I don't know why but I feel the need to correct you here. "They are supposed to be licensed with the city they operate in just like any other food-service business." Supposed to be is a key modifier there. You really have no way of knowing if they are or the license thing they show isn't a forgery. I suppose you could go to the health department and check but that sounds like a lot of trouble for a taco and soda.
Also, as I have found in my state, if any city or county health department passed you and gives you a license, it is good anywhere in the state.
You are a moron. Those things had been happening long before global warming was supposed to be a problem and it will happen long after you supposedly fix it. Why do you think there are statistics like 100 and 500 flood levels that governments use on a regular basis for their zoning and planning?
As for the "clean economy", the only way the oil tycoons could suppress it is if the carbon economy was cheaper. Otherwise, everyone would be jumping on board to save a buck. It's why people know walmart pays crap wages and buys mostly from china instead of the US and they flock to it because it is cheaper.
Lol.. Is reading comprehension not one of your strong points?
There is nothing wrong with the car analogy, the differences weren't with what kind of car or anything but the rate that was charged depending on if you kept it local or took it out of town. That ability to copy the car means nothing, once you use it in the way the other charges apply, I am entitles to the other charges. The same with copying a copyrighted work, as soon as you do what the law reserves for the copyright holder, they have a lost sale.
Your entire speal about copying something digitally is more of an argument to the usefulness of copyright then a rebuttal to what i said. nothing I said was a bout anything tangible but the rights connected to something that was. If I have the sole legal right to do something and you do it, I have lost that ability to do that something that one time. It doesn't matter if you would never have paid me to do it, I lost a sale.
For one, It has always been the discretion of the powers to be. Or do you think the FBI creating and keeping a file on Marin Luther King or John Lenon was justified and keeping it secret for years was too? The US government decides what documents and information it has is open or secret not you. It has always been that way. Your analogy is still a fail.
Second, if anything I have said allows anything, it would only be that some actions come close to treason. NO ONE, I repeat, NO ONE HAS SAID SNOWDEN COMMiTED TREASON in this thread. Stop imagining bullshit and arguing the conversations that only exist in your head.
Finally, I agree that the data collections should be general information and public knowledge. I would go even further and claim the government has no right to collect that data or do the snooping it is doing. However, that does not mean I am somehow now the sole arbitrator on what is classified or not nor does it mean I or anyone else would or should escape any punishment for any unlawful disclosure. Especially if they go to a foreign country, stand up and say "I did it" then go to another foreign country and seek asylum. There were legal avenues to expose what was happening without giving secrets to foreign nations and exposing specifics about how we monitor known terrorist organizations.
Nice straw man there. Since when is general information the same as secret information? The problem isn't that publicly available information has helped our enemies, it is that secret or hidden information has been.
But I guess logic and reason isn't a strong point any more.
But he wanted to pretend he was Jean-Luc Picard. That alone should be enough to lose his job. Kirk all the way or your fired should be a law somewhere.
Exactly. The 4th amendment was put into the constitution specifically to outlaw what was called a general warrant. This happened when someone connected to any authority had it in for you. They would get a general warrant, it allowed them to search you, your house, place of employment, or anything any time they wanted in hopes of catching you doing something wrong so that charges could be brought against you.
This kind of data collection and retention is specifically the kind of actions the amendment was designed to make impossible.
Legal concept, listening in on phone calls wasn't even unconstitutional from a legal perspective until the mid 1960's. Until then, it was considered constitutional with a few challenges at lower courts that kept getting overturned. It wasn't until the 60's that a supreme court case solidified it as unconstitutional and then it only claimed domestic calls were covered and presumed foreign calls was within the scope of national security. Congress ended up creating the omnibus crime bill or something like that in the late 1960's that forbid domestic spying so the domestic law enforcement agencies went to the NSA and CIA to get around the problem of needing to get a warrant. That is when the FISA laws were created in the early 70's but as far as I know, no FISA provision or concept has been defeated in the supreme court so it can be said from a legal perspective, spying on foreigners for national security is only illegal if done wrongly because a law and not clear constitutionality is in play.
Please pay attention. No one said he committed treason, they said "In fact, there's little if any question that what he did at least borders on treason".
