I see the skin as a natural barrier, and would prefer to go Amish rather than be some ghoulish cyborg.
I think I understand what you're saying but I'd rather have all the info to make a decision on whether to join the Amish or to have an implant. Generally I wouldn't want an implant and would rather join the Mennonites however as I survived a Traumatic Brain Injury, TBI, if there were an implant that would help me I may go for an implant. I may even agree to be a rat for an experiment.
I think that an employer has a right to monitor their own computers
Employers most certainly should monitor how a laptop the employer owns is used, and the employees who are given that laptop should not have any personal or private data on the laptop. However the articles says nothing about employers monitoring them.
Employers should also have a right to let investigators search their computers.
Again true, but the article says nothing about whether law enforcement officals are even asking employers to inspect laptops.
Or a little institution involving African Americans called "slavery" where human beings were considered property solely due to the color of their skin?
In the first drafts of the Declaration Of Independence, Thomas Jefferson wrote that all men enjoyed rights. This included Indians, slaves, and women. However because others, including slavers, had to approve the DOI this was stricken from the DOI. He was a walking contradiction, for though he owned slaves himself he was against slavery.
Why is José Padilla been in jail for 4 years being tortured, when his case is still pre-trail?..because the 6th (and 8th) Amendment, are meaningless.
He's admitted to blowing up a civilian airplane and is a fugitive from Venezuela.
That's not Jose Padilla, Padilla was the so called dirty bommber arrested at Chicago's OHara airport. The one you're think of that blew up that airplane, Cubana Flight 455 is Luis Posada Carriles, a Cuban living in Miami as a free man. Venezuela has repeatedly asked the US for his extradiction but the US refuses to hand him over.
Are you implying that we should have universal military service like Switzerland and Israel?
HELL YES!!! Allow people to carry their firearms, open carry, first. Then have a citizens' army wherein most if not all adults are part of it. Have just a small professional core military for training, command and control, and to oversee weapons development.
There's also the part about it being for an organized militia. You left that out.
The second admendment does not say firearms are limited to a militia, it specifically states the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. People have the right. It make perfect sense when you consider the Founding Fathers were concerned about a tyrannical government, when only the government has firearms and not the people, it invites the government to become tyrannical. that's what happened in 1930's NAZI Germany, in the 1980s Iran after the overthrow of the Shah, and I heard the same thing happened in Rwanda in the early 1990s. Now you have the paramilitary groups in Sudan terrorizing civilians in Darfour, along with other areas, when if these people were armed they could defend themselves.
This brought out another critical fact why Microsoft won the PC market: PC hardware + Microsoft software cost significantly less than Unix workstations/servers and Mac's at the time.
The college bookstore where I went sold both Macs and PCs, from different OEMs. There were Compaqs, which were generally expensive compared to other PC OEMs, IBMs, and Zenith PCs. However with the educatonal discount Apple had back then Macs were cheaper, there was a 50% educatonal discount. Which was much better than the discount Apple has now for education, it's barely 10%.
But you're right, Apple priced Macs out of the reach of most first tyme buyers. The one good thing was that they lasted longer than PCs did back then. Myself, I bought a used Mac in 1992, it was made in 1988, and it lasted until the floppy drive died in 2000. This was the first, and only, hardware problem I had with it and I didn't have any software problems. Unfortunately it wasn't upgradable. It's a different story with PCs. I've bought 5 PCs, four brand new and another that was factory rebuilt. Of them, on two both the motherboard and hdd had to be replaced within the first year. On these two, and another one, I had to reinstall Windows a number of tymes. One ran Win 95, another Win 98 which was upgraded to Win 98 SE, an the one I'm usng now has ME. The only Windows PC I have not had either hardware or OS trouble with is the second PC I got, however it's CPU is a DEC Alpha running NT4. And because it's an Alpha I haven't been able to install much software on it so I haven't used it much, and not all at in three or four years. The one PC I didn't mention I got a few months ago with Linux preinstalled. I haven't used it much yet, other than for storage as it has a 750GB hdd, so I can't really say how well it is.
