I recall my friend got a parking ticket. He was parked facing opposite of traffic on a residential street. The ticket was for parking "more than 18 inches away from the curb". He was 3 inches away from the curb and he started to go ballistic. I laughed my arse off and pointed "Not away from THAT curb!" pointing across the street.
Sure enough -- that's what it was. It's all about the revenue.
Solid Yellow– A yellow signal light means “CAUTION.” The red signal is about to appear. When you see the yellow light, stop if you can do so safely. If you can not stop safely, cross the intersection cautiously.
Yet the single picture violation does not tell anybody whether or not you entered the intersection illegally. Merely that you were in the intersection when it turned red... that is not illegal.
If I do get a ticket in the mail, I would contest it on those grounds I think.
As to the OP, absolutely this is all about revenue, and they are being as greedy as possible because they know that 99.9% of people will not contest it. Ever dropped a few quarters into a parking machine and looked at the time you get?
Last time I dropped in 4 quarters in SF @ 5 minutes per quarter... Yet only got 17 minutes of time.
I'm not denying anything about Article 50, you are. The fact that I left out "willful" in my paraphrase doesn't change the meaning of what you, I, or the conventions said, idiot.
I can willfully kill an enemy soldier by pointing a gun at him and pulling the trigger. I might be killing that enemy soldier by way of a sniper rifle with standard rounds during an assault on his base (legal), or I might be killing him in a POW camp because he is Jewish (illegal), or I might be killing him with a sniper rifle during an assault on his base using glass rounds and aiming for his stomach (also illegal).
In all 3 cases, I chose (i.e. it was a willful act) to kill the soldier. But in only 2 of the cases was the act illegal. In case #1, nobody (except you apparently) would think it a violation.
To put it yet another way, lets break down Article 50's sentence. That colon (:) right in the middle is the start of a list. Each comma (,) after the colon specifies a list item, EXCEPT the very last one. See the word "and" after the second to last comma?
, and extensive destruction...
That signifies the end of the list. The "extensive destruction" is the last item. The very last part of the sentence is an EXCEPTION to the rest of the list.
... not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly.
Meaning all the "nasty" items in the previous list become "ok", if done according to the exception. You have to read the rest of the conventions to find out what constitutes "lawful military necessity". If you do, you'll find at the very basic core it means: Only kill identified hostile targets while minimizing collateral damage whenever possible.
Your statement says that ONLY accidental killings are legal.
If that were really what Article 50 meant, then EVERY war is illegal and every nation on the planet is guilty... Which is what I said at the very start of this whole mess.
If you still don't get it, I have to request that you don't breed.
The difference is that you think the troops should be able to label anyone a combatant and then kill them just by claiming they are hostile when that's obviously not the case.
Last time simpleton. I made no such claim. The ONLY thing I claimed was that your statement (paraphrased) "the geneva conventions clearly state that killing is illegal.", was false.
dribble about a story printed 2 years after the incident in a completely different country
irrelavant, ignored.
I have already learned that there are an endless supply of apologists for American power who are unable to grasp basic moral concepts. And in your case, ill prepared, unread, and sadly typical.
That is your imagination again, not learning. I never brought up morals. In my case, I read the sentence you quoted... the entire sentence, understood its meaning, and attempted to share that understanding with you.
I seem to have failed, you're still as ignorant as you were before. Enjoy.
Bolding certain passages doesn't change the meaning of the text; or your false statement or your baseless insults. It is vaguely interesting though to see your warped pseudo-logic in action.
I never claimed the conventions don't apply. I simply stated that you lack the ability to understand what they say or how to apply them. Again, meditate on this one bit of text for a few years: "not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly". That is the text you are ignoring, so that is the text you need to focus on.
Killing combatants, or perceived combatants, with a gun, grenade, bomb, helicopter, knife, or by kicking them to death, is perfectly legal as long as it is done to achieve a valid military objective, does not subject the enemy to undue suffering, and does not indiscriminately harm non-combatants. Firethorn was 100% correct in his statement; just not 100% complete for all audiences. Some child-like intelligences obviously need "target" and "exception"
explicitly defined.
I hope you learned something, because I'm bored with you now.
P.S. Please feel free to use this thread to get yourself out of jury duty. To do so, simply show it to either the prosecution or defense attorneys.
Divert the conversation to another topic instead of countering my point.
No I don't feel like discussing my interpretation of the video with you. You have not shown an interest in learning. You have shown yourself to be the type to misquote, insult, and paint over-broad assumptions instead of objectively reviewing and considering every fact.
