First, there is Article 21, which states that the rules of the national law applies, unless "those principles are not inconsistent with this Statute and with international law and internationally recognized norms and standards."
Now to the parts:
Amendment IV: The ICC has no right for search and seizure. It is the judicative. The prosecutor may order the corresponding executive to do such things (in accordance with local laws) provided the Pre-Trial Chamber authorises him so. ( Article 15, 57-59
Amendment V: due process, self-incrimination:Article 67, double jeopardy: Article 20 Interestingly more strict than the US version, as in the US you can be tried on state-level and federal-level.
Amendment VI: Article 67, too. Except you don't have the right on a jury in and from the State and district where the crime has been supposedly commited.
Amendment VII: Not applicable. It is the International Criminal Court
Amendment VIII: Article 77
Amendment IX, Amendment X: Has nothing to do with the ICC. It limits the power of the executive, and legislative. The ICC is the judicative. The UN assembly is the legislative, and its member states the executive.
> Some states do have direct election of some/all judges.
And are you evading those states which don't?
> 30-49% of all security council resolutions in the past 10-15 years
Hardly. Let's assume that every resolution concerning Isreal would be against the it, this would result in 20 resolutions from a total of 601 from 1990 to 1999.
1st, I did. Actually, right before this post once again. Maybe do it yourself and see which amendments apply to the judicative. Then point out to me which is in conflict with the statutes of the ICC, for I fail to see one.
> ICC see what the USA does as wrong but has no problem with the PA blowing up kids
There has been no trial on either. I fail to see find such statements except from your sayings.
Finally, which human rights subsection? There is the Office of Prosecution, the chief prosecutor is Mr. Luis Moreno-Ocampo of Argentina, which has been unanimously elected. The judges and some more administration.
> Damn right I do not trust foreign/supranationl enities as I can not vote them out of power.
Can you vote on your judges in the US? Do you trust them?
The UN is not a entity which has power in itself. It is only as powerful as its members empower it.
But even then, the task of the UN is not to tell how a nation is to be run. (Or do you think the USSR or China would have agreed and participated in such an organisation). The UN is a public forum of the nations.
Instead of private meetings between various ambassadors, you have a public discussion. And the behaviour of the nations representatives are judged by other nations.
> that doesn't treat the Bill of Rights like a joke, and I'll think about it.
The ICC is a court, hence most aspects of the Bill of Rights don't even apply to the ICC. Otherwise, the court follows the international accepted rules of conduct, most of which are written of the Bill of Rights. Here the complete statute
Concerning the aspect of undue punishment, the ICC is judging over war-crimes and genocide. What kind of punishment would the US impose on those crimes?
So, it seems to me, that your personal distrust for foreign and/or supranational entities is more the basis for your reaction than its legal framework.
Well, it isn't my opinion, but the statement of the project leader of the above car. And his statement stems from close work with Daimler-Chrysler.
However good the system may be, an accident can't be ruled out. Now, imagine the costs of a lawsuit and image problems ensuing the death of half the family members of such an accident.
This would be an image problem of Zeppelin scale. Yes, the mortality rate may be lower than ever before. But people don't like to put their life at the hand of a computer.
> The aerospace industry has been using computers to control aircraft
The situations is similar. Pilot supporting systems yes, autonomous, unsupervised systems, no.
This remembers me of a story, I've been told. I don't know wether true or not. Weizenbaum was once invited into the cockpit of a modern airplane equipped with computer assistance. And the pilot explains everything to him, with special respect to the computer system, including showing him the fuse, which they yank out when the computer system crashes, and put it back in after 30s. How often do they had too? Several times per flight.
Not necessarily the technological challenge. A highway is far from being a vacuum of information. It is a fairly standardised enviroment with many constraints and fairly predictable behaviour. Cars have been able since the late 90s to drive more than 90% of the time to drive amongst normal traffic.
The main reason is, companies don't want to be liable for the risk.
Japan relies on oil for 49.3% as primary source of its energy-production. Nuclear power accounts for 25%.
IRC, there are currently two countries, which rely on nuclear power as primary energy source, France with nearly 80% and Belgium with something over 60%. Belgium has voted in December 2002 to phase out its Nuclear reactors.
> USA has not built nuclear plants since 1970s
Because they stopped massive subvention programs for building them. Otherwise, they are commercially not viable. Neither the US or the UK, nor Japan.