Windows might have died years ago if Apple had made an operating system for the PC. The fact is that no matter how awful you think Microsoft's business practices are, Apple is the company that demands that you own their hardware if you want to use their operating system. If Microsoft did that, they would be broken up in a week.
What many don't know or realize, is that while Microsoft was previously a software business, Apple has been and still is a hardware and a software company. Apple did license MacOS for awhile but they found out that by licensing it to OEMs their hardware sales suffered. Apple lost more from the loss of hardware sales than they made from licensing MacOS. When Apple brought Steve Jobs back, seeing as how bad licensing MacOS was to the bottum line he stopped it.
I noticed and suffered long lines of people waiting for the next free PC while there are plenty of Mac's and Unix machines available, especially toward the end of a semester
It was the opposite at the college I started at. We didn't have any *nix computers, but we did have Macs and PCs, first with DOS then Windows. For classes, it depended on what the subject was as to what computer/OS was used. The art classes used Macs while the computer and info tech classes used DOS or Windows. As for the student computer labs, we had both DOS/Windows and Macs. Most of the people used the Macs. You could walk into a lab and most if not all Macs were being used but hardly any PCs were. This aggravated me because my programming classes used PCs but all my other classes used Macs, I'd really rather have programmed on Macs as well instead of just used them.
The very first tyme I used XP it froze. I first used XP on a brand new Dell on the first day of a class I was taking in college. I went into class, sat down, and pushed the power button. After a few minutes it hadn't finished booting and the display was frozen, so I had to push and hold the power button before I was able to get it to bootup. That really soured me on XP. Then I found out MS was requiring Activation to use XP. Forget that! Despite the fact I'm been using Windows almost exclusively since Win95, MS has driven me away. My next computer I plan on getting is a Macbook Pro.
Finder DOES suck, I pray that 10.5 fixes it, but waiting for 5 revision to fix something that people have been bitching about is bad.
Yeap, it sucks to wait for fixes, and people have been complaining about Windows problems for years. There have been complaints about the poor security of Windows since Win95 if not before. And about BSODs. The only Windows version I've used I didn't get a BSOD from is NT4. However because my NT4 box has a DEC Alpha CPU I haven't used it much, maybe if I used it more I might of gotten a BSOD.
My universal OS Troll comment is "Use what works", I think every OS has some serious problems,
That's about the size of it. A user, or potential user, shouldn't pick a computer for the OS. Instead they need to consider what they want to do, use a computer for. Once they've done that then they need to pick the apps they want to use, then choose the computer and OS the apps run on. Some may say this contradicts what I said before about switching from Windows to Macs, but there isn't any app I need that only has a version for Windows and not one for Macs that I know of.
You know you're really using a Mac to good effect when you're moving stuff effortlessly from window to window, app to app, and treating windows like children of parent applications.
Using Windows I don't have a problem dragging and dropping an item from one local to another, either to move or to copy it.
Me, I can't stand not having a Maximize button on Macs that behaves as it does under Windows (i.e., maximizing the current window to take up the entire screen, even if the info displayed doesn't require it.)
That's one of the nitpicks I have about Macs, the only way to really maximize a window is to grab and drag the lower right corner while the upper left corner is in the upper left of the monitor. Well, I shouldn't really say that's the only way, but I don't know if there is any other way to maximize a window.
I didn't say I was more patriotic than you. I just rejected your statement that merely "protesting policy is the highest form of patriotism". You make my point for me, suggesting your service does make you more patriotic. Which is it? By your logic, if I just complained about things enough, I'd be a patriot? I do not kid myself that that would be true. But you, who should know better, do.
I guess I phrased it wrong. Because you said "You have the right to complain because others (hint: utmost patriots) do their DUTIES to secure them", I replied that in fact I did serve in the military and was willing to sacrifice my life to protect liberty and the country. SO it's not as if all I do is, as you said, whining and complaining.
The data should be public but I would just add one small caveat. There should be a substantial delay in releasing the data in order to give the sponsor the first go at publishing it.
