No, the judge only ruled that he had "no intent" of helping the enemy. Since the judge cannot read his mind, that's pure nonsense. And since this judge's ability to read Manning's mind is as good as anyone's, my opinion is as valid as the judge's. I say that the massive nature of the evidence and the attitude he displayed is a clear indication that he intentionally aided the enemies of the United States. The judge's opinion is only more valid than mine in interpreting the law. Whether or not Manning had intended to aid the enemy is not an interpretation of law. It is an interpretation of facts. As such, my interpretation is just as good and just as valid.
The supreme authority in The United States is The Constitution (ie, the rule of law). The people decide who occupies the positions power, but what powers those positions have is delineated by law. That said, Manning would only be a whistle blower if he released information showing that the government exceeded its constitutional authority. He didn't. He released classified information which he, as an intelligence officer, was charged with protecting. By doing so he put his (military) authority above the civilian authority. He blatantly violated the constitutional restrictions on military power. And he did provide aid to our enemies in the process. If his military position was anything but intelligence officer, he'd be guilty of attempting a coup. As an intelligence officer, he is guilty of treason.
In the US, every public official's oath of office is to the Constitution (ie, to the rule of law). God helps us if we ever truly become a nation where the rule of men overshadows the rule of law.
So the guys who literally has the power to pull the switch is not responsible, but the people who can try to slash his budget which is destined for (literally) million other things are responsible? The law puts him in charge. The law even bears his name. But Congress has to do something? They already tried to repeal the law a few dozen times. Didn't work. Pretty sure it on him now.
Congress has no power to make to changes to the website. It's ran by the executive branch (ie, The President). Good luck convincing the The Messiah, I mean The President, that something he does is a bad idea. The US system of government relies on a careful system of checks an balances. A necessary check on Presidents power is that he can be impeached if he becomes totally unhinged. The impeachment is unthinkable, and therefore unavailable, with this President. So the government is pretty much broken and unfixable until he leaves office.
If a government website exposes thousands of citizens to high levels of danger, it has to be shut down and not taken back online until it works. He does have the power to take the site off line. Sure, he is not the one coding it, but it's not exactly NORAD. It's a highly broken shopping site. What level of incompetence would he have to display before his supporters would finally agree that he is, in fact, just an empty suit? I want to know where that line is that he cannot cross as far as his supporters are concerned. This is the guy who sold guns to drug dealers to whom the gun dealers wouldn't sell guns because he wanted to create the perception that guns are dangerous (and no, you silly, Bush didn't do the same thing -- Bush considered it and then decided it was a dumb idea and shelved it). Don't even start with "he didn't do it personally". He did -- by the virtue of the fact that his political appointees did it and weren't even fired for it. What is the line he cannot cross? I just want to know what to expect. Or should just settle in and enjoy the surprises?
whose tap? to get billions of gallons of water, you'd have to have infrastructure to deliver it to the bottling plan. i doubt the water companies built the infrastructure for them. which means they laid the pipes themselves. and i very much doubt that it "nominally" filtered as you put it. i am sure they go through quite a bit of measures to make sure their water is not contaminated if for no other reason than that they are such a lucrative target for law suits.
Last I heard water bottling companies can provide clean water despite having no free infrastructure. While water utilities often fail at this task despite having free pipes (which they inherit from generations ago). Water companies don't have compete for their customers. Water bottling companies do. Water comapnies are given natural monopolies by the government. Yeah.. capitalism, faux news... blah blah blah. Morons who think badly of capitalism forget that anti-communism was a fight over the right to be xenophobic towards Russia. Funny, how every part of the world embracing capitalism does better and yet we complain that hampering capitalism makes private entities less capable... and we say that is somehow the fault of them being private. Idiots. Complete and utter morons.
Utilities should be public, and not operated for profit.
No, they should be operate entirely privately without any government oversight other than penalties in cases when they cause any harm. Anyone who thinks like you should be hospitalized for insanity and certainly should not have their fragile mind exposed to the dangers of the Internet.
"We"? I didn't put a man on the moon. I suspect you didn't either. This was an engineering accomplishment of 2 generations ago. "We" voted a celebrity into the White House just to prove that we could. I don't "we" can be accused of much wisdom.
This is one of the violated patents. I've had a Google phone since 4.0. It's at 4.3 now and I am afraid to upgrade. Every upgrade breaks something commonly used. But I digress. It used to have a full app called "Local Search". Was great for finding strip bars nearby, but I digress again. I noticed around 4.2 that "Local Search" wasn't there anymore. After a bit of googling, I found that it was quietly removed and incorporated into Google Maps because having an actual app that did the search and then having that app start up the Google Maps with the search results violated one of Apple patents. This was after the infamous court decision. Apparently sticking a finger in the map is "innovation". One couldn't Apple patent something less obvious? Why couldn't they patent healthcare exchanges or something? At least, then they'd preventing something useless.
