Ultimately, might is right. There is no universal moral constant that we could cite to prove whether a particular action is acceptable. It's all based on human interpretation.
Except that it flies in the face of the whole premise of the USA, its Constitution, the rantings of its Founding Fathers, etc and so on. If you are going to admit openly that you do not give a damn about any of that, and just use raw power to enrich yourself, then fine. But excpect the rest of the world to treat you accordingly.
During WWII, the Axis powers fell to the Allies because the Allies were a superior military force, not because the Axis was "evil".
The Allies could have simply joined forces with Hitler to conquer the rest of the planet. Why didn't they?
The notion of Good always triumphing over Evil is for works of fiction; there is no such guarantee in real life.
Of course there is not. But that does not remove the distinction between Good and Evil. One is still judged by one's actions.
All government is based on the premise of "might is right". Otherwise, you'd get to choose for yourself whether to fund government and obey its laws, wouldn't you?
You do, or at least in theory you do, in a democratic form of governance. It is theoretically feasible for the populace to elect someone on the "zero taxation" platform. Of course that would mean the end of government, and since most people do understand that governments are neccessary evil, alternative to which is anarchist winner-takes-all bloodbath resulting most likely in re-establishment of feudal lords, they never do elect such individuals.
It's Afghanistan and neighboring Pakistan where most of the "unlawful combatants" were harvested.
Apparently they have been harvested from all over, including streets of Rome. I was mererly replying to an excuse of a "disfuctional court system" in Iraq, Afghanistan, wherever.
There is currently no (stable/legitimate/internationally recognized) civilian court system in Iraq so all civilians caught on the battlefield are technically arrested by the U.S./coalition forces.
Which grants them all the same priviledges a foreigner would have in a US court system. Habeas corpus is one of them.
Unless you go to a country that has no recognized legal system (some do not recognize the legitimacy of the Iraqi courts)
In which case it is the responsiblity of the occupying power to use its court system, granting these people the same treatment as any other foreigner accused of crimes would get in a US system, or alternatively, to establish an internationally respectable court system in the occupied territory.
If you know where to look, its VERY, VERY EASY to fall through the "cracks".
That only makes someone lose the "protected person" status under the Conventions, not his civilian status. All the rules of treatment of civilians still apply.
So if you're taking an active part in the hostilities, you're not entitled to geneva protections as a civilian.
No you are only not entitled to being a protected person, who is granted additional rights to a mere civilian.
So if you're a combatant, but you don't follow the laws and customs of war or you don't identify yourself as the enemy, then you don't get Geneva protection.
Which again, makes you a mere civilian, or more specifically, a civilian criminal.
That's what "unlawful combatants" are.
See above. That would make them criminals to be tried in a civilian court, and afforded all the same rights as any other civilian accused of a crime.
They're people who are participating in an armed conflict who aren't eligible for Geneva protection because of how they are conducting their combat operations.
That only removes their "protected persons" status, not their rights as civilians.
We all know that every media source is "fair and balanced"...
That particular story has been busted wide open and just about every media organization on the planet covered it. Unless you consider all media to be "biased" against you, in which case I do recommend a wider tin foil hat out of fear of constrained blood flow.
Then again, Iraq doesn't really have an effective Court system capable of dealing with all their regular criminals, much less the special cases.
I am sure a suitable UN or even "the coalition of the willing" (as pathetic at that was) based court could have been established, both assuring the rights of the accused and granting immediate legitimacy to the verdicts. Sadly, that is not the case.
I am quite familiar with the conventions, but thank you.
and shut your idiot mouth.
After a careful consideration, I must regretfully deny your request. Anything else?
I hate how morons like you can ruin these discussions.
Quite true, to someone like you anything involving reason must indeed appear "ruined". May I suggest visiting some supremacist hate site instead of Slashdot? You would feel much better there and there would be noone around to "ruin" your discussions.
I really gotta stop responding to these despicable cowards.
Of course, since you haven't provided any links to verifiable accounts of said events, I'm going to rule everything you've said so far as 'bullshit', 'conjecture', and 'left-wing/liberal anti-bush/war propaganda' and move on
You do realize that under geneva, a civilian (which someone grabbed in Afghanistan or Iraq on field of battle without a uniform) has no protections?
Not true. All civilians are to be dealt with using the civilian court system, of either their own country or that of the occupying power. There is, purposefully, no "crack" through which someone can fall through and end up with no rights whatsoever.
Yes they are mere criminals, just as every terrorist was since, pretty much forever, like say when somoene tried to set the Colliseum on fire in Ancient Rome.
