A quick Googling doesn't come up with any German names attached to what the Gestapo called VerschÃrfte Vernehmung (enhanced interrogation techniques). Looking a bit farther brings you to the International Tribunal for the Far East (we took the Nuremberg playbook to Japan), and Japanese were convicted for waterboarding Americans.
Our legal system (military and civil) has dealt with and rejected waterboarding repeatedly. From the court martial of Major Edward Glenn, to United States v. Parker et al, to individual convictions overturned because of waterboarded confessions. Moving on to the Bush administration, it suddenly became specificaly authorized. Before they gave interrogaters legal protections, videos of interrogations at Guantanamo got "lost."
So we do waterboard, but we changed our definition of torture to exclude waterboarding. So we still don't torture.
Looking forward, Alberto Gonzales wrote that the Geneva Convention was "obsolete" when it came to the war on terror. In 1941, General-Field Marshal Wilhelm Keitel mustered identical arguments against recognizing the Geneva rights of Soviet soldiers. Our prosecutors at Nuremberg cited his calling the Geneva Convention "obsolete" as an aggravating circumstance and got the death penalty. Keitel was executed in 1946. And yes, I'm looking forward to seeing Americans punished for torture.
You want me to reread your post and link to a statement that there were no Americans in the room when Hussein was executed. Reread my post- I explained that the reason given for not releasing many Guantanamo detainees are the same reason that we should not have released Hussein into Iraqi custody.
I also reread the part of your post where you said you weren't trying to be a troll. Try harder.
Obviously you don't pay attention- the US doesn't torture because the Bush administration was allowed to legally define torture to exclude our "enhanced interrogation" techniques. No matter that under the Nuremberg Tribunal we convicted Nazis for using those same techniques; we don't torture because we use a moving definition of torture.
The US is also directly responsible for Hussein's execution. We "can't" release many Guantanamo detainees back to their home countries because of fears they they would be mistreated there- but we gift wrapped Hussein for a "government" that understands due process even less than the Bush people who created it.
My regular taxes are currently subsidizing law eforcement's efforts to protect the RIAA's "property." Taxing that income generating property would be a good way to keep individual taxpayers from subsidizing their business model.
Income is taxed- that's another conversation. IP is a government granted monopoly and while the income generated from it is taxed as income, the granted monopoly itself should be taxed- or allowed to lapse into public domain. The public is granting the monopoly in order for the public to benefit, not to be victimized by it (with the privilege of paying the police to do it to them).
He should have gotten a lawyer. How many hours of his life did he sink into this case over the last couple years? Like any professional, a lawyer would have handled things much more quickly and efficiently- and the costs would have been passed on to the thieving, forging, perjuring company.
Instead he performed the work himself, donating his own time and energy to the company that was suing him for defamation using forged documents as evidence! They're not the people I'd donate my time to.
How many pictures can you shoot, how many clients can you meet with in the time it takes you to put yourself through law school? Beyond the simple donation of time by being your own lawyer for free, that time spent "at work" but not on the photography is simply lost income- also not reimbursed, and so donated. Neglecting your business for two years isn't a good idea, even if you do wind up getting paid for that one picture.
Yes, a lawyer would have gotten a better judgement, but that's not really the point. A lawyer would have gotten this judgement much sooner and with less effort. A lawyer would have handled the legal legwork and allowed Gregerson to work on photography for the last two years instead of law.
The photographer represented himself, so he didn't pay any lawyers.
The defendants took the money that they saved by not paying the photographer in the first place and spent it on lawyers. Then they got to pay the photographer anyway. I love it when business plans have to take regular people into account.
In all of this hypocracy and mess lurks an important issue. Is it ok for someone who broke the law, to be the Chief Executive in charge of enforcing those very laws they broke? Does the serious of the offense play a part?
Clinton publicly admitted to having smoked weed. Bush danced around the question, offering instead a timeframe where he didn't do coke. The fact that he didn't extend that timeframe back to his birth was supposed to be a legitimate substitute for an admission.
The opposition reactions were identical even though the politicians' statements were not. Yeah, there's a lot of hypocrisy here.
Don't vote the party, vote the candidate; you'll be a more effective citizen.
I like that idea- I hate both parties equally. Sure, I hate the Republicans more right now, but that's because they're the ones that have been screwing things up more recently. The problem is that the candidates are creatures of their parties. John McCain used to seem to be a respectable man who had his owm mind. I wanted to vote for him. I've since seen that he's just as much a party hack as the rest of them.
