The maintenance schedule on the Shuttle (and most other US Government vehicles for that matter) tends to be a little more agressive than your average family hand-me-down car.
To me it's more evidence that NASA is a fossilised bueuracracy. Of course the Russians being strapped for funds have a great motivator to be open minded, but still. That's sort of the point: if NASA was forced to operate with less lavish budgets, new possibilites might suddenly "appear".
Read the CAIB Report, specifically Volume 1, Chapter 5 Section 5.3 entittled "An Agency Trying to do Too Much with Too Little." The Board found problems with NASA... beurocracy is certainly a large part of it. A lavish budget is not.
let me see if I get this: it's ok to say Microsoft "ripped off" something or that Apple "ripped off" the GUI from xerox, but software patents are bad because they disallow the sharing of ideas?
This is one of those classic microcomputer arguments. It has almost become a tradition to argue over the pedegree of the GUI as we know it. There's a place for this argument beyond the traditional pissing contest over who's technology is "better". This argument highlights the history of the microcomputer and provides a lesson on how the industry works.
The only change in this argument seems to be how it is applied. Sometimes it's an attempt to justify purchases or explain the market. It's been used to provide moral backing to one argument or another in legal cases. And here we see it being linked to software patents. This might be where the classic argument graduates from silly past-time and childish banter.
If Apple and MS "ripped off" Xerox (and each other) then didn't Miguel and all those KDE devs rip them off too?
Xerox PARC provides an example of the idea incubator - which is indeed their task. And while Xerox certainly profited from PARC's research, they also failed to capitalize on everything (although they weren't always ignorant of it). Enter Apple who further capitalized on the concepts PARC developed - and added their own innovations. Enter Microsoft who took the idea their own direction - part of which was putting a GUI on commodity hardware.
All in all, this flow of ideas has been a good thing. I wouldn't pretend that any single player mentioned would be a good place to end the GUI story. Xerox didn't bring computing to the masses. Apple's implementation was wrapped up in an entirely proprietary package. And Microsoft... well, let's just say my intent here is not to demonize.
The important point often missed is that the story of the GUI is commonplace in the industry. Computing innovation and evolution comes from the flow (and tweaking) of ideas.
Enter KDE (and the whole Open Source phenominum). Did KDE copy other ideas? Of course. That's the point. But then, that's nothing new. Open Source is simply defining (and licensing) what's being going on for decades; an activity that has been an important and healthy part of the technology industry. And that's where the criticism over software patents and over-zealous use of the word "innovation" by marketers comes from.
Of course, all computer builders understand the need for the cool power. That's why they reach for the extreme refreshment of Mountain Dew Artic Megablast. Now available with the Taco Bell OverCrunch Cheesemelt Ultimate Burrito Fries meal.
Not long ago, one of SCO's major financiers (I think it was the Royal Bank of Canada or Baystar) started making noise about demanding their money back. Among their complaints was the high visibility of Darl McBride. Darl quickly faded from the limelight.
One of the continuing problems with IT security is the fact that the bright folks who can find or fix problems aren't always the ones who understand how really big, clunky corporations work.
While I can understand the difficulties of beurocracy (I work in a doozy of one), I have little sympathy. Those who would take advantage of these vulerabilities will likewise care little about the politics of big, clunky beurocracies. What they care about is exploiting the systems they find vulnerable. And, even better, doing it before anyone is aware of the method.
Again - I understand that Ms. Davidson has a tough gig. But that's the job. And that's the market Oracle is in. At some point Oracle (and other vendors) will have to face the reality of the environment we're all in and either step up to the challenge or fade away.
Bill Gates is (approximately) the world's richest man because he, as much as anyone, made computers accessible and affordable to the average home and office.
Wow. I've never seen the Microsoft Personal Computer. When did they release that? Here I was thinking it was the likes of Compaq, Dell, and Tandy that were producing personal computers based on commodity hardware.
