It's just a little, tiny bit easier to handle the robber in the store when you're in your own country//township/jurisdiction, and can call for police backup, and not have the locals shooting at you, throwing rocks, and trying to aid the target. Entirely different situation.
It's really not that difficult for the purposes of normal discussion.. No definition for terrorist is perfect but getting semantic or pedantic over it serves no useful purpose other than paralysis by analysis.
When the Declaration of Independence was signed, the colonies became a nation state. Al Queda is not a nation state, nor has it ever deemed itself one. The Taliban is/was. But we went after them due to their harboring OBL.
An innocent person is a non-soldier or non-military personnel, a civilian who has no direct ties to to weapon deployment against enemies. Our soldiers wear clearly discerning uniforms, as outlined in the Geneva convention. Terrorists dress like and hide behind civilians. It can get a little foggy, sure.. like defense contractors who build the things but don't deploy them, or CIA operatives.. but the people in the towers and on the planes were just businessmen, going about a normal day, not planning on harming others. I did say that I consider the Pentagon a valid military target, including the non-soldiers there.
Police could be combatants yes, but their role during 9-11 was to assist people, not engage anyone.. the terrorists were already dead.
Intent.. you're kidding, right? It's no different from a court of law, like the difference between murder and manslaughter. Did they intend to kill those people, or just destroy a building without hurting anyone inside, but the people got hurt "by accident"? I think we all know they wanted to cause as much death and mayhem as possible. Their intent and desire was to kill as many Westerners as possible (not just americans in those towers), and do as much property damage as possible too. Maximum destruction and death.
Mongols would probably fit the definition of terrorist. They did horrible things. Were they a "nation state", or a very large tribe? Did they have an official government, or a chieftain with some cronies? That was many, many centuries ago. The world order is a bit different today, why are discussing ancient irrelevant civilizations?. BR
Are you referring to Psyops? (Psychological Operations) How often do they target nonmilitary personnel (let's just carpet bomb a school or bank) for assassination?
The total death count was about the same as a day's worth of traffic deaths in the US. Given that is defined by a non-event, as it happens daily, with the knowledge and acceptance of everyone, I'm still not clear why a death-count appeal would make it into an actual event.
That is completely irrelevant. Murder/= accidents. The deliberate murder of thousands of innocent unsuspecting people matter. But using your logic, hey, thousands of people suffer in pain everyday from workplace or car accidents too, or nearly drown at the pool. So why are we worried about100 (or so) killers that were treated badly at Gitmo? Everything's just a statistic, right?
According to this, Bush approved the general program in 2002 but wasn't briefed on the specifics of the brutal methods being used until 2006, with which he was uncomfortable: However, a meeting with Tenet over the practices is disputed. http://news.yahoo.com/senate-r...
I didn't get that far. "Countless lives have been saved" that count is zero. 9/11 was a non-event.
Right. a non-event. I can't believe I just read that. Tell that to the terrified people aboard the planes or in the buildings, or the ones who lost loved ones because of hateful religious zealot whacktards who took offense because we maintained bases in Saudi Arabia during the 90s to maintain the Iraqi no fly zone. Or look at the headlines all over the world for that month.. seriously, a "non-event"?
Also, you can't know how many subsequent attacks have been stopped: several, such as the shoe bomber, might have worked, but other attempts may never be released to the public because their very disclosure may threaten the very intelligence gathering methods and personnel themselves via exposure. I'm not speaking here of the interrogations, but intelligence work in general. I doubt attacks have failed for lack of trying, when AQ and affiliates want blood so desperately.
BTW, your count of 3 billion muslims worldwide is about double the actual number (anti-hyperbole followed by hyperbole?) but that's neither here nor there really.
It's really quite simple. Militants, unaffiliated with a true nation state, who deliberately kill innocent civilians, with the full intent of targeting and killing innocent civilians, for the purpose of sowing discord and fear for ideological or religious reasons, are terrorists. I don't call the terrorists of 9-11 terrorists because they targeted the Pentagon; that's a valid military target, actually; they're terrorists because of the innocent people aboard the planes, and hitting the twin towers in a major city, and killing fireman and police in NY as well.
I kind of pictured them like this: Klingons, a mix of Mongolian, Viking, and ancient Japanese: Romulans are clearly based on ancient Roman civilization, they even use the same terminology. Ferengi... they're basically an ethnic slur on jews. It's interesting how Jar Jar Binks offended everyone but no batted an eye with the Ferengi. Cardassians, maybe USSR..? not sure who they remind me of.
Ferengi "obviously" American? They seemed to me to be a unabashed stereotype of the jew, as depicted in European culture like "The Merchant of Venice".
Can't say I'm surprised. I really get fed up with these kinds of memes: 'murica!, "Germans are Nazis", and, "the French are cowards".. and so on.
