do. You don't break the law and then run away like a coward...
You may be right, but I think South Korea might be a bit miffed if China gets the whole pie and I'm not so sure China wants to get involved in North Korea's struggles if it can avoid it. It will cost a LOT of money and resources to bring the north up to third world standards and I don't think China wants to be forced into spending on this. South Korea, on the other hand, has both the resources and the will to do this. I think the key will be what the USA does in partnership with South Korea and how committed the two countries are to ending the decades long war (or police action or what ever it really is/was). So it will likely fall to who is in the Whitehouse and how the United Nations tries to deal with the crisis.
Either way, we will be very lucky if the Korean war doesn't start up again... China will want something so they won't let the whole country go, but South Korea *will* make noticeable gains though this process.
Of course this is assuming things are similar in the world as they are now.... Things could change and if the USA is occupied elsewhere or incapable of controlling events, obviously China will drive the outcome more. However, I don't see the USA in that condition right now...
Well, I hold out hope that *something* will happen, eventually.
The Kim's do hold power based on two things, intimidation and information. They control information flow in and out and intimidate their way though rebellion. However, their grip on information is starting to crumble and the fabric of their control over information is fraying around the edges so the Kim's have to step up the intimidation part of the game which they still control. Eventually there won't be any intimidation left to ramp up and the information part will play out.
You are right that the military is the key because it is a double sided blade. Kim is walking a fine line and should the officers start to get tainted by the information that is more and more freely flowing in the country, he will be forced to eliminate the upper ranks at a quicker and quicker rate to stay ahead of it. The harder he presses, the more likely he is to force an armed rebellion.
Kim is caught between a rock and a hard place, he must maintain the appearance of absolute control in the face of mounting internal pressure for change and free market reforms which are already (illegally) taking place inside his country in some places. He can start ramping up the killing, but that will eventually be his undoing. Once the country tips and Kim is removed from power, the resulting violent struggle will happen quickly, but the problem is, nobody will really be able to tell you exactly when the tip will take place.
I think your defector is likely correct in that the *current* conditions are not yet ripe for this tip and Kim will stay in power for the foreseeable future. However, I think change will eventually come to NK though internal forces, barring it being forced into change though external forces. Will it be a decade, two or three? I don't know, but it's pretty clear that change is coming to NK and that change will likely happen while the current Kim is alive..
AKA the CIA
We wish.... Actually NK is one of the few places the CIA is unlikely to have that much influence over. The time to get assets into the country was long ago and where I'm betting we have *some* local help, the nature of NK society is going to make it really hard to have much direct involvement.
Of course, this leaking in of foreign entertainment and information via USB sticks is becoming harder and harder to control and once the Kim family looses control of the propaganda war, things will change on their own. I think we are actually pretty close to the tipping point in some places in NK, but for now the fear of the Kim family is keeping things under control. Once the country tips though, there will be a short and intense period of violence that I hope stays contained within the country, but I fear will spill out to the south. Once that is over, North Korea will be split into two parts, one unified with the south and a portion annexed into China. I have no idea where the split will be.
And you think they don't do this now?
ASAP
I'm sure we could if we wanted too, but ask yourself a few "what happens then" questions and I think it will be pretty easy to figure out why he's still alive. What's the point of killing this guy if his replacement isn't any better and in the fight to see who's left in charge a lot of people die? Then there is the question about what this means for the Korean War, which is technically still NOT over. North Korea might (Or likely would) see this action as a provocation and reignite the war. Now THAT would not be a pleasant turn of events, even if the conflict would likely be pretty short and one sided.
No, Kim lives.... As much as we might want change in NK, I don't think killing Kim is the way to get the change we want..
Charge Intel for making CPU's!
Charge Microsoft for making computer software!
Charge Alexander Graham Bell for inventing the telephone!
Charge Al Gore for inventing the INTERNET! Now that's a crime...
I don't expect any contrary opinions here on /.
(Oh you ARE sarcastic....)
Java is not the Swiss Army knife of programming languages... There are things it just isn't well suited for... But generally, not a bad choice for most run of the mill projects where performance and foot print don't really matter. However, if you are on limited hardware or have tight response time constraints, Java is not for you (but you hardware and embedded guys know this already.)
I think you are over generalizing like the original poster that drew my comments.
I'm not saying that LOTS of religion isn't what you see from the outside, only that there are some people who hold very different views and that the practice of humility is *really* practiced. You don't likely see these people much because they are generally not about flashy shows or in your face about it like the people you DO notice. In other words, take the time to look past the flashy and see what's really going on. I think you might be surprised.
I'm making the argument that this "power structure" you see is not universal, not that it doesn't exist anywhere.
I was arguing that the "all" statement wasn't true and the original author would be more accurate to use "most" instead.