True - Microsoft did provide one of the key pieces. But if you want to give credit to someone, you should be looking at Compaq who reverse engineered IBM's bios and sparked the commodity hardware market.
Bill Gates got rich by providing software for every one of those commodity systems - no matter who was making it.
Without Windows 95 we'd all be running OS/2 by now and the Internet wouldn't be nearly as accessible.
I have to disagree. My first direct exposure to the Internet involved Windows 3.11 and a 3.5" floppy that contained Netscape 1.0 and Trumpet Winsock. It was a little rough, but it was very usable. A somewhat more complete package was offered by Chameleon Software (the ISP I worked at offered this to customers).
It was a good move by Microsoft to include a TCP/IP stack in Win95. But it was simply a matter of taking note of what people were already doing. And if Microsoft had not supplied the stack natively, people would have been installing it on their own... just as they had already been doing so.
Incidently - the real change in the Internet... what made it accessible to the masses was the graphical browser. That's Mosaic. Followed by Netscape. Followed by Microsoft.
The path had already been set. And while Microsoft was a participant, they were a relative latecomer and hardly a leader.
Early on in the case, this would have been a huge big revelation...
This isn't a new revelation. This is ongoing legal action based on a revelation from before this lawsuit even began. The law works slowly.
It didn't exactly escape mainstream media. But the revelation wasn't really highlighted; simply included in the news concerning Novell's involvement. I suppose it's to be expected. After all, it's hard to track what's going on with Novell's involvement without a diagram. Heck, even so-called experts have a hard time keeping track of all the players involved WITH a diagram.
Maybe it's time for this little nugget to hit the full brightness of the media limelight. This particular bit of legal action clarifys the point and in a language Buisness can understand - money.
Watch the DVD set in its intended order and the show is much easier to appreciate. The apparently really botched it when they aired it originally.
This is one idea that I guess I don't share with many Firefly fans. I watched the series in its air-date order... and liked it.
I liked the first episode. It was fairly light and action-packed. It introduced the characters, provided a bit of a feel for who and what they are, and also hinted at existing relationships between them. Why they behaved the way they did was a mystery that I enjoyed. By the time I saw the 2-part Serenity episode, it was a treat to get a (somewhat) complete back-story of the cast. The mysteries left standing were even more intrigueing.
The term they should have used (and what law enforcement uses now, after more than a few wrongful death lawsuits, is the term of "Less lethal". Did any of the Kirtland Air Force Base participants have a pre existing heart condition? I bet they didnt let pregnant women participate.
Good point. These weapons are designed to have a negative impact on their target(s) that will also present a fairly high chance of survivability. But they are still weapons. And they still present a danger. It is disingenuous to present these weapons to the public in a manner that hides this danger. And it is outright dangerous to arm people with these weapons who don't have the appropriate training and respect for the danger these weapons present.
Incidently, you might have missed that the Pentagon apparently classifies these as "less lethal", not "nonlethal".
I find it highly ironic that our testing of this indescriminant weapon will be used in our even more indescriminant war.
Queue the politics.
Terrorists dont use large crowds as weapons, if you stop and think at why this weapon would be needed, its ultimately crowd control on our home front. Now why would we need that? Lakers winning again? I highly doubt it. Someone had a plan when they initated and funded the development of this, and it doesnt look like a good one.
Who the hell said anything about terrorists? I didn't see the word even used in the entire article - I even did a text search.
No - the use for this is to "manage" crowds. Specifically, rioters. You might be interested to note that riots happen in other locations around the world other than the US. And it might also interest you to note that it doesn't take a major US sporting event to bring one about.
The real issue here is whether agencies like the US Department of Defense who choose to deploy this (and simular) technology properly understand the capabilities and dangers of the weapons they use. And, more importantly, whether they choose to use them in appropriate situations.
Now you're just being pendantic. Of course you don't eliminate all systems because they can be corrupted. But you do limit the reach of those systems. Note the phrase "as few as possible" in my response.