This whole idiotic American mindset of "The Commies are coming! Throw away all laws! The Commies are coming! Give up all your rights! The Comm... The Terrorists are coming!..." is truly infuriorating. Only piss-covered coward idiots, or assholes hell-bent on using those idiot's animalistic fear to get in power, would engage in such "thought".
in addition, full criminal trial protections could compromise investigations and interventions needed to stop future terrorist attacks
Total bullshit. Terrorist attacks can happen everywhere, all the time, anytime, nearly any public place, and there is nothing you, or the DHS, can do about it, short of locking the whole population up, or establishing a 24/7 surveilance of all citizens. Any idiot can get a can of gasoline and a spray gun and march into a mall setting people on fire. Any idiot can rent a truck and drive into a park running hunderds of people over before he can be stopped. Any idiot can get a truck, load it with rocks and slam into an Amtrack train. And so on, ad infinitum! Terrorism is a tactic and there is no way one can win a "war" on a tactic!
And the only reason to claim that "9/11 changed everything" (besides spoiled brats, otherwise known as Americans, believing that the whole universe revolves around their asses and that when terrorism happens everywhere else, that's just sad but normal, but when it happens in the US its the end of the world and all rules have to be thrown out) is to deprive poeples of their rights under a pretense of protecting them from some bogeymen. That is the very same reason Stalin and Hitler have used on their countrymen!
The way to fight terror is courage and cosistency, demonstrating to the terrorists that they cannot affect one's ideals and principles, no matter what they do. But what does Al-Queda get for the cost of 19 pairs of box cutters? Wholesale abandonment of the supposedly most cherished American principles of "habeas corpus", freedom of the press, unreasonable searches, personal liberties and the like in favour of fascist surveilance and arbitrary imprisonment in a Gulag. Osama must be laughing his ass off at such a spineless attitude.
Or do you want to be in the next September 11?
You are far far far more likely to die in a car accident (47,000 deaths a year in the US) then anything like 9/11, which by the way, took 10 years of planning, culminating in the apex of Al-Queda's technology: the $1.25 boxcutters, and that was before your stong, steely eyed, swaggering "protectors" were around to "protect" you from these boogeymen.
There is no "meme" to shoot down. Under the Geneva conventions you are either a combatant (in which case you are entitled to a POW status) or a civilian (in which case the occupying power has another set of obligations towards you). There is no such thing as an "unlawful combatant". That is an invention of the Bush administration and indeed blatantly in violations of the conventions. Under the Conventions, a non-uniformed individual who does not qualify as a combatant, and who is conducting combat operations is simply a civilian criminal to be dealt with using civilian court system.
It is that simple.
There is no such thing as an "unlawful" combatant, who has no rights whatsoever and who is to be shipped to a Gulag. The whole idea is a pathetic admission on the part of the US that it is no longer even pretending to uphold its so-called "ideals" and is simply now engaged in "might is right" approach to building a hegemony.
Armed militants captured on the field of battle don't merit a trial.
Except that a significant population of Gitmo, in fact a majority, were not captured on the battlefield but due to roundups, checkpoints and curfews and based on "human intelligence" sources. That is a neighbour farmer coveting one's field, or for the "reward" money, or better yet, both! A double whammy: you get rid of your hated neighbour and get his stuff + the US idiots pay you = what is there not to like?
This of course has been known for a while, as only a tiny percentage is even brought in front of the (utterly illegal and immoral) military trials, where the standard of evidence is laughable. And yet even there there is not enough of it to "try" them. Furthermore, many were released, and that is when we found out that they were taxi cab drivers and the like who happened to be driving a client too close to some imaginary US "security" zone (rendering both the taximan and his fare "terrorists").
Wow. What a bunch of bullshit to say absolutely nothing. Typical of someone who doesn't like Ann but cannot refute any of her fact-based statements. And yes, they are fact-based - that is why her opponents resort to flinging pies.
You mean "facts" like, quote: We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity?
What "facts" are there to refute in that statement?
I will be the first to admit she gets a bit pedantic about such things as Chappaquiddick but then, her political opponents get a bit pedantic about ignoring such things while trying to focus attention on similarly irrelevant issues.
That is not the problem. The problem are her statements such as the one above. Do others do the same? Sure. Do Democrats have similar demagouges? Most certainly. None of this changing the very premise of operation of such demagouges on both sides, demagouges such as Ann Coulter, as is plain to see from her very own statements.
Hope you have a pie handy. I think you will need one to win your argument.
I already "won" any such argument about Ann Coulter's tactics, a priori, and with no need for pies, thanks to Ms. Coulter herself. Her own words are all one needs to illustrate what she is.
Ann Coulter is controversial, but her books are logical. Have you ever read one?