Can't we all just get along?
I believe "submission" is a pretty accurate synonym here to "peace". They submit themselves to Allah, thus achieving "peace".
To me, personally, that's kind of the same sense of peace that slaves have though, via abdicating (or being denied) their free will. And in most of the islamic cultures, becoming an apostate has extremely serious consequences, so "slave" is not, IMO, a particularly inflammatory exaggeration. Way too many rules and restrictions.
Here's a funny scenario: in 100 years, when/if Tesla and solar are the big kid on the block, but an even better technology gets off the ground (let's say, fusion has it's major breakthrough), guess who'll be scared and protectionist then..?
You either die the hero or live long enough to become the villain.:-)
If that's really all true and you're not exaggerating or bending anything, that's flat out mega-corruption - how do you UNcondemn a house, if no changes whatsoever were made to the structure?
Have you considered getting a lawyer, or at least giving this story to a newspaper? I know it was only "$800", but if they get away with that today, then tomorrow, who knows.
That's a wild leap of scientific assumption from very little evidence. He could've simply been trying to sharpen (or maybe dull) a blade. There's really no way to prove that this was "thoughtful", and I'd hardly think of it as art.
Then again, with some of the modern "art" out there, I guess maybe it qualifies as among the best.
Then by that extension of "logic", "fuck" everyone who has ever bought a Sony product, or had any connection with them whatsoever. In fact, why not every human being alive? Look what we've done as a species!! In fact, how about you lead by example and kill yourself. Yeah, that's how your logic sounds.
Possibly. But it is wise never to underestimate your enemy, regardless; they may not be quite so backwoods in the Internet playing field as some assume. After all, they have managed to create nuclear warheads, not a small technological feat.. even if their missile tech still sucks.
I mean it seems likely they got everything. Even the model numbers of the kitchen sinks.
I would expect they also got some fairly damning privileged information--emails exchanged with lawyers on everything from sexual harassment to copyright infringement suits. It's a BIG firm.
Plus Patents. Sony files THOUSANDS of patents a year. If that patent information (or research that could be patented) is published to the wild before SONY patents it, you have a LOT of new prior art and a fortune in IP at risk... SONY would have to patent everything within a year in the US; I am not sure that you even have that grace period everywhere else.
(a) NOVELTY; PRIOR ART.—A person shall be entitled to a patent unless (1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention...
(b) EXCEPTIONS.— (1) DISCLOSURES MADE 1 YEAR OR LESS BEFORE THE EFFECTIVE FILING DATE OF THE CLAIMED INVENTION;
A disclosure made 1 year or less before the effective filing date of a claimed invention ***shall not be prior art*** to the claimed invention under subsection (a)(1) if—
(A) the disclosure was made by the inventor or joint inventor or by another who obtained the subject matter disclosed directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor; or
(B) the subject matter disclosed had, before such disclosure, been publicly disclosed by the inventor or a joint inventor or another who obtained the subject matter disclosed directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor.
IANAL, but the key word here is "filing date", not the date the patent was approved, and I think maybe you misread the exceptions clause, specifically the part I outlined with asterisks..? If these patents have all already been filed, and are pending, then no wild release now will matter.
Always. All they can do is pass laws, and laws are generally restrictive in nature. One usually assumes something is legal until a law says you can't... or must.
Whether or not the law accomplishes diddly squat, the politicians can then sit back and run their thumbs underneath their suspenders ("bracers" if you're British, bet you got a laugh out of that) and smugly say, "There, problem all fixed.. we did something about it". Which is also annoying because making legislation is often much easier then the practical execution of said legislation (whether or not it should be executed at all is a whole other matter).
Not entirely. The "faux news" hating crowd will obsequiously insist that there's only one TV media outlet that's ever been biased and mendacious, or, if they're feeling charitable, simply just wrong; it's the obligatory mantra that is in the far leftist's handbook...usually followed shortly thereafter by something about Rupert Murdoch, or the Koch brothers. It may as well be on a recorded loop. The fact that NBC maliciously edited Zimmerman's 911 call, or that CBS had Rathergate - actual, real examples of bias and/or lying- is filtered out as background noise.
Anymore, it seems all these networks (Fox included) have far more columnists and editorial segments than they do plain old fashioned news reporting. I guess that's what gets the ratings.
Slashdot Mirror
Not only that, but back then it was only 2-3 people in the IT shop. Today they expect you to do that with ... um ... only 2-3 people in the IT shop.
This. We've lost a lot of good people, they rarely get replaced, while new projects and systems keep piling on.
It's just a little, tiny bit easier to handle the robber in the store when you're in your own country//township/jurisdiction, and can call for police backup, and not have the locals shooting at you, throwing rocks, and trying to aid the target. Entirely different situation.