Yes, a sponser, ie someone who pays for it, should get first dibs. So when it's the taxpayer paying they shoud get first dibs too and have it placed in the public domain.
I don't know if it is open but if it is not it should be.
Not all public research data is open or publicly available. For instance the NCI, National Cancer Institute, spent $183,000,000 developing Taxol, a drug used in the treatment of cancer. What did the NCI do with the research data it came up with? It sold the data to BMS, Bristol-Myers Squibb, for $43,000,000. Not only did BMS pay less than 1/4 the cost of developing Taxol but it also got exclusive rights to the research. It was estimated that in 2000 BMS was to make $1,000,000,000, one billion dollars, in sales of Taxol, and another billion per year thereafter.
This whole discussion is about how corporations A) shouldn't have "rights" or B) shouldn't have the power of ownership. Several of the parent posts talk about basically disolving the entire concept of non-individual ownership in the context of corporations not deserving "rights" or privileges under the law.
However my post, the one you replied to, had nothing to say about whether corporations shouldn't have rights or have the power of onwership. What it did point out was that there were entities other than corporations that had limited liability.
I then provided an example of trying to do business without any sort of organizing legal entity, partnership or otherwise. You replied to that with "Wrong" and provided links to pages about partnerships, which as far as I can tell, are some sort of organizing legal entity.
Oops, I did make a mistake here. For some reason I had the impression you were saying only corporations offered limited liability to investors. So I own you an apology for miscontruing what you said.
Your points might be valid if someone was arguing about how an unlimited partnership is the only form of business organization, but we're not. If you're not going to read parent posts you probably shouldn't start your reply with "Wrong" -- it won't turn out well.
I did read the parent posts, and as I stated above, I miscontrued your post. Now however you're either miscontruing what I said or your making an "ass" by "assuming" I didn't read the parent posts, which doesn't turn out well either.
Which has no bearing on the point at hand except to further prove mine, that people do not self identify by their continent.
As you said people refer to themselves by thier nationality it bares directly to the point, that many different ethnic groups identify with their ethnic group not with the nation and the ethnic group does not neccessarily correspond to the nation.
IANAL, but it looks to me like you have to be reaching more than 500 people, AND get paid for getting the message out.
Though it doesn't matter anymore, which I'll get to next, it didn't say a blogger had to get paid. What it originally did say was that a blogger who had reached less tahn 500 members didn't have to register. as for why it no longer matters, he reason why is because an amendment was added to the bill striking that clause. So there isn't the requirement for bloggers to register.
Just like martial arts are referred to as "war arts," and consist of learning how to punch, kick, grapple, break, etc., and yet they are most commonly applied by your average Tom, Dick, or Harriet as a means of self-empowerment so that the practitioner feels safe enough to NOT commit violence. Before I started Hapkido, if I was in a situation where I thought someone might try and kill me, I was aware that to feel safe after the initial attack, I would have to kill the person. Now I feel much safer, which will allow me to control myself more.
I wish I could of articulated my position as well as you did. Unfortunately I'm not as good as you are here with your works.
I didn't say I commanded a unit, not did I. I was enlisted not an officer.
I perhaps should have made clear in my post that I was only referring to that actual type of soldiers who would be used. In this instance they would most likely be some such special forces detatchmment who actually do a lot of killing anyway and have grown more accustomed to being asked to kill people.
And what special forces detachment would that be? It's certainly not the Army's Special Forces, Green Berets. Or Army Rangers, Black Berets. Stationed at Fort Benning, GA my unit trained the Rangers and the OCS, Officer Cadet School, and we trained with the Special Forces.
I know that in Britain the SAS were instructed to kill all the terrorists who stormed the Iranian embassy some years ago. They let one live, but did kill most of them in cold blood just in case any had hidden grenades.
Maybe the SAS didn't have classes in the treatment of civilians and on war crimes but we did when I was in the US Army.
We also had our police force execute somebody on the tube recently as they were informed he was a suicide bomber by their commanding officer. They later discovered he was an unarmed electrician from Brasil.