If they are anything like her performances on TV, or in syndicated newspaper columns, you got some really novel definition of "logic". The woman gleefully operates by manipulating most base, animalistic instincts (which most civilized people are ashamed of admitting of even having -- never you mind flaunting), in her "audience" in order to exploit them for her profit and social standing.
Her kind operated throughout history repeatedly, on all sides of political and ethnic divides, and its method of operation very well understood by now.
To spare you a long story, some hardwired-in "pack" instincts people have, inhereited from the days of roaming the jungle, enable creation of social chierarchies, chief feature of which is existence of an "in-crowd", for which of course an "out-crowd" must exist. In order to solidify the cohesion of the "in-crowd", one needs the "out-crowd" to be a constantly villified enemy, accused of all sorts of unspeakable things, against which any action by the "in-crowd" is implicitely "justified" (for the "greater good", you see). Any opposition to this idea, or as a matter of fact any activity whatsoever by members of the "out-crowd" are to be used to create a perpetual persecution complex within the minds of the members of the "in-crowd", regardless of the factual balance of power. This is beautifully exemplified when one such group holds all three branches of governance of a powerful nation, owns most of its media and in fact most of that nations' resources as a whole, and yet still persists in casting itself as oppressed victims. Or if a majority religious group claims that a "war" is conducted on its beliefs by the very state they control. Every "in-crowd" needs a set of demagougues to maintain it. Some of these demagouges have to hold extreme positions, to invite ridicule and scorn, as is required, because stronger the attacks on the ridiculous nature of such positions, the better for the maintenance of the irrational persecution complexes and fobias of the "in-crowd". And so on.
Does any of this sound familiar?
Otherwise, you are basing your ideas on a bit of hear-say and a few facts... Otherwise, why are you commenting on her?
He's wrong for a reason. Dvorak has found a niche in publishing the unthinkable, and generating endless reams of flamebait from all kinds of industry pundits.
Essentially he has become an Ann Coulter of the computer industry. Same gig, different arena.
Can you tell me where at Microsoft can I get media packs for Windows 95?
Do you have a valid Open License for Windows 95? My understanding is that all Open License programs older then Windows 2K have expired, other then on special contract. If you bought Win 95 retail or with a PC, you are entitled (according to the EULA) only to that copy. In case you do have a valid license, the Microsoft part # for the Windows 95 media kit is: 050-031-917 with a list price of $18. For Windows 98 media kit, the SKU is: 730-01345 with the same price. Microsoft does not publish these on their website as the Open License programs are run through authorized volume resellers, you would have to get the kit from one of them (many change these part numbers to their own SKUs). Again, assuming you have a valid license.
"only the copyright holder or someone having assignment of the copyright can enforce the license. If there are multiple authors of a copyrighted work, successful enforcement depends on having the cooperation of all authors.
by Professor Eben Moglen, Columbia University Law School"
Not to rein on the good professor's parade here, but if that were true, no copyright of any complex GPL code ever could be enforced. Some projects have thousands of contributors, many of them no longer accessible, alive, what not. Very few projects assign their copyright to the FSF. The professor is essentially saying: give all your copyrights to FSF because otherwise you can never enforce them. Which is obvious bullshit.
[Editor's note: the following article was sent to us by Harald Welte, the leader of the Netfilter project.]"
He is as much an authority as I am.
So what happens when the GPL is violated? With software FOR WHICH THE FREE SOFTWARE FOUNDATION HOLDS THE COPYRIGHT (either because we wrote the programs in the first place, or because free software authors have assigned us the copyright, in order to take advantage of our expertise in protecting their software's freedom), the first step is a report, usually received by email to . We ask the reporters of violations to help us establish necessary facts, and then we conduct whatever further investigation is required.
by Eben Moglen"
That is a procedure for getting the FSF legal team involved, not for what individual authors can do.
"...But, WE CANNOT ACT ON OUR OWN IF WE DO NO HOLD COPYRIGHT. Thus, be sure to find out who the copyright holders of the software are before reporting a violation"
See above. FSF is saying: want our help? Assign the copyright to us.
That's because it is just not the case: when the FSF go after that companies to ask for explanations, they don't go as users of the binaries asking for the sources, but as copyright holders of the embedded code asking them to comply with the license they gave to such code (they don't go as users; they go as authors).