So let me summerize your arguments so far. You are advocating removing the right to vote from people who, in your judgement, are unfit to vote (ostensibly due to their beliefs). Now you're implying people have a right to vote more than once. Or, putting them together, only certain people.
Are you to be Emperor, King, or simply President of this nice little government you're re-inventing?
It isn't the test that's the problem, it's the contents of the test. By the way, it seems to me that you are just pulling it out of thin air that the test is 'favored' by oppressive regimes.
No - I'm not pulling it out of thin air. I'm using history as a guide. Heck - look at US history. As recent as 1965, poll tests were structured in such a way as to cheat black voters from their right to vote.
While it is undeniable that some oppressive regimes use a test of some sort, to say that it is bad to use a test in order to determine who can vote makes about as much sense as saying that because some oppressive regimes allow their citizens to 'vote' voting is a method favored by oppressive regimes and shouldn't be used in non-oppressive regimes.
Opressive regimes tend to not allow voting. But when they do, they stack the deck. The existance of mechanisms like testing for the right to vote is a prime example. Ignoring this is ignoring history.
Could such a test be structured fairly? Perhapse... depending on what you consider "fair". If you don't see that itself as a major problem, then consider the next issue. Any mechanism put in place to restrict rights can be corrupted. It is therefore necissary to ensure as few of those mechanisms exist as possible.
The point of DRM is to be in the way when you try to distribute something.
That's YOUR definition of DRM. Keep in mind that not too many years ago, the RIAA stated on their webpage that creating MP3s from CDs you owned was illegal. Top brass have even suggested in the past that one should own a sperate CD for the car stereo rather than just bring along the copy you already have for your home stereo. Then there are issues such as region encoding.
DRM is there to stop you from doing things. And those things are very likely to include more than simple distribution. Incidently - DRM doesn't stop distribution; make an identical copy. That's what real counterfeiters do.
So would you contend that guzzling amphetamines and going on bombing sorties is lawful? Or responsible?
I don't know - I'm not a doctor. The article you linked to highlights both why the Air Force would use amphentamines, a history of their use, and their detrimental effects. And it would seem there's a tendancy to overlook those detrimental effects by the top brass. You might note that the issue seems to be not the dug's use - but their over-use. But you're missing my point and this article's relevance to it.
Note the expert critics cited in the article; among them (retired) Maj. Glenn MacDonald, and Retired Adm. Eugene Carroll. Military men... and a part of the Brass themselves. Men that have gone through military training yet retain the ability to question their leadership. Again - hardly non-critical, unthinking zombies.
I'm not saying there are no bad orders. I'm not saying there are no blind followers. Nor do I contend that critical thinkers will not follow bad orders. But again - the idea that military training produces a population incapable of independant thought is absurd. Even this article demonstrates that military training does not eliminate individual, critical thought.
Also, it may be a good idea to have to pass a test in order to vote or hold public office.
Yes - by all means. Let's re-introduce a method favored by oppressive regimes; the "test" for the right to vote. Just don't whine if that "test" somehow means that you... critical of those currently in power... somehow can't pass.
You might want to note that within that search you linked, there are also critics. Are there a lot of followers? Apparently. I'm saddened by it. But they are still a minority.
Having said that... I'm not sure where you're trying to go with this. Are you calling for removing the right to vote from these individuals?
There are also communities of other believers believing other things. Some of them, in my own opinion, just as whacky... maybe even more dangerous. You don't have to follow ancient text to give up critical thinking. Would you remove these individual's rights too?
Let me introduce you to a little thing called history, bub. I've been reviewing history, and in general The United States hasn't been going the way I want, and the very fact that you assumed that I was talking of the politics of the moment is yet another indication of the wrong way this country has been headed for quite some time now.
Hmmm. I might even agree with you on some points there. Just remember... as you review history... don't focus entirely on the United States. Keep in mind that geopolitics don't happen in a vacuum.
The people I mentioned in connection with the 2000 year old book are the people you seem to believe will vote sensibly.
