True, but he didn't get "banned" forever, just until he steps up his game. He may or may not step up. I'm guessing not.
But either way, Torvalds is not somebody I would like working for. I find some of his antics and language unacceptable and unnecessary. You can say things like this without the four letter words and without poking folks in the eyes in full public view. This warranted a private "I'm going to ban you if..." E-mail, not cursing on a public E-mail list. No need to go the public shaming route here, but Torvalds does that pretty quickly. It's his style and seems to work for him, but I'm sure there is a large group of people who won't work for him because of it.
Actually, there where engineers from the solid rocket booster manufacturer that where saying that it was too cold and failure was likely. In fact, they had noted partial failures in previous launches. All this had been documented.
So, in total, NASA knew about the risk. Problem was, the people making the GO-NOGO choice where not aware of the problem or the extent of the risk. The process failed.
Ah come on. He really didn't "Ban the guy" he said he wouldn't accept any patches from him and merge them into the kernel. Torvalds is routinely rough with his contributors. As I figure it, this guy doesn't have enough devotion to satisfy Torvalds, maybe he has a REAL LIFE or something. Makes me glad I'm not a part of *that* or any other Torvalds run project..
A bunch of hippies won't like this solution, but they are probably used to it by now.
Works for the Rednecks at NASCAR races, why not for the this?
Only, I'd add that for the individual driver, you can choose to travel off peak. Leave early (Like the NASCAR fan that doesn't stay to watch the last 10 laps or so) or plan to stay until the rush is over (i.e. the NASCAR fans that bring the camper and don't leave until the next day.)
Or if you go, take a tent, plan to stay awhile by bringing enough water/food etc. Just leave when the line dies down or leave before it's over and the line gets long.
This is what the NASCAR folks do... How hard is this if a bunch of Rednecks can figure it out.
I think I found your problem (tongue firmly in cheek).
Look, I'm not anit-windows or a Linux Zealot. I professionally write software that runs on BOTH platforms so I don't care what you run. I am a "right tool for the job" kind of guy. If you simply MUST have Windows, then get ready to pay for the hardware to run it. If you can make do with something else, you might be able to save some hardware costs or get better performance by running Linux.
Then why does the FAA have rules that govern when you can and cannot operate VFR for example?
Those rules do NOT override my decision that there are too many risks to make a flight. Any pilot who says "gee, the FAA thinks it will turn out ok because the rules allow it" is a moron. And any passenger -- i.e. YOU -- who tells me "we should go anyway" is going to be ignored.
And so you should, but you missed my point. As Pilot in Command *you* have the final "go or not" decision, but the FAA has a prescribed list of minimum criteria below which you are not allowed to decide. Say you are not current, or the aircraft is past due for it's annual, sorry, you don't get to make the choice, at least not legally. Why does the FAA do this? Because a pilot without recent experience or an aircraft in unknown conditions are both risks, and the FAA has deemed both of these requirements represent a minimum level of acceptable risk.
The issue before NASA is that the radiation exposure is beyond their required safety limits. There is no way to avoid exceeding the already set criteria. The radiation exposure criteria are NOT subjective, but very objective. But I've said all this before....
NASA as an organization has minimum safety criteria.
And the entire argument is whether it is ethical (not "legal") for one-way missions. Those "safety criteria" can be changed.
No, one way missions are CLEARLY unethical. You don't send people out to certain death, especially in the name of science. Though out the ages, when the advancement of science was accomplished though human death, we've determined that it was unethical. Heck, there are those who would classify the death of an animal in the name of science as unethical, now you want to do it with people and call it ethical? I cannot agree to that.
A Mars mission will exceed the defined limits of NASA for radiation exposure.
So change the limits. The current argument to the contrary, it is quite ethical for NASA to do that.
Sure, but in order to do that ETHICALLY, you need to have some objective criteria to base your new limits on. Otherwise, it's just the same as ignoring the limit we now have. Remember, the limit we now have is OBJECTIVE and the amount of risk using the current limits is fairly well understood. You don't just ditch you current limits without justification or acknowledgement that you are increasing the risk.
But this has NOTHING to do with your suggestion of a "one way" trip. A one way trip simply couldn't meet ANY reasonable radiation exposure limits. Living on Mars would be certain death.
Your point that part of the Operational Risk Management process is subjective is valid, but in this case, we have an objective criteria that will be exceeded.