You, and most other detractors of the military in this incident, have made your decision and it won't be changed with logic and reason.
Are you purposefully ignoring the last part of that sentence?
"not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly"
Stating "It is unlawful to willfully kill somebody" is a misquote, a lie, or insanely stupid. Take your choice of excuses, but whatever your choice, your statement is absolutely false.
Entirely aside from the specific issue of deliberately and indiscriminately killing civilians,
Oh, I thought, after watching the video, that they were deliberately and discriminately killing people they thought had weapons and were aiming those weapons at soldiers on the ground.
there's the larger issue that we are still conducting an unprovoked war of aggression.
That is a matter of opinion. I think we not only had a right to go in, but a moral obligation. Unfortunately Bush was an idiot and lied about the whole situation so the argument is moot.
We don't have any legitimate targets in Iraq.
Again I disagree, but then, if I see a little old lady getting mugged and raped I'll step in there too.
Afghanistan is arguably a different situation (though whether it will do us any good is another question), but the only legitimate action we can undertake in Iraq is to get the hell out of their country.
And leave the people that are now depending our protection to be murdered by those that want to be in charge now that Sadam is gone? Like we did to Bin Laden in Afghanistan? Ya, that worked out well.
Short version: there's a few people wandering about, on the street.In the video none of them are obviously carrying anything big, though you can hear the soldiers calling in that the people were carrying AK47's and an RPG.
They shoot and kill/wound them all.
Fast forward a little with a few people bleeding to death on the ground some poor sod driving by in a minivan stopsto help and a kid and I think parents try to carry one of the injured/dead people into the car.
Over the radio you hear the soldiers calling in that more insurgents are picking up all the weapons and rescuing the wounded and they request permission to fire.
Then they shoot and kill them all.
good description.
what followed was a coverup and attempts to strongarm wikileaks into not releasing the video.
But then you screwed it up like a good CNN reporter. What happened was that an editor was supposedly followed, detained, and questioned.
But why would you have a problem with the military being interested in a classified video that was stolen and decrypted? Should the military NOT be concerned with civilians being able to decrypt their private communications?
The Geneva Conventions clearly delineate willful killing as a grave breach of the agreement.
Clearly. It probably states that on line 1 right? "Willfully killing people is against the law."
I'm still a little unclear about this though. How do wars work again?
This video encapsulates the entire problem of American foreign policy: a bunch of idiots who are too scared to put themselves in harm's way to confront and confirm what they think is an enemy, so they make rash decisions that end up killing innocent people and creating more problems for themselves.
This comment encapsulates the entire problem of America hating idiots: a bunch of people that see 1 piece of a giant puzzle and unanimously stating "IT'S A PARROT!"
Please name the conscripts in the video. Oh, that's right, they were all VOLUNTEERS getting shot at.
I already know what you're going to say "Nobody was getting shot at!"
Ah, but I actually watched the video. I heard the comments about the small arms fire, the soldiers on the ground requesting help because they were getting shot at from roofs by AK-47s. I heard the (gunner(s)?) identify what they thought were guns, and ask for permission to engage, and engage. I saw somebody holding something I couldn't identify poke that something around a corner towards soldiers on the ground.
I also saw a comment from a Monday morning quarter-back watching news highlights of last night's game claim he could do a better job as coach.
If you read the comments from Army and US in the video before it was now released to public, they're just really blatant lies.
Which comments? links or it didn't happen. Only comment I can easily find right now is the one at the start of the wikileaks edited video. Which is impossible to determine if its a lie or not. "Engaged according to the rules of engagement".
They also did not release the video when Reuters requested it by Freedom of Information Act.
Must be Obama's "new and improved transparent government" hard at work freeing information for the idiots that believed him.
Like the earlier news note, they followed, photographed, filmed and detained a Wikileaks editor about this video, not knowing what will they uncover.
Perhaps. But I bet they did know that a classified video was stolen and decrypted. In fact, I'm pretty sure Wikileaks stated such. I wonder why the military would care about such things as compromised intelligence. Fascinating stuff so far.
There's definitely more dirty secrets they don't want anyone to know.
Oh! Can I borrow your crystal ball? I want to see next week's lotto numbers.
In the video you see the people weren't attacking anyone, weren't targeting anyone (hell, all they had was cameras!) and that they were just civilians walking on the street.