No... I don't believe in that. In my own opinion, some of these people are absolute nuts. I won't agree with them. I will probably resist and campaign against them. But I'm not going to lose sleep over the fact that they get a voice too. I wouldn't have it any other way less I find myself in the minority (which I tend to do) that others feel should have no voice.
I don't think it is healthy for the citizens of a free country to be beaten into submission as is done to people in basic training. Yes, we need people, good people, in our armed forces. We also need people in our society that have nothing to do with the military.
I completely agree. Like I said earlier - the grandparent's post is wrong. Our system does not require one to serve to have a voice. And nor should it.
What I resent is the implication that Active Duty or former military personel lack the ability to apply individual or critical thought. The "beating in to submission" doesn't seem to hold. There seemed to be a vetting time after Basic Training where one begins to adjust to the "real" military. That's not to say the overall training doesn't have some effect - I haven't been in any civilian group that's operated like a military one. Completely different culture and structure. But somewhere in there, individuals who are smart enough to do so regain their ability to think critically. That's not always appreciated nor welcomed by the brass - just as its not always appreciated in the civilian sector. But in any case, critical thought does re-engange. I've worked with plenty of Active Duty and met plenty of ex-military to note more than a few critical thinkers in the lot.
Let me guess - US politics aren't going the way you would have them, so the system doesn't work.
Many of the people who vote believe that a translation (your opinion of quality may vary) of a roughly 2000 year-old book is the end all, be all for just about any purposes of judgement, experiences be irrelevent.
And you know what? More power to them. If they want to believe in relatively recent translations of ancient text from any given source - that's their right. If they want to believe in any given system of gods, goddesses, elves, or fairies... so be it. They can also believe in any number of conspiracy theories.
I won't necissarily agree with them. I may even go so far as to think that some of those individuals are foolish (to say the least).
Having said that - what's that got to do with what I'm talking about?
My friend in the Army told me about how they had persons for Bush come around and encourage them to vote for him come election time. He had a high opinion of his unit from what I heard, but he didn't like the politics involved in the system mostly involving pay and leave and other promotions issues.
Do you remember details on this? Who were these "persons for Bush"? Were they wearing uniforms while doing this? Where did they campaign?
I served during two presidental elections. I saw nothing that would even imply the level of improprietry you're implying. Of course - this wasn't under the last elections for Bush Jr. And it was a completely different branch of service.
In any case, I appreciate your two examples - even if they're second hand accounts. They show the kind of person I served with. These were not unthinking order-takers as the grandparent implied. That's not to say that the military doesn't have its share. I can think of specific examples. But thankfully, they were the minority.
I don't agree with that saying though. People who server in the military learn to take orders, perhaps really dumb orders. I don't want a society filled with those people; I am afraid we may have just that anyway.
I served. I vote. And I don't agree with the parent because that's not how our government works. It sure as hell isn't the government I served to protect.
I have to wonder what branch of Service you came from. In the Air Force, my professional military education covered the concept of the "lawfull order" multiple times. Maybe your branch of service doesn't teach about the Nuremberg Trials? This alone introduces the concept that one does not blindly follow orders. Hardly the unthinking zombie military you imply.
It might also be worth stressing that during my career, I was encouraged to be involved in the political process. But at the same time, there was no direction as to what that involvement should be or what political interests should be supported. My education also included stressing a seperation between the uniform and individual political activity.
It's a shame your outfit wasn't of the same calibre... or you ignored some valuable lessons.
Slashdot Mirror
The maintenance schedule on the Shuttle (and most other US Government vehicles for that matter) tends to be a little more agressive than your average family hand-me-down car.
Read the CAIB Report, specifically Volume 1, Chapter 5 Section 5.3 entittled "An Agency Trying to do Too Much with Too Little." The Board found problems with NASA... beurocracy is certainly a large part of it. A lavish budget is not.