That happens all the time. And the final question is still based on an opinion. Is it worth exceeding the "objective limit" to fulfill the mission? And I hate to have to keep pointing out, that when the mission design includes a foreknowledge that the crew will not return, is it ridiculous to try use "crew will not return" as a hazard in the planning. It's like using "will not land with the aircraft" as a hazard when planning a skydive.
But this is NOT the same. To use your example, it's like letting someone jump from your aircraft WITHOUT a parachute, or in this case a group of people without any reasonable hope of surviving the sudden stop after falling 10,000 feet. It's NOT ethical to pilot the aircraft if you KNOW that is what they are doing back there.
I'll put you down as a vote for them to ignore the objective criteria, though I believe that to be setting a dangerous precedent.
You can lie about my stated position if you want. I'll just "put you down" a
Next up, you can speed up your computer by removing HPs bloated all-in-one software suite.
I can go one better... Dump windows and all the HP garbage and load Linux. Presto, fast! Much faster than the Windows Bloat ware virus stuff...
IF you want to get even more, compile everything you use for your CPU/Motherboard arch starting with the kernel, kernel modules, standard libraries and any programs you run. Yea, it takes time, but you will be amazed with what happens to your system speed. It is usually even faster than the default distribution which is usually compiled for the lowest common factor and has to bypass much of the optimization. Oh heck, just install and build Gentoo...
That final question, that's an OPINION. And guess what? Unless your butt is in my airplane, your opinion doesn't count.
Then why does the FAA have rules that govern when you can and cannot operate VFR for example? There are things you CANNOT legally do in an airplane. Flown into known icing conditions lately? Taken off with less than VFR minimums? No? Even if you and your passengers wanted too, the law won't let you. Have you ever taken off in an airplane with passengers that was not properly inspected? No?
Remember, what I'm saying is that you have to mitigate the risks you can and asses the overall risk, which is the essence of the Operational Risk Management process. NASA as an organization has minimum safety criteria. You have to have at least the notion of acceptable risk and set your operational limits of the risk you are willing to accept and then proceed to not knowingly exceed these limits. A Mars mission will exceed the defined limits of NASA for radiation exposure.
Your point that part of the Operational Risk Management process is subjective is valid, but in this case, we have an objective criteria that will be exceeded. For that reason, NASA will have to either violate their process and ignore the risk, or change their criteria. I'll put you down as a vote for them to ignore the objective criteria, though I believe that to be setting a dangerous precedent.
We have to make an effort to review and mitigate all the risks we can. Do we make mistakes? Yea, Apollo 1 was an example of this. Nobody thought about what happened in a pure O2 environment when fire broke out and the crew died. Challenger though was NOT just something nobody thought about, it was a known, documented issue and it was the process of reviewing risk that broke down and again the crew died. Apollo 13 was another example of something nobody thought about, and the crew nearly died.
But we cannot throw up our hands and say "it costs too much or takes too long" so we won't try. The risks are bad enough as it is to just blindly accept that somebody WILL die. There is some level of acceptable risk, beyond which we should not go. If not, then why bother? Just throw crews into untested designs and keep iterating until a crew comes back alive. It will be faster and a whole lot cheaper than human rated hardware..
Things like Challenger can always happen. We're not perfect. Everyone on that vehicle knew there were risks.
But, NASA KNEW internally that the cold caused problems with the O Rings and procedurally decided to ignore the risk. They could have scrubbed the launch and gone on the next window, but because we had to "GO NOW!" they killed the crew. Mistakes where and are made, but KNOWINGLY choosing to ignore risks that can be dealt with is WRONG. Wrong both ethically and morally. What that crew expected and deserved was a vehicle that was a safe as could be designed and operated, they got far less and it killed them.
My point here is that you simply cannot ignore risks because you have no way to deal with them. Plus, there comes a point where the risks to the life of the crew is high enough to raise moral and ethical questions about the mission. Any mission to Mars falls squarely in that category simply because of the radiation exposure involved. How much risk is too much? Is killing 1/3rd of the crew OK with you? 1/2? 3/4ths? How about a 1 in 4 chance of success? 1 in 2? You see, we have to draw the line someplace, or why bother talking about risks, just kill as many crews as it takes.
Is that you Jack? I thought you died. So you'd do away with laws preventing suicide and assisting others who want to do it?