A person can theoretically discriminate two points in an angle of ~1'=1/60degree. At a distance of 25cm, it means a distance of two point 73E-6m, so roughly 350dpi, if I'm not mistaken. I'm not so sure about the conversion to dpi.
Certainly, it isn't like you sarcastically stated it. However, the contrary is even farer from the truth. And suggesting so, is quite insulting.
People are buying U.S.American products, are listening to American music and watching American films. They aren't forced to, they chose so. And when the US has a bad economy, other nations are feeling the downsides, too.
So, usually foreigners would not knowingly make the worse choice for the US.
Sure, foreigners are less qualified to judge the internal policies. But one can't as easily discard their opinion on foreign policies.
> If people value living on a nice, clean planet, they will pay for such benefits.
If they can afford to. The problem is, those people who don't care have more money to profit from, hence have an economical advantage, hence are more likely to decide, wether there will be a nice, clean planet.
Companies, which exploit land and its resources in an long term unsustainable way have a faster growth than companies, which don't. This economical advantage will drive the latter companies into a fringe market, where only few idealist buy to a premium. Any criticism will be ignored by ostracising those people as tree-huggers, and the criticism as dooms-day prophecy. Sounds familiar? Maybe because we already have a similar situation.
Are people buying from Fair Trade companies? How many people are building an enviromentally friendly home? How about clothes? Energy production? Why? Why should I pay the premium, when others don't. Tragedy of the common indeed.
What is the difference between a "free market", and Manchester capitalism? Do you think, the then working people in the cities, which were coughing due to the exhausts from the factories, didn't wished for cleaner air, streets and water?
The point is, their voice counted nothing until they got the vote. Guess where the enviromental regulations come from.
As far as I can remember, people were doing this. So at least since the mid-80s. Almost all those things he says (except the hybrid car) could be practiced before, and the cost savings were real then as they are today.
In what does his position differ from those people?
> But their economy WAS healthy, but every normal metric.
You may be talking about a lack of inflation, a sinking jobless rate, an increase of industrial production, which are all positive signs for the economy.
But you can't ignore a governmental spending of twice its income, totalling in 33.5% of the GDP.
It's like saying a person economically sound, because he is driving a Mercedes and owning a villa, ignoring the fact that he bought it all on credit, but isn't even earning enough money to pay the interest.
> Nothing you wrote refutes the claim that businessmen had it good in Nazi Germany.
I mainly refuted the statement, that the economy was healthy. Whether an inflated economy is good or bad for businessmen depends majorly on the time frame and the wit of the businessman. In the long term (after 12 years), it was bad for them.
> and the German economy in the Nazi era was healthier than it had been since WW1
Actually not. The economy was booming, but largely to the fact that the government was spending massive amounts of money on projects, like building the Autobahn, rearmament, representative buildings and events. All money, which they actually didn't have, but lend. Mostly from countries, which they later invaded.
IRC, Speer himself, later Minister for Economy under the Nazi-Regime, noted, that this economic policy could only have one goal: war. Otherwise, it could be expected that the massive spending would lead to an economic collapse, since the money in circulation had no corresponding economic value.
> The Opteron (AMD) and the new Pentium IV (Intel) are both VLIW processors microprogrammed to execute the IA32-64 instruction set.
Neither the Opteron nor the Pentium IV are VLIW processors. Both translate x86 code to micro-ops, not VLIWs. From those both companies, the Itantium is the only VLIW processor. But none of them does code morphing, unless you run a VM on it.
von Braun would have been working on rockets regardless of Nazis in power or not. The difference is that the Nazis prohibited civilian research on rocketry (prohibiting the "Verein fuer Raumschiffahrt"). Another point is that all those people (von Braun, Einstein, Born, Hilbert, Minkowski, Heisenberg...) are products of an education of pre-Nazi Germany.
Not to mention all those people who worked in Germany, because of those outstanding scientists. Before the Nazi-regime, practically all papers in Chemistry of any importance where published in German. Oppenheimer made his PhD under Max Born in Germany.
Makes you wonder, what Germany might have contributed to the world when the goverment wouldn't have focused their efforts of killing people among them a great deal of the German intelligencia on reason of religion, sexual or political orientation.