This is one of those classic microcomputer arguments. It has almost become a tradition to argue over the pedegree of the GUI as we know it. There's a place for this argument beyond the traditional pissing contest over who's technology is "better". This argument highlights the history of the microcomputer and provides a lesson on how the industry works.
The only change in this argument seems to be how it is applied. Sometimes it's an attempt to justify purchases or explain the market. It's been used to provide moral backing to one argument or another in legal cases. And here we see it being linked to software patents. This might be where the classic argument graduates from silly past-time and childish banter.
Xerox PARC provides an example of the idea incubator - which is indeed their task. And while Xerox certainly profited from PARC's research, they also failed to capitalize on everything (although they weren't always ignorant of it). Enter Apple who further capitalized on the concepts PARC developed - and added their own innovations. Enter Microsoft who took the idea their own direction - part of which was putting a GUI on commodity hardware.
All in all, this flow of ideas has been a good thing. I wouldn't pretend that any single player mentioned would be a good place to end the GUI story. Xerox didn't bring computing to the masses. Apple's implementation was wrapped up in an entirely proprietary package. And Microsoft... well, let's just say my intent here is not to demonize.
The important point often missed is that the story of the GUI is commonplace in the industry. Computing innovation and evolution comes from the flow (and tweaking) of ideas.
Enter KDE (and the whole Open Source phenominum). Did KDE copy other ideas? Of course. That's the point. But then, that's nothing new. Open Source is simply defining (and licensing) what's being going on for decades; an activity that has been an important and healthy part of the technology industry. And that's where the criticism over software patents and over-zealous use of the word "innovation" by marketers comes from.
Of course, all computer builders understand the need for the cool power. That's why they reach for the extreme refreshment of Mountain Dew Artic Megablast. Now available with the Taco Bell OverCrunch Cheesemelt Ultimate Burrito Fries meal.
Not long ago, one of SCO's major financiers (I think it was the Royal Bank of Canada or Baystar) started making noise about demanding their money back. Among their complaints was the high visibility of Darl McBride. Darl quickly faded from the limelight.
While I can understand the difficulties of beurocracy (I work in a doozy of one), I have little sympathy. Those who would take advantage of these vulerabilities will likewise care little about the politics of big, clunky beurocracies. What they care about is exploiting the systems they find vulnerable. And, even better, doing it before anyone is aware of the method.
Again - I understand that Ms. Davidson has a tough gig. But that's the job. And that's the market Oracle is in. At some point Oracle (and other vendors) will have to face the reality of the environment we're all in and either step up to the challenge or fade away.
Wow. I've never seen the Microsoft Personal Computer. When did they release that? Here I was thinking it was the likes of Compaq, Dell, and Tandy that were producing personal computers based on commodity hardware.
True - Microsoft did provide one of the key pieces. But if you want to give credit to someone, you should be looking at Compaq who reverse engineered IBM's bios and sparked the commodity hardware market.
Bill Gates got rich by providing software for every one of those commodity systems - no matter who was making it.
I have to disagree. My first direct exposure to the Internet involved Windows 3.11 and a 3.5" floppy that contained Netscape 1.0 and Trumpet Winsock. It was a little rough, but it was very usable. A somewhat more complete package was offered by Chameleon Software (the ISP I worked at offered this to customers).
It was a good move by Microsoft to include a TCP/IP stack in Win95. But it was simply a matter of taking note of what people were already doing. And if Microsoft had not supplied the stack natively, people would have been installing it on their own... just as they had already been doing so.
Incidently - the real change in the Internet... what made it accessible to the masses was the graphical browser. That's Mosaic. Followed by Netscape. Followed by Microsoft.
The path had already been set. And while Microsoft was a participant, they were a relative latecomer and hardly a leader.
This isn't a new revelation. This is ongoing legal action based on a revelation from before this lawsuit even began. The law works slowly.