Oh, I must have missed the bright yellow "CANON" printed on the side of the blur next to those two guys. Could you please magnify and enhance the video like they do in the movies and upload your fixed version for the rest of us? Transcript of all their thoughts would be helpful too.
The military clearly had no idea what they were doing.
Clearly. They're not perfect like you. They have to use ancient technology like radios, cameras, eyeballs, and human brains to do anything. Morons.
Now theres plans to employ remotely controlled UAC's too?
So we've heard.
Make it a video game so that you don't need to care about the people you are murdering. These are people with families, with kids, with a whole lot of their own life, dreams and childhood.
The Iraqis? Or the people NOT getting shot at because the UAC is there instead of a living, breathing bullet catcher?
Then some idiot with large caliber weapons comes and shoots them without even a blink of an eye or thinking what he is doing.
Oh, you were talking about the Iraqis. I forgot that U.S. soldiers are created in a lab using cloning technology. None of them have families so we don't need to bother with technology to protect them.
In top of that the truth is held from the public and the families of those who were killed, and US Army admits no mistake.
A lot of things are kept from the public. I don't like it either. I blame Obama. Bush was at least honest about hiding things. Obama claims everything should be in the open, but then hides it and smiles at you.
I have no respect for these people - they're scum.
I respect them. They voluntarily signed up to put their lives on the line for me.
What I don't respect are people that jump to conclusions without all the facts and call them "idiots" with "no idea what they're doing" that don't want to "care about the people [they] are murdering".
An independent contractor who has only 1 customer is by law considered an employee.
Wrong.
If you're provided a desk, equipment of any kind, security access as an employee is (doesn't have to sign in, etc), is issued commands and job tasks by management, averages over 36 hours per week over a 3 month period or longer, has a dedicated manager,
Wrong.
is expected to show up and work regular hours, etc
I guess if you list enough items, eventually you hit one that is vaguely correct. There are many criteria for determining if an individual is treated as a
regular employee or a contractor. None of which are hard and fast 'rules'. Each is determined on a case-by-case basis.
Here are some basic guidelines to help:
http://www.dol.gov/elaws/esa/flsa/scope/ee14.asp
In fact, in many states, it is ILLEGAL to have an "independent contractor" not be on the books if at any time their contract is open ended or not related to a specific task with a defined completion date.
This sounds odd. I haven't read any specific state requirements except California's which doesn't say this. Do you have an example?
I had an employer try to pull this BS in CT. He thought it would be a great idea to fire us all, hire us back at a 10% pay raise, but save all the benefits, vacation, Social security and HR costs, etc. he saved about $300/week per each of us, and we got $50-100 more... Come tax time, we found out the hard way that just because an employer doesn't pay your matching SS costs and medicare, that does NOT mean it does not have to get paid... i had a $4K tax debt to deal with under this arrangement.
We spoke to a lawyer, and the state department of labor, and the guy got fined big time, and we each got the back pay X3, our tax debt reassigned to his firm, and 10% of what they took out of his ass for reporting him. During the process, he terminated us all instantly, so we also got compensation for unlawful termination and loss of work pay (plus unemployment on top). They also found out he'd been doing this for YEARS in cycles, and got him for a few hundred grand in unpaid taxes, and last I heard he was still serving a 9 year prison sentence for tax evasion (he tried to move all the money and the house to relative's accounts so they could not put leans on it when he refused to pay up). They took everything he had, business home and cars.
Contractors by definition can not be on salary. If you;re buddy is only paid 40 hours as a contractor, he needs to send them a bill and threaten to send a copy to the labor board and the attorney general of the state. Have him tell them he wants time and a half back pay, plus time and a half vacation compensation, plus $300 per payroll period in leiu of stiffer fines from the government, and give them a copy of the FLSA sections refering to the definitions of contractor and employee.
As much as I like to blame MS for all the world's woes, they're not to blame for any change in perception of I.T. It is the same as any other profession or industry and goes through the same phases:
phase 1) new field, nobody knows the technology, those few that do are highly paid, highly trained
phase 2) field becomes mainstream, new technologies simplify and improve it, more people learn the field, etc. Salaries and perceptions go down
phase 3) Salaries and skills required are low compared to other new fields, innovators move on... others just complain.
Want some examples?, pick up anything labeled 'made in china'. Your clothes, small plastic toys, cars, computers, etc.
Self defense does not require you to be struck first. It merely requires a credible, immediate threat to your well being, and your response must be appropriate.
If somebody is in your face and threatens to hit you, you can prevent that from happening by hitting first, if you think it is really going to happen.
