Al-awlaki was not a member of any branch of the US armed forces so it is completely irrelevant. Secondluy, the phrase "nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law" is a completely independent clause. The exception you highlight applies only to the first sentence.
Let's hope it gets modded into the oblivion it deserves again.
It's all a bunch of fantasy hypotheticals when today, the President can decide to murder any American anywhere without every having to prove anything at all. Eventually, we'll see lots of blood after each election as the previous party line becomes the new thought crime.
Shame on you for lending your support to the destruction of America.
I wish it would happen, then the idiots who keep up the crap in the Iraq and Afghanistan might have enough of a "Red Dawn" moment to understand that when foreigners invade, the locals fight back. This assumes they'd have the insight to see the folly in their own actions, which is unlikely given how obvious it is that we're making our own enemies.
There's a huge difference between China vs Tibet and US vs Al Qaeda. China took control of Tibet and Tibet wants independence.
One word: Iraq
Did we not take control? Do you think the people actually like having us there killing innocent people day in and day out? It's like 9/11 24/7 there. We're WORSE than China. Seriously, at least Tibet isn't halfway around the world -- it's right on the border with China. I'm not excusing China mind you, but our occupation of Iraq is a much more egregious example of imperial hubris than China's occupation of Tibet.
All this part says is that if you are in the military, you don't get to have all these rights. Last I checked, Al-awlaki was not a member of any branch of the US armed forces.
It's been argued that he aided and directed the underwear bomber and some of the 9/11 hijackers.
Two points:
Bullshit and Bullshit.
As to the first piece of bullshit, show me where in the Constitution it says, "When accused by police, you are presumed guilty and will be executed."
As to the second, Al-awlaki was a moderate cleric invited to speak all over WA DC after the 9-11 attack. What turned him from moderate to radical, is the unrelenting slaughter of innocent people. Even _I_ think the US is evil for doing that and I'm just an average white guy atheist whose very immune to any arguments relating to crusades or jihad.
Your comment demonstrates exactly why this is so dangerous. Unsupported allegations now are considered proof in your mind. The constitution requires more than that and for good reason, but if this is what is to pass as evidence in America, it's fricken over. We've passed into the dictatorship stage.
The irony here is that all the civil liberties African Americans fought and even died for in their quest to be treated equally under the law, are being thrown out by an African American president.
Simple solution. Only use those parts that prove your case and burry the parts that show the setup. Do you seriously think the Feds would even think about offering the parts in which they cajole him into action at trial?
This is more like you request bids for house painting but require that the painters use the paint that Painting Company A manufactures. Painting Company A will not sell the paint to other professional house painters, but it will apply that paint to your house. This becomes not an open bidding process, but a price request from Painting Company A.
Now, somebody will fix my bad analogy and eventually, a good one will emerge.
My business has been using Open Office since we opened it in 2003 (actually, we used Star Office back then). A word processor is the single most important piece of software in my line of work. I don't know what I'd get from MS Office that I don't get with Open Office. Everything we do is text heavy with some basic formatting and we also need to have templates that are able to suck info from a database. Open Office does all this just fine and I don't have to cough up hundreds of dollars for every update or if I add a worker.
One nice thing about the Open Office file format is that it isn't binary -- it's a zip file of plain text files. I'm an amateur crappy programmer, but even I could write some PHP scripts that would manufacture an envelope file from database contents. This saves 60s or more every time we need to print a client envelope because instead of doing a mail merge with our database, we can just push a button in our database interface and up pops the envelope -- press print button and close. Takes 2 or 3 seconds at most.
You failed to address the point he made about the automation of automation. What happens when most jobs are replaced by robots designed by robots? I don't really feel I know that answer, but it is an interesting question that I suspect can't just be answered on the basis of our experience in the industrial revolution.
If, on the other hand, a team of 20 law professionals can write all the software for all situations themselves, then the rest of the industry will need to find new jobs. If this is the case, then we have to deduce that it was not a highly educated field after all, and that work in the law profession is actually manual labor after all.
This doesn't make sense. Just because a profession could be replaced by a computer program doesn't mean its practitioners were not highly educated. It means they were highly educated in a subject area that can be automated. For those who studied prior to the automation, this called unlucky. For those who study after automation, it is either because of a pure interest in the area, a profound lack of paying attention, or sheer idiocy. But none of those factors make those who complete the program any less educated.
1) If the facts are against you, pound on the law.
2) If the law is against you, pound on the facts.
3) If both the law and the facts are against you, pound on the table.
The Law is Black and white anyways... I mean how much more True/False can you get?
Laws are often ambiguous or conflict with each other -- a large purpose of appellate courts is resolving such issues. But setting that aside, even if we were to assume perfect black/white laws, the facts that must be fed to these laws are often gray and very often completely opposed.