Both parties suck. They're both about big government. Do you prefer your oppression in the Social Services/PC flavor or the current Police State flavor? As long as they're our only choices government is going to get more and more intrusive, with each flavor getting worse every 4-8 years.
I'd vote for Badnarik too, but the Police State flavor is starting to gag me. I need an unworkable health care plan for a while. I can't afford to vote for a real candidate. The lesser of two evils is just a matter of degree, but I need even that small a reduction.
When voting for an individual post, like president obviously proportionality is impossible...
Maine and Nebraska split their electoral votes. The last two get thrown to the overall winner, but you can lose can lose either state and still pick up one electoral vote.
If more states went this way, you could lose California and still pick up 20. No states would get written off this way- every state would have something to offer right up to the last week. The big parties would have to work everywhere instead of being guaranteed all of a state's votes before the race even began. Third parties would get enough electoral votes to put themselves on the map.
The net result would be politicians working harder to get our votes, with us having more than two real choices.
He used to have Bob Dole on a lot for the last election. Dole wasn't a guest, more a sort of guest analyst. It worked really well. Dole still had his views, but he had relaxed a lot. He was also there to present a viewpoint that TDS staffers couldn't have pulled off on their own. They might be cheap theater, but even they know that a bowtie doesn't make you a credible conservative. So they brought in a very credible conservative who wasn't in the game any more.
I haven't used this, but the only problem I'd have with it is if there wasn't a warning. Was there a mention anywhere that it was only intended for one user computers? If there was, then good for Google. If there wasn't, I still don't think it's that huge of an oversight.
To me that means Apple should refuse, now more than ever, to release Quicktime for Linux since that would only help Linux grab and extend it's lead. The good news for Apple is that Linux is only taking market rank from it, not market share...
Apple doesn't care about market rank, nor market share. They care about gross sales. Offering new products into new market segments will increase that, and may even have the cross-pollenating effect of getting some Linux fanatics to buy Macs. OSX is a kind of BSD, so it will still support a kind of religious fervor. Quicktime for Linux can only be a smart move for Apple.
[grammar nazi]While we're on smart moves, leave the apostrophe out of it's when it's not called for. I don't think you write hi's or her's,our's or their's, so why it's?[/grammar nazi]
Viewing a website is not my prime motivation for using my internet connection--it is not the raison d'etre for the internet.
You're here on Slashdot, and your ISP's bill doesn't pay their bills. I live out in the woods, so I need to pay a Cable Service Provider to bring me TV. The TV stations that I am now paying to watch aren't getting paid, unless they're along the lines of HBO. So they sell advertising, which I don't like, but understand.
I don't think that TV is much more passive than the internet. Our contributions to the internet are more quickly seen, but it's still passive as hell.
You're paying for your internet connection, but you understand the need of sites like Slashdot to have advertisements. When you're paying for your cable connection, ask yourself where the TV content providers are supposed to get money from. My ISP doesn't give a dime to Slashdot, The Onion or any of my favorite sites. Even the Goatse guy doesn't get any money from them. I can't pretend that my cable bill supports DIY or Speed.
70 dollars a month for the privilege of being able to suckle at the electric teat every night???
I pay more, but my cable modem is part of the deal. I use that more than the TV. There are only seven or eight channels that I watch, but the buck or so a day isn't that bad a deal. The other part of the bill, the buck or so a day for the cable modem, is even less of a bother. While I'd love to pay for the channels I want instead of the hundreds (including music) I get, what you're really paying for is the connection, not the content. Kind of like the internet, you know?
..."We can't make any good products because when we do, someone finds a way to hack and ruin it!"
No, they can't make any good products because they don't want to. They want to make as much profit as they can, which means spending as little time and money on their products as possible (preferably the money in Indonesia and the time by four year olds). The hackers want to make a good product, so they tinker with the shoddy retail crap to make something cool, spending more man hours on the hack than were spent in making a truckload of the original product.
The underlying problem is that Innovation belongs to businesses, not individuals. This particular problem is that the company thinks they're Hertz coming after me for keeping my rental car when they're really Coke whining that I didn't give them back their plastic bottle (You bought the soda, not the bottle, it's still our property!).
Would you argue that the tape -- belonging to the Idiot -- wasn't submissible?
Submissibility is one thing. I would concentrate my efforts on arguing its admissibility, which is something else altogether. I'm interested in clear communication.