These people do exist within all armies of the world. The US is not the only armed force who would never dream of hurting innocent people if they were set up to do so.
I addressed this when I said though some would shoot unprovoking and unarmed civilians, most in my unit would shoot the commander if ordered to shot them. Even China now knows not to use just anyone to fire on civilians. During the Tiananmen Square protests of 1989 the Red Army had to bring in military units from different regions of China as the local units refused to fire on local civilians.
That's an awfully fine line to draw -- corporation vs. partnership. So are Limited Liability Companies are okay and corporations are bad, or is it just partnerships that are acceptable?
Where is the fine line? In a corporation shareholders or stockholders can vote on what and how the corporation does. A limited partner does not have a vote, other than withdrawing support. I say that makes a big difference. As for LLCs, Limited Liability Companies, where did I say anything like they are okay but corporations are bad? I don't recall ever mentioning LLCs once in this thread.
Seriously, partnerships have all the same "rights" as corporations and can do all the same evil things. What's your point here?
A limited partner does not have the same rights as stockholders in corporations, and if you had read the wiki article I provided the link to you should of learned that.
I acknowledge this is highly debatable, but that's where I stand; you take the money, you take responsibility for it, which is disclosure.
I am all for disclosure, but I am against requiring registration. And if you place ads your paid for that indirectly is disclosure, I'd dare to say most of those bloggers who are paid, other than those who blog for thier employers, are paid by accepting ads.
So I'm confused. What then is the point of bringing the 500 people rule up? It certainly doesn't address my position on this bill...I'm not sure that I understand the comment's relevance if you're not disagreeing with me.
I wasn't disagreeing with you, you disagreed with me.
Slashdot Mirror
I see the skin as a natural barrier, and would prefer to go Amish rather than be some ghoulish cyborg.
I think I understand what you're saying but I'd rather have all the info to make a decision on whether to join the Amish or to have an implant. Generally I wouldn't want an implant and would rather join the Mennonites however as I survived a Traumatic Brain Injury, TBI, if there were an implant that would help me I may go for an implant. I may even agree to be a rat for an experiment.
FalconI think that an employer has a right to monitor their own computers
Employers most certainly should monitor how a laptop the employer owns is used, and the employees who are given that laptop should not have any personal or private data on the laptop. However the articles says nothing about employers monitoring them.
Employers should also have a right to let investigators search their computers.
Again true, but the article says nothing about whether law enforcement officals are even asking employers to inspect laptops.
FalconOr a little institution involving African Americans called "slavery" where human beings were considered property solely due to the color of their skin?
In the first drafts of the Declaration Of Independence, Thomas Jefferson wrote that all men enjoyed rights. This included Indians, slaves, and women. However because others, including slavers, had to approve the DOI this was stricken from the DOI. He was a walking contradiction, for though he owned slaves himself he was against slavery.
FalconWhy is José Padilla been in jail for 4 years being tortured, when his case is still pre-trail? ..because the 6th (and 8th) Amendment, are meaningless.
He's admitted to blowing up a civilian airplane and is a fugitive from Venezuela.
That's not Jose Padilla, Padilla was the so called dirty bommber arrested at Chicago's OHara airport. The one you're think of that blew up that airplane, Cubana Flight 455 is Luis Posada Carriles, a Cuban living in Miami as a free man. Venezuela has repeatedly asked the US for his extradiction but the US refuses to hand him over.
FalconAre you implying that we should have universal military service like Switzerland and Israel?
HELL YES!!! Allow people to carry their firearms, open carry, first. Then have a citizens' army wherein most if not all adults are part of it. Have just a small professional core military for training, command and control, and to oversee weapons development.
FalconThere's also the part about it being for an organized militia. You left that out.
The second admendment does not say firearms are limited to a militia, it specifically states the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. People have the right. It make perfect sense when you consider the Founding Fathers were concerned about a tyrannical government, when only the government has firearms and not the people, it invites the government to become tyrannical. that's what happened in 1930's NAZI Germany, in the 1980s Iran after the overthrow of the Shah, and I heard the same thing happened in Rwanda in the early 1990s. Now you have the paramilitary groups in Sudan terrorizing civilians in Darfour, along with other areas, when if these people were armed they could defend themselves.