OK, let's pretend that this is indeed so, for the sake of amusement. That would mean that any contributor, to any GPL code is entitled to go after any corporation which somehow internally distributes some GPL code, or at least is suspected of doing so, on the very principle you just outlined, as it is unknown what GPL code is being used, until fully disclosed (read: source posted somewhere). Which essentially, on its own (forgetting about the "interpetations" of "third parties" and "doing something" based on that clause I quoted), is preventing the very scenario of "closed" method to distribute GPL between some companies, to exclusion of all others. Here I am giving you another, for all intents and purposes a stronger reason, which prevents such secret distribution, a reason fully compatible with the "third parties" clause, as "third parties" is a super-set of an already gigiantic set of "copyright holders" of any GPL code which somehow might, be involved in the distribution, a fact which will not be known until the source of the product in question is examined. So on one hand you have a full avoidance of any such assaults by simple posting of the source on Sourceforge, and on the other you have both the "third parties" clause (with whatever interpetations and mind-bendig word parsing you come up with) and also any of the vast hordes of any GPL code contributors, be it a 3-liner change in the README file, coming after you, along with the FSF, which has no choice but to assist, based on the copyright aspect alone.
OK; I won't follow that path: you are either stupidly stubborn or a troll; both ways I don't think there's any value on this thread anymore.
Indeed, as you stubbornly refuse to accept the phillosophical purpose of the GPL, that is to protect the whole community of both users and authors from corporate (and other) abuse and are instead attempting to desperately figure out ways to circumvent this purpose.
Section 2 says that modified versions you distribute must be licensed to all third parties under the GPL. "All third parties" means absolutely everyone--but this does not require you to *do* anything physically for them. It only means they have a license from you, under the GPL, for your version."
Indeed, you don't have to do anything at all until someone shows up and asks for the source. In order to avoid the hassle however, most companies and individuals simply post the source somewhere public, like Sourceforge, and thus avoid even the need to pay the cost of hosting. This action alone fulfills all of the requirements of the GPL. Its easy, painless, and precisely what the companies in your own examples did.
Some, whose whole business depends on good relations with FOSS commmunity, like RedHat, go much further and host the files themselves.
The truly lazy ones, on the other hand, don't even post the whole source code, just the patches, as in the output from "diff". And that is good enough too, providing that the original source is available somewhwere else.
Now, I'll ask you again: Can you bring some authority to your interpretation about what "must be licensed to all third parties" means?
Obviously, I am not a lawyer or a judge, so my interpretation does not have any legal force. This clause in fact will have no established legal interpretation in force until someone makes a challenge in court. However I base my interpretation on both the "spirit" of the GPL, as elaborated on multiple occasions by RMS, and the very activities of FSF, which is, and which I gave you an example of, demanding that source code be made available for many commercial pieces of GPL-ed code embedded in various devices, even though it is very unlikely that the FSF itself is a "customer" for any of those devices, thus making the FSF a "third party" in those cases.
The story is the Russians were stealing the technology with spies placed in every defense-related industry, and illegally buying items not approved for export. Perhaps you would consider reading the link before commenting?
No, that is one of the many versions of the story. Some others have the Russians buying the software/hardware from the UK, Germany, France, whomever. Yet others claim it was run on clone PDP-11s/IBM mainframes/what not. Even the explosion itself is highly questionable, as Russians claim that there were no major explosions in 1982 and only one minor one where damage was "fixed in one day". Etc and so on.
As far as your views on how the Iraqi civilian court system might work, I am intrigued by your ideas and wish to subscribe to your newsletter.
If you are a resident of Iraq, please subscribe to the newsletter by mailing your address to Abu Al Zarkhawi Publishing, 1 Islamic Revolution Way.
I believe the software was stolen, not purchased, so from my point of view, the answer would be a definite 'no', although with the state of legal affairs the way it is (burglar slips and sues), all bets are off.
The story is pretty much proven bullshit, and it keeps changing constantly. In some versions the Russians bought the software from the US, UK, you name it, in some others they stole it, it was written in Assembler running on MC6800, In C on PDP-11s, on IBM mainframes, on Russian clones of PDPs/mainframes/what not, etc and so on. In all likelyhood it was simply an industrial accident but there a lot of idiot "credit" takers who want to paint themselves as characters out of some Chuck Norris flick, while making coin on their "memoirs". The Russians for their part claim that while an explosion occured in 1982, the damage was fixed in "one day", which would render claims of "gigiantic, seen from orbit" rather contradictory. Some of these credit-takers are stupid enough to try to take credit for another accident in June 1989 which destroyed two passenger trains in the Bashkirian Republic of the Soviet Union. Over 400 passengers died immediately and 806 were injured then.
Since it's the CIA, and in another country, I would imagine the answer would be 'no' regardless.
