Most people who are very active tend to eat rather well.
Sure, after 180K on the bike I tend to "reek" a bit, but usually I don't commute to work for over 100K and at least the last two places I worked they had showeres exactly because people biked in.
I agree that there is a lot of great software out there that warrants to be paid for. And yes, CuBASE is a good example of excellent software.
BUT. There is a lot of software out there (including CuBASE) that is extremely expensive, and yes, that is warranted as they are "professional grade". Now look at me, small town boy who wants to play around with it for some time. Use the demo version? Sure, but it only allows certain functions, I can't save and I can't really test it, and, in all likelyhood if I would spent all the money I wouldn't be using it enough to justify it.
No, that doesn't make the pirating right, but the reality is if I am using the software "free" the company didn't really lose a sale. Now if I would use the software to produce something / work with it every day it is a different thing.
Piracy in and on itself does not mean that every sale is lost. To argue like this is like RIAA who is arguing the same way, that eveyr MP3 downloaded from the net is a lost sale.
I am dealing with computers now for more than 18 years and in all this time the programs I know people copied where the ones they wouldn't have bought in the first place. The problem is not the crack or serial that floats around on the net and gets used by ma at home, but rather the professionel copy shops you pirate the entire package, including serials, and sell them.
A pirated version is in my opinion still free advertising with the end user, if you need to do work with it you will buy, because you would want support. Or do you truly believe that all the Photoshops out there, used by individuals, are a lost sale? Adobe has recognized that too and they do offer Elements now, a "light" version.
Copying software / music / movies isn't right, but in the end people will always do this. Destroying their computers is as correct as stealing the software, or say, invading another country on the remote possibility that it might pose a threat.
Oh, and on a legal standpoint: If he did delete someones home directory with all their work I suggest they sue the guy. Why? Because he clearly stepped over a boundary, and he might be able to sue the guy for damages by pirating his software, but in return the guy can sue for all the data that got destroyed. I would guess that the "smart programmer" get's the short end of the stick on this one. Then they can both shake hands in a jail cell.
Actually self driving (to some degree) is already possible today.
Not in the robot kind of way but rather in the "all car's in a lane" kinda way.
In essence all you need are two sensors, one in the front, one in the rear and the ability to communicate. You "file" in, press a button and your car keeps the distance to the one in front of you.
Of course the question is: who would want that, when they can try to pass you on the left, squeeze in front of you etc. etc.
Toronto already gets it's drinking water from the lake so there won't be any change in the amount of water extracted.
Second of all: Do you have any idea how LARGE Lake Ontario is?
And finally, there is still a winter here, the lake will at least have some ice on it and this will cool it down again.
Between the impact of (maybe) warming the lake by a 10th of a degree and thus saving 75% of the energy that had been spent for cooling before, or by not doing it and blowing more pollutants in the air (and powerplants need water too) I rather take the alek.
So you think removing the cold water (and last I checked we still have Winters in Toronto so it will cool down again) will be more damaging than pumping all the CO2 into the air by trying to cool conventionally?
We all had though luck in our lives, for whatever reason, but that doesn't make anyone special.
Yes, what happened to her is bad, but it does not give her any rights to other peoples property.
"When I grew up, we were piss poor, because of that I have the RIGHT to take your Jag."
That wouldn't fly either.
The name of the book is Katie.com and THAT could have been easily changed. As the "real" Katie says, originally the book was supposed to be entitled "girl.com" but was changed when they found out it was a porn website.
Why not register a different domain name? Or why not just forget about it and get a name that does not coincide with.com,.net or.org?
My domain name is "thedarkerside.to" so if someone had a dark experience in the past he can just go out and take my domain?
I may be mistaken, but it seems to me that the supreme court lately ruled that you can't just "throw away the key" and leave them in Gitmo.
Besides, where was the Geneva convention when they showed pictures of killed Iraquis? There is a double standard at work here and one must be blind not to see it.
If this is true, why are UN peacekeeping forces ever deployed? They're meant to keep waring factions from destroying the civilian populace, otherwise they have absolutely no need to be on the ground in a warzone. They did not do anything to protect the civilian populace, as you point out in your citations. Therefore, they're a waste of time and money.
Peacekeepers move in after the fighting has stopped. They are supposed to prevent more fighting.
However, we will never, ever agree on PMCs being legitimate. Agree to disagree and move on?
Agreed.
If Clinton wouldn't have made that huge mistake, he would have had the political clout to end the shitstorm in Rwanda. Sending in troops who have the ability to stop the bloodshed (unlike UN peacekeepers) would be the morally correct thing to do, and I have a suspicion that the UN would have supported it whole-heartedly. That is if the organization truly cares about the people of the world instead of their own political stature, of course.