Look, you either value life, or you don't. Just because somebody is willing to die, does not make it right to assist, I don't care what the reasons are. (Don't confuse this with *letting* somebody die, which is a different question.) Assisting somebody kill them selves for space exploration or sending somebody to death for science is unacceptable from my ethics perspective.
Challenger was preventable but NASA choose to ignore a problem and take the risk. We could have waited for the next launch window and nobody would have died, at least not from the cold induced O ring failure. We cannot just ignore risk because we want to do something, we must identify and mitigate risks where we can and not launch even willing subjects to certain death. Apollo 1 is another example of not being careful about risk management. There was NO reason to kill three astronauts to learn the lessons we did after that. Both incidents where STUPID mistakes that killed people and both could have been prevented had we not been in such a hurry we couldn't take the time to think about what we where doing.
If NASA learned anything from these two events, it is that there is no excuse for killing the crew when the failure is preventable. Senseless killing or causing harm is simply not ethical.
Problem here is that you cannot ethically send anybody to certain death just to go explore Mars first hand.
Sure you can. "Ethics" doesn't come into play when all parties involved accept the situation willingly.
So, you where fine with the Japanese doing the Kamikaze thing then? After all, everybody was willing to do this. No I don't think it was OK. I think you get yourself out on a very slippery slope when you dismiss Ethics and/or morals like this.
Yea, Backhoe's run on what? Fossil fuels, so we got to bring that along too... Oh, and the air on Mars is pretty thin, so I doubt you will get it to run, not to mention that it is *really cold* there so all the lubricants, fluids and fuel in your backhoe are likely to go solid.
Seriously, So go one way to mars and bury ourselves under ground? Yea, the logistics of that are still daunting and you do realize how deep you are going to have to dig right?
Ethically, a one way trip is totally impossible. Surface radiation exposure on Mars is way too high and will kill within a few years of landing. The process of dying from radiation exposure is not a pleasant one either. Nope, one way is totally not an option here, unless you are OK with a suicide mission.
Yes, I know about that, but that is under State Department control with *security* provided by our military. This is SOP and we have such in Moscow too. I know we don't control Russia.
Problem here is that you cannot ethically send anybody to certain death just to go explore Mars first hand.
The radiation exposure required for a trip to Mars is significant. The total expected dose is high enough to warrant asking ethical questions about what risks we are asking people to take to make the trip. Where I am sure all of the space going crew members would be totally aware of the risks and agree to them, that still doesn't exempt NASA from the moral and ethical obligation to asses the risks and mediate them.
At some point, somebody needs to draw a line and say, over there is too much risk to be acceptable, we will stay on this side of the line. If we don't have boundaries and stick by them, things like Challenger or Apollo 1 will happen and we will have needless loss of life because we didn't asses risks properly or take them seriously enough.
They can be the first settlers on Mars. Did most early voyagers to the New World worry about how they'll get back? They were going to live there. We can do the same for Mars.
Oh great, so for this to work out, we need to be able to provide a reasonable expectation that the people going one way will be able to survive though what remains of their natural lives. So if you are sending some group with an average age of about 30, you are going to have to provide 60 years or so of equipment and supplies, get it all on the surface of Mars in the general vicinity of where your colony will be located. No, you just made this a whole lot worse.
The real issue is radiation exposure during the trip and on the surface of Mars. Long term, moderate dose radiation effects are fairly well known. And sending people to the surface of Mars for any meaningful length of time is going to cause extremely dangerous levels of total exposure. High enough exposure levels to pretty much make it a foregone conclusion of serious harm, even on the surface of Mars.
Remember the issue is radiation exposure both during the trip and on the surface of Mars. Mars has no magnetic field to speak of and a very thin atmosphere, so it provides very little natural shielding for radiation. So just going one way, really doesn't help the ethics of the situation.
But the people of Ukraine haven't all voted, just Crimea. Don't forget that the Russians have split up a sovereign country when they did this.
I get the justification of this action, I just don't agree that it's right. I also don't accept the moral equivalency argument that Russia is doing the same thing the US did in Iraq.
Slashdot Mirror
True, but he didn't get "banned" forever, just until he steps up his game. He may or may not step up. I'm guessing not.