It didn't exactly escape mainstream media. But the revelation wasn't really highlighted; simply included in the news concerning Novell's involvement. I suppose it's to be expected. After all, it's hard to track what's going on with Novell's involvement without a diagram. Heck, even so-called experts have a hard time keeping track of all the players involved WITH a diagram.
Maybe it's time for this little nugget to hit the full brightness of the media limelight. This particular bit of legal action clarifys the point and in a language Buisness can understand - money.
To each their own. I like the intro. I've even been known to hum the line that makes you cringe. And I'm not even a fan of country music.
This is one idea that I guess I don't share with many Firefly fans. I watched the series in its air-date order... and liked it.
I liked the first episode. It was fairly light and action-packed. It introduced the characters, provided a bit of a feel for who and what they are, and also hinted at existing relationships between them. Why they behaved the way they did was a mystery that I enjoyed. By the time I saw the 2-part Serenity episode, it was a treat to get a (somewhat) complete back-story of the cast. The mysteries left standing were even more intrigueing.
Good point. These weapons are designed to have a negative impact on their target(s) that will also present a fairly high chance of survivability. But they are still weapons. And they still present a danger. It is disingenuous to present these weapons to the public in a manner that hides this danger. And it is outright dangerous to arm people with these weapons who don't have the appropriate training and respect for the danger these weapons present.
Incidently, you might have missed that the Pentagon apparently classifies these as "less lethal", not "nonlethal".
Queue the politics.
Who the hell said anything about terrorists? I didn't see the word even used in the entire article - I even did a text search.
No - the use for this is to "manage" crowds. Specifically, rioters. You might be interested to note that riots happen in other locations around the world other than the US. And it might also interest you to note that it doesn't take a major US sporting event to bring one about.
The real issue here is whether agencies like the US Department of Defense who choose to deploy this (and simular) technology properly understand the capabilities and dangers of the weapons they use. And, more importantly, whether they choose to use them in appropriate situations.
Now you're just being pendantic. Of course you don't eliminate all systems because they can be corrupted. But you do limit the reach of those systems. Note the phrase "as few as possible" in my response.
So let me summerize your arguments so far. You are advocating removing the right to vote from people who, in your judgement, are unfit to vote (ostensibly due to their beliefs). Now you're implying people have a right to vote more than once. Or, putting them together, only certain people.
Are you to be Emperor, King, or simply President of this nice little government you're re-inventing?
No - I'm not pulling it out of thin air. I'm using history as a guide. Heck - look at US history. As recent as 1965, poll tests were structured in such a way as to cheat black voters from their right to vote.
Opressive regimes tend to not allow voting. But when they do, they stack the deck. The existance of mechanisms like testing for the right to vote is a prime example. Ignoring this is ignoring history.
Could such a test be structured fairly? Perhapse... depending on what you consider "fair". If you don't see that itself as a major problem, then consider the next issue. Any mechanism put in place to restrict rights can be corrupted. It is therefore necissary to ensure as few of those mechanisms exist as possible.
That's YOUR definition of DRM. Keep in mind that not too many years ago, the RIAA stated on their webpage that creating MP3s from CDs you owned was illegal. Top brass have even suggested in the past that one should own a sperate CD for the car stereo rather than just bring along the copy you already have for your home stereo. Then there are issues such as region encoding.
DRM is there to stop you from doing things. And those things are very likely to include more than simple distribution. Incidently - DRM doesn't stop distribution; make an identical copy. That's what real counterfeiters do.
I don't know - I'm not a doctor. The article you linked to highlights both why the Air Force would use amphentamines, a history of their use, and their detrimental effects. And it would seem there's a tendancy to overlook those detrimental effects by the top brass. You might note that the issue seems to be not the dug's use - but their over-use. But you're missing my point and this article's relevance to it.
Note the expert critics cited in the article; among them (retired) Maj. Glenn MacDonald, and Retired Adm. Eugene Carroll. Military men... and a part of the Brass themselves. Men that have gone through military training yet retain the ability to question their leadership. Again - hardly non-critical, unthinking zombies.
