Basically, if Congress decides to declare war (or apparently if the President decides to, which is a different discussion altogether), we can send our military to do damage, and it's as simple as that. In this case we're worried about the threat he poses, not about whether or not we're violating his rights. Whether this is fair is yet another discussion.
I'll stop responding after this but I'll add this note on the final part of your comment - this isn't about "we" and whether it's "fair" isn't another discussion. The question is exactly about whether you (in 'your world') feel that it is wrong to hold him responsible for actions actually carried out by others but actively instigated by him.
In my world there's a difference between saying you'll pay a million dollars for a guy to kill someone and actually paying him.
That's nice, so in your world WHAT is the difference between those two? Your previous position was I am fully in favor of prosecuting only the hired killer, and not the guy who hired him.. I think you're sort of hinting now that if the police catch the guy doing the hiring after he's paid up then maybe he could be prosecuted after all but not if he hasn't paid yet - but you haven't actually said that. Could you state what your current position actually is on the criminality or otherwise of hiring killers?
Osama bin Laden was not a citizen who was being tried for breaking any laws. The same rules don't apply in military engagements. It's the reason why such things as collateral damage where innocent people get killed can be allowed to happen.
Crap. You can't really have this much difficulty considering the implications of your opinions. Suppose that someone who is an American citizen, living in America, does exactly the same thing as Osama bin Laden. Do you think he should be able to be tried for his crimes or do you think it's okay as long as someone else did the actual killing? Or are you now of the opinion that money probably actually changed hands in which case he could be tried but if it didn't then no? Or do you think he can't be tried because it would be somehow wrong (?) to put him on trial for what you see as being other people's actions but that the military could be sent in to shoot him untried because then you can apply a different test?
I don't disagree that we're all safer in your world, I disagree on whether it is valid to increase our safety by punishing someone for an action (in this case, the murder), that somebody else committed.
They're punished for the action they committed not for what someone else did but for hiring an assassin. In your world if you're rich or powerful and immoral and can find someone who feels they have nothing to lose and is immoral then you can do pretty much anything - have your wife or your mistress or a complete stranger killed - and then openly say so because hey, all you did was promise the guy a million dollars to do it. Where's the harm in that?
President Nixon, did you actually carry out the break-in yourself? No? Well, no problem then, abuse your power all you like, it's other people doing the work, right? Osama bin Laden, did you fly the plane yourself? No? Well, off you go then, go ahead and find some more lackeys.
Your world has no consequences for anyone who can find others to do their dirty work, because you're not willing to hold BOTH parties responsible for their part in it.
One of the things that you may have observed about fire drills is that they are widely advertized in advance, specifically to prevent the panic response which will cause injuries.
No, quite the opposite. I have observed that they are not advertised in advance. This may be a difference between the countries we live in, or just of individual experience. The approach I'm familiar with is that in neither the practice nor a real fire should people have a panic response because when the alarm goes it is something they're used to through regular unannounced practices in a variety of venues and they simply follow the established routine - I imagine that's oversimplified and in a real fire people will tend to notice the smoke and flames and their reactions will change accordingly:) but still, fire practices in my experience are not announced in advance.
But I have no basis for saying those are especially representative and I haven't tried to find fire practice policy for theatres in particular, but it does not look to me as though unannounced fire practices are unusual.
I can post, "EVERYONE GO RIOT NOW" all day long without hurting a soul.
Absolutely, and I can shout "get him Rover, kill kill!" without causing any damage at all or I can spend all day saying "I will give you $100,000 if you kill my wife" without any consequence but if I do either of those things as a way of actually getting someone killed as opposed to, for example, rehearsing my lines in a play then I should be locked up. Get it?
It comes from a US Supreme Court case that held (seriously) that it was a crime to publish pamphlets that opposed the military draft in World War I and argued that the draft was unconstitutional.
Er, I mean that the pamphlets also argued that the draft was unconstitutional, not that the case also argued that the draft was unconstitutional. Obviously.
It comes from a US Supreme Court case that held (seriously) that it was a crime to publish pamphlets that opposed the military draft in World War I and argued that the draft was unconstitutional. You'd think that would be enough to discredit anything the judges came up with in the course of the case but apparently not. If that wasn't enough then you'd think that the entirely ludicrous claim that publishing that opinion was comparable to shouting 'fire' in a crowded theatre would be enough, but apparently not.
