They don't check your ID. If that was true, it would prevent the poor and minority communities from getting medical care just like asking for ID prevents them from being able to vote.
Maybe they ask for an ID and take it if you have it but they cannot refuse you if you don't. Getting medical care is not like cashing a check, opening a bank account or any of the other things most people do in society that requires some form of ID. its more like voting were no ID is required and if you think otherwise you are a racists.
Yeah but who watches the watchers. Or in other words, it would actually require the government to go after the government. But because it is regulation and not law, even if the government does go after itself, the government can just change the regulation. And that can be done without any congressional interaction.
There are plenty of them in today's world too. The thing is, they do not worship science like some seem to unknowingly do and they do not ignore the dangers of unrestricted access to dangerous chemicals.
You see, if he is right none of us alive today will be around when its screwed.
But more interestingly, didn't some Australian guy discover flaws in the model for warming and determin that the forcing by CO2 is actually a quarter or less of what is used in current models. I guess it will take a few weeks to be verified or something.
Or soiled reputation. What happens when instead of getting help at an AA meeting, you are sponsoring someone you know and become a second line for someone else in the group and all this makes it look like you are the alcoholic when a job does a security and background check before they hire you. Or what about the same and your new girlfriend checks to see what kind of creep you might be and dumps you.
It can be problematic in several ways. If the info is being sold to advertisers, there is nothing stopping it from being sold to the investigation company or even law enforcement (who would likely had otherwise needed a warrant )
lol.. Influence does not mean corruption. The article says basically that rich people are doing what you would do only to a much larger extent. It says nothing about any candidate or actual elected official specifically doing anything because of it.
In other words, you or I might donate to a candidate that holds a position or two we like while they might hold another we do not like. These rich fucks are basically doing the same. So show me where the corruption actually is outside of he has lots of money and gives it to political candidates who supports the stuff he thinks needs supported.
Not really in this case. This is not a situation where multiple programs do the same thing. Others match DNA identifiers to find a match where the one in question matches the statistical probably of identifiers being a match. Its kind of like the difference between determination of a pipeline diameter by measuring the pipeline verses measuring the flow rate and working back. So while the objective is the same, the approach is different enough to be separated from each other.
You don't see it happening because very few people know about it. Do you think that the lack of media coverage is accidental? Oh I know, Ben Carson the Republican candidate said something loony about having to attack a gunman on a spree just to kill, so that has to take all 7 "News" stations days to investigate and discuss. TPPIP? Not a word could be heard on any of those stations about that one. Amazingly, the candidates are not discussing it or being quoted on that one either.
First, Carson's comment is about as loony as calling the police and expecting them to save you. What he said was if you are about to die, try to save others. It's no different than after 9/11 when public discussion went from advising people to stay calm and follow orders/cooperate when an airplane is hijacked to assume you will be dead so take risks and save others. If you cannot understand that, you might have a serious problem.
Next, there is no or little media coverage because until recently there was nothing to cover outside of speculation. It's all been drafts leaked to the public via questionable sources and as we found out, a lot is different. I suspect we will end up continuing with little coverage because the IP provisions benefit the news corporations greatly.
Oh but Donal Trump this and that, and of course everyone is just mean to Hillary because in all the time she served as Secretary of State she never ever sent or received even 1 classified email.
The game is rigged pretty heavily today. People would probably shit themselves if they really know how much they are being manipulated. But hell, Facebook does not show anything too important in their feeds, and Facebook taking over control of that was accidental too.
Yup and you demonstrated my point with your political half assery too. Whenever someone talks about this subject, they have half the facts and half the fallacy along with all the hyperbole.
That rant is not really directed at you. It is directed at those who are now wearing that same tin-foil hat they accused others of wearing. I hope it fits them well.
This happens more often than most of us are willing to realize. Early warnings of lost jobs came about with NAFTA, Crazies like Glenn Beck was warning of ISIS and the Caliphate long before it was mainstream. Hell, even the horrors of Nazi Germany were foretold before the world was shocked at what we found at the end of WWII. Escaped Jews were trying to get the US involved long before Pearl Harbor pushed us over the edge. I guess for some, they just have to reach out and touch the hot stove in order to understand what your warning about the stove being hot really means.
Perhaps you could add something constructive to the conversation instead of repeating the obvious in some attempt to make yourself feel better about yourself or something?
I've watched 3 different people in different settings go off about this to others. They have half the facts and half the fallacy along with all the hyperbole.
The problem is a communications problem. It gets so technical that most people gloss over and ignore it until something strike their ears but then they only catch half. Most people are like the GP and when they attempt to communicate about it, they end up looking like a loon freshly dipped in dingbat shit and people ignore them again.
