Some people would say that much of the information he released shouldn't have been classified in the first place. So, who is really the one misusing it?
And what "some people say" doesn't mean squat, because you don't get to decide that when you enlist. Just like you don't get to decide what uniform to wear or what targets to bomb or who to shoot at.The military is not a democracy.
He was not afforded the rights dictated by the constitution. He was not afforded the rights dictated by the constitution
Those rights are human rights which are protected by the Constitution, not granted by it. US jurisprudence does not recognize the right of a person to contract away human rights (e.g. you can't sell yourself into slavery).
The UCMJ is subordinate to the Constitution, so Manning's constitutional rights still exist. It seems they've been infringed.
When you join the military, you take yourself outside of US civil law. The military is its own world, which is why it has its own judicial system. When you sign those enlistment papers, you limit your rights. You're beholden to the United States Government in a manner similar to the old indentured servitude role for the duration of your enlistment. You're told this upfront when you enlist. Courts have upheld this practice throughout the entire history of the country. If you have a problem with that, then don't enlist. But Manning knew what the rules were, and he flaunted them. And now he's paying the price.
Microsoft AV is among the lest resource intensive AV programs I have seen.
Ditto. The only AV program I've seen that tends to be eat less memory and CPU is F-prot. Even AVG is more resource intensive than MSE now. And don't get me started on Norton or McAffee.
Look, people, this is The Telegraph. They are incredibly biased and unprofessional when it comes to the EU. They will happily lie about anything if it makes the EU look bad.
Anything they say about the EU is pretty much guaranteed to be garbage. Please don't encourage this kind of dishonesty by giving them pageviews.
I don't care if it came from Pravda or The Guardian. The decision was idiotic, and so is the defense of the decision. You cannot defend the decision on the basis of not liking the people complaining about the decision.
“This claim is trying to imply that there is something special about bottled water which is not a reasonable claim.”
The statement claimed no such thing. It didn't even mention bottles or brands.
"regular consumption of significant amounts of water can reduce the risk of development of dehydration".
This was nothing but stupid, political micro management. Up isn't up and down isn't down and the sky isn't blue in the EU unless a commission votes so.
...before we jump to the "EU makes dumb decision" conclusion as usual. Sellers of bottled water wanted to use that phrase as a selling point for bottled water. The EU decided that you could get the same from other sources of fluids. It may surprise some US people, but in a lot of areas you can actually drink tap water here...
Good Lord. So what??? It doesn't make their decision any less dumb. The statement they wanted approved... "regular consumption of significant amounts of water can reduce the risk of development of dehydration'"... doesn't even say that it has to be their water, or even bottled water. The statement was a basic, proven truth. And I keep seeing people here making arguments that basically say "Good, the EU stuck it to those evil un-green bottled water companies".
Does regular intake of water prevent dehydration, or does it not? This was very much a simple, common sense thing to rule on, and the EU commission screwed up. For what purpose, I don't know, but what they did was still stupid, and the defense of what they did here is ridiculous.
I don't know, I'm sure bottled water companies just wanted to use it as a misleading selling point and marketing.
OK, this is absolutely paranoid to the point of stupidity. Misleading point? Does water hydrate the body or not?. How the hell can that be misleading? You're defending stupidity with more stupidity. What's stunning is that this panel included scientists. Regular consumption of water doesn't combat dehydration? Really? I'd like to hear a defense from the cult of scientist worship on this one.
And yet, this horrific setup is what brings us the BBC and the like, you know, commercially and politically independent television.
You can't be that naive. The Beeb is pretty much the in-house press organ for the Labour Party in the UK. There is no such thing as completely independent, non-partisan, non-biased media. Everyone has an ideology. Everyone picks a side. And that's fine, as long the media outlets in question are open about their biases. That doesn't mean that they can't do good journalism. The Guardian, the American Big Three, NPR, Fox, MSNBC, CNN, The Telegraph... all have a point of view, and all can do both good and bad journalism. But someone like The Guardian is much more honest and trustworthy than someone like the BBC, because you know up front where they stand. The rank and file at the Beeb are pretty much interchangeable in political views with anyone at the Guardian... the Beeb just doesn't admit that.