Only up to the moment when they proudly announced their handiwork to the world. Cue the lawsuits and seizure of US assets. The only reason it is not happening is that Russians know these crackpot stories to be just that (although the idiots writing these books could open themselves to civil lawsuits in Russia and might open any company in which they have any stake and which operates in Russia to asset seizures).
Actually that pipeline case is probably disinformation.
Most likely a case of a typical megalomaniac ex-Intelligence blow hard trying to take credit for the Sun rising in the West, in his highly incredulous "memoir".
If any of that crap was true, Russia would be suing for damages, which under international law they would be entitled to, since they actually bought that stuff for their pipeline legitimately, and would be using that idiot's book as Exhibit A.
On an unrelated note, I wonder when will some more enterprising Iraqi citizens, who lost family members or were injured during the current Iraqi adventure, start marching into the Iraqi courts and start filing multi-million civil lawsuits against the US. This is different from any International Criminal Court proceeding since it would be a civilian affair in Iraq, where the courts are likely to be sympathetic (after having rejected Bremer-imposed restrictions on not holding the US and various corporate mercenaries accountable), and the court would simply award damages, which then would have to be had from seized US assets, should the US refuse to pony up. Which would create even more amusement for any future US interests trying to do business there then they already have, for many, many decades to come.
Slashdot Mirror
Except that it flies in the face of the whole premise of the USA, its Constitution, the rantings of its Founding Fathers, etc and so on. If you are going to admit openly that you do not give a damn about any of that, and just use raw power to enrich yourself, then fine. But excpect the rest of the world to treat you accordingly.
During WWII, the Axis powers fell to the Allies because the Allies were a superior military force, not because the Axis was "evil".
The Allies could have simply joined forces with Hitler to conquer the rest of the planet. Why didn't they?
The notion of Good always triumphing over Evil is for works of fiction; there is no such guarantee in real life.
Of course there is not. But that does not remove the distinction between Good and Evil. One is still judged by one's actions.
You do, or at least in theory you do, in a democratic form of governance. It is theoretically feasible for the populace to elect someone on the "zero taxation" platform. Of course that would mean the end of government, and since most people do understand that governments are neccessary evil, alternative to which is anarchist winner-takes-all bloodbath resulting most likely in re-establishment of feudal lords, they never do elect such individuals.
Apparently they have been harvested from all over, including streets of Rome. I was mererly replying to an excuse of a "disfuctional court system" in Iraq, Afghanistan, wherever.
Which grants them all the same priviledges a foreigner would have in a US court system. Habeas corpus is one of them.
Unless you go to a country that has no recognized legal system (some do not recognize the legitimacy of the Iraqi courts)
In which case it is the responsiblity of the occupying power to use its court system, granting these people the same treatment as any other foreigner accused of crimes would get in a US system, or alternatively, to establish an internationally respectable court system in the occupied territory.
If you know where to look, its VERY, VERY EASY to fall through the "cracks".
That only makes someone lose the "protected person" status under the Conventions, not his civilian status. All the rules of treatment of civilians still apply.
No you are only not entitled to being a protected person, who is granted additional rights to a mere civilian.
So if you're a combatant, but you don't follow the laws and customs of war or you don't identify yourself as the enemy, then you don't get Geneva protection.
Which again, makes you a mere civilian, or more specifically, a civilian criminal.
That's what "unlawful combatants" are.
See above. That would make them criminals to be tried in a civilian court, and afforded all the same rights as any other civilian accused of a crime.
They're people who are participating in an armed conflict who aren't eligible for Geneva protection because of how they are conducting their combat operations.
That only removes their "protected persons" status, not their rights as civilians.
That particular story has been busted wide open and just about every media organization on the planet covered it. Unless you consider all media to be "biased" against you, in which case I do recommend a wider tin foil hat out of fear of constrained blood flow.
I am sure a suitable UN or even "the coalition of the willing" (as pathetic at that was) based court could have been established, both assuring the rights of the accused and granting immediate legitimacy to the verdicts. Sadly, that is not the case.
Hmm.. yes I did miss it. But the "shutting your idiot mouth" got me seeing red and so off I went.
I think he replied to the wrong person. That's all.
If that is true, I apologise.
I am quite familiar with the conventions, but thank you.
and shut your idiot mouth.
After a careful consideration, I must regretfully deny your request. Anything else?
I hate how morons like you can ruin these discussions.
Quite true, to someone like you anything involving reason must indeed appear "ruined". May I suggest visiting some supremacist hate site instead of Slashdot? You would feel much better there and there would be noone around to "ruin" your discussions.
I really gotta stop responding to these despicable cowards.
You can't be this dumb. Learn to use Google.
Not true. All civilians are to be dealt with using the civilian court system, of either their own country or that of the occupying power. There is, purposefully, no "crack" through which someone can fall through and end up with no rights whatsoever.