It's really not that difficult for the purposes of normal discussion.. No definition for terrorist is perfect but getting semantic or pedantic over it serves no useful purpose other than paralysis by analysis.
When the Declaration of Independence was signed, the colonies became a nation state. Al Queda is not a nation state, nor has it ever deemed itself one. The Taliban is/was. But we went after them due to their harboring OBL.
An innocent person is a non-soldier or non-military personnel, a civilian who has no direct ties to to weapon deployment against enemies. Our soldiers wear clearly discerning uniforms, as outlined in the Geneva convention. Terrorists dress like and hide behind civilians. It can get a little foggy, sure.. like defense contractors who build the things but don't deploy them, or CIA operatives.. but the people in the towers and on the planes were just businessmen, going about a normal day, not planning on harming others. I did say that I consider the Pentagon a valid military target, including the non-soldiers there.
Police could be combatants yes, but their role during 9-11 was to assist people, not engage anyone.. the terrorists were already dead.
Intent.. you're kidding, right? It's no different from a court of law, like the difference between murder and manslaughter. Did they intend to kill those people, or just destroy a building without hurting anyone inside, but the people got hurt "by accident"? I think we all know they wanted to cause as much death and mayhem as possible. Their intent and desire was to kill as many Westerners as possible (not just americans in those towers), and do as much property damage as possible too. Maximum destruction and death.
Mongols would probably fit the definition of terrorist. They did horrible things. Were they a "nation state", or a very large tribe? Did they have an official government, or a chieftain with some cronies? That was many, many centuries ago. The world order is a bit different today, why are discussing ancient irrelevant civilizations?.
BR Are you referring to Psyops? (Psychological Operations) How often do they target nonmilitary personnel (let's just carpet bomb a school or bank) for assassination?
The total death count was about the same as a day's worth of traffic deaths in the US. Given that is defined by a non-event, as it happens daily, with the knowledge and acceptance of everyone, I'm still not clear why a death-count appeal would make it into an actual event.
That is completely irrelevant. Murder /= accidents. The deliberate murder of thousands of innocent unsuspecting people matter. But using your logic, hey, thousands of people suffer in pain everyday from workplace or car accidents too, or nearly drown at the pool. So why are we worried about100 (or so) killers that were treated badly at Gitmo? Everything's just a statistic, right?
According to this, Bush approved the general program in 2002 but wasn't briefed on the specifics of the brutal methods being used until 2006, with which he was uncomfortable:
However, a meeting with Tenet over the practices is disputed.
http://news.yahoo.com/senate-r...
I didn't get that far. "Countless lives have been saved" that count is zero. 9/11 was a non-event.
Right. a non-event. I can't believe I just read that. Tell that to the terrified people aboard the planes or in the buildings, or the ones who lost loved ones because of hateful religious zealot whacktards who took offense because we maintained bases in Saudi Arabia during the 90s to maintain the Iraqi no fly zone. Or look at the headlines all over the world for that month.. seriously, a "non-event"?
Also, you can't know how many subsequent attacks have been stopped: several, such as the shoe bomber, might have worked, but other attempts may never be released to the public because their very disclosure may threaten the very intelligence gathering methods and personnel themselves via exposure. I'm not speaking here of the interrogations, but intelligence work in general. I doubt attacks have failed for lack of trying, when AQ and affiliates want blood so desperately. BTW, your count of 3 billion muslims worldwide is about double the actual number (anti-hyperbole followed by hyperbole?) but that's neither here nor there really.
It's really quite simple. Militants, unaffiliated with a true nation state, who deliberately kill innocent civilians, with the full intent of targeting and killing innocent civilians, for the purpose of sowing discord and fear for ideological or religious reasons, are terrorists. I don't call the terrorists of 9-11 terrorists because they targeted the Pentagon; that's a valid military target, actually; they're terrorists because of the innocent people aboard the planes, and hitting the twin towers in a major city, and killing fireman and police in NY as well.
Huh.. I always thought he was German.
what are you swiss?
oh wait, no you're not a grave robber.
That's a new one on me. I imagine there's a pretty good story behind that reputation, though.
:D
Besides, how do you know I'm not a grave robber?
I kind of pictured them like this: Klingons, a mix of Mongolian, Viking, and ancient Japanese: Romulans are clearly based on ancient Roman civilization, they even use the same terminology. Ferengi... they're basically an ethnic slur on jews. It's interesting how Jar Jar Binks offended everyone but no batted an eye with the Ferengi. Cardassians, maybe USSR..? not sure who they remind me of.
Ferengi "obviously" American? They seemed to me to be a unabashed stereotype of the jew, as depicted in European culture like "The Merchant of Venice".