And it's easy to be "commercially independent" when the public is forced to pay your bills if they have a television, even if they just use their TV to watch DVD's and never watch your network.
Also the owners of the park have received tens of millions of dollars of public funds. It is effectively a public park. Like most things the rich think they own, we actually bought it for them.
It is NOT "effectively a public park". It is, to the letter of the law, private property. The "rich" you hate so badly don't think they own it... they really do.
God damn it, I can't believe I'm about to say this... Ronald Regan actually did a pretty good job of taking the DOD to task, and forced them to get more bang for our tax buck. Ronald Reagan held them accountable, and they did shape up when he was running things.
I think accountability more than anything else is key. If no one loses their job when billions of dollars are wasted, they're just going to keep doing that.
You're correct on that. Now, if you really want some heartburn, guess who it was that A) canceled the F-14D, B)cancelled the A-12, and attempted to C)cancel the V-22 Osprey?
Dick Cheney.
Re:Only "troubled" if you're not Lockheed Martin
on
The F-35 Story
·
· Score: 1
I believe weapons development of this type was always done by contractors. NASA never built rockets, the Navy never built ships and the Army/Air Force never built planes.
There was a perception until the end of WWII that Army and Navy owned plants helped keep contractors honest. A study the Navy Department did in the 30's determined that Navy owned plants helped keep warship costs down across the board.Even after WWII, the Navy continued to build some of their own ships, though this drastically declined after WWII because of pressure from politicians representing private yards.
I'm a strong advocate of capitalism and free markets and minimal government control, but I make an exception in military procurement, as weapons buying can not be a true free market. There just isn't the same kind of competitive factors as there are in the civilian market. I think perhaps we should look at bringing back the military factory system for weapons. We're certainly saving no money from Lockheed Martin these days.
What is this, 2001? Just remove that junk and give me some extra USB ports.
Why? Lots of people still use VGA and PCI. Most motherboards have USB port headers so you can easily expand, and even if it doesn't, a USB expansion card is, what, $15 bucks?
What's the point of buying small cheap hardware if it requires you to buy a bunch of other stuff as well?
You still see RS-232, PS/2, and VGA on server motherboards a lot for the same reason.
We just put in a bunch of new equipment for airline shared use situations. Almost all the peripherals... keyboard, card swipers, boarding pass readers, printers, etc... run on serial connections. Even after all these years, RS-232 is the go-to connection for stuff that has to be up 24/7.As the vendor put it "Hey, it's a clean technology, it works, and airlines will keep using it until someone comes up with something better". You could say the same thing about VGA and PS2 connections. Businesses don't like change when it comes to their gear.
It's predicted that meat will be too expensive for most of the world's population by 2050, and some scientists have proposed that westerners should eat insects instead.
We've heard this Malthusian nonsense for two centuries now, and not only is it still not true, there's more abundance of food (including meat) than ever before, even with a population hitting 7 billion. As long as there are free markets, there will be enough food. Farmers and companies will find a way.
I agree with that, especially in regards to things like real estate bundles. The idea of banning bonuses is nothing more than thinly disguised attempts to enact salary caps.
The real problem isn't that bankers are making bonuses, though. The problem is that when they fail, there's no consequences, because guys like Ben Bernanke will always support bailing them out "for the greater good". As long as they know this, they'll do stupid things at times. It's not capitalism if you can't fail. As Rob Long said on an excellent Ricochet podcast, "When these guys crash the markets, I want to see them selling apples on the street, not being bailed out by George Bush and Chuck Schumer".
Take away consequences (like, losing everything) and they'll be stupid. Why not? You're paying for it.
Unless there's proof of real physical harm... extreme bruising or bleeding, etc... then no, it's not everyone's business. Corporal punishment is legal and accepted, and if you don't like that, then don't use it. But it's none of your concern otherwise.
We'll be using XP in some places until right before MS stops supporting it, especially on a lot of single-use hardware. We're just now transitioning to 7 for some users.
The bigger transition is Office because of the XML file formats. It's just become too much of a pain to use pre-Office 2K7 versions.
Re:Windows 7 is the new XP windows 8 is the new vi
on
10 Years of Windows XP
·
· Score: 1
Windows 7 is the new XP windows 8 is the new vista.
windows 8 will bomb big time.