Falcon"Why are there gun laws restricting firearms? ..because the 2nd Amendment is meaningless."
I'd almost argue this. After all, there's no reason a person needs a main battle tank, or a series of cruise missiles, sitting in their backyard.
It's one thing to regulate tanks and cruise missiles it's totally different to ban hand guns or semiautomatic rifles that look like "assault rifles".
FalconThis brought out another critical fact why Microsoft won the PC market: PC hardware + Microsoft software cost significantly less than Unix workstations/servers and Mac's at the time.
The college bookstore where I went sold both Macs and PCs, from different OEMs. There were Compaqs, which were generally expensive compared to other PC OEMs, IBMs, and Zenith PCs. However with the educatonal discount Apple had back then Macs were cheaper, there was a 50% educatonal discount. Which was much better than the discount Apple has now for education, it's barely 10%.
But you're right, Apple priced Macs out of the reach of most first tyme buyers. The one good thing was that they lasted longer than PCs did back then. Myself, I bought a used Mac in 1992, it was made in 1988, and it lasted until the floppy drive died in 2000. This was the first, and only, hardware problem I had with it and I didn't have any software problems. Unfortunately it wasn't upgradable. It's a different story with PCs. I've bought 5 PCs, four brand new and another that was factory rebuilt. Of them, on two both the motherboard and hdd had to be replaced within the first year. On these two, and another one, I had to reinstall Windows a number of tymes. One ran Win 95, another Win 98 which was upgraded to Win 98 SE, an the one I'm usng now has ME. The only Windows PC I have not had either hardware or OS trouble with is the second PC I got, however it's CPU is a DEC Alpha running NT4. And because it's an Alpha I haven't been able to install much software on it so I haven't used it much, and not all at in three or four years. The one PC I didn't mention I got a few months ago with Linux preinstalled. I haven't used it much yet, other than for storage as it has a 750GB hdd, so I can't really say how well it is.
FalconWindows might have died years ago if Apple had made an operating system for the PC. The fact is that no matter how awful you think Microsoft's business practices are, Apple is the company that demands that you own their hardware if you want to use their operating system. If Microsoft did that, they would be broken up in a week.
What many don't know or realize, is that while Microsoft was previously a software business, Apple has been and still is a hardware and a software company. Apple did license MacOS for awhile but they found out that by licensing it to OEMs their hardware sales suffered. Apple lost more from the loss of hardware sales than they made from licensing MacOS. When Apple brought Steve Jobs back, seeing as how bad licensing MacOS was to the bottum line he stopped it.
FalconI noticed and suffered long lines of people waiting for the next free PC while there are plenty of Mac's and Unix machines available, especially toward the end of a semester
It was the opposite at the college I started at. We didn't have any *nix computers, but we did have Macs and PCs, first with DOS then Windows. For classes, it depended on what the subject was as to what computer/OS was used. The art classes used Macs while the computer and info tech classes used DOS or Windows. As for the student computer labs, we had both DOS/Windows and Macs. Most of the people used the Macs. You could walk into a lab and most if not all Macs were being used but hardly any PCs were. This aggravated me because my programming classes used PCs but all my other classes used Macs, I'd really rather have programmed on Macs as well instead of just used them.
FalconIn XP (and perhaps Vista) BSODs are happily rare.
The very first tyme I used XP it froze. I first used XP on a brand new Dell on the first day of a class I was taking in college. I went into class, sat down, and pushed the power button. After a few minutes it hadn't finished booting and the display was frozen, so I had to push and hold the power button before I was able to get it to bootup. That really soured me on XP. Then I found out MS was requiring Activation to use XP. Forget that! Despite the fact I'm been using Windows almost exclusively since Win95, MS has driven me away. My next computer I plan on getting is a Macbook Pro.
Finder DOES suck, I pray that 10.5 fixes it, but waiting for 5 revision to fix something that people have been bitching about is bad.