But either way, Torvalds is not somebody I would like working for. I find some of his antics and language unacceptable and unnecessary. You can say things like this without the four letter words and without poking folks in the eyes in full public view. This warranted a private "I'm going to ban you if..." E-mail, not cursing on a public E-mail list. No need to go the public shaming route here, but Torvalds does that pretty quickly. It's his style and seems to work for him, but I'm sure there is a large group of people who won't work for him because of it.
Actually, there where engineers from the solid rocket booster manufacturer that where saying that it was too cold and failure was likely. In fact, they had noted partial failures in previous launches. All this had been documented.
So, in total, NASA knew about the risk. Problem was, the people making the GO-NOGO choice where not aware of the problem or the extent of the risk. The process failed.
Ah come on. He really didn't "Ban the guy" he said he wouldn't accept any patches from him and merge them into the kernel. Torvalds is routinely rough with his contributors. As I figure it, this guy doesn't have enough devotion to satisfy Torvalds, maybe he has a REAL LIFE or something. Makes me glad I'm not a part of *that* or any other Torvalds run project..
Works for the Rednecks at NASCAR races so why not?
Works for the Rednecks at NASCAR races... Plan ahead and figure on waiting unless you leave before it's over.
A bunch of hippies won't like this solution, but they are probably used to it by now.
Works for the Rednecks at NASCAR races, why not for the this?
Only, I'd add that for the individual driver, you can choose to travel off peak. Leave early (Like the NASCAR fan that doesn't stay to watch the last 10 laps or so) or plan to stay until the rush is over (i.e. the NASCAR fans that bring the camper and don't leave until the next day.)
Or if you go, take a tent, plan to stay awhile by bringing enough water/food etc. Just leave when the line dies down or leave before it's over and the line gets long.
This is what the NASCAR folks do... How hard is this if a bunch of Rednecks can figure it out.
his job requires windows software.
I think I found your problem (tongue firmly in cheek).
Look, I'm not anit-windows or a Linux Zealot. I professionally write software that runs on BOTH platforms so I don't care what you run. I am a "right tool for the job" kind of guy. If you simply MUST have Windows, then get ready to pay for the hardware to run it. If you can make do with something else, you might be able to save some hardware costs or get better performance by running Linux.
Then why does the FAA have rules that govern when you can and cannot operate VFR for example?
Those rules do NOT override my decision that there are too many risks to make a flight. Any pilot who says "gee, the FAA thinks it will turn out ok because the rules allow it" is a moron. And any passenger -- i.e. YOU -- who tells me "we should go anyway" is going to be ignored.
And so you should, but you missed my point. As Pilot in Command *you* have the final "go or not" decision, but the FAA has a prescribed list of minimum criteria below which you are not allowed to decide. Say you are not current, or the aircraft is past due for it's annual, sorry, you don't get to make the choice, at least not legally. Why does the FAA do this? Because a pilot without recent experience or an aircraft in unknown conditions are both risks, and the FAA has deemed both of these requirements represent a minimum level of acceptable risk. The issue before NASA is that the radiation exposure is beyond their required safety limits. There is no way to avoid exceeding the already set criteria. The radiation exposure criteria are NOT subjective, but very objective. But I've said all this before....
NASA as an organization has minimum safety criteria.
And the entire argument is whether it is ethical (not "legal") for one-way missions. Those "safety criteria" can be changed.
No, one way missions are CLEARLY unethical. You don't send people out to certain death, especially in the name of science. Though out the ages, when the advancement of science was accomplished though human death, we've determined that it was unethical. Heck, there are those who would classify the death of an animal in the name of science as unethical, now you want to do it with people and call it ethical? I cannot agree to that.
A Mars mission will exceed the defined limits of NASA for radiation exposure.
So change the limits. The current argument to the contrary, it is quite ethical for NASA to do that.
Sure, but in order to do that ETHICALLY, you need to have some objective criteria to base your new limits on. Otherwise, it's just the same as ignoring the limit we now have. Remember, the limit we now have is OBJECTIVE and the amount of risk using the current limits is fairly well understood. You don't just ditch you current limits without justification or acknowledgement that you are increasing the risk.
But this has NOTHING to do with your suggestion of a "one way" trip. A one way trip simply couldn't meet ANY reasonable radiation exposure limits. Living on Mars would be certain death.
Your point that part of the Operational Risk Management process is subjective is valid, but in this case, we have an objective criteria that will be exceeded.