Yes they are mere criminals, just as every terrorist was since, pretty much forever, like say when somoene tried to set the Colliseum on fire in Ancient Rome.
This whole idiotic American mindset of "The Commies are coming! Throw away all laws! The Commies are coming! Give up all your rights! The Comm... The Terrorists are coming! ..." is truly infuriorating. Only piss-covered coward idiots, or assholes hell-bent on using those idiot's animalistic fear to get in power, would engage in such "thought".
in addition, full criminal trial protections could compromise investigations and interventions needed to stop future terrorist attacks
Total bullshit. Terrorist attacks can happen everywhere, all the time, anytime, nearly any public place, and there is nothing you, or the DHS, can do about it, short of locking the whole population up, or establishing a 24/7 surveilance of all citizens. Any idiot can get a can of gasoline and a spray gun and march into a mall setting people on fire. Any idiot can rent a truck and drive into a park running hunderds of people over before he can be stopped. Any idiot can get a truck, load it with rocks and slam into an Amtrack train. And so on, ad infinitum! Terrorism is a tactic and there is no way one can win a "war" on a tactic!
And the only reason to claim that "9/11 changed everything" (besides spoiled brats, otherwise known as Americans, believing that the whole universe revolves around their asses and that when terrorism happens everywhere else, that's just sad but normal, but when it happens in the US its the end of the world and all rules have to be thrown out) is to deprive poeples of their rights under a pretense of protecting them from some bogeymen. That is the very same reason Stalin and Hitler have used on their countrymen!
The way to fight terror is courage and cosistency, demonstrating to the terrorists that they cannot affect one's ideals and principles, no matter what they do. But what does Al-Queda get for the cost of 19 pairs of box cutters? Wholesale abandonment of the supposedly most cherished American principles of "habeas corpus", freedom of the press, unreasonable searches, personal liberties and the like in favour of fascist surveilance and arbitrary imprisonment in a Gulag. Osama must be laughing his ass off at such a spineless attitude.
Or do you want to be in the next September 11?
You are far far far more likely to die in a car accident (47,000 deaths a year in the US) then anything like 9/11, which by the way, took 10 years of planning, culminating in the apex of Al-Queda's technology: the $1.25 boxcutters, and that was before your stong, steely eyed, swaggering "protectors" were around to "protect" you from these boogeymen.
There is no "meme" to shoot down. Under the Geneva conventions you are either a combatant (in which case you are entitled to a POW status) or a civilian (in which case the occupying power has another set of obligations towards you). There is no such thing as an "unlawful combatant". That is an invention of the Bush administration and indeed blatantly in violations of the conventions. Under the Conventions, a non-uniformed individual who does not qualify as a combatant, and who is conducting combat operations is simply a civilian criminal to be dealt with using civilian court system.
It is that simple.
There is no such thing as an "unlawful" combatant, who has no rights whatsoever and who is to be shipped to a Gulag. The whole idea is a pathetic admission on the part of the US that it is no longer even pretending to uphold its so-called "ideals" and is simply now engaged in "might is right" approach to building a hegemony.
Except that a significant population of Gitmo, in fact a majority, were not captured on the battlefield but due to roundups, checkpoints and curfews and based on "human intelligence" sources. That is a neighbour farmer coveting one's field, or for the "reward" money, or better yet, both! A double whammy: you get rid of your hated neighbour and get his stuff + the US idiots pay you = what is there not to like?
This of course has been known for a while, as only a tiny percentage is even brought in front of the (utterly illegal and immoral) military trials, where the standard of evidence is laughable. And yet even there there is not enough of it to "try" them. Furthermore, many were released, and that is when we found out that they were taxi cab drivers and the like who happened to be driving a client too close to some imaginary US "security" zone (rendering both the taximan and his fare "terrorists").
You mean "facts" like, quote: We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity?
What "facts" are there to refute in that statement?
I will be the first to admit she gets a bit pedantic about such things as Chappaquiddick but then, her political opponents get a bit pedantic about ignoring such things while trying to focus attention on similarly irrelevant issues.
That is not the problem. The problem are her statements such as the one above. Do others do the same? Sure. Do Democrats have similar demagouges? Most certainly. None of this changing the very premise of operation of such demagouges on both sides, demagouges such as Ann Coulter, as is plain to see from her very own statements.
Hope you have a pie handy. I think you will need one to win your argument.
I already "won" any such argument about Ann Coulter's tactics, a priori, and with no need for pies, thanks to Ms. Coulter herself. Her own words are all one needs to illustrate what she is.