What is needed is a cartoonish but reasonably well articulated summery of the situation and most people would grab their pitchforks and join the mob. I don't see that happening. Probably because they have been invested so long that it in and of itself seems engagingly ridiculous.
Your problem is that you are assigning incompetence when it is nowhere found in the statement. Not knowing something does not mean incompetence, it means ignorant of all the facts if anything.
I am specifically stating that the fog of war makes things like the purpose behind specific buildings fluid and ever changing and it is not possible to know what every building is being used for when you do not control the territory they are located in. Presumably, the Afghans who called the air strike in were trusted enough to be able to do so and they were taken at their word that they were receiving fire from the building. There is no incompetence there at all.
Take a read at this snippet from CNN. It's basically the same as I said and he calls it a mistake. If you consider that incompetence, I consider you looney and too unintelligent to continue.
Retired U.S. Army Lt. Gen Mark Hertling said it was common for facilities such as hospitals to give combatants their coordinates.
"The coalition air forces will put something called a no-fly area on that GPS coordinate, so you have a pinpoint dot on a map, where you say something is there... don't hit it," Hertling said.
"But when the fluidness of the battlefield takes place and you have engagements with troops on the ground, sometimes there are mistakes," he said.
Evidence was offered, it just wasn't good enough for them.
But that is neither here nor there, The Taliban knew of Bin Laden's admission to being behind Mogadishu. He publically admitted it to Peter Bergen in a taped interview. They knew he was involved with Kenya and Tanzania embassy bombings because there is a video tape of him taking credit that he himself released. Ahmed Ressam proudly proclaimed he was trained and supported by Bin Laden when he plead guilty to the plot to bomb LA airport in 2000 or so. All of this was known and admitted to by either Bin laden himself in various outlets or by people involved giving testimony.
But more importantly, the Taliban never offered to hand Bin Laden over until after the invasion and bombing which makes your entire premise moot. It's like saying that they offered to surrender after they were captured.
You are imagining things if you actually believe i said anything about incompetence. Is English not your first language and somehow you confuse words to mean something else or do you deliberately contort everything you read in order to fit some narrative that you can then pick apart?
A hit and run can be an accident and one person doesn't stay at the scene of the accident. There is nothing to stipulate that all hit and runs are not accidents. There could be reasons outside of the act of driving that the driver wouldn't want to stay around ( for instance, possession of drugs or illegal items, warrants for arrest, problems with citizenship and legal entry in the US e.g. illegal aliens and so on).
The point was that there is no way of knowing it was "still" a hospital when allied forces are claiming they are taking fire from the building. Just like there is no way of knowing that city hall still has all the politicians in it when it's used as a fire base for the invading enemy.
So the docs without borders who put themselves at risk by being on the front lines contacted someone in the military. A Taliban operative could have done the same so it needed to be verified but more importantly, communication is not instantaneous in that process. There is no one person you can call who has a magic button that will stop the bombing of a certain building or area. Whoever they reported it to had to pass it through the chain of command until it eventually was verified and filtered to those taking actions. A half hour seems quite expedient if you think about the logistics involved.
This is why we need our own boots on the ground. Pretending to be someone else air force ends up with the US getting blamed for mistakes and misdeeds that the foreign forces should be accountable for. In all these threads I've seem America bashing and little to no mention of the Afghans who called the air strike in. If BP oil tells a contractor to cut corners and dump chemicals illegally or even use sub standard parts causing an oil spill, we blame BP oil. The US is basically the contractor here.
When it is war, possibly yes. When it is a domestic police issue, the answer is maybe but probably no.
You see, the world does not operate in black or white. There are so many shades and colors that one solution does not fit all. If it did, every one would be rich and happy from making all the same correct decisions.
Why don't you get real. The hospital is in a territory recently taken over by the Taliban and the air strikes were called in by afghan police who claimed they were taking fire from the building.
Given the history of the Taliban killing people from the west, what indication is there that this was still only a hospital and that these allied people were still alive and free at the time the air strike was called in? You do understand that when an enemy army takes over a city, that city is now behind enemy lines. What you know or thought you knew about it may or may not be even close to correct anymore because it is controlled by the enemy.
Why would or should any military or government for that matter have a problem bombing or attacking anyone, any building, or any organization who is directly aiding and comforting the enemy in a war?