Of course, the whole thing rests on the assumption that (falsely) shouting 'fire' in a crowded theatre is inherently dangerous which confusing given that these days periodic fire tests (i.e. falsely raising the alarm...) are generally considered a good thing and presumably not dangerous but to be fair I suppose that's partly because it's probably illegal to let public places get as crowded without adequate means of escape as may have been allowed back then.
Triple A is the absolute highest rating, it's saying that default is as close to unthinkable as you can get. If you're saying that, well, there are other options available and it seems very likely that with the particular current set of problems that the current set of leaders would choose another way other than to default... simply doesn't sound like Triple A.
The rating hasn't moved from "pretty much unthinkable" to "you'll never get your money back", just from to "pretty much unthinkable" to " almost completely unthinkable but...". I think that's right.
Also one of the things that triggered this whole economic downturn was rating agencies giving over-optimistic ratings. If they've responded to that by being too cautious then good.
You're linking to global stats. not U.S. stats. Google isn't doing so great in countries like Russia or China either, and US is the most profitable market (and the GP is also referring to it in the post, see title)
He referred to it in his title, but in his post he asked why having 27% market share is seen as failure. It's a global market. Saying "yeah, but they have 100% in my house/town/city/country" doesn't cut it when people are comparing them to Google who have over 80% worldwide. Maybe you're right that the US is the most profitable market for web search (cite?) for Google or others but it doesn't seem to be profitable for Microsoft - or are all the losses for their search business arising in other countries?
I don't really understand why owning 27% of the search market is being shown as a failure.
Perhaps because they don't "own" 27% of the search market, or anywhere close to it?
Google has 83.62%, Yahoo 6.21% (not "owned" by Microsoft but I suppose you could see it as rented) and Bing 3.57%.
They may have a larger share local to you but that isn't enough to avoid losing billions of dollars on an ongoing basis. To get anywhere close to Google's market share (and thus hopefully reduce their losses) would take massive gains over what they have now.
Don't forget that the people that wrote the Constitution knew exactly how Westminster worked and consciously rejected that model.
Well, in this respect they didn't do a very good job then. Two main political parties alternating in power is pretty much how Westminster operates (originally Tories and Whigs, later Conservatives and Liberals - effectively the successor parties to the Tories and Whigs, not an example of one of them being pushed out - now Conservatives and Labour - the single instance of a new party managing to get into power and only by Labour effectively replacing the Liberals as a party of government, not joining them). If they meant to reject that then it looks as though they failed.
Further to this, I just checked. Google+ does have an "email" tab. If I click it then it tells me correctly that I'm signed in with an external email address but also tells me that I can create a gmail account if I want one. I don't see any sense in which it is a requirement. Am I missing something?
What gmail requirement? You need a Google profile but I don't think you have to sign up for gmail. I have a Google+ account. I signed up for it with an ordinary email address from a local ISP that I doubt many people here have heard of. My login id to Google+ is my email address (not visible to other users of course). Any email associated with Google+ goes to the email address I signed up with. Maybe I also get a gmail account provided with Google+ but not that I've noticed. I'll check.
Why does the app approval take so long? Did Google fail to comply with the requirements? Did Apple think it might contain malware or something? What is the problem here?
An extra week? Maybe caused by holidays, sickness, a couple of tougher calls that were ahead of it in the queue... this is a complete non-story.
It means to not cache it, syndicate it or store an image of it.
I don't think Google does "syndicate" anything, if that's distinct from a link and a snippet of text. The order clearly applies to more than just caching but maybe you're right that it meant no caching and no images. It seems like it went to a lot of length to avoid saying "no caching and no images" though, but maybe that's just the quality of the translation.
To be clear though, your interpretation is that Google, including news.google.com, could continue to act exactly as they do already subject only to not providing a cached copy of these sites and not displaying any images from these sites?
Sounds to me like that court order pretty much required Google to do what they did. I assume the newspapers simply didn't realise exactly what it was they were really asking for when they made that attack, and I'm sure their competitors are loving them for it right now.
Or maybe they just realise that by jumping up and down and screaming they can get more news coverage and hopefully get more people to hear about them. Is this big news in Belgian? Are people buying the papers to see what all the fuss is about?