If they are anything like her performances on TV, or in syndicated newspaper columns, you got some really novel definition of "logic". The woman gleefully operates by manipulating most base, animalistic instincts (which most civilized people are ashamed of admitting of even having -- never you mind flaunting), in her "audience" in order to exploit them for her profit and social standing.
Her kind operated throughout history repeatedly, on all sides of political and ethnic divides, and its method of operation very well understood by now.
To spare you a long story, some hardwired-in "pack" instincts people have, inhereited from the days of roaming the jungle, enable creation of social chierarchies, chief feature of which is existence of an "in-crowd", for which of course an "out-crowd" must exist. In order to solidify the cohesion of the "in-crowd", one needs the "out-crowd" to be a constantly villified enemy, accused of all sorts of unspeakable things, against which any action by the "in-crowd" is implicitely "justified" (for the "greater good", you see). Any opposition to this idea, or as a matter of fact any activity whatsoever by members of the "out-crowd" are to be used to create a perpetual persecution complex within the minds of the members of the "in-crowd", regardless of the factual balance of power. This is beautifully exemplified when one such group holds all three branches of governance of a powerful nation, owns most of its media and in fact most of that nations' resources as a whole, and yet still persists in casting itself as oppressed victims. Or if a majority religious group claims that a "war" is conducted on its beliefs by the very state they control. Every "in-crowd" needs a set of demagougues to maintain it. Some of these demagouges have to hold extreme positions, to invite ridicule and scorn, as is required, because stronger the attacks on the ridiculous nature of such positions, the better for the maintenance of the irrational persecution complexes and fobias of the "in-crowd". And so on.
Does any of this sound familiar?
Otherwise, you are basing your ideas on a bit of hear-say and a few facts ... Otherwise, why are you commenting on her?
See above.
Essentially he has become an Ann Coulter of the computer industry. Same gig, different arena.
Do you have a valid Open License for Windows 95? My understanding is that all Open License programs older then Windows 2K have expired, other then on special contract. If you bought Win 95 retail or with a PC, you are entitled (according to the EULA) only to that copy. In case you do have a valid license, the Microsoft part # for the Windows 95 media kit is: 050-031-917 with a list price of $18. For Windows 98 media kit, the SKU is: 730-01345 with the same price. Microsoft does not publish these on their website as the Open License programs are run through authorized volume resellers, you would have to get the kit from one of them (many change these part numbers to their own SKUs). Again, assuming you have a valid license.
Not to rein on the good professor's parade here, but if that were true, no copyright of any complex GPL code ever could be enforced. Some projects have thousands of contributors, many of them no longer accessible, alive, what not. Very few projects assign their copyright to the FSF. The professor is essentially saying: give all your copyrights to FSF because otherwise you can never enforce them. Which is obvious bullshit.
[Editor's note: the following article was sent to us by Harald Welte, the leader of the Netfilter project.]"
He is as much an authority as I am.
So what happens when the GPL is violated? With software FOR WHICH THE FREE SOFTWARE FOUNDATION HOLDS THE COPYRIGHT (either because we wrote the programs in the first place, or because free software authors have assigned us the copyright, in order to take advantage of our expertise in protecting their software's freedom), the first step is a report, usually received by email to . We ask the reporters of violations to help us establish necessary facts, and then we conduct whatever further investigation is required. by Eben Moglen"
That is a procedure for getting the FSF legal team involved, not for what individual authors can do.
"...But, WE CANNOT ACT ON OUR OWN IF WE DO NO HOLD COPYRIGHT. Thus, be sure to find out who the copyright holders of the software are before reporting a violation"
See above. FSF is saying: want our help? Assign the copyright to us.
OK, let's pretend that this is indeed so, for the sake of amusement. That would mean that any contributor, to any GPL code is entitled to go after any corporation which somehow internally distributes some GPL code, or at least is suspected of doing so, on the very principle you just outlined, as it is unknown what GPL code is being used, until fully disclosed (read: source posted somewhere). Which essentially, on its own (forgetting about the "interpetations" of "third parties" and "doing something" based on that clause I quoted), is preventing the very scenario of "closed" method to distribute GPL between some companies, to exclusion of all others. Here I am giving you another, for all intents and purposes a stronger reason, which prevents such secret distribution, a reason fully compatible with the "third parties" clause, as "third parties" is a super-set of an already gigiantic set of "copyright holders" of any GPL code which somehow might, be involved in the distribution, a fact which will not be known until the source of the product in question is examined. So on one hand you have a full avoidance of any such assaults by simple posting of the source on Sourceforge, and on the other you have both the "third parties" clause (with whatever interpetations and mind-bendig word parsing you come up with) and also any of the vast hordes of any GPL code contributors, be it a 3-liner change in the README file, coming after you, along with the FSF, which has no choice but to assist, based on the copyright aspect alone.