I specifically pointed to the aiding the enemy part and specifically laid out where Al Qeada was using the information disclosed to test and determine which lines of communication they use are compromised and the results were a bunch of specific embassy closings a month or so ago without any of the threats materializing. Giving an enemy enough information about our intelligence gathering techniques that they can determine which ones are compromised is aiding the enemy or damn close to it.
Here is the problem, the US government determines who is and isn't an enemy baring an invasion or attack against us. Right now, we are trying to arm Al Qaeda in Syria knowing that they waged war against us. The president has determined them not to be our enemies any more and ended the war on terror a few months ago.
You may think it is screwed up and arbitrary and I would agree. But those are the rules. Reagan inadvertently gave weapons to Al Qaeda not knowing they would attack the US in the future and Obama is purposely doing it knowing they have attacked the US in the past. We almost became Al Qaeda's air force if the Russians didn't step in. But because the US government and not the people determine who the enemies are, it's their choice to do so.
Nixon actually still needed Ford's pardon to get off the hook)
Nixon didn't need a pardon to get off the hook. He needed one in order to put it behind the business of government. There was very little legal evidence of Nixon actually doing anything illegal at the time of the pardon.
The only real evidence against Nixon was a gap in tape recorded conversations and someone who was indicted for a crime taking a plea deal to lesser jail time if he connected Nixon and said the Watergate hotel breakin's were about campaign information. All the participants we know who was involved except the one (Dean) claimed it was about a prostitution ring that the democratic party organizers were running and using to influence donors. The claim was that proof existed that the party leadership would offer prostitutes to donors and congressmen and then use information about those sessions to either influence a vote or increase the size of donations.
As for the collateral murder video, most people who watched the unedited version see an entirely different accounting of actions and don't connect murder to it at all. Of course it takes a person to have an open and un-indoctrinated mind to view the entirety of the video and reach a sane conclusion which is why I said most.
What the government is doing is undoubtedly illegal and Snowden should be protected under the whistleblower act as such.
What section of the whistle blower act specifically protects Snowden?
lso, what Snowden did is nowhere near treason.
disclosing the apparatus in which the country collect intelligence on enemies- foreign and domestic and monitors their movements is very close to treason as defined in the US constitution in "adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort". HE essentially aided the enemies of this nation which was put to the test with the embassy closings in which Al Qaeda in Yemen and others areas purposely shot orders over communication lines to see how the US reacted in order to determine which ones were compromised.
Perhaps you should turn the TV off and look up the definition of treason in the dictionary
The dictionary doesn't do shit. the definition for treason in the US is specifically defined in the US constitution and limited to that definition. As the GP said, it is close to that definition.
"It has been done before, just look to most of the recent presidents for guidance"
FTFY
It's been done by a lot of presidents. The pardon is probably one of the most powerful tools a president has and on their way out, it is often used liberally.
Copyright gives the ability to control the copying and distribution of a protected work. If someone downloads a copy, they have taken the distribution step (well, the person who offered it for download anyways) and performed it without the sale that copyright provides. Therefore, if someone distributes a copyrighted work, they have effect a transfer without the sale. Once the transfer is done, the sale is lost.
Now, you can argue all you want that someone would never have done the transfer equating to distribution had they been forced to pay. That is a valid argument when neither the sale or the distribution takes place. But once the distribution takes place, the owner is entitled to the sale per the law- that is the entire purpose of the law, to allow the creator/owner make a sale on the copying and distribution of a work.
Let's look at it as an analogy. Suppose I rent cars and you rented one from me. I have two rates, one is a flat rate for in town and the other is a flat rate plus mileage for out of town with the later being more expensive. You selected the in town rate because it was cheaper but drove the car to another state. This is something you would never have done if charged the higher out-of-town rate but you think you will not get caught. Now upon return of the car, I connect a computer and download the GPS coordinates and discover you went out of town in it. Did I lose a sale if I do not charge you the extra fee? Of course I would so I charge the extra fee. The fact that you wouldn't have done so had you known you would have had to pay the higher rate is irrelevant to whether you failed to pay for something I was legally entitled to receive.
So once the act is done, the sale is lost regardless of if the sale or act would have taken place or not.
I don't see credit unions or coops as leftist. They are simply a means to effect a goal of providing goods and services to areas neglected by other providers. Credit unions are coops and coops replace businesses who don't see a profit potential in an area or in addressing aspect of demands of areas. This is no more a leftist idea then the rotary club or chamber of commerce or eagles club or a local church.
