Coming soon: the Unquestioning Obedience Citation, awarded for not caring about legalities like declaring war.
I think the term you're looking for is use-of-military-force authorization. That's what Congress calls it these days, because "declaration of war" is so 1941.
Congress passed a measure three days after 9/11 approving use of military force in Afghanistan. About a year later, they passed the measure authorizing use of force against Iraq. It's a different term but effectively has the same meaning.
To be fair, the Bronze Star isn't just a combat medal. It's also awarded for meritorious service, typically to company-grade or low-field-grade officers who have deployed.
Since comparatively few lives are at risk in this context, then, it should all work out. To be fair, some of these guys operate downrange for four months or so at a time, because you can't reliably control takeoff and landing through a satellite link. But the operational flying happens in Nevada, and there's no physical risk involved.
It just requires relocation, much as if you want to view child porn today, you have to go outside the first world.
You are either an idiot or a troll. Possibly both.
Child porn is a totally different bag, because children cannot consent to sexual activity of any sort. Therefore, by definition, child pornography is coercive and exploitative.
"Regular" porn can also be coercive or exploitative, but the vast majority of the time, everyone involved in the activity is there because they want to be there.
How exactly did this gentleman become an expert on pornography?
Prof. Gail Dines is actually a she, but her credentials on pornography are suspect at best. Do a Google search for "Gail Dines" "Penn and Teller Bullshit."
Exactly right. The government operates fusion centers for precisely this purpose. Whether they're effective at that purpose is another matter... guess we'll find out.
If only everyone put the amount of thought required to add the apostrophe (or not) in the first place. Kudos to you for taking it one step further and explaining why they should. I mean that sincerely.
On the other hand, being (necessarily, due to temperature issues) much closer to their star, these planets are likely to be tidally locked, which is *not* a good thing for complex life trying to evolve.
Another concern is that a lot of M-class stars (Proxima Centauri, for example) are flare stars. Flares are kind of a big deal when we experience them, and that's with flares that are much less powerful in proportion to the star at a distance much further away from a red dwarf's habitable zone. Imagine living 20 million or so miles from a star that arbitrarily doubles or triples its luminosity... would make for some interesting evolutionary challenges.
I suspect Antivirus/anti-spyware companies (smaller ones, foreign ones) will provide methods of de-installing the spyware.
Cracking groups like Razor1911 et al might get into the game as well. And as always, the folks who buy the legit software will end up worse off than the people who don't pay for it.
So, your answer is that because google has decided it has the right to redistribute copyrighted images in full resolution in most cases, that everyone else on the web should go to Google and opt out of their caching system?
As about 20 other people have pointed out, that's not really what Google's doing. The full-resolution images are hotlinked from Google image search. Ironically, it would be easier on site owners if Google were directly lifting the high-resolution images, but... copyright.
Why don't we all just say: Hey Google, If you want the feature to work that way, you needed to GET PERMISSION FROM EVERYONE BEFORE INFRINGING THEIR COPYRIGHTS.
I think this is maybe a good place to ask, why did you publish the content in the first place?
If someone clicks the Google Image Search 'high-resolution' link for one of my photos from Flickr, they get a medium-resolution version [staticflickr.com] with no description, attribution or copyright information.
While I do lean towards your sympathies....do you really feel comfortable to that decision being in the hands of ONE man, with no checks and balances, as it has happened so far with President Obama?
Comfortable? No. But I do understand the logic behind it. The document's talking about Americans who have given their loyalty to al-Qaida and are involved in actively plotting attacks against other Americans. If those folks happen to be in the U.S., then they get due process, but if they've placed themselves in a position where ensuring their due process would cost American lives, then what are our options?
It's no easy solution, and the one we have probably isn't the best one, but it's better than shrugging our shoulders while American citizens in Mali, Qatar or anywhere else plot to kill other Americans.
This issue has really far less to do with whether the targets are traitors or not and more to do with who is allowed to determine which Americans are and which Americans aren't traitors....
Here's a hint: If they're in an al-Qaida camp, and they're not hostages, then that means they've chosen to align with a group that wants to kill American citizens and violently overthrow the American government.
The unclassified range of the F-22's detection systems is "more than 250 nautical miles." So actually, there's a good chance it could see you from 300.
Slashdot Mirror
Coming soon: the Unquestioning Obedience Citation, awarded for not caring about legalities like declaring war.
I think the term you're looking for is use-of-military-force authorization. That's what Congress calls it these days, because "declaration of war" is so 1941.
Congress passed a measure three days after 9/11 approving use of military force in Afghanistan. About a year later, they passed the measure authorizing use of force against Iraq. It's a different term but effectively has the same meaning.
To be fair, the Bronze Star isn't just a combat medal. It's also awarded for meritorious service, typically to company-grade or low-field-grade officers who have deployed.