A link would be fine, giving a preview or storing cached content would not be.
Okay, so no caching (which the newspapers could have achieved through robots.txt without all the bother of a court case but okay, they don't feel they should have to opt out). And without a "preview" am I right in thinking you mean the couple of sentences indicative of the content that accompanies every search result?
It says to remove "articles, photographs and graphic representations" from all their sites.
Okay, so what does it MEAN to remove an article from Google's site if not to remove the link to it?
The little snippet of text that gives you some idea what the article is about? That's hardly "an article" but is that what you're interpreting it to mean? Those snippets seem to be a basic part of the design of Google search. Are they set up to remove them on a per site basis?
" all articles, photographs and graphics of daily newspapers"
dont think that really leaves much to link to........
You can link to the official website, you just can re host it.
I think you need to spell out what you mean because it isn't at all clear right now. Are you saying that the order just says they mustn't cache the content? The translation isn't great but it doesn't look to me as if it's intended to apply only to that.
Keeping that harridan Rebekah Brooks on-board is a clear F-U to the peons (in which I include such non-entities as mere Prime Ministers).
Maybe.
I'd pretty much assumed that she was just being kept ready as the scape goat of choice when things get really bad (and we don't know how much there is yet to come). "Oh, we don't want to lose Rebekah, we have complete confidence in Rebekah, no absolutely we won't fire Rebekah... well, okay, you win, Rebekah has been escorted out of the building - a big triumph for the will of the public. Massive embarassement for us but you beat us. Now let's move on."
Slashdot Mirror
Basically, if Congress decides to declare war (or apparently if the President decides to, which is a different discussion altogether), we can send our military to do damage, and it's as simple as that. In this case we're worried about the threat he poses, not about whether or not we're violating his rights. Whether this is fair is yet another discussion.
I'll stop responding after this but I'll add this note on the final part of your comment - this isn't about "we" and whether it's "fair" isn't another discussion. The question is exactly about whether you (in 'your world') feel that it is wrong to hold him responsible for actions actually carried out by others but actively instigated by him.
In my world there's a difference between saying you'll pay a million dollars for a guy to kill someone and actually paying him.
That's nice, so in your world WHAT is the difference between those two? Your previous position
was I am fully in favor of prosecuting only the hired killer, and not the guy who hired him.. I think you're sort of hinting now that if the police catch the guy doing the hiring after he's paid up then maybe he could be prosecuted after all but not if he hasn't paid yet - but you haven't actually said that. Could you state what your current position actually is on the criminality or otherwise of hiring killers?
Osama bin Laden was not a citizen who was being tried for breaking any laws. The same rules don't apply in military engagements. It's the reason why such things as collateral damage where innocent people get killed can be allowed to happen.
Crap. You can't really have this much difficulty considering the implications of your opinions. Suppose that someone who is an American citizen, living in America, does exactly the same thing as Osama bin Laden. Do you think he should be able to be tried for his crimes or do you think it's okay as long as someone else did the actual killing? Or are you now of the opinion that money probably actually changed hands in which case he could be tried but if it didn't then no? Or do you think he can't be tried because it would be somehow wrong (?) to put him on trial for what you see as being other people's actions but that the military could be sent in to shoot him untried because then you can apply a different test?
I don't disagree that we're all safer in your world, I disagree on whether it is valid to increase our safety by punishing someone for an action (in this case, the murder), that somebody else committed.
They're punished for the action they committed not for what someone else did but for hiring an assassin. In your world if you're rich or powerful and immoral and can find someone who feels they have nothing to lose and is immoral then you can do pretty much anything - have your wife or your mistress or a complete stranger killed - and then openly say so because hey, all you did was promise the guy a million dollars to do it. Where's the harm in that?
President Nixon, did you actually carry out the break-in yourself? No? Well, no problem then, abuse your power all you like, it's other people doing the work, right? Osama bin Laden, did you fly the plane yourself? No? Well, off you go then, go ahead and find some more lackeys.
Your world has no consequences for anyone who can find others to do their dirty work, because you're not willing to hold BOTH parties responsible for their part in it.
One of the things that you may have observed about fire drills is that they are widely advertized in advance, specifically to prevent the panic response which will cause injuries.