Yes, it was a hospital. Outside of that, what makes it any different than any other building that the enemy captures and fires on the government or coalition soldiers? Docs without borders knew it was dangerous to go to the front lines and practice medicine in a war zone. It's like you running out in the middle of a street during rush hour traffic. Sure it's tragic if you get hit, but unless you are an imbecile and generally do not know any better, its your own fault. Why should I blame a driver for your death?
The US is there because we started the current problem in Afghanistan after ousting the old leadership (Taliban) who was protecting terrorist (Al Qaeda) who actually did plan and commit acts of terror on US soil as well as soil of US allies.
To say we have no reason to be there is idiotic and ignorant of history. If you are old enough to post an opinion of your own about this on slashdot, you are likely old enough to have lived through that BS and the progression to date. Perhaps you were too young to care and should ask you mom about it.
The distinction is legal liability and criminal penalties. You should not be in front of a judge if you had the right of way. No charges should be filled in the first place and if you need to calm a grieving mother, just declare it an accident.
I guess that the term right of way is somewhat troubling the discussion. Even though a driver might have the right of way, they cannot hit or run over obstacles in the roadway if they could otherwise stop. So it isn't a matter of "get off the road, i'm in the right of way ". Its a matter of who can sue who and if someone will go to jail or not. If you run in front of me and i hit you, my insurance will cover most medical (because of law ) but you cannot sue me for lost wages or pain and suffering. But if you are standing in the road and i fail to stop even though I had time , You can.
Giving pedestrians the right of way is the problem. In my state the right of way is determined by the rules of the road. If someone is in a cross walk i or crossing corn to adjacent corner against a red light for traffic or with a lit walk light they have the right of way. If they are crossing that, its a matter of circumstances as in who was there first even though the car has a duty to not hit anything or drive faster than they can stop for their vision. Essentially the car is mostly at fault except when someone walks in front of them.
Anyways, a few towns decided to give pedestrians the right of way always. In those towns the idiots Will walk right in front of a semi truck and cross the road in between intersections. I called the cops thinking one dude was trying to kill himself or something and was told he had the right of way. They don't even look to see if something is coming, just stepped out into traffic and yell at you if your screeching halt from 20-30mph took you a little close to them . It is as if the laws of physics don't exist in those towns because the pedestrian has the right of way.
No, that is not enough for me. Try reading further down the page under the section for criminal offense . It is substantially different than the pretext offered.
Ok. So i will believe your presumption for the sake of argument. Why are all used car salesman not in jail? Yup, it's a good car. You buy it and it needs towed two months later with a hefty repair bill.
Maybe it would be easier if you point to an actual statute in law saying what you have said.
Slashdot Mirror
They don't check your ID. If that was true, it would prevent the poor and minority communities from getting medical care just like asking for ID prevents them from being able to vote.
Maybe they ask for an ID and take it if you have it but they cannot refuse you if you don't. Getting medical care is not like cashing a check, opening a bank account or any of the other things most people do in society that requires some form of ID. its more like voting were no ID is required and if you think otherwise you are a racists.
You should have posted this anonymous so it was obvious.
Yeah but who watches the watchers. Or in other words, it would actually require the government to go after the government. But because it is regulation and not law, even if the government does go after itself, the government can just change the regulation. And that can be done without any congressional interaction.
There are plenty of them in today's world too. The thing is, they do not worship science like some seem to unknowingly do and they do not ignore the dangers of unrestricted access to dangerous chemicals.
Interesting how this all happens in big inner cities controlled by democrats but it is the republicans behind it. No true Scotsman or too much scotch?
Just curious.
Who is this "we"?
You see, if he is right none of us alive today will be around when its screwed.
But more interestingly, didn't some Australian guy discover flaws in the model for warming and determin that the forcing by CO2 is actually a quarter or less of what is used in current models. I guess it will take a few weeks to be verified or something.
Or soiled reputation. What happens when instead of getting help at an AA meeting, you are sponsoring someone you know and become a second line for someone else in the group and all this makes it look like you are the alcoholic when a job does a security and background check before they hire you. Or what about the same and your new girlfriend checks to see what kind of creep you might be and dumps you.
It can be problematic in several ways. If the info is being sold to advertisers, there is nothing stopping it from being sold to the investigation company or even law enforcement (who would likely had otherwise needed a warrant )
Given that there are articles like this,
http://www.express.co.uk/news/...
You might be correct.
lol.. Influence does not mean corruption. The article says basically that rich people are doing what you would do only to a much larger extent. It says nothing about any candidate or actual elected official specifically doing anything because of it.
In other words, you or I might donate to a candidate that holds a position or two we like while they might hold another we do not like. These rich fucks are basically doing the same. So show me where the corruption actually is outside of he has lots of money and gives it to political candidates who supports the stuff he thinks needs supported.