OK; I won't follow that path: you are either stupidly stubborn or a troll; both ways I don't think there's any value on this thread anymore.
Indeed, as you stubbornly refuse to accept the phillosophical purpose of the GPL, that is to protect the whole community of both users and authors from corporate (and other) abuse and are instead attempting to desperately figure out ways to circumvent this purpose.
Indeed, you don't have to do anything at all until someone shows up and asks for the source. In order to avoid the hassle however, most companies and individuals simply post the source somewhere public, like Sourceforge, and thus avoid even the need to pay the cost of hosting. This action alone fulfills all of the requirements of the GPL. Its easy, painless, and precisely what the companies in your own examples did.
Some, whose whole business depends on good relations with FOSS commmunity, like RedHat, go much further and host the files themselves.
The truly lazy ones, on the other hand, don't even post the whole source code, just the patches, as in the output from "diff". And that is good enough too, providing that the original source is available somewhwere else.
Now, I'll ask you again: Can you bring some authority to your interpretation about what "must be licensed to all third parties" means?
Obviously, I am not a lawyer or a judge, so my interpretation does not have any legal force. This clause in fact will have no established legal interpretation in force until someone makes a challenge in court. However I base my interpretation on both the "spirit" of the GPL, as elaborated on multiple occasions by RMS, and the very activities of FSF, which is, and which I gave you an example of, demanding that source code be made available for many commercial pieces of GPL-ed code embedded in various devices, even though it is very unlikely that the FSF itself is a "customer" for any of those devices, thus making the FSF a "third party" in those cases.
No, that is one of the many versions of the story. Some others have the Russians buying the software/hardware from the UK, Germany, France, whomever. Yet others claim it was run on clone PDP-11s/IBM mainframes/what not. Even the explosion itself is highly questionable, as Russians claim that there were no major explosions in 1982 and only one minor one where damage was "fixed in one day". Etc and so on.
As far as your views on how the Iraqi civilian court system might work, I am intrigued by your ideas and wish to subscribe to your newsletter.
If you are a resident of Iraq, please subscribe to the newsletter by mailing your address to Abu Al Zarkhawi Publishing, 1 Islamic Revolution Way.
The story is pretty much proven bullshit, and it keeps changing constantly. In some versions the Russians bought the software from the US, UK, you name it, in some others they stole it, it was written in Assembler running on MC6800, In C on PDP-11s, on IBM mainframes, on Russian clones of PDPs/mainframes/what not, etc and so on. In all likelyhood it was simply an industrial accident but there a lot of idiot "credit" takers who want to paint themselves as characters out of some Chuck Norris flick, while making coin on their "memoirs". The Russians for their part claim that while an explosion occured in 1982, the damage was fixed in "one day", which would render claims of "gigiantic, seen from orbit" rather contradictory. Some of these credit-takers are stupid enough to try to take credit for another accident in June 1989 which destroyed two passenger trains in the Bashkirian Republic of the Soviet Union. Over 400 passengers died immediately and 806 were injured then.
Since it's the CIA, and in another country, I would imagine the answer would be 'no' regardless.
Only up to the moment when they proudly announced their handiwork to the world. Cue the lawsuits and seizure of US assets. The only reason it is not happening is that Russians know these crackpot stories to be just that (although the idiots writing these books could open themselves to civil lawsuits in Russia and might open any company in which they have any stake and which operates in Russia to asset seizures).
Most likely a case of a typical megalomaniac ex-Intelligence blow hard trying to take credit for the Sun rising in the West, in his highly incredulous "memoir".
If any of that crap was true, Russia would be suing for damages, which under international law they would be entitled to, since they actually bought that stuff for their pipeline legitimately, and would be using that idiot's book as Exhibit A.
On an unrelated note, I wonder when will some more enterprising Iraqi citizens, who lost family members or were injured during the current Iraqi adventure, start marching into the Iraqi courts and start filing multi-million civil lawsuits against the US. This is different from any International Criminal Court proceeding since it would be a civilian affair in Iraq, where the courts are likely to be sympathetic (after having rejected Bremer-imposed restrictions on not holding the US and various corporate mercenaries accountable), and the court would simply award damages, which then would have to be had from seized US assets, should the US refuse to pony up. Which would create even more amusement for any future US interests trying to do business there then they already have, for many, many decades to come.
You do that. And boy do you need it!
I, on the other hand, will be more alert to the quirks of the X11 cut/paste buffers.