No, quite the opposite. I have observed that they are not advertised in advance. This may be a difference between the countries we live in, or just of individual experience. The approach I'm familiar with is that in neither the practice nor a real fire should people have a panic response because when the alarm goes it is something they're used to through regular unannounced practices in a variety of venues and they simply follow the established routine - I imagine that's oversimplified and in a real fire people will tend to notice the smoke and flames and their reactions will change accordingly :) but still, fire practices in my experience are not announced in advance.
From a quick web search:
Have at least one unannounced fire drill in the house every three to six months
There will also be unannounced practice fire drills periodically throughout the year
Emergency evacuation drills may be pre-announced to building staff or occupants, or that may be unannounced.
But I have no basis for saying those are especially representative and I haven't tried to find fire practice policy for theatres in particular, but it does not look to me as though unannounced fire practices are unusual.
I am fully in favor of prosecuting only the hired killer, and not the guy who hired him.
And I am really, really glad that we don't live in a world where you have any power. At least, I hope we don't.
If you couldn't find someone to do the crime, your wife wouldn't be harmed.
And if you don't hire a killer then she won't either.
I can post, "EVERYONE GO RIOT NOW" all day long without hurting a soul.
Absolutely, and I can shout "get him Rover, kill kill!" without causing any damage at all or I can spend all day saying "I will give you $100,000 if you kill my wife" without any consequence but if I do either of those things as a way of actually getting someone killed as opposed to, for example, rehearsing my lines in a play then I should be locked up. Get it?
It comes from a US Supreme Court case that held (seriously) that it was a crime to publish pamphlets that opposed the military draft in World War I and argued that the draft was unconstitutional.
Er, I mean that the pamphlets also argued that the draft was unconstitutional, not that the case also argued that the draft was unconstitutional. Obviously.
It comes from a US Supreme Court case that held (seriously) that it was a crime to publish pamphlets that opposed the military draft in World War I and argued that the draft was unconstitutional. You'd think that would be enough to discredit anything the judges came up with in the course of the case but apparently not. If that wasn't enough then you'd think that the entirely ludicrous claim that publishing that opinion was comparable to shouting 'fire' in a crowded theatre would be enough, but apparently not.
Of course, the whole thing rests on the assumption that (falsely) shouting 'fire' in a crowded theatre is inherently dangerous which confusing given that these days periodic fire tests (i.e. falsely raising the alarm...) are generally considered a good thing and presumably not dangerous but to be fair I suppose that's partly because it's probably illegal to let public places get as crowded without adequate means of escape as may have been allowed back then.
I'm glad I never post inflammatory inaccurate comments on Facebook; I've got Slashdot for that.
Triple A is the absolute highest rating, it's saying that default is as close to unthinkable as you can get. If you're saying that, well, there are other options available and it seems very likely that with the particular current set of problems that the current set of leaders would choose another way other than to default... simply doesn't sound like Triple A.
The rating hasn't moved from "pretty much unthinkable" to "you'll never get your money back", just from to "pretty much unthinkable" to " almost completely unthinkable but...". I think that's right.
Also one of the things that triggered this whole economic downturn was rating agencies giving over-optimistic ratings. If they've responded to that by being too cautious then good.
You're linking to global stats. not U.S. stats. Google isn't doing so great in countries like Russia or China either, and US is the most profitable market (and the GP is also referring to it in the post, see title)
He referred to it in his title, but in his post he asked why having 27% market share is seen as failure. It's a global market. Saying "yeah, but they have 100% in my house/town/city/country" doesn't cut it when people are comparing them to Google who have over 80% worldwide. Maybe you're right that the US is the most profitable market for web search (cite?) for Google or others but it doesn't seem to be profitable for Microsoft - or are all the losses for their search business arising in other countries?
I don't really understand why owning 27% of the search market is being shown as a failure.
Perhaps because they don't "own" 27% of the search market, or anywhere close to it?
Google has 83.62%, Yahoo 6.21% (not "owned" by Microsoft but I suppose you could see it as rented) and Bing 3.57%.
They may have a larger share local to you but that isn't enough to avoid losing billions of dollars on an ongoing basis. To get anywhere close to Google's market share (and thus hopefully reduce their losses) would take massive gains over what they have now.