If somebody points a gun at you, ya, you can shoot first.
If somebody online says they're going to come to your house and shoot you, you have to call the cops and give them the chance to ignore you first.
However, the story mentions the tech chasing the customer. Even if the customer started the situation with physical threats and the tech was actually 'forced' to defend himself, he lost his self defense argument the second he decided to not run away at the first opportunity.
IANAL though, so if you try to bring up this comment in your own self defense trial, I'm just going to laugh at you.
I think the problem here is further reaching than just getting volunteers to approve $4.7 billion in grants.
For instance, why was the USDA tapped to handle the grants?
Certified 5-star corn fed angus broadband is coming to your area!
A little help for the OP, quoted directly from the article:
"APTA then compares the average monthly transit fare to the average cost of driving. The cost of driving is calculated using the 2009 AAA average cost of driving formula."
And here is a link to the appropriate AAA publication:
APTA's study is skewed as it assumes if you ride public transportation, you don't own a car and won't need to pay for insurance or maintenance on the car anyways. While that may be true in homes where your spouse needs a car as well (for work, errands, whatever), most single people that use public transportation I imagine keep their car.
Despite that, it is still a huge savings in many areas.
San Jose -> San Francisco (Financial District) means $200/mo for caltrain+muni pass + ~$50/mo for gas to the train station. Or ~$300/mo gas + ~$300/mo parking + additional maintenance and insurance costs to drive.
Ignoring maintenance and insurance, that is still a savings of ~$4200/year.
Real savings I imagine are somewhere in between that number and APTA's claim of $11k/year.
On that score though, certainly where I live (Scotland), if you have a parking facility you offer to people under conditions (such as your car being forfeit if you don't pay), you've agreed to a contract by parking there, as long as the sign is clearly visible etc. So tough shit....
I really doubt that is the law, but hey, to each their own.
Here on the intelligent side of the ocean contract law is influenced by common sense in that they have invented nifty terms like:
"significant imbalance" "good faith" and "consideration"
This prevents dishonest Scots from taking advantage of little old ladies by posting signs saying they'll lose their house if they don't pay $10 before walking into your store.
I've been basically unable to listen to anything released over the last fifteen-twenty years.
Darn those kids with their rock music and slick hair! In my day we had to walk uphill both ways in the snow barefoot to buy records. RECORDS mind you not these new fangled 'ate tracks' or whatever you kids are calling them now.
Let me tell you something! Elvis is a fad that will be gone tomorrow. He just mindlessly whacks his geetar to generate noise. That no-talent hack is...
Your post clearly identifies why there was a bias, and why Obama was elected so readily. You listen to what Obama says and buy it as an absolute truth, without doing any independent fact checking.
McCain proposed changes to improve healthcare, and according to the independent analysis I read, both plans would end up being about the same in terms of cost and coverage.
Responsible end to the war in Iraq. Obama's plan "get out now" vs McCain's plan "Get out once we've done the responsible thing and cleaned up our mess." The "get out now" gave us communist Vietnam. The "get out now" gave us the West hating Osama bin Ladin. Whether you like it or not, we went in to Iraq and removed the STABLE government that was there. Whatever the reason, whatever the morality, now we have to clean up our mess.
As to those 'false equivalences'... might you be referring to Obama attacking McCain for making robo-calls (which Obama made as well), or Obama accusing McCain of misdeads with Libby (which the courts said there were none), or Obama cavorting with Dick Cheney opposing gay marriage, or Obama attacking McCain/Bush 'trickle-down economics' while voting for the disgusting 'bail-out' plan, or the republican party purchasing clothing for Palin to wear during the campaign which is then donated to charity while Obama shops at Barney's NY and claims to be an 'everyman'.
Oh, no, I guess you wouldn't be mentioning those issues, would you?/2 wtb Mirror
Slashdot Mirror
Apple is the leading smartphone vendor up until the point it's time to consider applying the Sherman Act to them.
Yes. About the time you start applying law and filing lawsuits you have to come up with actual facts to back up your frothing mouth.
But the handbook is not the law. The courts go by the law.
Well, the Florida link clearly states the law. And since you asked, here is the California laws:
Yello light definition: http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d11/vc21452.htm Red light definition: http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d11/vc21453.htm So that is two states guaranteed, being in the road on a red is not a violation.
I recall my friend got a parking ticket. He was parked facing opposite of traffic on a residential street. The ticket was for parking "more than 18 inches away from the curb". He was 3 inches away from the curb and he started to go ballistic. I laughed my arse off and pointed "Not away from THAT curb!" pointing across the street.
