While the overall message is correct, the post is most definitely flamebait.. unless you believe that everyone walking around in NE gets held up. Sadly, there are people who live both in the District and the metro area who believe this. When I told people at my workplace that I, a white male, was living in Southwest, their eyes widened with fright. On my first day, one woman joked, "Well, hopefully you'll make it back alive tomorrow." When we were looking for apartments, one couple told us they would not even travel outside NW.. and would not go any more east than 14th St. Ridiculous.
To me, your OP insinuated that Moore had fabricated this scene in his film ("and set to music"). It's interesting that both responders seemed to not read the last line, as I essentially agreed with everything else in both your posts.
Sibling has a point when they mention that the backstory (council, etc) basically hadn't been written yet, which is why Yoda and Obi-Wan never mention it. But if we put that aside, they may also never mention it because it's simply irrelevant. In Ep 4, there is no council. Hell, there are no Jedi, aside from Obi-Wan and Yoda. So why give him a big speech about the council, ranks, etc. It would all be pointless.
Have you seen it? The soldiers say in their own words that they play the music when they go on missions. One dude sings along. Of course, this doesn't mean that this one situation that Moore found is what all of the troops in Iraq are/were doing.
Probably not, but the people who are in agreement with you are also short-sighted.
The RAM requirement isn't for Windows only. What good is saying "you need 128MB RAM" when that only gives you enough RAM to start the OS? Microsoft designed the spec so that you'll have RAM leftover to run applications.
Would you build a system today (any desktop OS) with less than 512 MB of RAM?
Might I suggest that you actually read the Geneva Conventions?
That would only prove you even more wrong. Geneva says that signatories should follow the rules, even if the enemy isn't. In fact, it's Article I, "The High Contracting Parties undertake to respect and to ensure respect for the present Convention in all circumstances." Emph. mine.
And Article II: "Although one of the Powers in conflict may not be a party to the present Convention, the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations."
And let's look at Article V: "Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy, belong to any of the categories enumerated in Article 4 [POWs], such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal."
While you can use slippery lawyer talk to try and get al qaeda members out of the POW definitions in Article 4, it simply isn't a logical argument, and it is completely bereft of any moral standing. You want so badly for this to be a "WAR", but then you want to throw away the protections that we've agreed to for the treatment of prisoners of war, because.. oh.. uh.. they're not prisoners.. or something.
*SAY* what you want about Islam, but actions always tell the truth much better than words.
You know what's funny? This is exactly how they think of the U.S. We say one thing, about freedom or democracy or some other bullshit, and then do the exact opposite.. both domestically and internationally.
Right. My comment doesn't apply in all situations. In your example, the error wasn't because someone "forgot to convert", but because they were reusing old code and didn't fully QC. Code is really quite different from the situation we have here.
As this research came out of a well known university, I'm confident in assuming that it's undergone at least a cursory QC that would have identified an issue as obvious as the OP's.
Hey, you know what, you're right. The professional researchers who did this work must have overlooked it. All that work wasted!
Seriously.. why is it that with every science story that comes on here, there's some tool who says "Hey, what about [ridiculously simple and/or well-known concept]?"
How do you think these people get to be researchers? Lotto?
Wiretaps aren't all about court cases. They're about information. Information is power, especially when it comes to public officials and conversations that are thought to be private.
Well, like I did say, I doubt my position would change. And I'm not saying that the current situation is good because of the fact that it's the current situation. I'm saying I think the current situation is probably the best balance of rights that we're going to get. And I'm not interested in making a moral argument.. and if you reviewed my posting history, you'd see I'm anything but a status quo conservative. Ha!
I think you're a little confused. I'm not interested in making some perfect moral argument. I'm interested in reality. If such technology ever becomes reality, then we'll have to revisit the issue. I doubt my position would change. Life sucks, and sometimes there isn't a right answer. This is one of those cases.
Although this doesn't apply to the recent cites of foreign laws, international law is domestic law, if the Senate has ratified the treaty in question.
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land
In order to justify abortion, you need to redefine "person" such that it disincludes people below a certain developmental level, or people who require a significant amount of assistance to survive from day to day.
No you don't. I believe abortion to be justified because I don't think the government should have much input into what you do with your body. It has nothing to do with the definition of 'person'. As with anything else, it's all about a balance of rights, and I think the current balance is about the best it's gonna get. The idea that the State can compel you to spend 9 months of your life doing something against your will, when you've committed no crime, is simply absurd to me.
Dunno if I buy it. By the same reasoning, the cops could say "We can't tell you how we caught you, because then criminals could come up with new ways to commit crimes undetected."
Slashdot Mirror
While the overall message is correct, the post is most definitely flamebait.. unless you believe that everyone walking around in NE gets held up. Sadly, there are people who live both in the District and the metro area who believe this. When I told people at my workplace that I, a white male, was living in Southwest, their eyes widened with fright. On my first day, one woman joked, "Well, hopefully you'll make it back alive tomorrow." When we were looking for apartments, one couple told us they would not even travel outside NW.. and would not go any more east than 14th St. Ridiculous.
To me, your OP insinuated that Moore had fabricated this scene in his film ("and set to music"). It's interesting that both responders seemed to not read the last line, as I essentially agreed with everything else in both your posts.