It's your choice to believe or not, I cannot force you or debate you into it. As long as you are alive, God won't either. Google Josh McDowell and look at his research. He started out with the same idea you currently have...
Free gifts must be accepted as offered, so no. Salvation is NOT universal.. But you already knew that right?
It's a concept called "free will" which says YOU have a choice, and although God *could* force you to do anything He wanted, He lets you decide for yourself. Eternal life, or death, what will it be?
Choose carefully.
Yea, it was really when the apple was USED that things went badly for Adam.. "
He got thrown out of the garden and the life of ease where he was in charge and everything he needed was provided, where there was no sickness or death and into a world where he had to toil in the fields to eat, endure sickness to eventually die in a world ruled by another.
So where the fruit was "good for food" it was a bad idea to use it as such... "
The point of all religion is power.
Not exactly...Well, not ALL of them anyway.
Generally Fundamental Evangelical Christians teach humility and service to others and subscribe to the view that others are more important than me. That's exactly opposite to what you claim "ALL" religion is.
Quit focusing on the supposed virtues that are "extolled" and look at things which are fundamentally more important than surface teachings.
Surface teachings... Sir, I believe you are *confused* about the level of the teacher being quoted. This was a quote from THE teacher, head honcho, primary authority etc. Others may assume to speak for him, but if what they do or say conflicts with what HE did or said, they don't represent Him accurately. HE is teaching that if you want to be first, you must serve others. What's more HE demonstrated this by taking on the role of a servant multiple times, and it is His example we look too. So if somebody is telling you to submit to them and their teaching they are NOT students of or followers of this same teacher.
1. Look at the power-structure within the group organization. Typically each church or congregation has a few leader which tells everyone else what to believe, how to behave and promotes a very specific culture. This is structure is all about power and dominance. It is not egalitarian.
That may be typical, but I can assure you it is NOT universal. The person who you would consider to be "in charge" in the church (Head Pastor/Elder) I go to is often heard to say "Don't take MY word for it! Go figure out what it means to you on your own. I want you to be INDEPENDANT seekers of truth!" Which is not what you are describing. This person does teach, but the students are expected to be independently looking at things themselves and making up their own minds not just swallowing the opinions of the teacher.
2. Look at what a person has to believe about themselves in order to be a Fundamental Evangelical Christian. The fundamental premise is that we are inherently tainted by sin. This is a direct attack on the self-esteem of the individual in order to dominate how they think, reason, and move through the world. You are fed a story about how bad you are and how much you must be saved. This is tremendously about thought-control. Power.
I really don't agree with you on this part. Where sin is indeed inborn and we earn punishment for sin, the story does NOT end there. You also misunderstand the means of salvation to be somehow feeling sorry enough or do enough good to meet some kind of standard. This is incorrect thinking, which is inconsistent with both the historical tenants of Christianity and with the declarations of the Apostle Paul who said: "The wages of sin is death" (you got that part, but you miss the next part) "But the free gift of God is Eternal life though Jesus Christ our lord." So salvation is not earned, it is free. And something given for free does not require the receiver to pay by word, deed or even cash to receive it so it cannot be about what you claim, control or power.
Further, this free gift which comes at no cost to me and you was actually purchased for us at GREAT cost. Legally, death is the required payment for sin, any sin, so the free gift being offered cost the purchaser death, and not just any death, but the death of the sinless. What would motivate someone to die for me? After all, I am a sinner, worthy of death.
Which leads me to my objection to your "self esteem" statement. What kind of value must I have if someone was willing to pay such a high price for me? You see, it's like I was a slave, old and weary, having nothing left and somebody comes up to my owner and offers to trade for my freedom. I know I'm worthless, but how does that slave feel when this somebody offers to become a slave and take my plac
The point of all religion is power.
Not exactly...Well, not ALL of them anyway.
Generally Fundamental Evangelical Christians teach humility and service to others and subscribe to the view that others are more important than me. That's exactly opposite to what you claim "ALL" religion is.
To Quote Christ on this: "You know that those who are recognized as rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them; and their great men exercise authority over them. But it is not this way among you, but whoever wishes to become great among you shall be your servant; "For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many."
So if you would mind allowing for a few exceptions to the "ALL" part and say "MOST" instead I think your sentiment would be more accurate.
To paraphrase Captain Kirk:
What does a starship need a god for?
For the plot line of course.... Queue "Q"!
"And God created the Adam. But the Adam was not very successful, partly because of early production problems."
Yea, but things REALLY got messed up when Apple came along...
Take it easy... It's a joke...
Flying Spaghetti Code Monster.
Either that or random chance... Your choices sir...
AI will believe in the creator. (Or will they?)
Well, there *will* be a undeniable argument for "intelligent design" behind their creation... Somehow, I don't think it will mean the same thing though..
Riiiight.... LOL!