Sure enough -- that's what it was. It's all about the revenue.
Yup. They count on you not contesting.
Ya, and that is the tricky part that makes me think the cameras are illegal.
http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/hdbk/traff_lgts_sgns.htm
The California DMV handbook as well states that
Solid Yellow– A yellow signal light means “CAUTION.” The red signal is about to appear. When you see the yellow light, stop if you can do so safely. If you can not stop safely, cross the intersection cautiously.
Yet the single picture violation does not tell anybody whether or not you entered the intersection illegally. Merely that you were in the intersection when it turned red... that is not illegal.
If I do get a ticket in the mail, I would contest it on those grounds I think.
As to the OP, absolutely this is all about revenue, and they are being as greedy as possible because they know that 99.9% of people will not contest it. Ever dropped a few quarters into a parking machine and looked at the time you get?
Last time I dropped in 4 quarters in SF @ 5 minutes per quarter... Yet only got 17 minutes of time.
I love Firefox because of its plugins [snip] but it's an absolute memory hog.
Try turning off a few of your plugins.
LOL, now you're funny again, awesome.
I'm not denying anything about Article 50, you are. The fact that I left out "willful" in my paraphrase doesn't change the meaning of what you, I, or the conventions said, idiot.
I can willfully kill an enemy soldier by pointing a gun at him and pulling the trigger. I might be killing that enemy soldier by way of a sniper rifle with standard rounds during an assault on his base (legal), or I might be killing him in a POW camp because he is Jewish (illegal), or I might be killing him with a sniper rifle during an assault on his base using glass rounds and aiming for his stomach (also illegal).
In all 3 cases, I chose (i.e. it was a willful act) to kill the soldier. But in only 2 of the cases was the act illegal. In case #1, nobody (except you apparently) would think it a violation.
To put it yet another way, lets break down Article 50's sentence. That colon (:) right in the middle is the start of a list. Each comma (,) after the colon specifies a list item, EXCEPT the very last one. See the word "and" after the second to last comma?
, and extensive destruction...
That signifies the end of the list. The "extensive destruction" is the last item. The very last part of the sentence is an EXCEPTION to the rest of the list.
... not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly.
Meaning all the "nasty" items in the previous list become "ok", if done according to the exception. You have to read the rest of the conventions to find out what constitutes "lawful military necessity". If you do, you'll find at the very basic core it means:
Only kill identified hostile targets while minimizing collateral damage whenever possible.
Your statement says that ONLY accidental killings are legal.
If that were really what Article 50 meant, then EVERY war is illegal and every nation on the planet is guilty... Which is what I said at the very start of this whole mess.
If you still don't get it, I have to request that you don't breed.
ever
The difference is that you think the troops should be able to label anyone a combatant and then kill them just by claiming they are hostile when that's obviously not the case.
Last time simpleton. I made no such claim. The ONLY thing I claimed was that your statement (paraphrased) "the geneva conventions clearly state that killing is illegal.", was false.
dribble about a story printed 2 years after the incident in a completely different country
irrelavant, ignored.
I have already learned that there are an endless supply of apologists for American power who are unable to grasp basic moral concepts. And in your case, ill prepared, unread, and sadly typical.
That is your imagination again, not learning. I never brought up morals. In my case, I read the sentence you quoted... the entire sentence, understood its meaning, and attempted to share that understanding with you. I seem to have failed, you're still as ignorant as you were before. Enjoy.
Bolding certain passages doesn't change the meaning of the text; or your false statement or your baseless insults. It is vaguely interesting though to see your warped pseudo-logic in action.
I never claimed the conventions don't apply. I simply stated that you lack the ability to understand what they say or how to apply them. Again, meditate on this one bit of text for a few years: "not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly". That is the text you are ignoring, so that is the text you need to focus on.
Killing combatants, or perceived combatants, with a gun, grenade, bomb, helicopter, knife, or by kicking them to death, is perfectly legal as long as it is done to achieve a valid military objective, does not subject the enemy to undue suffering, and does not indiscriminately harm non-combatants. Firethorn was 100% correct in his statement; just not 100% complete for all audiences. Some child-like intelligences obviously need "target" and "exception" explicitly defined.
I hope you learned something, because I'm bored with you now.
P.S. Please feel free to use this thread to get yourself out of jury duty. To do so, simply show it to either the prosecution or defense attorneys.
Divert the conversation to another topic instead of countering my point.