You have not given an argument for why you think it is a good idea that something I own can then spy on me...
Here are a few good reasons. Enjoy!
I'll skip pasting your overuse of the bold tag and simply repaste two good reasons against it.
Amendment IV: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated...
Amendment V: No person shall...be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself...
why shouldn't any given citizen be culpable for every minute of his/her life? if something happened to someone you care about, wouldn't you want justice? wouldn't you like a case solved? this is a tool that can be used to enforce 'compliance', if someones driving like a maniac, they're putting the general public at risk. please note that 'general public' includes, you, me, and every other person here.
I can think of two reasons why any given citizen should not be culpable for every minute of his/her life:
Amendment IV: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated...
Amendment V: No person shall...be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself...
Anyway, I'm all for strict policing in populated areas, but the people who live out "in the hills" shouldn't have the same restrictions because the situation is vastly different.
I'm in New England, so I don't have all that much open road. once a year I drive through central NY and I love it. They post 35 or 40 in town, but when you leave town they post "state speed limit 55." They're informing you that while there isn't a posted limit, that's the generic state one. Thank you for observing our posted limits in town, now you can proceed on your way. Watch out you don't get killed speeding, have a nice day.
Speed limits, while perhaps a bit low in some cases, are there for a reason. Going 10 MPH over is one thing (and still ticket-able).
I'll go the speed limit in school zones and the dense residential areas, but on most roads I've found myself going the limit in torrential downpours and near whiteout conditions. Not purposely, mind you, but while driving at what I felt was the appropriate speed for the circumstances, I found myself at the legal limit. In good weather I try to keep it down to 20 over, simply because at 25 over, the penalty jumps. I'd rather pay attention to the road than to the odd gap in the trees that may hide a light bar.
I know first-gen airbags had lots of problems, and this is one technology you really want to mature very quickly (and it did).
Try seatbelts. They've been around longer and don't add energy to a collision. If more people wore them, the feds wouldn't have put that bomb in my steering wheel.
Lets see you try to kill me with a #2 pencil, and then try again with a handgun. You really don't see the difference of degree there?
I see no difference of degree there. Let's see you try to kill anyone. Is your attempt any less sincere based on the tools you have immediately at hand? Let's put it this way: After you decide to kill me, will your lack of a handgun make you give up the plan? Of course not. You have already decided that I am to die, and your choice of weapon will not make me feel any better of worse about it.
If I may: There are no dangerous weapons; there are only dangerous men. We're trying to teach you to be dangerous -- to the enemy. Dangerous even without a knife. Deadly as long as you still have one hand or one foot and are still alive.
-Heinlein
Ted Kennedy has killed more people with his car that I have with my gun. I have used my car as a weapon against more people than I have used my gun against. Admittedly, I have only caused those people a bit of inconvenience, embarrassment and increased insurance premiums (always have right of way when you hit someone). A gun is simply an escalation, not an absolute. Antagonism and hostility will always exist, and firearms are not a necessary ingredient. I still own one, because to need one and not have it readily available would be a distinction that I do not want.
Slashdot Mirror
A quick Googling doesn't come up with any German names attached to what the Gestapo called VerschÃrfte Vernehmung (enhanced interrogation techniques). Looking a bit farther brings you to the International Tribunal for the Far East (we took the Nuremberg playbook to Japan), and Japanese were convicted for waterboarding Americans.
Our legal system (military and civil) has dealt with and rejected waterboarding repeatedly. From the court martial of Major Edward Glenn, to United States v. Parker et al, to individual convictions overturned because of waterboarded confessions. Moving on to the Bush administration, it suddenly became specificaly authorized. Before they gave interrogaters legal protections, videos of interrogations at Guantanamo got "lost."
So we do waterboard, but we changed our definition of torture to exclude waterboarding. So we still don't torture.
Looking forward, Alberto Gonzales wrote that the Geneva Convention was "obsolete" when it came to the war on terror. In 1941, General-Field Marshal Wilhelm Keitel mustered identical arguments against recognizing the Geneva rights of Soviet soldiers. Our prosecutors at Nuremberg cited his calling the Geneva Convention "obsolete" as an aggravating circumstance and got the death penalty. Keitel was executed in 1946. And yes, I'm looking forward to seeing Americans punished for torture.