That happens all the time. And the final question is still based on an opinion. Is it worth exceeding the "objective limit" to fulfill the mission? And I hate to have to keep pointing out, that when the mission design includes a foreknowledge that the crew will not return, is it ridiculous to try use "crew will not return" as a hazard in the planning. It's like using "will not land with the aircraft" as a hazard when planning a skydive.
But this is NOT the same. To use your example, it's like letting someone jump from your aircraft WITHOUT a parachute, or in this case a group of people without any reasonable hope of surviving the sudden stop after falling 10,000 feet. It's NOT ethical to pilot the aircraft if you KNOW that is what they are doing back there.
I'll put you down as a vote for them to ignore the objective criteria, though I believe that to be setting a dangerous precedent.
You can lie about my stated position if you want. I'll just "put you down" a
Next up, you can speed up your computer by removing HPs bloated all-in-one software suite.
I can go one better... Dump windows and all the HP garbage and load Linux. Presto, fast! Much faster than the Windows Bloat ware virus stuff...
IF you want to get even more, compile everything you use for your CPU/Motherboard arch starting with the kernel, kernel modules, standard libraries and any programs you run. Yea, it takes time, but you will be amazed with what happens to your system speed. It is usually even faster than the default distribution which is usually compiled for the lowest common factor and has to bypass much of the optimization. Oh heck, just install and build Gentoo...
LOL
Trying to quote from a really OLD Eddy Murphy movie..
Cornering the market on a $1 bet...
So the 2nd largest economy is taking steps to ban BitCoin? Really...
Can the end be too far away?
Get back in there at once and sell, sell!!
That final question, that's an OPINION. And guess what? Unless your butt is in my airplane, your opinion doesn't count.
Then why does the FAA have rules that govern when you can and cannot operate VFR for example? There are things you CANNOT legally do in an airplane. Flown into known icing conditions lately? Taken off with less than VFR minimums? No? Even if you and your passengers wanted too, the law won't let you. Have you ever taken off in an airplane with passengers that was not properly inspected? No?
Remember, what I'm saying is that you have to mitigate the risks you can and asses the overall risk, which is the essence of the Operational Risk Management process. NASA as an organization has minimum safety criteria. You have to have at least the notion of acceptable risk and set your operational limits of the risk you are willing to accept and then proceed to not knowingly exceed these limits. A Mars mission will exceed the defined limits of NASA for radiation exposure.
Your point that part of the Operational Risk Management process is subjective is valid, but in this case, we have an objective criteria that will be exceeded. For that reason, NASA will have to either violate their process and ignore the risk, or change their criteria. I'll put you down as a vote for them to ignore the objective criteria, though I believe that to be setting a dangerous precedent.
So, how much is a human life worth to you?
We have to make an effort to review and mitigate all the risks we can. Do we make mistakes? Yea, Apollo 1 was an example of this. Nobody thought about what happened in a pure O2 environment when fire broke out and the crew died. Challenger though was NOT just something nobody thought about, it was a known, documented issue and it was the process of reviewing risk that broke down and again the crew died. Apollo 13 was another example of something nobody thought about, and the crew nearly died.
But we cannot throw up our hands and say "it costs too much or takes too long" so we won't try. The risks are bad enough as it is to just blindly accept that somebody WILL die. There is some level of acceptable risk, beyond which we should not go. If not, then why bother? Just throw crews into untested designs and keep iterating until a crew comes back alive. It will be faster and a whole lot cheaper than human rated hardware..
Following GLONASS directions on your Garmin gets you lost....
Things like Challenger can always happen. We're not perfect. Everyone on that vehicle knew there were risks.
But, NASA KNEW internally that the cold caused problems with the O Rings and procedurally decided to ignore the risk. They could have scrubbed the launch and gone on the next window, but because we had to "GO NOW!" they killed the crew. Mistakes where and are made, but KNOWINGLY choosing to ignore risks that can be dealt with is WRONG. Wrong both ethically and morally. What that crew expected and deserved was a vehicle that was a safe as could be designed and operated, they got far less and it killed them.
My point here is that you simply cannot ignore risks because you have no way to deal with them. Plus, there comes a point where the risks to the life of the crew is high enough to raise moral and ethical questions about the mission. Any mission to Mars falls squarely in that category simply because of the radiation exposure involved. How much risk is too much? Is killing 1/3rd of the crew OK with you? 1/2? 3/4ths? How about a 1 in 4 chance of success? 1 in 2? You see, we have to draw the line someplace, or why bother talking about risks, just kill as many crews as it takes.
