Ah, yes, "reality", always a bummer ; ). National security just tends to rub me the wrong way, it seems such a refuse pit of stupid, incompetent laws and measures. But I'm not a nationalist in any way, and security's sisters (or big brothers if you will) are control and oppression afaic. "All you can ever do is look at the specifics of each case and try to judge the fairest outcome on the merits". Completely agreed. "That is what we have things like courts, due process, independent judges, and juries of peers for". I HAVE NO PEERS. sorry, that was Sheldon from the Big Bang Theorie coming through...
Should Wikileaks take material to a judge before releasing it?
There are freedom of information laws for a reason. If the defence departement is going to hide sensitive information that is genuinely covered by those laws -- and it might well be -- then of course Wikileaks are going to take steps, the same way they would with anyone else. Why anyone using/working on National Security thinks they are above the law, I have never understood.
To what extent, for the sake of national security, should individual rights and freedoms be restricted and can the restriction of civil rights for the sake of national security be justified?
I must not fear. Fear is the mind-killer. Fear is the little-death that brings total obliteration. I will face my fear. I will permit it to pass over me and through me. And when it has gone past I will turn the inner eye to see its path. Where the fear has gone there will be nothing. Only I will remain
"whenever it's the word of the police versus the word of the person accused of a crime, the accused loses.In most jurisdictions in the US, judges and juries tend to believe the cops".
So what you're implying is, that in the United States, accused, falsely or not, by a police officer, you're best chance of remaining free is killing the officer and trying to get away with it, and you might as well be a criminal because you're damned if you do and damned if you don't?
"There is a difference between being in the resistance and using children as human shields". Agreed, one is a status, the other a tactic. It must be pointed out that the French, Dutch and Danish resistance (which i'm somewhat familiar with) used children during the second world war in a number of roles. Even the use of children as "shields" is not limited to any one side or party in any given conflict. "If soldiers shoot up unarmed ambulances than they're in the wrong". Agreed. All though the definition of ambulance leaves much to be wanting, even in the Geneva convention. A taxi carrying wounded insurgents would be fair game. "If insurgents use ambulances to transport weapons than they're in the wrong". Agreed, but i don"t think the right response would be to start shooting at ambulances. "Furthermore once they do that you can't blame soldiers for shooting ambulances since the assumption of being unarmed was broken". I don't agree with that. You have to assume most ambulances will still be normal. Searching them should be the furthest one should go, and not even that if at all possible. Also "blame" is somewhat irrelevant. Can i prosecute soldiers for shooting wounded and unarmed medics? "Resistance is what my grandfather nearly died in during WW2 and it's an honourable thing". I understand, but i think that has more to do with the fact that he was your grandfather. Honourable is a many faced beast. "Honourable" samurai cut down peasants as if their lives were worthless, "Honourable" Prussian Officers led the Wehrmacht etc etc. "The insurgents on the other hand are using tactics the Nazis my grandfather was fighting against would have approved of". Not "on the other hand" at all. The Nazi's would also have approved most of the tactics the Americans are using. All Empires, by tradition and necessity, use the same plans of conquest and subjugation.
"If you cannot understand that difference than there is little point in talking further with you". The world is made of shades of grey, not black and white. There is no truth, only perception.
"An unjust law is no law at all", said St Augustine, providing the foundation of civil disobedience movements across the globe. If a law is not really a law at all, it is argued, one has a right -- even a duty -- to break it. Martin Luther King articulated this view in his Letter from Birmingham Jail: "one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws".
The problem is that while the law is a matter of public record, justice is an intensely personal matter. What one person regards as just may strike another as an unwarranted imposition. This is why we need law; if we all behaved according to our personal standards of morality, anarchy would rule. While we may have our own views about the justice of particular laws, we generally accept that some rules must apply universally. If we are to follow Martin Luther King's exhortation to resist unjust laws, then, there must be an unusual type or degree of injustice to justify that. What kind of injustice might do so?
The great American democrat Henry David Thoreau had an answer. In his classic essay Civil Disobedience, Thoreau observed that "a government in which the majority rule in all cases cannot be based on justice". An infantile deference to the will of the majority, however ill-informed, is still common today. It informs the thoughtless "majority rules!" which is frequently blurted out as if, on its own, it magically justifies anything (I always want to ask whether, if the majority jumped off a cliff, the speaker would too). In fact, "majority rules" is a solution of last resort. Ideally, people should act according to their consciences. If that is inappropriate, unanimity should be sought. Only if these two fail should the will of the majority be imposed on the rest. Thoreau called for this kind of government, "in which the majorities do not virtually decide right and wrong, but conscience... in which majorities decide only those questions to which the rule of expediency is applicable".