Since comparatively few lives are at risk in this context, then, it should all work out. To be fair, some of these guys operate downrange for four months or so at a time, because you can't reliably control takeoff and landing through a satellite link. But the operational flying happens in Nevada, and there's no physical risk involved.
It just requires relocation, much as if you want to view child porn today, you have to go outside the first world.
You are either an idiot or a troll. Possibly both.
Child porn is a totally different bag, because children cannot consent to sexual activity of any sort. Therefore, by definition, child pornography is coercive and exploitative.
"Regular" porn can also be coercive or exploitative, but the vast majority of the time, everyone involved in the activity is there because they want to be there.
I'm sure there are quite a few other "experts" out there who will take a counter position. Or two.
I see what you did there ...
And you're right. Stoya, in particular, has nothing nice to say about Dines.
What do we lose, if porn is banned?
The freedom to choose.
How exactly did this gentleman become an expert on pornography?
Prof. Gail Dines is actually a she, but her credentials on pornography are suspect at best. Do a Google search for "Gail Dines" "Penn and Teller Bullshit."
I have it on good authority that the future will be better tomorrow.
OK, not so sure about the "good" part, now that I think about it.
If you've ever driven in Manhattan, you'd understand why.
Who do you think the survivors will be?
The smart ones. So you can pretty much rule out the GOP.
Exactly right. The government operates fusion centers for precisely this purpose. Whether they're effective at that purpose is another matter ... guess we'll find out.
Whoosh.
I'm not anxious about that. I'm anxious about people who use "who" when they should use "whom." ;)
If the objects only temporarily orbit the Earth, they're not moons.
If the objects orbit the Earth-Moon system, they're not moons.
I know it's pedantic, but accuracy is important, even on /..
Not yet, but if we're serious about developing a next-generation space program, then they we should look at making that a true statement.
If only everyone put the amount of thought required to add the apostrophe (or not) in the first place. Kudos to you for taking it one step further and explaining why they should. I mean that sincerely.
It offered sarcasm. That's a response, isn't it?
On the other hand, being (necessarily, due to temperature issues) much closer to their star, these planets are likely to be tidally locked, which is *not* a good thing for complex life trying to evolve.
Another concern is that a lot of M-class stars (Proxima Centauri, for example) are flare stars. Flares are kind of a big deal when we experience them, and that's with flares that are much less powerful in proportion to the star at a distance much further away from a red dwarf's habitable zone. Imagine living 20 million or so miles from a star that arbitrarily doubles or triples its luminosity ... would make for some interesting evolutionary challenges.
I suspect Antivirus/anti-spyware companies (smaller ones, foreign ones) will provide methods of de-installing the spyware.
Cracking groups like Razor1911 et al might get into the game as well. And as always, the folks who buy the legit software will end up worse off than the people who don't pay for it.
So, your answer is that because google has decided it has the right to redistribute copyrighted images in full resolution in most cases, that everyone else on the web should go to Google and opt out of their caching system?
As about 20 other people have pointed out, that's not really what Google's doing. The full-resolution images are hotlinked from Google image search. Ironically, it would be easier on site owners if Google were directly lifting the high-resolution images, but ... copyright.
Why don't we all just say: Hey Google, If you want the feature to work that way, you needed to GET PERMISSION FROM EVERYONE BEFORE INFRINGING THEIR COPYRIGHTS.
I think this is maybe a good place to ask, why did you publish the content in the first place?
If someone clicks the Google Image Search 'high-resolution' link for one of my photos from Flickr, they get a medium-resolution version [staticflickr.com] with no description, attribution or copyright information.
You don't embed that in the EXIF information?
While I do lean towards your sympathies....do you really feel comfortable to that decision being in the hands of ONE man, with no checks and balances, as it has happened so far with President Obama?
Comfortable? No. But I do understand the logic behind it. The document's talking about Americans who have given their loyalty to al-Qaida and are involved in actively plotting attacks against other Americans. If those folks happen to be in the U.S., then they get due process, but if they've placed themselves in a position where ensuring their due process would cost American lives, then what are our options?
It's no easy solution, and the one we have probably isn't the best one, but it's better than shrugging our shoulders while American citizens in Mali, Qatar or anywhere else plot to kill other Americans.
There can still be runs on banks, and they will still run out of reserves before every depositor is paid.
Which is why the government instituted the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, or FDIC for short. Maybe you've heard of it?
This issue has really far less to do with whether the targets are traitors or not and more to do with who is allowed to determine which Americans are and which Americans aren't traitors....
Here's a hint: If they're in an al-Qaida camp, and they're not hostages, then that means they've chosen to align with a group that wants to kill American citizens and violently overthrow the American government.
The unclassified range of the F-22's detection systems is "more than 250 nautical miles." So actually, there's a good chance it could see you from 300.