Not really in this case. This is not a situation where multiple programs do the same thing. Others match DNA identifiers to find a match where the one in question matches the statistical probably of identifiers being a match. Its kind of like the difference between determination of a pipeline diameter by measuring the pipeline verses measuring the flow rate and working back. So while the objective is the same, the approach is different enough to be separated from each other.
First, Carson's comment is about as loony as calling the police and expecting them to save you. What he said was if you are about to die, try to save others. It's no different than after 9/11 when public discussion went from advising people to stay calm and follow orders/cooperate when an airplane is hijacked to assume you will be dead so take risks and save others. If you cannot understand that, you might have a serious problem.
Next, there is no or little media coverage because until recently there was nothing to cover outside of speculation. It's all been drafts leaked to the public via questionable sources and as we found out, a lot is different. I suspect we will end up continuing with little coverage because the IP provisions benefit the news corporations greatly.
That is an outright lie.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09...
http://www.washingtontimes.com...
Yup and you demonstrated my point with your political half assery too. Whenever someone talks about this subject, they have half the facts and half the fallacy along with all the hyperbole.
This happens more often than most of us are willing to realize. Early warnings of lost jobs came about with NAFTA, Crazies like Glenn Beck was warning of ISIS and the Caliphate long before it was mainstream. Hell, even the horrors of Nazi Germany were foretold before the world was shocked at what we found at the end of WWII. Escaped Jews were trying to get the US involved long before Pearl Harbor pushed us over the edge. I guess for some, they just have to reach out and touch the hot stove in order to understand what your warning about the stove being hot really means.
I think I was clear that I wasn't up for the job.
Perhaps you could add something constructive to the conversation instead of repeating the obvious in some attempt to make yourself feel better about yourself or something?
I've watched 3 different people in different settings go off about this to others. They have half the facts and half the fallacy along with all the hyperbole.
The problem is a communications problem. It gets so technical that most people gloss over and ignore it until something strike their ears but then they only catch half. Most people are like the GP and when they attempt to communicate about it, they end up looking like a loon freshly dipped in dingbat shit and people ignore them again.
What is needed is a cartoonish but reasonably well articulated summery of the situation and most people would grab their pitchforks and join the mob. I don't see that happening. Probably because they have been invested so long that it in and of itself seems engagingly ridiculous.
Your problem is that you are assigning incompetence when it is nowhere found in the statement. Not knowing something does not mean incompetence, it means ignorant of all the facts if anything.
I am specifically stating that the fog of war makes things like the purpose behind specific buildings fluid and ever changing and it is not possible to know what every building is being used for when you do not control the territory they are located in. Presumably, the Afghans who called the air strike in were trusted enough to be able to do so and they were taken at their word that they were receiving fire from the building. There is no incompetence there at all.
Take a read at this snippet from CNN. It's basically the same as I said and he calls it a mistake. If you consider that incompetence, I consider you looney and too unintelligent to continue.
Retired U.S. Army Lt. Gen Mark Hertling said it was common for facilities such as hospitals to give combatants their coordinates.
"The coalition air forces will put something called a no-fly area on that GPS coordinate, so you have a pinpoint dot on a map, where you say something is there ... don't hit it," Hertling said.
"But when the fluidness of the battlefield takes place and you have engagements with troops on the ground, sometimes there are mistakes," he said.
Evidence was offered, it just wasn't good enough for them.
But that is neither here nor there, The Taliban knew of Bin Laden's admission to being behind Mogadishu. He publically admitted it to Peter Bergen in a taped interview. They knew he was involved with Kenya and Tanzania embassy bombings because there is a video tape of him taking credit that he himself released. Ahmed Ressam proudly proclaimed he was trained and supported by Bin Laden when he plead guilty to the plot to bomb LA airport in 2000 or so. All of this was known and admitted to by either Bin laden himself in various outlets or by people involved giving testimony.
But more importantly, the Taliban never offered to hand Bin Laden over until after the invasion and bombing which makes your entire premise moot. It's like saying that they offered to surrender after they were captured.
You are imagining things if you actually believe i said anything about incompetence. Is English not your first language and somehow you confuse words to mean something else or do you deliberately contort everything you read in order to fit some narrative that you can then pick apart?
A hit and run can be an accident and one person doesn't stay at the scene of the accident. There is nothing to stipulate that all hit and runs are not accidents. There could be reasons outside of the act of driving that the driver wouldn't want to stay around ( for instance, possession of drugs or illegal items, warrants for arrest, problems with citizenship and legal entry in the US e.g. illegal aliens and so on).