Yeap, it sucks to wait for fixes, and people have been complaining about Windows problems for years. There have been complaints about the poor security of Windows since Win95 if not before. And about BSODs. The only Windows version I've used I didn't get a BSOD from is NT4. However because my NT4 box has a DEC Alpha CPU I haven't used it much, maybe if I used it more I might of gotten a BSOD.
My universal OS Troll comment is "Use what works", I think every OS has some serious problems,
That's about the size of it. A user, or potential user, shouldn't pick a computer for the OS. Instead they need to consider what they want to do, use a computer for. Once they've done that then they need to pick the apps they want to use, then choose the computer and OS the apps run on. Some may say this contradicts what I said before about switching from Windows to Macs, but there isn't any app I need that only has a version for Windows and not one for Macs that I know of.
FalconYou know you're really using a Mac to good effect when you're moving stuff effortlessly from window to window, app to app, and treating windows like children of parent applications.
Using Windows I don't have a problem dragging and dropping an item from one local to another, either to move or to copy it.
FalconMe, I can't stand not having a Maximize button on Macs that behaves as it does under Windows (i.e., maximizing the current window to take up the entire screen, even if the info displayed doesn't require it.)
That's one of the nitpicks I have about Macs, the only way to really maximize a window is to grab and drag the lower right corner while the upper left corner is in the upper left of the monitor. Well, I shouldn't really say that's the only way, but I don't know if there is any other way to maximize a window.
FalconI didn't say I was more patriotic than you. I just rejected your statement that merely "protesting policy is the highest form of patriotism". You make my point for me, suggesting your service does make you more patriotic. Which is it? By your logic, if I just complained about things enough, I'd be a patriot? I do not kid myself that that would be true. But you, who should know better, do.
I guess I phrased it wrong. Because you said "You have the right to complain because others (hint: utmost patriots) do their DUTIES to secure them", I replied that in fact I did serve in the military and was willing to sacrifice my life to protect liberty and the country. SO it's not as if all I do is, as you said, whining and complaining.
FalconThe data should be public but I would just add one small caveat. There should be a substantial delay in releasing the data in order to give the sponsor the first go at publishing it.
Yes, a sponser, ie someone who pays for it, should get first dibs. So when it's the taxpayer paying they shoud get first dibs too and have it placed in the public domain.
FalconI don't know if it is open but if it is not it should be.
Not all public research data is open or publicly available. For instance the NCI, National Cancer Institute, spent $183,000,000 developing Taxol, a drug used in the treatment of cancer. What did the NCI do with the research data it came up with? It sold the data to BMS, Bristol-Myers Squibb, for $43,000,000. Not only did BMS pay less than 1/4 the cost of developing Taxol but it also got exclusive rights to the research. It was estimated that in 2000 BMS was to make $1,000,000,000, one billion dollars, in sales of Taxol, and another billion per year thereafter.
FalconThis whole discussion is about how corporations A) shouldn't have "rights" or B) shouldn't have the power of ownership. Several of the parent posts talk about basically disolving the entire concept of non-individual ownership in the context of corporations not deserving "rights" or privileges under the law.
However my post, the one you replied to, had nothing to say about whether corporations shouldn't have rights or have the power of onwership. What it did point out was that there were entities other than corporations that had limited liability.
I then provided an example of trying to do business without any sort of organizing legal entity, partnership or otherwise. You replied to that with "Wrong" and provided links to pages about partnerships, which as far as I can tell, are some sort of organizing legal entity.
Oops, I did make a mistake here. For some reason I had the impression you were saying only corporations offered limited liability to investors. So I own you an apology for miscontruing what you said.
Your points might be valid if someone was arguing about how an unlimited partnership is the only form of business organization, but we're not. If you're not going to read parent posts you probably shouldn't start your reply with "Wrong" -- it won't turn out well.
I did read the parent posts, and as I stated above, I miscontrued your post. Now however you're either miscontruing what I said or your making an "ass" by "assuming" I didn't read the parent posts, which doesn't turn out well either.
FalconWhich has no bearing on the point at hand except to further prove mine, that people do not self identify by their continent.