People on the left have embraced those concepts and used them to their advantage, but I don't see anything inherently leftist about it. It's only when you place a political spin on it does left right come into play. I used to volunteer at a homeless shelter, people thought I was a leftist when it is far from the truth. I don't know how many times I had to explain that the biggest different between the left and right is not acts of charity but whether or not the government could force you to participate in them.
I think one of the problems might also be that they are seeing the same damn questions asked over and over but slightly different and the user isn't able to connect the slightly different question to the published answer already given somewhere.
I used to do some support on IRC with a Linux group catering to a specific distro and I saw this all the time. I eventually created macros to ask the questions just to get to the point of the problem because of the 10,000 different ways someone states it. Often the skill levels of the users were so different that you would either talk over someone's head or upset them for talking down to them. It got extremely aggravating when talking over someone's skill level and they don't tell you they don't understand something until you are 20 steps into it. It is even more aggravating when you talk down to someone and they get upset and cuss you out crying they aren't a newbie or something. Most of the problems were incompatible or unsupported devices that were already listed as incompatible and unsupported on the distro's website but people refused to believe it until they saw it first hand.
I eventually bailed on the entire thing after the distro merged with another and dropped all the things I like in order to promote all the things I didn't like about it. Some of the others who helped found it easier to just ssh into the user's box and fix it than to pull the real question out and explain the answer well enough to be used. I can see why some groups get short and say RTFM all the time (not that I agree it is proper to do so). I've about given up on linux- it seems as soon as there is something I like, they go and change it and make it extremely difficult to put it back in.
As soon as you attach open source to politics, you will always lose. It would be like the unions in the US wondering why people are fighting to keep them out of their workplace and not contribute money to them when they are there.
People use it for their own reasons, politics may or may not be one of them. But the open source is closer to the commune in communist then communist itself because it operates on a user mode instead of a government or command structure. What I mean is, open source is a way to get around and away from government type rules and shouldn't be considered in a political light at all. It's more of a neighbor or friend coming over to help paint the garage or work on a car or something then a system of governing.
I'm far from leftist and I support and use open source. Most of my reasons include financial, quality, and practicality rather then political.
I thought the US Administration's goal was to punish Assad for the large-scale use of chemical weapons with a "limited" military strike. How exactly does destroying the weapons count as punishment?
You are missing that Russia is pretty much guaranteeing that other countries won't invade Syria directly now so he won't even need the chemical weapons. Such irony, Obama forces Assad to give up what was preventing other countries from invading and in the process replaced it with something much more threatening.
It almost makes one think that this is really about Obama saving face for making a stupid comment about a "red line". Was Obama prepared to kill more innocent people in an ineffectual missile strike to save face? Now the Russians have given him an out are we not going to punish Syria after all? Hypocrisy?
It was and is. The liberal political policy in the US is largely based on emotion with little reason not connected directly to emotion. That's why disagreeing with it means you are a Racist, Misogynist, conducting a War On Women, or whatever form of "evil" conjecture they can come up with (not that the right is much different or anything).
Ask yourself something if you doubt this was about saving face. Any other previous president would have taken some action if they felt it was so bad and discussed it with congress silently before announcing it to the Americans people. Ronald Reagan bombed Libya for sponsoring the terrorist attack on PanAm flight 103. He did it with contacting a few congress critters then told the American people about it. Jimmy Carter, attempted an assault in Iran in order to get our hostages back (even though it failed, he didn't discuss it until after), Bill Clinton bombed several places in response to direct terrorist attacks (even though we acted like it was wag the dog time to distract from his domestic problems), and discussed it afterwords.
But with this Syria BS, Obama sent his entire Cabinet out stating he was going to make a decision. He had them talk tough about what they were going to do then like the moment you find out the hot girl you have been fantasizing about at the end of the bar is really a guy, everything fizzles into a mess with no intent on doing what you originally intended.
The process that seems to be difficult isn't creating the gas but increasing it's purity in a binary precursor solution so the agents don't degrade and become useless when needed. Another problem is mixing them upon delivery. Artillery shells generally have a glass like divider between two chemicals that will break when being fired and mix due to the rotation of the shells as they fly through the air. This also makes accidents with the weapons limited on damage and keeps them safe for storage and transportation. It also makes them ineffective delivery systems for IEDs like we found out in Iraq circa 2004 when insurgents used an 155mm sarin gas shell to blow up a convoy. Only two or three US soldiers got exposed and it was minimal exposure requiring little treatment.