> Einstein believed that a weapon of mass destruction in the hands of the United States would not only end the war, but ensure safety to the rest of the world after the war as well.
Your assumption.
I made one great mistake in my life... when I signed the letter to President Roosevelt recommending that atom bombs be made; but there was some justification - the danger that the Germans would make them. - Albert Einstein
His only fear was, that the Nazi would build them. He didn't believe in the US being the saviour of the world. In fact, he was suspicous towards any kind of patriotism or nationalism.
> The one which I used many years ago wasn't efficient at all, and they are bulky as hell.
What is it with people being so obsessed with "efficiency" of solar cells? It's not like you're going to log them around all the time or place it right on your lawn. More important is the costs (and enviromental impact) of the production of them.
Imagine a dirt cheap, enviromentally friendly solar cell with 5% efficiency. We'd see all the roofs plastered with them.
> What's the highest solar --> electricity conversion rate achieved so far ?
For most people (those of us, that don't haul a satelites into orbit, or equip cars with them) that number is pureley academically. But, since you asked: Record 25%. Typical: 10-15%.
> "Next time they give you all that civic bullshit about voting, keep in mind that Hitler was elected in a full, free democratic election"
And how is this an argument against "civic bullshit"?
Fact is, Hitler didn't get the majority of the votes (in the last free democratic election 33%). The reason why he gained so much power, was because of a lack of such "civic bullshit".
> "Think it through: [...]"
I wish, one would. Not voting is as good as voting for whoever gets the post. Not voting is a valid choice. But also one for which you are responsible.
Yes, you'd actually accomplished the complicated task of moving your body from your home to the nearest place where you can vote, and sacrificed a small part of your invaluable time.
The vote for Mickey Mouse would show, you do care enough to do at least so much, but you are unsatisfied with the choice.
Finally, an election is not about marrying the candidate. You don't have to like the candidate, you just have to like his political program better than the other one(s) program(s).
Slashdot Mirror
Damn, too late.
Do you consider think there are sign of disenchantment with politics or especially with politicians?
If so, in which ways do you consider partisanship the problem, and in what the ways the de-facto two party system.
What have you done, and do you to plan do to counteract this?
How do you think your political campaign affects the image of politicians in general?
Now to the parts:
Amendment IV: The ICC has no right for search and seizure. It is the judicative. The prosecutor may order the corresponding executive to do such things (in accordance with local laws) provided the Pre-Trial Chamber authorises him so. ( Article 15, 57-59
Amendment V: due process, self-incrimination:Article 67, double jeopardy: Article 20
Interestingly more strict than the US version, as in the US you can be tried on state-level and federal-level.
Amendment VI: Article 67, too. Except you don't have the right on a jury in and from the State and district where the crime has been supposedly commited.
Amendment VII: Not applicable. It is the International Criminal Court
Amendment VIII: Article 77
Amendment IX, Amendment X: Has nothing to do with the ICC. It limits the power of the executive, and legislative. The ICC is the judicative. The UN assembly is the legislative, and its member states the executive.
> Some states do have direct election of some/all judges.
And are you evading those states which don't?
> 30-49% of all security council resolutions in the past 10-15 years
Hardly. Let's assume that every resolution concerning Isreal would be against the it, this would result in 20 resolutions from a total of 601 from 1990 to 1999.
1st, I did. Actually, right before this post once again. Maybe do it yourself and see which amendments apply to the judicative. Then point out to me which is in conflict with the statutes of the ICC, for I fail to see one.
> ICC see what the USA does as wrong but has no problem with the PA blowing up kids
There has been no trial on either. I fail to see find such statements except from your sayings.
Finally, which human rights subsection?
There is the Office of Prosecution, the chief prosecutor is Mr. Luis Moreno-Ocampo of Argentina, which has been unanimously elected. The judges and some more administration.
> Damn right I do not trust foreign/supranationl enities as I can not vote them out of power.
Can you vote on your judges in the US? Do you trust them?
BTW, Palestine is PS, PA is Panama.
The UN is not a entity which has power in itself. It is only as powerful as its members empower it.
But even then, the task of the UN is not to tell how a nation is to be run. (Or do you think the USSR or China would have agreed and participated in such an organisation). The UN is a public forum of the nations.
Instead of private meetings between various ambassadors, you have a public discussion. And the behaviour of the nations representatives are judged by other nations.