Politburo, your choice of a handle speaks volumes about your politics.
It's hilarious how many people love the jump to conclusions mat.
that makes it official SOP for every swinging d*ck in country?
Did you read my post, you fucking idiot? Or did you see my handle and that was enough right there?
I said, "Of course, this doesn't mean that this one situation that Moore found is what all of the troops in Iraq are/were doing."
The suggestion is that it somehow affects your taxes, but of course it doesn't.
What do you mean, the suggestion? All of the tax forms with this box EXPLICITLY say "This will not affect the amount of your tax or refund".
You "badly needed the equipment" but waited a week do to anything? PEBKAC.
Sibling has a point when they mention that the backstory (council, etc) basically hadn't been written yet, which is why Yoda and Obi-Wan never mention it. But if we put that aside, they may also never mention it because it's simply irrelevant. In Ep 4, there is no council. Hell, there are no Jedi, aside from Obi-Wan and Yoda. So why give him a big speech about the council, ranks, etc. It would all be pointless.
Have you seen it? The soldiers say in their own words that they play the music when they go on missions. One dude sings along. Of course, this doesn't mean that this one situation that Moore found is what all of the troops in Iraq are/were doing.
Probably not, but the people who are in agreement with you are also short-sighted.
The RAM requirement isn't for Windows only. What good is saying "you need 128MB RAM" when that only gives you enough RAM to start the OS? Microsoft designed the spec so that you'll have RAM leftover to run applications.
Would you build a system today (any desktop OS) with less than 512 MB of RAM?
No, no. You've got it all wrong. It's the victim's fault because he failed to announce himself to the Vice President. Got it? Good.
Might I suggest that you actually read the Geneva Conventions?
That would only prove you even more wrong. Geneva says that signatories should follow the rules, even if the enemy isn't. In fact, it's Article I, "The High Contracting Parties undertake to respect and to ensure respect for the present Convention in all circumstances." Emph. mine.
And Article II: "Although one of the Powers in conflict may not be a party to the present Convention, the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations."
And let's look at Article V: "Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy, belong to any of the categories enumerated in Article 4 [POWs], such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal."
While you can use slippery lawyer talk to try and get al qaeda members out of the POW definitions in Article 4, it simply isn't a logical argument, and it is completely bereft of any moral standing. You want so badly for this to be a "WAR", but then you want to throw away the protections that we've agreed to for the treatment of prisoners of war, because.. oh.. uh.. they're not prisoners.. or something.
Grad students are free. I'd imagine the professors did very little work.
I don't recall saying those things.. but if I did and somehow blacked out, please link to it!
In any case, there are many more examples that support my point than yours. If you think the US' hands are clean, you're sorely mistaken.
*SAY* what you want about Islam, but actions always tell the truth much better than words.
You know what's funny? This is exactly how they think of the U.S. We say one thing, about freedom or democracy or some other bullshit, and then do the exact opposite.. both domestically and internationally.
s/TIA/ADVISE, anyone?
Right. My comment doesn't apply in all situations. In your example, the error wasn't because someone "forgot to convert", but because they were reusing old code and didn't fully QC. Code is really quite different from the situation we have here.
As this research came out of a well known university, I'm confident in assuming that it's undergone at least a cursory QC that would have identified an issue as obvious as the OP's.
Hey, you know what, you're right. The professional researchers who did this work must have overlooked it. All that work wasted!
Seriously.. why is it that with every science story that comes on here, there's some tool who says "Hey, what about [ridiculously simple and/or well-known concept]?"
How do you think these people get to be researchers? Lotto?
why don't we have car windows that automatically darken when sunlight gets too bright?
Because when the windows tint at night due to headlights, it would suck.
Wiretaps aren't all about court cases. They're about information. Information is power, especially when it comes to public officials and conversations that are thought to be private.
Well, like I did say, I doubt my position would change. And I'm not saying that the current situation is good because of the fact that it's the current situation. I'm saying I think the current situation is probably the best balance of rights that we're going to get. And I'm not interested in making a moral argument.. and if you reviewed my posting history, you'd see I'm anything but a status quo conservative. Ha!
I think you're a little confused. I'm not interested in making some perfect moral argument. I'm interested in reality. If such technology ever becomes reality, then we'll have to revisit the issue. I doubt my position would change. Life sucks, and sometimes there isn't a right answer. This is one of those cases.
Like I said, it's a balance of rights. Before viability, the mother's rights reign. After viability, the fetus wins. There is no perfect solution.
In order to justify abortion, you need to redefine "person" such that it disincludes people below a certain developmental level, or people who require a significant amount of assistance to survive from day to day.
No you don't. I believe abortion to be justified because I don't think the government should have much input into what you do with your body. It has nothing to do with the definition of 'person'. As with anything else, it's all about a balance of rights, and I think the current balance is about the best it's gonna get. The idea that the State can compel you to spend 9 months of your life doing something against your will, when you've committed no crime, is simply absurd to me.
Dunno if I buy it. By the same reasoning, the cops could say "We can't tell you how we caught you, because then criminals could come up with new ways to commit crimes undetected."
I'm well aware of the role of the IRS. Your response doesn't include any reason why there would be secret procedural information.