This agreement seems to be set up to fail. I realize some sort of numbers and deadlines had to be put out there, but I guarantee they won't be meeting this schedule.
Eliminated likely doesn't mean destroyed or disposed of, but eliminated from Syria and Assad's control.
I suspect that Russia will place troops at the chemical weapon's sites to protect them and the UN inspectors and monitors. This will free up a small but significant amounts of Assad's forces to combat the rebels. It is as if Russia created a way for it to intervene on Assad's side at the request of the west.
Have you been living under a rock or something? I mean just recently with the dorner case in California, the cops opened fired on a pickup truck who's only crime was being a similar color as the one dorner was thought to be in and delivering newspapers without their headlights on. That same day, another pickup truck was open fired on for doing nothing but going right for sirens and lights.
Cops are scared little pussies in some cases and shoot to stop from pissing themselves. No guns being drawn or pointed or even an attempt to visual identify someone before shooting them. All I have to say is it was a good thing those cops were too scared to shoot straight else the three innocent people likely would have died.
I know for a fact that at least one of my friends if not myself would have made a map of the school. Of course that person and everyone that played that map would go to jail for planning a terrorist attack.
I helped a kid create a counterstrike map of all the schools in the district back in 1999-2000. We did it under the guise that we were practicing "creating 3d explorable representations of buildings and structures to aid real estate sales agents with interactive rich virtual environments" and added that "county and city officials could also use the concept on new acquisitions and existing buildings in order to make decisions on how best to use the space". Had the administrator's permission to enter all the schools and video tape a walk through along with taking pictures with a yard stick in it so we could accurately represent the sizes of items in it. One school, we recreated all the crap on the walls and everything too. Took way too long so we ditched it for the others.
Turned out to be a bad idea. No one wanted to purchase a video game and fumble through loading custom maps just to avoid driving 20 minutes across town and look at a building or send it to the engineers office to have them interpret blueprints.
I don't know whatever happened to those CS maps, but I often wonder if they would happen to resurface if I wouldn't be getting a knock on the door from some 3 letter agency drone and an extended stay at club gitmo.
Slashdot Mirror
And the clean energy not only recieves much of yhe same tax breaks, they also get paid to operate by the government in most cases.
I know someone told you different but find out for yourself.
I don't know why but I feel the need to correct you here. "They are supposed to be licensed with the city they operate in just like any other food-service business." Supposed to be is a key modifier there. You really have no way of knowing if they are or the license thing they show isn't a forgery. I suppose you could go to the health department and check but that sounds like a lot of trouble for a taco and soda.
Also, as I have found in my state, if any city or county health department passed you and gives you a license, it is good anywhere in the state.
You are a moron. Those things had been happening long before global warming was supposed to be a problem and it will happen long after you supposedly fix it.
Why do you think there are statistics like 100 and 500 flood levels that governments use on a regular basis for their zoning and planning?
As for the "clean economy", the only way the oil tycoons could suppress it is if the carbon economy was cheaper. Otherwise, everyone would be jumping on board to save a buck. It's why people know walmart pays crap wages and buys mostly from china instead of the US and they flock to it because it is cheaper.
Lol.. Is reading comprehension not one of your strong points?
There is nothing wrong with the car analogy, the differences weren't with what kind of car or anything but the rate that was charged depending on if you kept it local or took it out of town. That ability to copy the car means nothing, once you use it in the way the other charges apply, I am entitles to the other charges. The same with copying a copyrighted work, as soon as you do what the law reserves for the copyright holder, they have a lost sale.
Your entire speal about copying something digitally is more of an argument to the usefulness of copyright then a rebuttal to what i said. nothing I said was a bout anything tangible but the rights connected to something that was. If I have the sole legal right to do something and you do it, I have lost that ability to do that something that one time. It doesn't matter if you would never have paid me to do it, I lost a sale.
You are full of it.
For one, It has always been the discretion of the powers to be. Or do you think the FBI creating and keeping a file on Marin Luther King or John Lenon was justified and keeping it secret for years was too? The US government decides what documents and information it has is open or secret not you. It has always been that way. Your analogy is still a fail.