And I'd say that is quite powerful in itself.
> that doesn't treat the Bill of Rights like a joke, and I'll think about it.
The ICC is a court, hence most aspects of the Bill of Rights don't even apply to the ICC. Otherwise, the court follows the international accepted rules of conduct, most of which are written of the Bill of Rights. Here the complete statute
Concerning the aspect of undue punishment, the ICC is judging over war-crimes and genocide. What kind of punishment would the US impose on those crimes?
So, it seems to me, that your personal distrust for foreign and/or supranational entities is more the basis for your reaction than its legal framework.
> I don't think that is the problem.
Well, it isn't my opinion, but the statement of the project leader of the above car. And his statement stems from close work with Daimler-Chrysler.
However good the system may be, an accident can't be ruled out. Now, imagine the costs of a lawsuit and image problems ensuing the death of half the family members of such an accident.
This would be an image problem of Zeppelin scale.
Yes, the mortality rate may be lower than ever before. But people don't like to put their life at the hand of a computer.
> The aerospace industry has been using computers to control aircraft
The situations is similar. Pilot supporting systems yes, autonomous, unsupervised systems, no.
This remembers me of a story, I've been told. I don't know wether true or not. Weizenbaum was once invited into the cockpit of a modern airplane equipped with computer assistance. And the pilot explains everything to him, with special respect to the computer system, including showing him the fuse, which they yank out when the computer system crashes, and put it back in after 30s.
How often do they had too? Several times per flight.
Not necessarily the technological challenge. A highway is far from being a vacuum of information. It is a fairly standardised enviroment with many constraints and fairly predictable behaviour. Cars have been able since the late 90s to drive more than 90% of the time to drive amongst normal traffic.
The main reason is, companies don't want to be liable for the risk.
Japan relies on oil for 49.3% as primary source of its energy-production. Nuclear power accounts for 25%.
IRC, there are currently two countries, which rely on nuclear power as primary energy source, France with nearly 80% and Belgium with something over 60%. Belgium has voted in December 2002 to phase out its Nuclear reactors.
> USA has not built nuclear plants since 1970s
Because they stopped massive subvention programs for building them. Otherwise, they are commercially not viable.
Neither the US or the UK, nor Japan.
A person can theoretically discriminate two points in an angle of ~1'=1/60degree. At a distance of 25cm, it means a distance of two point 73E-6m, so roughly 350dpi, if I'm not mistaken. I'm not so sure about the conversion to dpi.
Certainly, it isn't like you sarcastically stated it. However, the contrary is even farer from the truth. And suggesting so, is quite insulting.
People are buying U.S.American products, are listening to American music and watching American films. They aren't forced to, they chose so. And when the US has a bad economy, other nations are feeling the downsides, too.
So, usually foreigners would not knowingly make the worse choice for the US.
Sure, foreigners are less qualified to judge the internal policies. But one can't as easily discard their opinion on foreign policies.
Notice the difference between: British-born and British
From the BBC:
The US-flag on his uniform could also be taken as a pointer.
> If people value living on a nice, clean planet, they will pay for such benefits.
If they can afford to. The problem is, those people who don't care have more money to profit from, hence have an economical advantage, hence are more likely to decide, wether there will be a nice, clean planet.
Companies, which exploit land and its resources in an long term unsustainable way have a faster growth than companies, which don't.
This economical advantage will drive the latter companies into a fringe market, where only few idealist buy to a premium. Any criticism will be ignored by ostracising those people as tree-huggers, and the criticism as dooms-day prophecy. Sounds familiar?
Maybe because we already have a similar situation.
Are people buying from Fair Trade companies? How many people are building an enviromentally friendly home? How about clothes? Energy production?
Why? Why should I pay the premium, when others don't. Tragedy of the common indeed.
What is the difference between a "free market", and Manchester capitalism? Do you think, the then working people in the cities, which were coughing due to the exhausts from the factories, didn't wished for cleaner air, streets and water?
The point is, their voice counted nothing until they got the vote. Guess where the enviromental regulations come from.
> French health care system:
1) Unsustainable for what the people currently pay. Which is less than the people in the US.
2) Multi-Resistant bacteria are the result of the abundant use of anti-biotica as life-stock food additive.
Maybe it is only the perception?