Don't forget that the people that wrote the Constitution knew exactly how Westminster worked and consciously rejected that model.
Well, in this respect they didn't do a very good job then. Two main political parties alternating in power is pretty much how Westminster operates (originally Tories and Whigs, later Conservatives and Liberals - effectively the successor parties to the Tories and Whigs, not an example of one of them being pushed out - now Conservatives and Labour - the single instance of a new party managing to get into power and only by Labour effectively replacing the Liberals as a party of government, not joining them). If they meant to reject that then it looks as though they failed.
Actual quote:
"As KDE occupied this name first, it is ours as a result, and I will NOT be relinquishing it"
Further to this, I just checked. Google+ does have an "email" tab. If I click it then it tells me correctly that I'm signed in with an external email address but also tells me that I can create a gmail account if I want one. I don't see any sense in which it is a requirement. Am I missing something?
between the gmail requirement
What gmail requirement? You need a Google profile but I don't think you have to sign up for gmail. I have a Google+ account. I signed up for it with an ordinary email address from a local ISP that I doubt many people here have heard of. My login id to Google+ is my email address (not visible to other users of course). Any email associated with Google+ goes to the email address I signed up with. Maybe I also get a gmail account provided with Google+ but not that I've noticed. I'll check.
Why does the app approval take so long? Did Google fail to comply with the requirements? Did Apple think it might contain malware or something? What is the problem here?
An extra week? Maybe caused by holidays, sickness, a couple of tougher calls that were ahead of it in the queue... this is a complete non-story.
It means to not cache it, syndicate it or store an image of it.
I don't think Google does "syndicate" anything, if that's distinct from a link and a snippet of text. The order clearly applies to more than just caching but maybe you're right that it meant no caching and no images. It seems like it went to a lot of length to avoid saying "no caching and no images" though, but maybe that's just the quality of the translation.
To be clear though, your interpretation is that Google, including news.google.com, could continue to act exactly as they do already subject only to not providing a cached copy of these sites and not displaying any images from these sites?
Sounds to me like that court order pretty much required Google to do what they did. I assume the newspapers simply didn't realise exactly what it was they were really asking for when they made that attack, and I'm sure their competitors are loving them for it right now.
Or maybe they just realise that by jumping up and down and screaming they can get more news coverage and hopefully get more people to hear about them. Is this big news in Belgian? Are people buying the papers to see what all the fuss is about?
A link would be fine, giving a preview or storing cached content would not be.
Okay, so no caching (which the newspapers could have achieved through robots.txt without all the bother of a court case but okay, they don't feel they should have to opt out). And without a "preview" am I right in thinking you mean the couple of sentences indicative of the content that accompanies every search result?
It says to remove "articles, photographs and graphic representations" from all their sites.
Okay, so what does it MEAN to remove an article from Google's site if not to remove the link to it?
The little snippet of text that gives you some idea what the article is about? That's hardly "an article" but is that what you're interpreting it to mean? Those snippets seem to be a basic part of the design of Google search. Are they set up to remove them on a per site basis?
It doesn't mention removing links to the official website
Indeed, it doesn't refer to any sites as being official or unofficial at all. If had done, what would that mean?
" all articles, photographs and graphics of daily newspapers"
dont think that really leaves much to link to........
You can link to the official website, you just can re host it.
I think you need to spell out what you mean because it isn't at all clear right now. Are you saying that the order just says they mustn't cache the content? The translation isn't great but it doesn't look to me as if it's intended to apply only to that.
Keeping that harridan Rebekah Brooks on-board is a clear F-U to the peons (in which I include such non-entities as mere Prime Ministers).
Maybe.
I'd pretty much assumed that she was just being kept ready as the scape goat of choice when things get really bad (and we don't know how much there is yet to come). "Oh, we don't want to lose Rebekah, we have complete confidence in Rebekah, no absolutely we won't fire Rebekah... well, okay, you win, Rebekah has been escorted out of the building - a big triumph for the will of the public. Massive embarassement for us but you beat us. Now let's move on."
Maybe I'm just naive.
Tim Parry, aged 12 and Johnathan Ball, a 3 year old toddler, were killed in the American-funded murder in Warrington in 1993.
Kjella already addressed that. They weren't killed or murdered they were just er collaterally lost.