No I don't feel like discussing my interpretation of the video with you. You have not shown an interest in learning. You have shown yourself to be the type to misquote, insult, and paint over-broad assumptions instead of objectively reviewing and considering every fact.
You, and most other detractors of the military in this incident, have made your decision and it won't be changed with logic and reason.
Are you purposefully ignoring the last part of that sentence? "not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly" Stating "It is unlawful to willfully kill somebody" is a misquote, a lie, or insanely stupid. Take your choice of excuses, but whatever your choice, your statement is absolutely false.
Entirely aside from the specific issue of deliberately and indiscriminately killing civilians,
Oh, I thought, after watching the video, that they were deliberately and discriminately killing people they thought had weapons and were aiming those weapons at soldiers on the ground.
there's the larger issue that we are still conducting an unprovoked war of aggression.
That is a matter of opinion. I think we not only had a right to go in, but a moral obligation. Unfortunately Bush was an idiot and lied about the whole situation so the argument is moot.
We don't have any legitimate targets in Iraq.
Again I disagree, but then, if I see a little old lady getting mugged and raped I'll step in there too.
Afghanistan is arguably a different situation (though whether it will do us any good is another question), but the only legitimate action we can undertake in Iraq is to get the hell out of their country.
And leave the people that are now depending our protection to be murdered by those that want to be in charge now that Sadam is gone? Like we did to Bin Laden in Afghanistan? Ya, that worked out well.
Short version: there's a few people wandering about, on the street.In the video none of them are obviously carrying anything big, though you can hear the soldiers calling in that the people were carrying AK47's and an RPG. They shoot and kill/wound them all.
Fast forward a little with a few people bleeding to death on the ground some poor sod driving by in a minivan stopsto help and a kid and I think parents try to carry one of the injured/dead people into the car. Over the radio you hear the soldiers calling in that more insurgents are picking up all the weapons and rescuing the wounded and they request permission to fire. Then they shoot and kill them all.
good description.
what followed was a coverup and attempts to strongarm wikileaks into not releasing the video.
But then you screwed it up like a good CNN reporter. What happened was that an editor was supposedly followed, detained, and questioned. But why would you have a problem with the military being interested in a classified video that was stolen and decrypted? Should the military NOT be concerned with civilians being able to decrypt their private communications?
The Geneva Conventions clearly delineate willful killing as a grave breach of the agreement.
Clearly. It probably states that on line 1 right? "Willfully killing people is against the law." I'm still a little unclear about this though. How do wars work again?
This video encapsulates the entire problem of American foreign policy: a bunch of idiots who are too scared to put themselves in harm's way to confront and confirm what they think is an enemy, so they make rash decisions that end up killing innocent people and creating more problems for themselves.
This comment encapsulates the entire problem of America hating idiots: a bunch of people that see 1 piece of a giant puzzle and unanimously stating "IT'S A PARROT!" Please name the conscripts in the video. Oh, that's right, they were all VOLUNTEERS getting shot at. I already know what you're going to say "Nobody was getting shot at!" Ah, but I actually watched the video. I heard the comments about the small arms fire, the soldiers on the ground requesting help because they were getting shot at from roofs by AK-47s. I heard the (gunner(s)?) identify what they thought were guns, and ask for permission to engage, and engage. I saw somebody holding something I couldn't identify poke that something around a corner towards soldiers on the ground. I also saw a comment from a Monday morning quarter-back watching news highlights of last night's game claim he could do a better job as coach.
It's a sad fucking joke.
As are your comments.
If you read the comments from Army and US in the video before it was now released to public, they're just really blatant lies.
Which comments? links or it didn't happen. Only comment I can easily find right now is the one at the start of the wikileaks edited video. Which is impossible to determine if its a lie or not. "Engaged according to the rules of engagement".
They also did not release the video when Reuters requested it by Freedom of Information Act.
Must be Obama's "new and improved transparent government" hard at work freeing information for the idiots that believed him.
Like the earlier news note, they followed, photographed, filmed and detained a Wikileaks editor about this video, not knowing what will they uncover.
Perhaps. But I bet they did know that a classified video was stolen and decrypted. In fact, I'm pretty sure Wikileaks stated such. I wonder why the military would care about such things as compromised intelligence. Fascinating stuff so far.
There's definitely more dirty secrets they don't want anyone to know.
Oh! Can I borrow your crystal ball? I want to see next week's lotto numbers.
In the video you see the people weren't attacking anyone, weren't targeting anyone (hell, all they had was cameras!) and that they were just civilians walking on the street.