Second, if anything I have said allows anything, it would only be that some actions come close to treason. NO ONE, I repeat, NO ONE HAS SAID SNOWDEN COMMiTED TREASON in this thread. Stop imagining bullshit and arguing the conversations that only exist in your head.
Finally, I agree that the data collections should be general information and public knowledge. I would go even further and claim the government has no right to collect that data or do the snooping it is doing. However, that does not mean I am somehow now the sole arbitrator on what is classified or not nor does it mean I or anyone else would or should escape any punishment for any unlawful disclosure. Especially if they go to a foreign country, stand up and say "I did it" then go to another foreign country and seek asylum. There were legal avenues to expose what was happening without giving secrets to foreign nations and exposing specifics about how we monitor known terrorist organizations.
Nice straw man there. Since when is general information the same as secret information? The problem isn't that publicly available information has helped our enemies, it is that secret or hidden information has been.
But I guess logic and reason isn't a strong point any more.
But he wanted to pretend he was Jean-Luc Picard. That alone should be enough to lose his job. Kirk all the way or your fired should be a law somewhere.
Exactly. The 4th amendment was put into the constitution specifically to outlaw what was called a general warrant. This happened when someone connected to any authority had it in for you. They would get a general warrant, it allowed them to search you, your house, place of employment, or anything any time they wanted in hopes of catching you doing something wrong so that charges could be brought against you.
This kind of data collection and retention is specifically the kind of actions the amendment was designed to make impossible.
Legal concept, listening in on phone calls wasn't even unconstitutional from a legal perspective until the mid 1960's. Until then, it was considered constitutional with a few challenges at lower courts that kept getting overturned. It wasn't until the 60's that a supreme court case solidified it as unconstitutional and then it only claimed domestic calls were covered and presumed foreign calls was within the scope of national security. Congress ended up creating the omnibus crime bill or something like that in the late 1960's that forbid domestic spying so the domestic law enforcement agencies went to the NSA and CIA to get around the problem of needing to get a warrant. That is when the FISA laws were created in the early 70's but as far as I know, no FISA provision or concept has been defeated in the supreme court so it can be said from a legal perspective, spying on foreigners for national security is only illegal if done wrongly because a law and not clear constitutionality is in play.
Please pay attention. No one said he committed treason, they said "In fact, there's little if any question that what he did at least borders on treason".
I specifically pointed to the aiding the enemy part and specifically laid out where Al Qeada was using the information disclosed to test and determine which lines of communication they use are compromised and the results were a bunch of specific embassy closings a month or so ago without any of the threats materializing. Giving an enemy enough information about our intelligence gathering techniques that they can determine which ones are compromised is aiding the enemy or damn close to it.
Charge the NSA with Treason for what?
Here is the problem, the US government determines who is and isn't an enemy baring an invasion or attack against us. Right now, we are trying to arm Al Qaeda in Syria knowing that they waged war against us. The president has determined them not to be our enemies any more and ended the war on terror a few months ago.
You may think it is screwed up and arbitrary and I would agree. But those are the rules. Reagan inadvertently gave weapons to Al Qaeda not knowing they would attack the US in the future and Obama is purposely doing it knowing they have attacked the US in the past. We almost became Al Qaeda's air force if the Russians didn't step in. But because the US government and not the people determine who the enemies are, it's their choice to do so.
Nixon didn't need a pardon to get off the hook. He needed one in order to put it behind the business of government. There was very little legal evidence of Nixon actually doing anything illegal at the time of the pardon.
The only real evidence against Nixon was a gap in tape recorded conversations and someone who was indicted for a crime taking a plea deal to lesser jail time if he connected Nixon and said the Watergate hotel breakin's were about campaign information. All the participants we know who was involved except the one (Dean) claimed it was about a prostitution ring that the democratic party organizers were running and using to influence donors. The claim was that proof existed that the party leadership would offer prostitutes to donors and congressmen and then use information about those sessions to either influence a vote or increase the size of donations.
As for the collateral murder video, most people who watched the unedited version see an entirely different accounting of actions and don't connect murder to it at all. Of course it takes a person to have an open and un-indoctrinated mind to view the entirety of the video and reach a sane conclusion which is why I said most.
What section of the whistle blower act specifically protects Snowden?
disclosing the apparatus in which the country collect intelligence on enemies- foreign and domestic and monitors their movements is very close to treason as defined in the US constitution in "adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort". HE essentially aided the enemies of this nation which was put to the test with the embassy closings in which Al Qaeda in Yemen and others areas purposely shot orders over communication lines to see how the US reacted in order to determine which ones were compromised.