Car analogy: Take the simple legal proposition that if you cause a car wreck, you are going to have to pay for the other party's medical expenses caused by your negligence (but not for any conditions not caused by your negligence). At trial, two equally qualified medical experts testify, one stating that the rearendee's neck condition was a direct result of the physical forces of the accident, and the other that the physical forces were too weak to cause any harm, rather, the neck condition is nothing more than the natural progression of injuries suffered ten years ago while skiing. Both doctors explain their opposite positions well and back up their opinions with peer reviewed medical science.
The law itself doesn't answer this question of causation -- it merely creates a framework of liability rules and admissible evidence in which the question of causation can be asked of a jury or a judge. A simple T/F computer program would not be able to make a decision in such a case on any basis other than chance. While a jury might use gut feeling rather than a coin flip to decide the issue, and ultimately that is perhaps much like a decision based on chance, most people would probably object to having their cases decided by dice or the digital equivalent.
I wish I hadn't posted already -- I'd love to mod you up.
That's the real sin in SS -- it taxes only lower income people but congress uses the money now to blow shit up and enrich the war profiteers. They'll all still be millionaires and billionaires when the program is bankrupt and our economy looks like Greece's -- and the rest of us can fill our bellies with dirt pancakes. SS as currently implemented is a means of stealing from the poor to give to the rich.
Excuse me, but those "IOUs" you are referring to are Treasury Bonds.
Do you know what you call someone who owns a million dollars in Treasury Bonds? A "millionaire".
Excuse me, but a Treasury Bond is an IOU in every sense of the word, i.e., the Feds say to SS Trust Fund: "hey man, give me a $999^x today, and we'll give you $1000^x ten years from now." Then the Feds spend the money and its all gone. As in SDI or to burn up villagers in the mideast. All we have left is the Fed's promise to pay SS money at a future date. Most of us aren't totally retarded though. We get that the money the Fed's use isn't its own money, it's ours. Seriously, where do you think that future money will come from? The magical IOU canceling fairy? The pink money shitting unicorn? Step "?"?
While the Beatles may have been influential or whatever, none of that lessens the fact that they are the most overplayed band in the history of the known universe.
Slashdot Mirror
Al-awlaki was not a member of any branch of the US armed forces so it is completely irrelevant. Secondluy, the phrase "nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law" is a completely independent clause. The exception you highlight applies only to the first sentence.
Yeah so? So does every serial killer or drunk driver. That doesn't change the fact that they get a trial.
Besides, now that the president has carte blanche to kill anyone he wants without any proof or evidence, guess who's the real danger to Americans.
Let's hope it gets modded into the oblivion it deserves again.
It's all a bunch of fantasy hypotheticals when today, the President can decide to murder any American anywhere without every having to prove anything at all. Eventually, we'll see lots of blood after each election as the previous party line becomes the new thought crime.
Shame on you for lending your support to the destruction of America.
I wish it would happen, then the idiots who keep up the crap in the Iraq and Afghanistan might have enough of a "Red Dawn" moment to understand that when foreigners invade, the locals fight back. This assumes they'd have the insight to see the folly in their own actions, which is unlikely given how obvious it is that we're making our own enemies.
One word: Iraq
Did we not take control? Do you think the people actually like having us there killing innocent people day in and day out? It's like 9/11 24/7 there. We're WORSE than China. Seriously, at least Tibet isn't halfway around the world -- it's right on the border with China. I'm not excusing China mind you, but our occupation of Iraq is a much more egregious example of imperial hubris than China's occupation of Tibet.
All this part says is that if you are in the military, you don't get to have all these rights. Last I checked, Al-awlaki was not a member of any branch of the US armed forces.
Two points:
Bullshit and Bullshit.
As to the first piece of bullshit, show me where in the Constitution it says, "When accused by police, you are presumed guilty and will be executed."
As to the second, Al-awlaki was a moderate cleric invited to speak all over WA DC after the 9-11 attack. What turned him from moderate to radical, is the unrelenting slaughter of innocent people. Even _I_ think the US is evil for doing that and I'm just an average white guy atheist whose very immune to any arguments relating to crusades or jihad.
Your comment demonstrates exactly why this is so dangerous. Unsupported allegations now are considered proof in your mind. The constitution requires more than that and for good reason, but if this is what is to pass as evidence in America, it's fricken over. We've passed into the dictatorship stage.
The irony here is that all the civil liberties African Americans fought and even died for in their quest to be treated equally under the law, are being thrown out by an African American president.
Obviously. That's what makes it funny.