Oh, I must have missed the bright yellow "CANON" printed on the side of the blur next to those two guys. Could you please magnify and enhance the video like they do in the movies and upload your fixed version for the rest of us? Transcript of all their thoughts would be helpful too.
The military clearly had no idea what they were doing.
Clearly. They're not perfect like you. They have to use ancient technology like radios, cameras, eyeballs, and human brains to do anything. Morons.
Now theres plans to employ remotely controlled UAC's too?
So we've heard.
Make it a video game so that you don't need to care about the people you are murdering. These are people with families, with kids, with a whole lot of their own life, dreams and childhood.
The Iraqis? Or the people NOT getting shot at because the UAC is there instead of a living, breathing bullet catcher?
Then some idiot with large caliber weapons comes and shoots them without even a blink of an eye or thinking what he is doing.
Oh, you were talking about the Iraqis. I forgot that U.S. soldiers are created in a lab using cloning technology. None of them have families so we don't need to bother with technology to protect them.
In top of that the truth is held from the public and the families of those who were killed, and US Army admits no mistake.
A lot of things are kept from the public. I don't like it either. I blame Obama. Bush was at least honest about hiding things. Obama claims everything should be in the open, but then hides it and smiles at you.
I have no respect for these people - they're scum.
I respect them. They voluntarily signed up to put their lives on the line for me. What I don't respect are people that jump to conclusions without all the facts and call them "idiots" with "no idea what they're doing" that don't want to "care about the people [they] are murdering".
pics or it didnt happen.
Clue: Subtle joke, deserves 'funny' moderation ;)
Subtle + Slashdot = FAIL
And what exactly are you hinting at?
An independent contractor who has only 1 customer is by law considered an employee.
Wrong.
If you're provided a desk, equipment of any kind, security access as an employee is (doesn't have to sign in, etc), is issued commands and job tasks by management, averages over 36 hours per week over a 3 month period or longer, has a dedicated manager,
Wrong.
is expected to show up and work regular hours, etc
I guess if you list enough items, eventually you hit one that is vaguely correct. There are many criteria for determining if an individual is treated as a regular employee or a contractor. None of which are hard and fast 'rules'. Each is determined on a case-by-case basis. Here are some basic guidelines to help: http://www.dol.gov/elaws/esa/flsa/scope/ee14.asp
In fact, in many states, it is ILLEGAL to have an "independent contractor" not be on the books if at any time their contract is open ended or not related to a specific task with a defined completion date.
This sounds odd. I haven't read any specific state requirements except California's which doesn't say this. Do you have an example?
I had an employer try to pull this BS in CT. He thought it would be a great idea to fire us all, hire us back at a 10% pay raise, but save all the benefits, vacation, Social security and HR costs, etc. he saved about $300/week per each of us, and we got $50-100 more... Come tax time, we found out the hard way that just because an employer doesn't pay your matching SS costs and medicare, that does NOT mean it does not have to get paid... i had a $4K tax debt to deal with under this arrangement.
We spoke to a lawyer, and the state department of labor, and the guy got fined big time, and we each got the back pay X3, our tax debt reassigned to his firm, and 10% of what they took out of his ass for reporting him. During the process, he terminated us all instantly, so we also got compensation for unlawful termination and loss of work pay (plus unemployment on top). They also found out he'd been doing this for YEARS in cycles, and got him for a few hundred grand in unpaid taxes, and last I heard he was still serving a 9 year prison sentence for tax evasion (he tried to move all the money and the house to relative's accounts so they could not put leans on it when he refused to pay up). They took everything he had, business home and cars.
Contractors by definition can not be on salary. If you;re buddy is only paid 40 hours as a contractor, he needs to send them a bill and threaten to send a copy to the labor board and the attorney general of the state. Have him tell them he wants time and a half back pay, plus time and a half vacation compensation, plus $300 per payroll period in leiu of stiffer fines from the government, and give them a copy of the FLSA sections refering to the definitions of contractor and employee.
You sure do have a lot of stories.
As much as I like to blame MS for all the world's woes, they're not to blame for any change in perception of I.T. It is the same as any other profession or industry and goes through the same phases: phase 1) new field, nobody knows the technology, those few that do are highly paid, highly trained phase 2) field becomes mainstream, new technologies simplify and improve it, more people learn the field, etc. Salaries and perceptions go down phase 3) Salaries and skills required are low compared to other new fields, innovators move on... others just complain. Want some examples?, pick up anything labeled 'made in china'. Your clothes, small plastic toys, cars, computers, etc.