I'm not saying there are no bad orders. I'm not saying there are no blind followers. Nor do I contend that critical thinkers will not follow bad orders. But again - the idea that military training produces a population incapable of independant thought is absurd. Even this article demonstrates that military training does not eliminate individual, critical thought.
Yes - by all means. Let's re-introduce a method favored by oppressive regimes; the "test" for the right to vote. Just don't whine if that "test" somehow means that you... critical of those currently in power... somehow can't pass.
You might want to note that within that search you linked, there are also critics. Are there a lot of followers? Apparently. I'm saddened by it. But they are still a minority.
Having said that... I'm not sure where you're trying to go with this. Are you calling for removing the right to vote from these individuals?
There are also communities of other believers believing other things. Some of them, in my own opinion, just as whacky... maybe even more dangerous. You don't have to follow ancient text to give up critical thinking. Would you remove these individual's rights too?
Hmmm. I might even agree with you on some points there. Just remember... as you review history... don't focus entirely on the United States. Keep in mind that geopolitics don't happen in a vacuum.
No... I don't believe in that. In my own opinion, some of these people are absolute nuts. I won't agree with them. I will probably resist and campaign against them. But I'm not going to lose sleep over the fact that they get a voice too. I wouldn't have it any other way less I find myself in the minority (which I tend to do) that others feel should have no voice.
I completely agree. Like I said earlier - the grandparent's post is wrong. Our system does not require one to serve to have a voice. And nor should it.
What I resent is the implication that Active Duty or former military personel lack the ability to apply individual or critical thought. The "beating in to submission" doesn't seem to hold. There seemed to be a vetting time after Basic Training where one begins to adjust to the "real" military. That's not to say the overall training doesn't have some effect - I haven't been in any civilian group that's operated like a military one. Completely different culture and structure. But somewhere in there, individuals who are smart enough to do so regain their ability to think critically. That's not always appreciated nor welcomed by the brass - just as its not always appreciated in the civilian sector. But in any case, critical thought does re-engange. I've worked with plenty of Active Duty and met plenty of ex-military to note more than a few critical thinkers in the lot.
Let me guess - US politics aren't going the way you would have them, so the system doesn't work.
And you know what? More power to them. If they want to believe in relatively recent translations of ancient text from any given source - that's their right. If they want to believe in any given system of gods, goddesses, elves, or fairies... so be it. They can also believe in any number of conspiracy theories.
I won't necissarily agree with them. I may even go so far as to think that some of those individuals are foolish (to say the least).
Having said that - what's that got to do with what I'm talking about?
Well - that's a lot better. We can't have people stating their opinions on things now, can we? Not if there's a buck to be made.
Do you remember details on this? Who were these "persons for Bush"? Were they wearing uniforms while doing this? Where did they campaign?
I served during two presidental elections. I saw nothing that would even imply the level of improprietry you're implying. Of course - this wasn't under the last elections for Bush Jr. And it was a completely different branch of service.
In any case, I appreciate your two examples - even if they're second hand accounts. They show the kind of person I served with. These were not unthinking order-takers as the grandparent implied. That's not to say that the military doesn't have its share. I can think of specific examples. But thankfully, they were the minority.
It works for blogs too. Great idea, Chief.
I served. I vote. And I don't agree with the parent because that's not how our government works. It sure as hell isn't the government I served to protect.
I have to wonder what branch of Service you came from. In the Air Force, my professional military education covered the concept of the "lawfull order" multiple times. Maybe your branch of service doesn't teach about the Nuremberg Trials? This alone introduces the concept that one does not blindly follow orders. Hardly the unthinking zombie military you imply.
It might also be worth stressing that during my career, I was encouraged to be involved in the political process. But at the same time, there was no direction as to what that involvement should be or what political interests should be supported. My education also included stressing a seperation between the uniform and individual political activity.
It's a shame your outfit wasn't of the same calibre... or you ignored some valuable lessons.