You want me to reread your post and link to a statement that there were no Americans in the room when Hussein was executed. Reread my post- I explained that the reason given for not releasing many Guantanamo detainees are the same reason that we should not have released Hussein into Iraqi custody.
I also reread the part of your post where you said you weren't trying to be a troll. Try harder.
Maybe the US?
Obviously you don't pay attention- the US doesn't torture because the Bush administration was allowed to legally define torture to exclude our "enhanced interrogation" techniques. No matter that under the Nuremberg Tribunal we convicted Nazis for using those same techniques; we don't torture because we use a moving definition of torture.
The US is also directly responsible for Hussein's execution. We "can't" release many Guantanamo detainees back to their home countries because of fears they they would be mistreated there- but we gift wrapped Hussein for a "government" that understands due process even less than the Bush people who created it.
But no, the US unequivocally does not torture.
Balancing the budget might be a good idea.
My regular taxes are currently subsidizing law eforcement's efforts to protect the RIAA's "property." Taxing that income generating property would be a good way to keep individual taxpayers from subsidizing their business model.
Income is taxed- that's another conversation. IP is a government granted monopoly and while the income generated from it is taxed as income, the granted monopoly itself should be taxed- or allowed to lapse into public domain. The public is granting the monopoly in order for the public to benefit, not to be victimized by it (with the privilege of paying the police to do it to them).
He should have gotten a lawyer. How many hours of his life did he sink into this case over the last couple years? Like any professional, a lawyer would have handled things much more quickly and efficiently- and the costs would have been passed on to the thieving, forging, perjuring company.
Instead he performed the work himself, donating his own time and energy to the company that was suing him for defamation using forged documents as evidence! They're not the people I'd donate my time to.
How many pictures can you shoot, how many clients can you meet with in the time it takes you to put yourself through law school? Beyond the simple donation of time by being your own lawyer for free, that time spent "at work" but not on the photography is simply lost income- also not reimbursed, and so donated. Neglecting your business for two years isn't a good idea, even if you do wind up getting paid for that one picture.
Yes, a lawyer would have gotten a better judgement, but that's not really the point. A lawyer would have gotten this judgement much sooner and with less effort. A lawyer would have handled the legal legwork and allowed Gregerson to work on photography for the last two years instead of law.
Guy Fawkes, you philistine!
The photographer represented himself, so he didn't pay any lawyers.
The defendants took the money that they saved by not paying the photographer in the first place and spent it on lawyers. Then they got to pay the photographer anyway. I love it when business plans have to take regular people into account.
Clinton publicly admitted to having smoked weed. Bush danced around the question, offering instead a timeframe where he didn't do coke. The fact that he didn't extend that timeframe back to his birth was supposed to be a legitimate substitute for an admission.
The opposition reactions were identical even though the politicians' statements were not. Yeah, there's a lot of hypocrisy here.
I like that idea- I hate both parties equally. Sure, I hate the Republicans more right now, but that's because they're the ones that have been screwing things up more recently. The problem is that the candidates are creatures of their parties. John McCain used to seem to be a respectable man who had his owm mind. I wanted to vote for him. I've since seen that he's just as much a party hack as the rest of them.
Both parties suck. They're both about big government. Do you prefer your oppression in the Social Services/PC flavor or the current Police State flavor? As long as they're our only choices government is going to get more and more intrusive, with each flavor getting worse every 4-8 years.
I'd vote for Badnarik too, but the Police State flavor is starting to gag me. I need an unworkable health care plan for a while. I can't afford to vote for a real candidate. The lesser of two evils is just a matter of degree, but I need even that small a reduction.
Maine and Nebraska split their electoral votes. The last two get thrown to the overall winner, but you can lose can lose either state and still pick up one electoral vote.
If more states went this way, you could lose California and still pick up 20. No states would get written off this way- every state would have something to offer right up to the last week. The big parties would have to work everywhere instead of being guaranteed all of a state's votes before the race even began. Third parties would get enough electoral votes to put themselves on the map.
The net result would be politicians working harder to get our votes, with us having more than two real choices.
Your state has taxes? Bunch of commies.
Apple doesn't care about market rank, nor market share. They care about gross sales. Offering new products into new market segments will increase that, and may even have the cross-pollenating effect of getting some Linux fanatics to buy Macs. OSX is a kind of BSD, so it will still support a kind of religious fervor. Quicktime for Linux can only be a smart move for Apple.
[grammar nazi]While we're on smart moves, leave the apostrophe out of it's when it's not called for. I don't think you write hi's or her's, our's or their's, so why it's?[/grammar nazi]
Eh... ...the buck or so a day...