"If someone shoots at RND.COUNTRY soldiers on foreign soil, then goes into a civilian population center, he just put his family and friends at risk. Whether that person is a RND.COUNTRIES citizen or not, I hope a predator drone puts a missile right up his ass."
In Europe that's actually called "being in the resistance", and generally thought of as "a good thing". The soldiers are the craven mercenaries, killing and destroying for money, whilst the barely armed civilians are defending life and liberty. Soldiers on foreign soil are generally invaders, and thus fair game. Imagine if you will Chinese soldiers on every corner in New York, shooting Chang Hong drone missiles at everyone carrying a gun, and then discussing the fact that some of the victims might be Chinese citizens...
I have to agree Civ 4 wasn't a step forward. But for me personally a top down 2D map is easier for tactical Civ type games. An ideal mix, AFAIK, would be Civ III Conquest as the basis, Priest, Slavers, Future Techs and Space Combat from Civ Call to Power, and battles/combat like Rome Total War Gold/Barbarian invasion. A hex based map is nice. Alpha Centauri-style "design your own" units are nice. But 3D only in the battles, not in the "worldview"-mode.
I can't find their "survey" at BITKOM http://www.bitkom.org/en/Default.aspx, but i'm wondering how many Germans were polled (four?). Most Germans I know would not want this AT ALL.
The sensation of deja vu is (simply put) caused by a millisecond shutdown of a part of your memory, and the reloading of that part of your memory afterwards. This happens so fast you'll never notice but for that strange sensation of having seen/been there before. You have actually seen it before: one millisecond ago.
Slashdot Mirror
You mean a fresh breeze of bel air?
Just what Beijing needs.
"BRIAN: We mustn't fight each other! Surely we should be united against the common enemy!
EVERYONE: The People's Liberation Army?!
BRIAN: No, no! The Romans!"
plus 700 nuclear missiles and 700 nuclear armed heavy bombers.
The lady doth protest too much, methinks.
Or you play a map sized 1:1.
and Japan sends in Godzilla to clear up the zombies.
http://cdn.faniq.com/images/blog/godzillahangover.jpg
Problem solved. Why recycle?
Ah, yes, "reality", always a bummer ; ).
National security just tends to rub me the wrong way, it seems such a refuse pit
of stupid, incompetent laws and measures. But I'm not a nationalist in any way, and security's sisters (or big brothers if you will) are control and oppression afaic.
"All you can ever do is look at the specifics of each case and try to judge the fairest outcome on the merits".
Completely agreed.
"That is what we have things like courts, due process, independent judges, and juries of peers for".
I HAVE NO PEERS. sorry, that was Sheldon from the Big Bang Theorie coming through...
Should Wikileaks take material to a judge before releasing it?
Answer: 200 kg = 440.924 lb
OR 440 lb and 14.79 oz
1 kilogram = 2.20462262 pounds
http://www.metric-conversions.org/weight/kilograms-to-pounds.htm
Also
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=54mf61KN7wA
There are freedom of information laws for a reason.
If the defence departement is going to hide sensitive information that is genuinely covered by those laws -- and it might well be -- then of course Wikileaks are going to take steps,
the same way they would with anyone else.
Why anyone using/working on National Security thinks they are above the law, I have never understood.
To what extent, for the sake of national security, should individual rights and freedoms be restricted and can the restriction of civil rights for the sake of national security be justified?
Hoe Wang is een Chinees?
Impressive would have been two consecutive hits on the cat with a railgun...
I must not fear.
Fear is the mind-killer.
Fear is the little-death that brings total obliteration.
I will face my fear.
I will permit it to pass over me and through me.
And when it has gone past I will turn the inner eye to see its path.
Where the fear has gone there will be nothing.
Only I will remain
"whenever it's the word of the police versus the word of the person accused of a crime, the accused loses.In most jurisdictions in the US, judges and juries tend to believe the cops".
So what you're implying is, that in the United States, accused, falsely or not, by a police officer, you're best chance of remaining free is killing the officer and trying to get away with it, and you might as well be a criminal because you're damned if you do and damned if you don't?
Rolf-Dieter Heuer (born 1948) is a German particle physicist and the Director General of CERN.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolf-Dieter_Heuer
Why would he have Swiss thoughts? Other than the usual (Hmmm, molten cheese and chocolate...)
Granted, i don't know if he wrote the txt, or just signed it.
"I DON'T CARE about the legality of ops carried out on foreign soil".
That's what Osama said.
That's not pompous, that's just German thoughts translated into English ;).
"There is a difference between being in the resistance and using children as human shields".
Agreed, one is a status, the other a tactic. It must be pointed out that the French, Dutch and Danish resistance (which i'm somewhat familiar with) used children during the second world war in a number of roles. Even the use of children as "shields" is not limited to any one side or party in any given conflict.