It will if Microsoft tries to cram that new Metro UI down user's throats. Methinks that sooner or later, they'll see the light, and Metro will be optional rather than the first thing you see.
MS has made some really good things, but this reminds me of their past efforts to start trends that just didn't ring with the public (remember Win 98 first edition's "Active Desktop Channels"?).
I was just about to make this exact point... Access to money or resources in general changes the problem.
There is zero evidence of this, and growing evidence that it's not true. The biggest spending on public education in the United States is in the Washington D.C. area. That area has some of the worst scores and graduation rates in the country. Utah, by contrast, is ranked near the bottom in states and territories... 51st... and has one of the better test score and graduation rates in the country.
You can pour all the money in the world into a school, with all the latest equipment, plentiful staff, and good facilities, and your kids are going to fail if two things aren't present: parents that give a damn, and a community culture that values education and achievement. No amount of funding is going to buy those things.
It's ALREADY rationed, there are plenty of people out there who can't get the care they need.
By that definition, everything from food to housing to cars are"rationed".
Which is to say, it's not. Your definition is false. Rationing occurs by a central government authority who decides to distribute a good or service based on a criteria. Medical care... like food, housing, and cars... is a combination of goods and services in a market. It's not rationing when someone can't afford something.
You would have been accurate had you said "plenty of people can't afford to pay for medical care" (just as many people can't afford houses, cars, etc). You're misleading when you say "rationing", however.
The poster has a valid point. In America, health care is a consumer service. For all of our complaints, were health care to be turned over to a federal bureaucracy, it would almost certainly get worse.
Sounds like Monster was butt-hurt when Uncle Sam ditched them, so they had a stooge write a sob story for Computer World.
What I read: Organization ditches outsourced vendor, launches redesign, massive traffic, servers strained, iron and squids are added, site is back.
Wake me when/. has some real news.
Except that it wasn't just "some organization". It was the government. The only butt-hurt here seems to be your anger at people pointing out the obvious and saying "after the government took it over, it sucked".
Slashdot Mirror
oh sorry, you must be American. not used to seeing non-obese people i guess.
This is Slashdot. It's not like any of you have actually seen a hot chick up close.
Some people would say that much of the information he released shouldn't have been classified in the first place. So, who is really the one misusing it?
And what "some people say" doesn't mean squat, because you don't get to decide that when you enlist. Just like you don't get to decide what uniform to wear or what targets to bomb or who to shoot at.The military is not a democracy.
He was not afforded the rights dictated by the constitution. He was not afforded the rights dictated by the constitution
Those rights are human rights which are protected by the Constitution, not granted by it. US jurisprudence does not recognize the right of a person to contract away human rights (e.g. you can't sell yourself into slavery).
The UCMJ is subordinate to the Constitution, so Manning's constitutional rights still exist. It seems they've been infringed.
When you join the military, you take yourself outside of US civil law. The military is its own world, which is why it has its own judicial system. When you sign those enlistment papers, you limit your rights. You're beholden to the United States Government in a manner similar to the old indentured servitude role for the duration of your enlistment. You're told this upfront when you enlist. Courts have upheld this practice throughout the entire history of the country. If you have a problem with that, then don't enlist. But Manning knew what the rules were, and he flaunted them. And now he's paying the price.
Microsoft AV is among the lest resource intensive AV programs I have seen.
Ditto. The only AV program I've seen that tends to be eat less memory and CPU is F-prot. Even AVG is more resource intensive than MSE now. And don't get me started on Norton or McAffee.
Look, people, this is The Telegraph. They are incredibly biased and unprofessional when it comes to the EU. They will happily lie about anything if it makes the EU look bad.
Anything they say about the EU is pretty much guaranteed to be garbage. Please don't encourage this kind of dishonesty by giving them pageviews.
I don't care if it came from Pravda or The Guardian. The decision was idiotic, and so is the defense of the decision. You cannot defend the decision on the basis of not liking the people complaining about the decision.
“This claim is trying to imply that there is something special about bottled water which is not a reasonable claim.”
The statement claimed no such thing. It didn't even mention bottles or brands.
"regular consumption of significant amounts of water can reduce the risk of development of dehydration".
This was nothing but stupid, political micro management. Up isn't up and down isn't down and the sky isn't blue in the EU unless a commission votes so.