$1.25*30*2>70
$1.30*30*2>70
$1.50*30*2>70
You cowards are so pathetically stupid.
You're here on Slashdot, and your ISP's bill doesn't pay their bills. I live out in the woods, so I need to pay a Cable Service Provider to bring me TV. The TV stations that I am now paying to watch aren't getting paid, unless they're along the lines of HBO. So they sell advertising, which I don't like, but understand.
I don't think that TV is much more passive than the internet. Our contributions to the internet are more quickly seen, but it's still passive as hell.
You're paying for your internet connection, but you understand the need of sites like Slashdot to have advertisements. When you're paying for your cable connection, ask yourself where the TV content providers are supposed to get money from. My ISP doesn't give a dime to Slashdot, The Onion or any of my favorite sites. Even the Goatse guy doesn't get any money from them. I can't pretend that my cable bill supports DIY or Speed.
I pay more, but my cable modem is part of the deal. I use that more than the TV. There are only seven or eight channels that I watch, but the buck or so a day isn't that bad a deal. The other part of the bill, the buck or so a day for the cable modem, is even less of a bother. While I'd love to pay for the channels I want instead of the hundreds (including music) I get, what you're really paying for is the connection, not the content. Kind of like the internet, you know?
No, they can't make any good products because they don't want to. They want to make as much profit as they can, which means spending as little time and money on their products as possible (preferably the money in Indonesia and the time by four year olds). The hackers want to make a good product, so they tinker with the shoddy retail crap to make something cool, spending more man hours on the hack than were spent in making a truckload of the original product.
The underlying problem is that Innovation belongs to businesses, not individuals. This particular problem is that the company thinks they're Hertz coming after me for keeping my rental car when they're really Coke whining that I didn't give them back their plastic bottle (You bought the soda, not the bottle, it's still our property!).
Submissibility is one thing. I would concentrate my efforts on arguing its admissibility, which is something else altogether. I'm interested in clear communication.
Here are a few good reasons. Enjoy!
I'll skip pasting your overuse of the bold tag and simply repaste two good reasons against it.
Amendment IV: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated...
Amendment V: No person shall...be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself...
I can think of two reasons why any given citizen should not be culpable for every minute of his/her life:
Amendment IV: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated...
Amendment V: No person shall...be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself...
I'm in New England, so I don't have all that much open road. once a year I drive through central NY and I love it. They post 35 or 40 in town, but when you leave town they post "state speed limit 55." They're informing you that while there isn't a posted limit, that's the generic state one. Thank you for observing our posted limits in town, now you can proceed on your way. Watch out you don't get killed speeding, have a nice day.
I (heart) (rural) NY.
I'll go the speed limit in school zones and the dense residential areas, but on most roads I've found myself going the limit in torrential downpours and near whiteout conditions. Not purposely, mind you, but while driving at what I felt was the appropriate speed for the circumstances, I found myself at the legal limit. In good weather I try to keep it down to 20 over, simply because at 25 over, the penalty jumps. I'd rather pay attention to the road than to the odd gap in the trees that may hide a light bar.
I know first-gen airbags had lots of problems, and this is one technology you really want to mature very quickly (and it did).
Try seatbelts. They've been around longer and don't add energy to a collision. If more people wore them, the feds wouldn't have put that bomb in my steering wheel.
I see no difference of degree there. Let's see you try to kill anyone. Is your attempt any less sincere based on the tools you have immediately at hand? Let's put it this way: After you decide to kill me, will your lack of a handgun make you give up the plan? Of course not. You have already decided that I am to die, and your choice of weapon will not make me feel any better of worse about it.
If I may:
There are no dangerous weapons; there are only dangerous men. We're trying to teach you to be dangerous -- to the enemy. Dangerous even without a knife. Deadly as long as you still have one hand or one foot and are still alive.
-Heinlein
Ted Kennedy has killed more people with his car that I have with my gun. I have used my car as a weapon against more people than I have used my gun against. Admittedly, I have only caused those people a bit of inconvenience, embarrassment and increased insurance premiums (always have right of way when you hit someone). A gun is simply an escalation, not an absolute. Antagonism and hostility will always exist, and firearms are not a necessary ingredient. I still own one, because to need one and not have it readily available would be a distinction that I do not want.
Yeah. It worked great the last time they got boarded.