How come we allowed a Communist to get re-elected despite destroying our healthcare system and imposing tyrannical surveillance rules? Both are staples of a leftist society? How come everyone is now forced to watch what they say in the fear of being "insensitive"? You remember what brought down the Communist Empire, right? Free speech was a crucial component. So why are we dismantling it here?Oh, yeah, so as NOT to move further to the left.
Sorry there, dumbass, but politicians of all stripes are douchebags.
Yes, but the politicians on the right are douchebags when they fail to live up to their mandate (ie, they are corrupted). The politicians on the left are douchebags when they do live up to their mandate.
"You can chose to move" is never a choice. It's always the call of those who would run you out of town if you don't accept their draconian terms for staying where you already are. So rather than a choice, it's a threat.
Schools exist for the benefit of society. That's why it's reasonable for society to pay for them.
You are arguing with a point that hasn't been made. It's not about the cost. It's about which structure benefits the students more. If charter schools are better for the students who attend them, then these students deserve to attend charter schools.... even if that makes the education system which they do not attend a worse education system. The responsibility for the education is on the shoulders of the educators -- not on the shoulders of fellow students.
What does it do to the public school system? Who cares? The only question is what does it do to the students. Schools exist for the benefit of the students -- not for the benefit of the school system.
I said they have been punished to some degree. It's not over. But cutting someone out of their profession... that's not a non-punishment. But c'mon. No one was even fired for Fast and Furious or for botching protecting US embassy from a foreseeable attack which killed an ambassador. Actual people died because of Obama's scandals and no one was even fired.
Obama keeps all the failures under him employed because he knows full well that if he starts sinking them, then some will squeak and admit that Obama himself was involved. Christie cut everyone involved out of the food chain precisely because he knows he had nothing to do with it.
No, he already released every piece of paper related to it. Clinton circled the wagons -- he lawyered up and stuff (if you remember one of the stories from the 90s was that the Democratic Party was almost forced into bankruptcy because of the legal fees). Christie did the opposite of the slow admission. He did a full mea culpa cut out of the food chain anyone who had anything to do with it.
Christie has already dealt with the scandal. He fired everyone responsible, apologized to the victims and made sure that anyone involved in the bad decision making will not be involved in further decision making. The premise of summary is that Christie should try to downplay the impact of the harm done by the closure. But he didn't do that. He accepted the responsibility (so no attempt to downplay the impact) and dealt with the issue promptly.
Slashdot Mirror
No, the judge only ruled that he had "no intent" of helping the enemy. Since the judge cannot read his mind, that's pure nonsense. And since this judge's ability to read Manning's mind is as good as anyone's, my opinion is as valid as the judge's. I say that the massive nature of the evidence and the attitude he displayed is a clear indication that he intentionally aided the enemies of the United States. The judge's opinion is only more valid than mine in interpreting the law. Whether or not Manning had intended to aid the enemy is not an interpretation of law. It is an interpretation of facts. As such, my interpretation is just as good and just as valid.
Princeton has a longer history of being resilient and adapting to changing times.
That would make Osama a turncoat. He did turn on the US. Every turncoat in every situation is considered a traitor.
The supreme authority in The United States is The Constitution (ie, the rule of law). The people decide who occupies the positions power, but what powers those positions have is delineated by law. That said, Manning would only be a whistle blower if he released information showing that the government exceeded its constitutional authority. He didn't. He released classified information which he, as an intelligence officer, was charged with protecting. By doing so he put his (military) authority above the civilian authority. He blatantly violated the constitutional restrictions on military power. And he did provide aid to our enemies in the process. If his military position was anything but intelligence officer, he'd be guilty of attempting a coup. As an intelligence officer, he is guilty of treason.
In the US, every public official's oath of office is to the Constitution (ie, to the rule of law). God helps us if we ever truly become a nation where the rule of men overshadows the rule of law.
So the guys who literally has the power to pull the switch is not responsible, but the people who can try to slash his budget which is destined for (literally) million other things are responsible? The law puts him in charge. The law even bears his name. But Congress has to do something? They already tried to repeal the law a few dozen times. Didn't work. Pretty sure it on him now.
Now that it is the law, it is the executive branch that runs it.
Congress has no power to make to changes to the website. It's ran by the executive branch (ie, The President). Good luck convincing the The Messiah, I mean The President, that something he does is a bad idea. The US system of government relies on a careful system of checks an balances. A necessary check on Presidents power is that he can be impeached if he becomes totally unhinged. The impeachment is unthinkable, and therefore unavailable, with this President. So the government is pretty much broken and unfixable until he leaves office.