...before we jump to the "EU makes dumb decision" conclusion as usual. Sellers of bottled water wanted to use that phrase as a selling point for bottled water. The EU decided that you could get the same from other sources of fluids. It may surprise some US people, but in a lot of areas you can actually drink tap water here...
Good Lord. So what??? It doesn't make their decision any less dumb. The statement they wanted approved... "regular consumption of significant amounts of water can reduce the risk of development of dehydration'"... doesn't even say that it has to be their water, or even bottled water. The statement was a basic, proven truth. And I keep seeing people here making arguments that basically say "Good, the EU stuck it to those evil un-green bottled water companies".
Does regular intake of water prevent dehydration, or does it not? This was very much a simple, common sense thing to rule on, and the EU commission screwed up. For what purpose, I don't know, but what they did was still stupid, and the defense of what they did here is ridiculous.
I don't know, I'm sure bottled water companies just wanted to use it as a misleading selling point and marketing.
OK, this is absolutely paranoid to the point of stupidity. Misleading point? Does water hydrate the body or not?. How the hell can that be misleading? You're defending stupidity with more stupidity. What's stunning is that this panel included scientists. Regular consumption of water doesn't combat dehydration? Really? I'd like to hear a defense from the cult of scientist worship on this one.
That's horrifying.
And yet, this horrific setup is what brings us the BBC and the like, you know, commercially and politically independent television.
You can't be that naive. The Beeb is pretty much the in-house press organ for the Labour Party in the UK. There is no such thing as completely independent, non-partisan, non-biased media. Everyone has an ideology. Everyone picks a side. And that's fine, as long the media outlets in question are open about their biases. That doesn't mean that they can't do good journalism. The Guardian, the American Big Three, NPR, Fox, MSNBC, CNN, The Telegraph... all have a point of view, and all can do both good and bad journalism. But someone like The Guardian is much more honest and trustworthy than someone like the BBC, because you know up front where they stand. The rank and file at the Beeb are pretty much interchangeable in political views with anyone at the Guardian... the Beeb just doesn't admit that.
And it's easy to be "commercially independent" when the public is forced to pay your bills if they have a television, even if they just use their TV to watch DVD's and never watch your network.
I know you have a problem with the notion of property, but the fact is, the park is privately owned. It is not then by legal definition public.
Also the owners of the park have received tens of millions of dollars of public funds. It is effectively a public park. Like most things the rich think they own, we actually bought it for them.
It is NOT "effectively a public park". It is, to the letter of the law, private property. The "rich" you hate so badly don't think they own it... they really do.
God damn it, I can't believe I'm about to say this... Ronald Regan actually did a pretty good job of taking the DOD to task, and forced them to get more bang for our tax buck. Ronald Reagan held them accountable, and they did shape up when he was running things.
I think accountability more than anything else is key. If no one loses their job when billions of dollars are wasted, they're just going to keep doing that.
You're correct on that. Now, if you really want some heartburn, guess who it was that A) canceled the F-14D, B)cancelled the A-12, and attempted to C)cancel the V-22 Osprey?
Dick Cheney.
I believe weapons development of this type was always done by contractors. NASA never built rockets, the Navy never built ships and the Army/Air Force never built planes.
That's not true. The Navy not only built many of it's own ships at its own shipyards, they also built their own aircraft for a time.
To this day, the Air Force still owns many of the plants that contractors build their planes in.
There was a perception until the end of WWII that Army and Navy owned plants helped keep contractors honest. A study the Navy Department did in the 30's determined that Navy owned plants helped keep warship costs down across the board.Even after WWII, the Navy continued to build some of their own ships, though this drastically declined after WWII because of pressure from politicians representing private yards.
I'm a strong advocate of capitalism and free markets and minimal government control, but I make an exception in military procurement, as weapons buying can not be a true free market. There just isn't the same kind of competitive factors as there are in the civilian market. I think perhaps we should look at bringing back the military factory system for weapons. We're certainly saving no money from Lockheed Martin these days.
What is this, 2001? Just remove that junk and give me some extra USB ports.
Why? Lots of people still use VGA and PCI. Most motherboards have USB port headers so you can easily expand, and even if it doesn't, a USB expansion card is, what, $15 bucks?