Simple solution. Only use those parts that prove your case and burry the parts that show the setup. Do you seriously think the Feds would even think about offering the parts in which they cajole him into action at trial?
Not just homophobic, crustaceaphobic as well.
That's an awful analogy.
This is more like you request bids for house painting but require that the painters use the paint that Painting Company A manufactures. Painting Company A will not sell the paint to other professional house painters, but it will apply that paint to your house. This becomes not an open bidding process, but a price request from Painting Company A.
Now, somebody will fix my bad analogy and eventually, a good one will emerge.
I've never used powerpoint, but Keynote is nice and much cheaper -- 20 bucks.
My business has been using Open Office since we opened it in 2003 (actually, we used Star Office back then). A word processor is the single most important piece of software in my line of work. I don't know what I'd get from MS Office that I don't get with Open Office. Everything we do is text heavy with some basic formatting and we also need to have templates that are able to suck info from a database. Open Office does all this just fine and I don't have to cough up hundreds of dollars for every update or if I add a worker.
One nice thing about the Open Office file format is that it isn't binary -- it's a zip file of plain text files. I'm an amateur crappy programmer, but even I could write some PHP scripts that would manufacture an envelope file from database contents. This saves 60s or more every time we need to print a client envelope because instead of doing a mail merge with our database, we can just push a button in our database interface and up pops the envelope -- press print button and close. Takes 2 or 3 seconds at most.
There's a demotivator for that:
http://www.despair.com/adaptation.html
and here is the other robot related demotivator:
http://www.despair.com/motivation.html
You could just adjust the url -- I tried manna10.htm but got a 404, so it isn't that long (turns out to be eight chapters).
You failed to address the point he made about the automation of automation. What happens when most jobs are replaced by robots designed by robots? I don't really feel I know that answer, but it is an interesting question that I suspect can't just be answered on the basis of our experience in the industrial revolution.
This doesn't make sense. Just because a profession could be replaced by a computer program doesn't mean its practitioners were not highly educated. It means they were highly educated in a subject area that can be automated. For those who studied prior to the automation, this called unlucky. For those who study after automation, it is either because of a pure interest in the area, a profound lack of paying attention, or sheer idiocy. But none of those factors make those who complete the program any less educated.
The more amusing version:
1) If the facts are against you, pound on the law.
2) If the law is against you, pound on the facts.
3) If both the law and the facts are against you, pound on the table.
Laws are often ambiguous or conflict with each other -- a large purpose of appellate courts is resolving such issues. But setting that aside, even if we were to assume perfect black/white laws, the facts that must be fed to these laws are often gray and very often completely opposed.
Car analogy: Take the simple legal proposition that if you cause a car wreck, you are going to have to pay for the other party's medical expenses caused by your negligence (but not for any conditions not caused by your negligence). At trial, two equally qualified medical experts testify, one stating that the rearendee's neck condition was a direct result of the physical forces of the accident, and the other that the physical forces were too weak to cause any harm, rather, the neck condition is nothing more than the natural progression of injuries suffered ten years ago while skiing. Both doctors explain their opposite positions well and back up their opinions with peer reviewed medical science.
The law itself doesn't answer this question of causation -- it merely creates a framework of liability rules and admissible evidence in which the question of causation can be asked of a jury or a judge. A simple T/F computer program would not be able to make a decision in such a case on any basis other than chance. While a jury might use gut feeling rather than a coin flip to decide the issue, and ultimately that is perhaps much like a decision based on chance, most people would probably object to having their cases decided by dice or the digital equivalent.
I wish I hadn't posted already -- I'd love to mod you up. That's the real sin in SS -- it taxes only lower income people but congress uses the money now to blow shit up and enrich the war profiteers. They'll all still be millionaires and billionaires when the program is bankrupt and our economy looks like Greece's -- and the rest of us can fill our bellies with dirt pancakes. SS as currently implemented is a means of stealing from the poor to give to the rich.
Excuse me, but a Treasury Bond is an IOU in every sense of the word, i.e., the Feds say to SS Trust Fund: "hey man, give me a $999^x today, and we'll give you $1000^x ten years from now." Then the Feds spend the money and its all gone. As in SDI or to burn up villagers in the mideast. All we have left is the Fed's promise to pay SS money at a future date. Most of us aren't totally retarded though. We get that the money the Fed's use isn't its own money, it's ours. Seriously, where do you think that future money will come from? The magical IOU canceling fairy? The pink money shitting unicorn? Step "?"?
BSG really overdid the whole religion thing. It was more a look back than a look forward.
While the Beatles may have been influential or whatever, none of that lessens the fact that they are the most overplayed band in the history of the known universe.
Isn't this sort of bringing the level Star Trek down by replacing thoughtful philosophical with nothing but a bar fight?