"If soldiers shoot up unarmed ambulances than they're in the wrong".
Agreed. All though the definition of ambulance leaves much to be wanting, even in the Geneva convention. A taxi carrying wounded insurgents would be fair game.
"If insurgents use ambulances to transport weapons than they're in the wrong".
Agreed, but i don"t think the right response would be to start shooting at ambulances.
"Furthermore once they do that you can't blame soldiers for shooting ambulances since the assumption of being unarmed was broken".
I don't agree with that. You have to assume most ambulances will still be normal. Searching them
should be the furthest one should go, and not even that if at all possible. Also "blame" is somewhat irrelevant. Can i prosecute soldiers for shooting wounded and unarmed medics?
"Resistance is what my grandfather nearly died in during WW2 and it's an honourable thing".
I understand, but i think that has more to do with the fact that he was your grandfather.
Honourable is a many faced beast. "Honourable" samurai cut down peasants as if their lives were worthless, "Honourable" Prussian Officers led the Wehrmacht etc etc.
"The insurgents on the other hand are using tactics the Nazis my grandfather was fighting against would have approved of".
Not "on the other hand" at all. The Nazi's would also have approved most of the tactics the Americans are using. All Empires, by tradition and necessity, use the same plans of conquest and subjugation.
"If you cannot understand that difference than there is little point in talking further with you".
The world is made of shades of grey, not black and white. There is no truth, only perception.
"An unjust law is no law at all", said St Augustine, providing the foundation of civil disobedience movements across the globe. If a law is not really a law at all, it is argued, one has a right -- even a duty -- to break it. Martin Luther King articulated this view in his Letter from Birmingham Jail: "one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws".
The problem is that while the law is a matter of public record, justice is an intensely personal matter. What one person regards as just may strike another as an unwarranted imposition. This is why we need law; if we all behaved according to our personal standards of morality, anarchy would rule. While we may have our own views about the justice of particular laws, we generally accept that some rules must apply universally. If we are to follow Martin Luther King's exhortation to resist unjust laws, then, there must be an unusual type or degree of injustice to justify that. What kind of injustice might do so?
The great American democrat Henry David Thoreau had an answer. In his classic essay Civil Disobedience, Thoreau observed that "a government in which the majority rule in all cases cannot be based on justice". An infantile deference to the will of the majority, however ill-informed, is still common today. It informs the thoughtless "majority rules!" which is frequently blurted out as if, on its own, it magically justifies anything (I always want to ask whether, if the majority jumped off a cliff, the speaker would too). In fact, "majority rules" is a solution of last resort. Ideally, people should act according to their consciences. If that is inappropriate, unanimity should be sought. Only if these two fail should the will of the majority be imposed on the rest. Thoreau called for this kind of government, "in which the majorities do not virtually decide right and wrong, but conscience... in which majorities decide only those questions to which the rule of expediency is applicable".
"If someone shoots at RND.COUNTRY soldiers on foreign soil, then goes into a civilian population center, he just put his family and friends at risk. Whether that person is a RND.COUNTRIES citizen or not, I hope a predator drone puts a missile right up his ass."
In Europe that's actually called "being in the resistance", and generally thought of as "a good thing". The soldiers are the craven mercenaries, killing and destroying for money, whilst the barely armed civilians are defending life and liberty.
Soldiers on foreign soil are generally invaders, and thus fair game.
Imagine if you will Chinese soldiers on every corner in New York, shooting Chang Hong drone missiles at everyone carrying a gun, and then discussing the fact that some of the victims might be Chinese citizens...
Toyota software i presume.
I have to agree Civ 4 wasn't a step forward.
But for me personally a top down 2D map is easier for tactical Civ type games.
An ideal mix, AFAIK, would be Civ III Conquest as the basis, Priest, Slavers, Future Techs and Space Combat from Civ Call to Power, and battles/combat like Rome Total War Gold/Barbarian invasion. A hex based map is nice. Alpha Centauri-style "design your own" units are nice.
But 3D only in the battles, not in the "worldview"-mode.
Q: What did Herr Diesel run his first engine on?
A: The autobahn.
No the Tetris theme doesn't count, but classical music is quite enjoyable
once you've bought the docking computer.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?gl=US&v=3JwmZygqa_0
I can't find their "survey" at BITKOM http://www.bitkom.org/en/Default.aspx, but i'm wondering how many Germans were polled (four?). Most Germans I know would not want this AT ALL.
The sensation of deja vu is (simply put) caused by a millisecond shutdown of a part of your memory, and the reloading of that part of your memory afterwards. This happens so fast you'll never notice but for that strange sensation of having seen/been there before. You have actually seen it before: one millisecond ago.
What the f*ck, I told you not to message me again.
Would you like to play a game?