If a government website exposes thousands of citizens to high levels of danger, it has to be shut down and not taken back online until it works. He does have the power to take the site off line. Sure, he is not the one coding it, but it's not exactly NORAD. It's a highly broken shopping site. What level of incompetence would he have to display before his supporters would finally agree that he is, in fact, just an empty suit? I want to know where that line is that he cannot cross as far as his supporters are concerned. This is the guy who sold guns to drug dealers to whom the gun dealers wouldn't sell guns because he wanted to create the perception that guns are dangerous (and no, you silly, Bush didn't do the same thing -- Bush considered it and then decided it was a dumb idea and shelved it). Don't even start with "he didn't do it personally". He did -- by the virtue of the fact that his political appointees did it and weren't even fired for it. What is the line he cannot cross? I just want to know what to expect. Or should just settle in and enjoy the surprises?
whose tap? to get billions of gallons of water, you'd have to have infrastructure to deliver it to the bottling plan. i doubt the water companies built the infrastructure for them. which means they laid the pipes themselves. and i very much doubt that it "nominally" filtered as you put it. i am sure they go through quite a bit of measures to make sure their water is not contaminated if for no other reason than that they are such a lucrative target for law suits.
Last I heard water bottling companies can provide clean water despite having no free infrastructure. While water utilities often fail at this task despite having free pipes (which they inherit from generations ago). Water companies don't have compete for their customers. Water bottling companies do. Water comapnies are given natural monopolies by the government. Yeah.. capitalism, faux news ... blah blah blah. Morons who think badly of capitalism forget that anti-communism was a fight over the right to be xenophobic towards Russia. Funny, how every part of the world embracing capitalism does better and yet we complain that hampering capitalism makes private entities less capable... and we say that is somehow the fault of them being private. Idiots. Complete and utter morons.
Utilities should be public, and not operated for profit.
No, they should be operate entirely privately without any government oversight other than penalties in cases when they cause any harm. Anyone who thinks like you should be hospitalized for insanity and certainly should not have their fragile mind exposed to the dangers of the Internet.
Ha? Gas companies are not private. They are monopolies deemed "essential" and entirely controlled by the government.
"We"? I didn't put a man on the moon. I suspect you didn't either. This was an engineering accomplishment of 2 generations ago. "We" voted a celebrity into the White House just to prove that we could. I don't "we" can be accused of much wisdom.
This is one of the violated patents. I've had a Google phone since 4.0. It's at 4.3 now and I am afraid to upgrade. Every upgrade breaks something commonly used. But I digress. It used to have a full app called "Local Search". Was great for finding strip bars nearby, but I digress again. I noticed around 4.2 that "Local Search" wasn't there anymore. After a bit of googling, I found that it was quietly removed and incorporated into Google Maps because having an actual app that did the search and then having that app start up the Google Maps with the search results violated one of Apple patents. This was after the infamous court decision. Apparently sticking a finger in the map is "innovation". One couldn't Apple patent something less obvious? Why couldn't they patent healthcare exchanges or something? At least, then they'd preventing something useless.
there is no left in US
How come we allowed a Communist to get re-elected despite destroying our healthcare system and imposing tyrannical surveillance rules? Both are staples of a leftist society? How come everyone is now forced to watch what they say in the fear of being "insensitive"? You remember what brought down the Communist Empire, right? Free speech was a crucial component. So why are we dismantling it here?Oh, yeah, so as NOT to move further to the left.
Sorry there, dumbass, but politicians of all stripes are douchebags.
Yes, but the politicians on the right are douchebags when they fail to live up to their mandate (ie, they are corrupted). The politicians on the left are douchebags when they do live up to their mandate.
Who handed authority over the international networks to the US Federal Government?
The creators of those networks.
"You can chose to move" is never a choice. It's always the call of those who would run you out of town if you don't accept their draconian terms for staying where you already are. So rather than a choice, it's a threat.
Schools exist for the benefit of society. That's why it's reasonable for society to pay for them.
You are arguing with a point that hasn't been made. It's not about the cost. It's about which structure benefits the students more. If charter schools are better for the students who attend them, then these students deserve to attend charter schools.... even if that makes the education system which they do not attend a worse education system. The responsibility for the education is on the shoulders of the educators -- not on the shoulders of fellow students.
What does it do to the public school system? Who cares? The only question is what does it do to the students. Schools exist for the benefit of the students -- not for the benefit of the school system.
I said they have been punished to some degree. It's not over. But cutting someone out of their profession... that's not a non-punishment. But c'mon. No one was even fired for Fast and Furious or for botching protecting US embassy from a foreseeable attack which killed an ambassador. Actual people died because of Obama's scandals and no one was even fired.
Obama keeps all the failures under him employed because he knows full well that if he starts sinking them, then some will squeak and admit that Obama himself was involved. Christie cut everyone involved out of the food chain precisely because he knows he had nothing to do with it.
No, he already released every piece of paper related to it. Clinton circled the wagons -- he lawyered up and stuff (if you remember one of the stories from the 90s was that the Democratic Party was almost forced into bankruptcy because of the legal fees). Christie did the opposite of the slow admission. He did a full mea culpa cut out of the food chain anyone who had anything to do with it.
Christie has already dealt with the scandal. He fired everyone responsible, apologized to the victims and made sure that anyone involved in the bad decision making will not be involved in further decision making. The premise of summary is that Christie should try to downplay the impact of the harm done by the closure. But he didn't do that. He accepted the responsibility (so no attempt to downplay the impact) and dealt with the issue promptly.