Not exactly true.
Self defense does not require you to be struck first. It merely requires a credible, immediate threat to your well being, and your response must be appropriate.
If somebody is in your face and threatens to hit you, you can prevent that from happening by hitting first, if you think it is really going to happen.
If somebody points a gun at you, ya, you can shoot first.
If somebody online says they're going to come to your house and shoot you, you have to call the cops and give them the chance to ignore you first.
However, the story mentions the tech chasing the customer. Even if the customer started the situation with physical threats and the tech was actually 'forced' to defend himself, he lost his self defense argument the second he decided to not run away at the first opportunity.
IANAL though, so if you try to bring up this comment in your own self defense trial, I'm just going to laugh at you.
I think the problem here is further reaching than just getting volunteers to approve $4.7 billion in grants. For instance, why was the USDA tapped to handle the grants? Certified 5-star corn fed angus broadband is coming to your area!
I own the copyright to the "I have a bridge to sell you" joke.
Licensing starts at $1000 per use.
Pay up thief.
A little help for the OP, quoted directly from the article:
"APTA then compares the average monthly transit fare to the average cost of driving. The cost of driving is calculated using the 2009 AAA average cost of driving formula."
And here is a link to the appropriate AAA publication:
http://www.aaaexchange.com/Assets/Files/200948913570.DrivingCosts2009.pdf
APTA's study is skewed as it assumes if you ride public transportation, you don't own a car and won't need to pay for insurance or maintenance on the car anyways. While that may be true in homes where your spouse needs a car as well (for work, errands, whatever), most single people that use public transportation I imagine keep their car.
Despite that, it is still a huge savings in many areas.
San Jose -> San Francisco (Financial District) means $200/mo for caltrain+muni pass + ~$50/mo for gas to the train station.
Or ~$300/mo gas + ~$300/mo parking + additional maintenance and insurance costs to drive.
Ignoring maintenance and insurance, that is still a savings of ~$4200/year.
Real savings I imagine are somewhere in between that number and APTA's claim of $11k/year.
On that score though, certainly where I live (Scotland), if you have a parking facility you offer to people under conditions (such as your car being forfeit if you don't pay), you've agreed to a contract by parking there, as long as the sign is clearly visible etc.
So tough shit....
I really doubt that is the law, but hey, to each their own.
Here on the intelligent side of the ocean contract law is influenced by common sense in that they have invented nifty terms like:
"significant imbalance"
"good faith"
and
"consideration"
This prevents dishonest Scots from taking advantage of little old ladies by posting signs saying they'll lose their house if they don't pay $10 before walking into your store.
I've been basically unable to listen to anything released over the last fifteen-twenty years.
Darn those kids with their rock music and slick hair! In my day we had to walk uphill both ways in the snow barefoot to buy records. RECORDS mind you not these new fangled 'ate tracks' or whatever you kids are calling them now.
Let me tell you something! Elvis is a fad that will be gone tomorrow. He just mindlessly whacks his geetar to generate noise. That no-talent hack is...
Well, I think you get the picture oldie.
Your post clearly identifies why there was a bias, and why Obama was elected so readily. You listen to what Obama says and buy it as an absolute truth, without doing any independent fact checking.
McCain proposed changes to improve healthcare, and according to the independent analysis I read, both plans would end up being about the same in terms of cost and coverage.
Responsible end to the war in Iraq. Obama's plan "get out now" vs McCain's plan "Get out once we've done the responsible thing and cleaned up our mess."
The "get out now" gave us communist Vietnam.
The "get out now" gave us the West hating Osama bin Ladin.
Whether you like it or not, we went in to Iraq and removed the STABLE government that was there. Whatever the reason, whatever the morality, now we have to clean up our mess.
As to those 'false equivalences'... might you be referring to Obama attacking McCain for making robo-calls (which Obama made as well), or Obama accusing McCain of misdeads with Libby (which the courts said there were none), or Obama cavorting with Dick Cheney opposing gay marriage, or Obama attacking McCain/Bush 'trickle-down economics' while voting for the disgusting 'bail-out' plan, or the republican party purchasing clothing for Palin to wear during the campaign which is then donated to charity while Obama shops at Barney's NY and claims to be an 'everyman'.
Oh, no, I guess you wouldn't be mentioning those issues, would you? /2 wtb Mirror
Now I'm picturing scammers spamming invoices for services rendered... "1 erased memory $1500".