As you said people refer to themselves by thier nationality it bares directly to the point, that many different ethnic groups identify with their ethnic group not with the nation and the ethnic group does not neccessarily correspond to the nation.
FalconIANAL, but it looks to me like you have to be reaching more than 500 people, AND get paid for getting the message out.
Though it doesn't matter anymore, which I'll get to next, it didn't say a blogger had to get paid. What it originally did say was that a blogger who had reached less tahn 500 members didn't have to register. as for why it no longer matters, he reason why is because an amendment was added to the bill striking that clause. So there isn't the requirement for bloggers to register.
FalconJust like martial arts are referred to as "war arts," and consist of learning how to punch, kick, grapple, break, etc., and yet they are most commonly applied by your average Tom, Dick, or Harriet as a means of self-empowerment so that the practitioner feels safe enough to NOT commit violence. Before I started Hapkido, if I was in a situation where I thought someone might try and kill me, I was aware that to feel safe after the initial attack, I would have to kill the person. Now I feel much safer, which will allow me to control myself more.
I wish I could of articulated my position as well as you did. Unfortunately I'm not as good as you are here with your works.
FalconBecuase at that point you are no longer a free agent expressing your opinion, but a tool for another agent trying to push an agenda.
As far as I'm concerned since I didn't change my position I am still a free agent and not a lobbyist.
FalconI didn't say I commanded a unit, not did I. I was enlisted not an officer.
I perhaps should have made clear in my post that I was only referring to that actual type of soldiers who would be used. In this instance they would most likely be some such special forces detatchmment who actually do a lot of killing anyway and have grown more accustomed to being asked to kill people.
And what special forces detachment would that be? It's certainly not the Army's Special Forces, Green Berets. Or Army Rangers, Black Berets. Stationed at Fort Benning, GA my unit trained the Rangers and the OCS, Officer Cadet School, and we trained with the Special Forces.
I know that in Britain the SAS were instructed to kill all the terrorists who stormed the Iranian embassy some years ago. They let one live, but did kill most of them in cold blood just in case any had hidden grenades.
Maybe the SAS didn't have classes in the treatment of civilians and on war crimes but we did when I was in the US Army.
We also had our police force execute somebody on the tube recently as they were informed he was a suicide bomber by their commanding officer. They later discovered he was an unarmed electrician from Brasil.
These people do exist within all armies of the world. The US is not the only armed force who would never dream of hurting innocent people if they were set up to do so.
I addressed this when I said though some would shoot unprovoking and unarmed civilians, most in my unit would shoot the commander if ordered to shot them. Even China now knows not to use just anyone to fire on civilians. During the Tiananmen Square protests of 1989 the Red Army had to bring in military units from different regions of China as the local units refused to fire on local civilians.
FalconThat's an awfully fine line to draw -- corporation vs. partnership. So are Limited Liability Companies are okay and corporations are bad, or is it just partnerships that are acceptable?
Where is the fine line? In a corporation shareholders or stockholders can vote on what and how the corporation does. A limited partner does not have a vote, other than withdrawing support. I say that makes a big difference. As for LLCs, Limited Liability Companies, where did I say anything like they are okay but corporations are bad? I don't recall ever mentioning LLCs once in this thread.
Seriously, partnerships have all the same "rights" as corporations and can do all the same evil things. What's your point here?
A limited partner does not have the same rights as stockholders in corporations, and if you had read the wiki article I provided the link to you should of learned that.
FalconI acknowledge this is highly debatable, but that's where I stand; you take the money, you take responsibility for it, which is disclosure.
I am all for disclosure, but I am against requiring registration. And if you place ads your paid for that indirectly is disclosure, I'd dare to say most of those bloggers who are paid, other than those who blog for thier employers, are paid by accepting ads.
FalconSo I'm confused. What then is the point of bringing the 500 people rule up? It certainly doesn't address my position on this bill...I'm not sure that I understand the comment's relevance if you're not disagreeing with me.
I wasn't disagreeing with you, you disagreed with me.
Falcon