Is that you Jack? I thought you died. So you'd do away with laws preventing suicide and assisting others who want to do it?
Look, you either value life, or you don't. Just because somebody is willing to die, does not make it right to assist, I don't care what the reasons are. (Don't confuse this with *letting* somebody die, which is a different question.) Assisting somebody kill them selves for space exploration or sending somebody to death for science is unacceptable from my ethics perspective.
Challenger was preventable but NASA choose to ignore a problem and take the risk. We could have waited for the next launch window and nobody would have died, at least not from the cold induced O ring failure. We cannot just ignore risk because we want to do something, we must identify and mitigate risks where we can and not launch even willing subjects to certain death. Apollo 1 is another example of not being careful about risk management. There was NO reason to kill three astronauts to learn the lessons we did after that. Both incidents where STUPID mistakes that killed people and both could have been prevented had we not been in such a hurry we couldn't take the time to think about what we where doing.
If NASA learned anything from these two events, it is that there is no excuse for killing the crew when the failure is preventable. Senseless killing or causing harm is simply not ethical.
Problem here is that you cannot ethically send anybody to certain death just to go explore Mars first hand.
Sure you can. "Ethics" doesn't come into play when all parties involved accept the situation willingly.
So, you where fine with the Japanese doing the Kamikaze thing then? After all, everybody was willing to do this. No I don't think it was OK. I think you get yourself out on a very slippery slope when you dismiss Ethics and/or morals like this.
Yea, Backhoe's run on what? Fossil fuels, so we got to bring that along too... Oh, and the air on Mars is pretty thin, so I doubt you will get it to run, not to mention that it is *really cold* there so all the lubricants, fluids and fuel in your backhoe are likely to go solid.
Seriously, So go one way to mars and bury ourselves under ground? Yea, the logistics of that are still daunting and you do realize how deep you are going to have to dig right?
Ethically, a one way trip is totally impossible. Surface radiation exposure on Mars is way too high and will kill within a few years of landing. The process of dying from radiation exposure is not a pleasant one either. Nope, one way is totally not an option here, unless you are OK with a suicide mission.
Yes, I know about that, but that is under State Department control with *security* provided by our military. This is SOP and we have such in Moscow too. I know we don't control Russia.
Problem here is that you cannot ethically send anybody to certain death just to go explore Mars first hand.
The radiation exposure required for a trip to Mars is significant. The total expected dose is high enough to warrant asking ethical questions about what risks we are asking people to take to make the trip. Where I am sure all of the space going crew members would be totally aware of the risks and agree to them, that still doesn't exempt NASA from the moral and ethical obligation to asses the risks and mediate them.
At some point, somebody needs to draw a line and say, over there is too much risk to be acceptable, we will stay on this side of the line. If we don't have boundaries and stick by them, things like Challenger or Apollo 1 will happen and we will have needless loss of life because we didn't asses risks properly or take them seriously enough.
They can be the first settlers on Mars. Did most early voyagers to the New World worry about how they'll get back? They were going to live there. We can do the same for Mars.
Oh great, so for this to work out, we need to be able to provide a reasonable expectation that the people going one way will be able to survive though what remains of their natural lives. So if you are sending some group with an average age of about 30, you are going to have to provide 60 years or so of equipment and supplies, get it all on the surface of Mars in the general vicinity of where your colony will be located. No, you just made this a whole lot worse.
The real issue is radiation exposure during the trip and on the surface of Mars. Long term, moderate dose radiation effects are fairly well known. And sending people to the surface of Mars for any meaningful length of time is going to cause extremely dangerous levels of total exposure. High enough exposure levels to pretty much make it a foregone conclusion of serious harm, even on the surface of Mars.
Remember the issue is radiation exposure both during the trip and on the surface of Mars. Mars has no magnetic field to speak of and a very thin atmosphere, so it provides very little natural shielding for radiation. So just going one way, really doesn't help the ethics of the situation.
But the people of Ukraine haven't all voted, just Crimea. Don't forget that the Russians have split up a sovereign country when they did this.
I get the justification of this action, I just don't agree that it's right. I also don't accept the moral equivalency argument that Russia is doing the same thing the US did in Iraq.
Full stop.. At least for me.