The dictionary doesn't do shit. the definition for treason in the US is specifically defined in the US constitution and limited to that definition. As the GP said, it is close to that definition.
"It has been done before, just look to most of the recent presidents for guidance"
FTFY
It's been done by a lot of presidents. The pardon is probably one of the most powerful tools a president has and on their way out, it is often used liberally.
Actually, it does equal a lost sale.
Copyright gives the ability to control the copying and distribution of a protected work. If someone downloads a copy, they have taken the distribution step (well, the person who offered it for download anyways) and performed it without the sale that copyright provides. Therefore, if someone distributes a copyrighted work, they have effect a transfer without the sale. Once the transfer is done, the sale is lost.
Now, you can argue all you want that someone would never have done the transfer equating to distribution had they been forced to pay. That is a valid argument when neither the sale or the distribution takes place. But once the distribution takes place, the owner is entitled to the sale per the law- that is the entire purpose of the law, to allow the creator/owner make a sale on the copying and distribution of a work.
Let's look at it as an analogy. Suppose I rent cars and you rented one from me. I have two rates, one is a flat rate for in town and the other is a flat rate plus mileage for out of town with the later being more expensive. You selected the in town rate because it was cheaper but drove the car to another state. This is something you would never have done if charged the higher out-of-town rate but you think you will not get caught. Now upon return of the car, I connect a computer and download the GPS coordinates and discover you went out of town in it. Did I lose a sale if I do not charge you the extra fee? Of course I would so I charge the extra fee. The fact that you wouldn't have done so had you known you would have had to pay the higher rate is irrelevant to whether you failed to pay for something I was legally entitled to receive.
So once the act is done, the sale is lost regardless of if the sale or act would have taken place or not.
I don't see credit unions or coops as leftist. They are simply a means to effect a goal of providing goods and services to areas neglected by other providers. Credit unions are coops and coops replace businesses who don't see a profit potential in an area or in addressing aspect of demands of areas. This is no more a leftist idea then the rotary club or chamber of commerce or eagles club or a local church.
People on the left have embraced those concepts and used them to their advantage, but I don't see anything inherently leftist about it. It's only when you place a political spin on it does left right come into play. I used to volunteer at a homeless shelter, people thought I was a leftist when it is far from the truth. I don't know how many times I had to explain that the biggest different between the left and right is not acts of charity but whether or not the government could force you to participate in them.
I think one of the problems might also be that they are seeing the same damn questions asked over and over but slightly different and the user isn't able to connect the slightly different question to the published answer already given somewhere.
I used to do some support on IRC with a Linux group catering to a specific distro and I saw this all the time. I eventually created macros to ask the questions just to get to the point of the problem because of the 10,000 different ways someone states it. Often the skill levels of the users were so different that you would either talk over someone's head or upset them for talking down to them. It got extremely aggravating when talking over someone's skill level and they don't tell you they don't understand something until you are 20 steps into it. It is even more aggravating when you talk down to someone and they get upset and cuss you out crying they aren't a newbie or something. Most of the problems were incompatible or unsupported devices that were already listed as incompatible and unsupported on the distro's website but people refused to believe it until they saw it first hand.
I eventually bailed on the entire thing after the distro merged with another and dropped all the things I like in order to promote all the things I didn't like about it. Some of the others who helped found it easier to just ssh into the user's box and fix it than to pull the real question out and explain the answer well enough to be used. I can see why some groups get short and say RTFM all the time (not that I agree it is proper to do so). I've about given up on linux- it seems as soon as there is something I like, they go and change it and make it extremely difficult to put it back in.
As soon as you attach open source to politics, you will always lose. It would be like the unions in the US wondering why people are fighting to keep them out of their workplace and not contribute money to them when they are there.
People use it for their own reasons, politics may or may not be one of them. But the open source is closer to the commune in communist then communist itself because it operates on a user mode instead of a government or command structure. What I mean is, open source is a way to get around and away from government type rules and shouldn't be considered in a political light at all. It's more of a neighbor or friend coming over to help paint the garage or work on a car or something then a system of governing.
I'm far from leftist and I support and use open source. Most of my reasons include financial, quality, and practicality rather then political.