What's the point of buying small cheap hardware if it requires you to buy a bunch of other stuff as well?
You still see RS-232, PS/2, and VGA on server motherboards a lot for the same reason.
We just put in a bunch of new equipment for airline shared use situations. Almost all the peripherals... keyboard, card swipers, boarding pass readers, printers, etc... run on serial connections. Even after all these years, RS-232 is the go-to connection for stuff that has to be up 24/7.As the vendor put it "Hey, it's a clean technology, it works, and airlines will keep using it until someone comes up with something better". You could say the same thing about VGA and PS2 connections. Businesses don't like change when it comes to their gear.
It's predicted that meat will be too expensive for most of the world's population by 2050, and some scientists have proposed that westerners should eat insects instead.
We've heard this Malthusian nonsense for two centuries now, and not only is it still not true, there's more abundance of food (including meat) than ever before, even with a population hitting 7 billion. As long as there are free markets, there will be enough food. Farmers and companies will find a way.
I agree with that, especially in regards to things like real estate bundles. The idea of banning bonuses is nothing more than thinly disguised attempts to enact salary caps.
The real problem isn't that bankers are making bonuses, though. The problem is that when they fail, there's no consequences, because guys like Ben Bernanke will always support bailing them out "for the greater good". As long as they know this, they'll do stupid things at times. It's not capitalism if you can't fail. As Rob Long said on an excellent Ricochet podcast, "When these guys crash the markets, I want to see them selling apples on the street, not being bailed out by George Bush and Chuck Schumer".
Take away consequences (like, losing everything) and they'll be stupid. Why not? You're paying for it.
Firefox 9.0 will be out next week.
Bullshit. It's everyones business.
Unless there's proof of real physical harm... extreme bruising or bleeding, etc... then no, it's not everyone's business. Corporal punishment is legal and accepted, and if you don't like that, then don't use it. But it's none of your concern otherwise.
We'll be using XP in some places until right before MS stops supporting it, especially on a lot of single-use hardware. We're just now transitioning to 7 for some users.
The bigger transition is Office because of the XML file formats. It's just become too much of a pain to use pre-Office 2K7 versions.
Windows 7 is the new XP windows 8 is the new vista.
windows 8 will bomb big time.
It will if Microsoft tries to cram that new Metro UI down user's throats. Methinks that sooner or later, they'll see the light, and Metro will be optional rather than the first thing you see.
MS has made some really good things, but this reminds me of their past efforts to start trends that just didn't ring with the public (remember Win 98 first edition's "Active Desktop Channels"?).
I was just about to make this exact point... Access to money or resources in general changes the problem.
There is zero evidence of this, and growing evidence that it's not true. The biggest spending on public education in the United States is in the Washington D.C. area. That area has some of the worst scores and graduation rates in the country. Utah, by contrast, is ranked near the bottom in states and territories... 51st... and has one of the better test score and graduation rates in the country.
You can pour all the money in the world into a school, with all the latest equipment, plentiful staff, and good facilities, and your kids are going to fail if two things aren't present: parents that give a damn, and a community culture that values education and achievement. No amount of funding is going to buy those things.
It's ALREADY rationed, there are plenty of people out there who can't get the care they need.
By that definition, everything from food to housing to cars are"rationed".
Which is to say, it's not. Your definition is false. Rationing occurs by a central government authority who decides to distribute a good or service based on a criteria. Medical care... like food, housing, and cars... is a combination of goods and services in a market. It's not rationing when someone can't afford something.
You would have been accurate had you said "plenty of people can't afford to pay for medical care" (just as many people can't afford houses, cars, etc). You're misleading when you say "rationing", however.
The poster has a valid point. In America, health care is a consumer service. For all of our complaints, were health care to be turned over to a federal bureaucracy, it would almost certainly get worse.
Sounds like Monster was butt-hurt when Uncle Sam ditched them, so they had a stooge write a sob story for Computer World.
What I read: Organization ditches outsourced vendor, launches redesign, massive traffic, servers strained, iron and squids are added, site is back.
Wake me when /. has some real news.
Except that it wasn't just "some organization". It was the government. The only butt-hurt here seems to be your anger at people pointing out the obvious and saying "after the government took it over, it sucked".