As far as I can remember, people were doing this. So at least since the mid-80s. Almost all those things he says (except the hybrid car) could be practiced before, and the cost savings were real then as they are today.
In what does his position differ from those people?
Why would one need a new USB standard to deny the use of USB-storage devices?
How about makeing "usbstor.sys" optional? I wouldn't even be too surprised, if one could actually removed it with some extra work manually.
> But their economy WAS healthy, but every normal metric.
You may be talking about a lack of inflation, a sinking jobless rate, an increase of industrial production, which are all positive signs for the economy.
But you can't ignore a governmental spending of twice its income, totalling in 33.5% of the GDP.
It's like saying a person economically sound, because he is driving a Mercedes and owning a villa, ignoring the fact that he bought it all on credit, but isn't even earning enough money to pay the interest.
> Nothing you wrote refutes the claim that businessmen had it good in Nazi Germany.
I mainly refuted the statement, that the economy was healthy. Whether an inflated economy is good or bad for businessmen depends majorly on the time frame and the wit of the businessman. In the long term (after 12 years), it was bad for them.
> and the German economy in the Nazi era was healthier than it had been since WW1
Actually not. The economy was booming, but largely to the fact that the government was spending massive amounts of money on projects, like building the Autobahn, rearmament, representative buildings and events. All money, which they actually didn't have, but lend. Mostly from countries, which they later invaded.
IRC, Speer himself, later Minister for Economy under the Nazi-Regime, noted, that this economic policy could only have one goal: war.
Otherwise, it could be expected that the massive spending would lead to an economic collapse, since the money in circulation had no corresponding economic value.
> The Opteron (AMD) and the new Pentium IV (Intel) are both VLIW processors microprogrammed to execute the IA32-64 instruction set.
Neither the Opteron nor the Pentium IV are VLIW processors. Both translate x86 code to micro-ops, not VLIWs. From those both companies, the Itantium is the only VLIW processor. But none of them does code morphing, unless you run a VM on it.
Crap.
von Braun would have been working on rockets regardless of Nazis in power or not. The difference is that the Nazis prohibited civilian research on rocketry (prohibiting the "Verein fuer Raumschiffahrt").
Another point is that all those people (von Braun, Einstein, Born, Hilbert, Minkowski, Heisenberg...) are products of an education of pre-Nazi Germany.
Not to mention all those people who worked in Germany, because of those outstanding scientists.
Before the Nazi-regime, practically all papers in Chemistry of any importance where published in German. Oppenheimer made his PhD under Max Born in Germany.
Makes you wonder, what Germany might have contributed to the world when the goverment wouldn't have focused their efforts of killing people among them a great deal of the German intelligencia on reason of religion, sexual or political orientation.
Your assumption.
His only fear was, that the Nazi would build them. He didn't believe in the US being the saviour of the world. In fact, he was suspicous towards any kind of patriotism or nationalism.
> The one which I used many years ago wasn't efficient at all, and they are bulky as hell.
What is it with people being so obsessed with "efficiency" of solar cells? It's not like you're going to log them around all the time or place it right on your lawn. More important is the costs (and enviromental impact) of the production of them.
Imagine a dirt cheap, enviromentally friendly solar cell with 5% efficiency. We'd see all the roofs plastered with them.
> What's the highest solar --> electricity conversion rate achieved so far ?
For most people (those of us, that don't haul a satelites into orbit, or equip cars with them) that number is pureley academically. But, since you asked: Record 25%. Typical: 10-15%.
> "Next time they give you all that civic bullshit about voting, keep in mind that Hitler was elected in a full, free democratic election"
And how is this an argument against "civic bullshit"?
Fact is, Hitler didn't get the majority of the votes (in the last free democratic election 33%).
The reason why he gained so much power, was because of a lack of such "civic bullshit".
> "Think it through: [...]"
I wish, one would. Not voting is as good as voting for whoever gets the post. Not voting is a valid choice. But also one for which you are responsible.
Yes, you'd actually accomplished the complicated task of moving your body from your home to the nearest place where you can vote, and sacrificed a small part of your invaluable time.
The vote for Mickey Mouse would show, you do care enough to do at least so much, but you are unsatisfied with the choice.
Finally, an election is not about marrying the candidate. You don't have to like the candidate, you just have to like his political program better than the other one(s) program(s).