You are missing that Russia is pretty much guaranteeing that other countries won't invade Syria directly now so he won't even need the chemical weapons. Such irony, Obama forces Assad to give up what was preventing other countries from invading and in the process replaced it with something much more threatening.
It was and is. The liberal political policy in the US is largely based on emotion with little reason not connected directly to emotion. That's why disagreeing with it means you are a Racist, Misogynist, conducting a War On Women, or whatever form of "evil" conjecture they can come up with (not that the right is much different or anything).
Ask yourself something if you doubt this was about saving face. Any other previous president would have taken some action if they felt it was so bad and discussed it with congress silently before announcing it to the Americans people. Ronald Reagan bombed Libya for sponsoring the terrorist attack on PanAm flight 103. He did it with contacting a few congress critters then told the American people about it. Jimmy Carter, attempted an assault in Iran in order to get our hostages back (even though it failed, he didn't discuss it until after), Bill Clinton bombed several places in response to direct terrorist attacks (even though we acted like it was wag the dog time to distract from his domestic problems), and discussed it afterwords.
But with this Syria BS, Obama sent his entire Cabinet out stating he was going to make a decision. He had them talk tough about what they were going to do then like the moment you find out the hot girl you have been fantasizing about at the end of the bar is really a guy, everything fizzles into a mess with no intent on doing what you originally intended.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aum_Shinrikyo
I think there was another or two.
The process that seems to be difficult isn't creating the gas but increasing it's purity in a binary precursor solution so the agents don't degrade and become useless when needed. Another problem is mixing them upon delivery. Artillery shells generally have a glass like divider between two chemicals that will break when being fired and mix due to the rotation of the shells as they fly through the air. This also makes accidents with the weapons limited on damage and keeps them safe for storage and transportation. It also makes them ineffective delivery systems for IEDs like we found out in Iraq circa 2004 when insurgents used an 155mm sarin gas shell to blow up a convoy. Only two or three US soldiers got exposed and it was minimal exposure requiring little treatment.
I think that will mostly depend on if Assad is winning or losing his civil war.
Eliminated likely doesn't mean destroyed or disposed of, but eliminated from Syria and Assad's control.
I suspect that Russia will place troops at the chemical weapon's sites to protect them and the UN inspectors and monitors. This will free up a small but significant amounts of Assad's forces to combat the rebels. It is as if Russia created a way for it to intervene on Assad's side at the request of the west.
We weren't planning on bombing the bejeezus out of them. We were planning on something unbelievably small.
Yes, you heard me right. This isn't just echos from your first real date, Kerry said our bombing was going to be unbelievably small.
Have you been living under a rock or something? I mean just recently with the dorner case in California, the cops opened fired on a pickup truck who's only crime was being a similar color as the one dorner was thought to be in and delivering newspapers without their headlights on. That same day, another pickup truck was open fired on for doing nothing but going right for sirens and lights.
Cops are scared little pussies in some cases and shoot to stop from pissing themselves. No guns being drawn or pointed or even an attempt to visual identify someone before shooting them. All I have to say is it was a good thing those cops were too scared to shoot straight else the three innocent people likely would have died.
http://www.dailybreeze.com/general-news/20130207/police-confuse-truck-for-christopher-dorners-shoot-at-3-people-in-torrance-in-case-of-mistaken-identity
Oh yeah, there was another shooting incident connected to the dorner search but I forget the details enough to find a link to it.
I helped a kid create a counterstrike map of all the schools in the district back in 1999-2000. We did it under the guise that we were practicing "creating 3d explorable representations of buildings and structures to aid real estate sales agents with interactive rich virtual environments" and added that "county and city officials could also use the concept on new acquisitions and existing buildings in order to make decisions on how best to use the space". Had the administrator's permission to enter all the schools and video tape a walk through along with taking pictures with a yard stick in it so we could accurately represent the sizes of items in it. One school, we recreated all the crap on the walls and everything too. Took way too long so we ditched it for the others.
Turned out to be a bad idea. No one wanted to purchase a video game and fumble through loading custom maps just to avoid driving 20 minutes across town and look at a building or send it to the engineers office to have them interpret blueprints.
I don't know whatever happened to those CS maps, but I often wonder if they would happen to resurface if I wouldn't be getting a knock on the door from some 3 letter agency drone and an extended stay at club gitmo.