Can't say I'm surprised. I really get fed up with these kinds of memes: 'murica!, "Germans are Nazis", and, "the French are cowards" .. and so on.
Can't we all just get along?
Kind of like any country whose name begins with "Democratic Republic of .." is not remotely either democratic or a republic.
I believe "submission" is a pretty accurate synonym here to "peace". They submit themselves to Allah, thus achieving "peace".
To me, personally, that's kind of the same sense of peace that slaves have though, via abdicating (or being denied) their free will. And in most of the islamic cultures, becoming an apostate has extremely serious consequences, so "slave" is not, IMO, a particularly inflammatory exaggeration. Way too many rules and restrictions.
Here's a funny scenario: in 100 years, when/if Tesla and solar are the big kid on the block, but an even better technology gets off the ground (let's say, fusion has it's major breakthrough), guess who'll be scared and protectionist then..? :-)
You either die the hero or live long enough to become the villain.
If that's really all true and you're not exaggerating or bending anything, that's flat out mega-corruption - how do you UNcondemn a house, if no changes whatsoever were made to the structure?
Have you considered getting a lawyer, or at least giving this story to a newspaper? I know it was only "$800", but if they get away with that today, then tomorrow, who knows.
That's a wild leap of scientific assumption from very little evidence. He could've simply been trying to sharpen (or maybe dull) a blade. There's really no way to prove that this was "thoughtful", and I'd hardly think of it as art.
Then again, with some of the modern "art" out there, I guess maybe it qualifies as among the best.
Then by that extension of "logic", "fuck" everyone who has ever bought a Sony product, or had any connection with them whatsoever. In fact, why not every human being alive? Look what we've done as a species!! In fact, how about you lead by example and kill yourself. Yeah, that's how your logic sounds.
Possibly. But it is wise never to underestimate your enemy, regardless; they may not be quite so backwoods in the Internet playing field as some assume. After all, they have managed to create nuclear warheads, not a small technological feat.. even if their missile tech still sucks.
Huh?.. I .. I don't know that.. Auuugghhhh...........
I mean it seems likely they got everything. Even the model numbers of the kitchen sinks.
I would expect they also got some fairly damning privileged information--emails exchanged with lawyers on everything from sexual harassment to copyright infringement suits. It's a BIG firm.
Plus Patents. Sony files THOUSANDS of patents a year. If that patent information (or research that could be patented) is published to the wild before SONY patents it, you have a LOT of new prior art and a fortune in IP at risk... SONY would have to patent everything within a year in the US; I am not sure that you even have that grace period everywhere else.
(a) NOVELTY; PRIOR ART.—A person shall be entitled to a patent unless (1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention ...
(b) EXCEPTIONS.— (1) DISCLOSURES MADE 1 YEAR OR LESS BEFORE THE EFFECTIVE FILING DATE OF THE CLAIMED INVENTION;
A disclosure made 1 year or less before the effective filing date of a claimed invention ***shall not be prior art*** to the claimed invention under subsection (a)(1) if—
(A) the disclosure was made by the inventor or joint inventor or by another who obtained the subject matter disclosed directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor; or
(B) the subject matter disclosed had, before such disclosure, been publicly disclosed by the inventor or a joint inventor or another who obtained the subject matter disclosed directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor.
IANAL, but the key word here is "filing date", not the date the patent was approved, and I think maybe you misread the exceptions clause, specifically the part I outlined with asterisks..? If these patents have all already been filed, and are pending, then no wild release now will matter.
Oops.. thanks. Well crap, I can't go brush up on effingpot.com, the domain is for sale.
Always. All they can do is pass laws, and laws are generally restrictive in nature. One usually assumes something is legal until a law says you can't... or must.
Whether or not the law accomplishes diddly squat, the politicians can then sit back and run their thumbs underneath their suspenders ("bracers" if you're British, bet you got a laugh out of that) and smugly say, "There, problem all fixed.. we did something about it". Which is also annoying because making legislation is often much easier then the practical execution of said legislation (whether or not it should be executed at all is a whole other matter).
True, but in this case, I think it's more about sensationalism and ratings.
Not entirely. The "faux news" hating crowd will obsequiously insist that there's only one TV media outlet that's ever been biased and mendacious, or, if they're feeling charitable, simply just wrong; it's the obligatory mantra that is in the far leftist's handbook...usually followed shortly thereafter by something about Rupert Murdoch, or the Koch brothers. It may as well be on a recorded loop. The fact that NBC maliciously edited Zimmerman's 911 call, or that CBS had Rathergate - actual, real examples of bias and/or lying- is filtered out as background noise.
Anymore, it seems all these networks (Fox included) have far more columnists and editorial segments than they do plain old fashioned news reporting. I guess that's what gets the ratings.