The point was that there is no way of knowing it was "still" a hospital when allied forces are claiming they are taking fire from the building. Just like there is no way of knowing that city hall still has all the politicians in it when it's used as a fire base for the invading enemy.
So the docs without borders who put themselves at risk by being on the front lines contacted someone in the military. A Taliban operative could have done the same so it needed to be verified but more importantly, communication is not instantaneous in that process. There is no one person you can call who has a magic button that will stop the bombing of a certain building or area. Whoever they reported it to had to pass it through the chain of command until it eventually was verified and filtered to those taking actions. A half hour seems quite expedient if you think about the logistics involved.
This is why we need our own boots on the ground. Pretending to be someone else air force ends up with the US getting blamed for mistakes and misdeeds that the foreign forces should be accountable for. In all these threads I've seem America bashing and little to no mention of the Afghans who called the air strike in. If BP oil tells a contractor to cut corners and dump chemicals illegally or even use sub standard parts causing an oil spill, we blame BP oil. The US is basically the contractor here.
When it is war, possibly yes. When it is a domestic police issue, the answer is maybe but probably no.
You see, the world does not operate in black or white. There are so many shades and colors that one solution does not fit all. If it did, every one would be rich and happy from making all the same correct decisions.
Why don't you get real. The hospital is in a territory recently taken over by the Taliban and the air strikes were called in by afghan police who claimed they were taking fire from the building.
Given the history of the Taliban killing people from the west, what indication is there that this was still only a hospital and that these allied people were still alive and free at the time the air strike was called in? You do understand that when an enemy army takes over a city, that city is now behind enemy lines. What you know or thought you knew about it may or may not be even close to correct anymore because it is controlled by the enemy.
Why would or should any military or government for that matter have a problem bombing or attacking anyone, any building, or any organization who is directly aiding and comforting the enemy in a war?
Yes, it was a hospital. Outside of that, what makes it any different than any other building that the enemy captures and fires on the government or coalition soldiers? Docs without borders knew it was dangerous to go to the front lines and practice medicine in a war zone. It's like you running out in the middle of a street during rush hour traffic. Sure it's tragic if you get hit, but unless you are an imbecile and generally do not know any better, its your own fault. Why should I blame a driver for your death?
The US is there because we started the current problem in Afghanistan after ousting the old leadership (Taliban) who was protecting terrorist (Al Qaeda) who actually did plan and commit acts of terror on US soil as well as soil of US allies.
To say we have no reason to be there is idiotic and ignorant of history. If you are old enough to post an opinion of your own about this on slashdot, you are likely old enough to have lived through that BS and the progression to date. Perhaps you were too young to care and should ask you mom about it.
The distinction is legal liability and criminal penalties. You should not be in front of a judge if you had the right of way. No charges should be filled in the first place and if you need to calm a grieving mother, just declare it an accident.
I guess that the term right of way is somewhat troubling the discussion. Even though a driver might have the right of way, they cannot hit or run over obstacles in the roadway if they could otherwise stop. So it isn't a matter of "get off the road, i'm in the right of way ". Its a matter of who can sue who and if someone will go to jail or not. If you run in front of me and i hit you, my insurance will cover most medical (because of law ) but you cannot sue me for lost wages or pain and suffering. But if you are standing in the road and i fail to stop even though I had time , You can.
Giving pedestrians the right of way is the problem. In my state the right of way is determined by the rules of the road. If someone is in a cross walk i
or crossing corn to adjacent corner against a red light for traffic or with a lit walk light they have the right of way. If they are crossing that, its a matter of circumstances as in who was there first even though the car has a duty to not hit anything or drive faster than they can stop for their vision. Essentially the car is mostly at fault except when someone walks in front of them.
Anyways, a few towns decided to give pedestrians the right of way always. In those towns the idiots Will walk right in front of a semi truck and cross the road in between intersections. I called the cops thinking one dude was trying to kill himself or something and was told he had the right of way. They don't even look to see if something is coming, just stepped out into traffic and yell at you if your screeching halt from 20-30mph took you a little close to them . It is as if the laws of physics don't exist in those towns because the pedestrian has the right of way.
First, It is cited not sighted.
No, that is not enough for me. Try reading further down the page under the section for criminal offense . It is substantially different than the pretext offered.
Not all fraud is illegal - even if it should be
Ok. So i will believe your presumption for the sake of argument. Why are all used car salesman not in jail? Yup, it's a good car. You buy it and it needs towed two months later with a hefty repair bill.
Maybe it would be easier if you point to an actual statute in law saying what you have said.