Exactly. The decision for the UN NOT to try to "escalate" the situation was mainly driven because unofficial they asked teh US if they would be willing to send combat troops and the US made it clear that they will NOT send any troops.
I remember a video snipped from a State Department Spokesperson in the middle of the genocide saying:
"We have reports of isolated incidents of Genocide."
How can you have an "isolated incident of genocide"? This was clearly a very cynical view on things.
The fact that the UN peacekeepers on the ground stood around while civilians were being slaughtered is an atrocity to me. I could be wrong, though. That situation wouldn't happen with an organization that is responsible to someone. As you mention, the UN is not responsible to anyone because it is just a meeting place where nothing can ever be resolved, the organization has no need to actually do anything regarding stopping genocide.
This could only be rectified if the countries who supply the trooops could not pull them out on a whim. Until that happens though things won't change. And let's be honest, would you want to surrender US troops to a UN command? And how would you feel if those guys get killed while trying to prevent a genocide?
And as far as the US owing the UN money? For what? Not paying dues until Clinton changed that? No where in the Constitution is the federal government permitted to pay dues to an international government. I have never seen the UN do any projects in the US, but they do train peacekepers here. (If I see another blue hat invade my borders...) I think we also provide their headquarters tax free. That's a couple million annually in property taxes to NYC lost for the last 50 years or so.
The UN is not an "international government". The UN is an organization in which the US is a member. Thus the US has to pay their membership fee's, it's like a professional association for Nations.
Of course people for example at the Cato institute argue that the US doesn't owe any money to the UN because of their support in peace keeping operations, but that is IMO penny pinching. If the US thinks the UN isn't worth anything, then maybe the UN should relocate out of NYC into a another part of the world and continue on without the US.
As you can tell, I'm not a fan of the UN at all. If I could make the organization disappear tomorrow, I would. You and I will probably never agree on any of this, so lets just agree to disagree
I am curious: How do you think the world would be better off without the UN? Soley relying on the US to "clean up messes"? Or just give everyone a machete and let them solve their own problems?
Seriously: If the UNn is gone tomorrow, what would replace her / how would issues that are currently handled by the UN be handled? The UN is more than the General Assembly and the Security Council, there is UNHCR etc. You might want to read their website before you paint me a picture of a UN free world.
In Sierra Leone, the legitimate government was the one who contracted EO as their military could not prevent the insurgency from commiting genocide. What I'm saying should happen HAS BEEN DONE BEFORE. It won't work in all situations, such as when a government doesn't exist or who is the aggressor, but it does work in some situations. The UN peacekeeping force was 100% ineffective in dealing with the insurgency in Sierra Leone, whereas EO was 100% effective.
A Peacekeeping force by their own definition is not meant to fight a war but to prevent the outbreak of one. For example by keeping two factions apart. They are not intended to fight a war or "repel" isurgence from another country.
Just because they are not currently bound by those laws doesn't mean they can't be. PMCs have to exist under the authority of some nation which abides by international law (Ie NPMI is a PMC here in the US which is bound by their corporate charter issued by the government to abide by all laws that the US is bound by. Granted, you can't control whether they will actually follow the law, but if you could, we wouldn't have courts or prisons to lock up criminals.)
I don't quite see your last argument. The point is that those companies only report to their shareholders. And how do you tell a company that their people on the ground CANNOT (for example) go on a search and destroy mission as their "client" requests because it would violate the geneva convention to torch a village and kill the inhabitants?
Granted, you can't be sure that a "regular" army isn't doing the same thing, but if we assume that this is the army of a democractic nation we should hope that the media keeps an eye on them (who am I kidding, I guess the Iraq war already showed that the media isn't critical anymore either, or do you believe that the US army has a clean slate now while in Vietnam the whole thing was different?).
Point is: A UN Lead force will most likely not be linked to atrocities (though they are known to look the other way), with private contractors you could never be sure what they are doing. Because in the end they are only loyal to their paycheck.
And IIRC, in Rwanda, the party commiting the genocide was not the legitimate government, but an insurgency that toppled the legitimate government that had attempted to contract EO at the same time officials at the UN decided to bow to pressure to force Sierra Leone to pull the contract from EO. If the UN had not stuck its nose in to a situation that was 100% under control by the government of Sierra Leone (the RUF had signed a cease-fire agreement with the government), thousands more would not have been killed when the UN peacekeeping force came in, and watched as the RUF broke their agreement and started slaughtering again. The fact that the UN had sent its ineffective by design peacekeeping force in without a mandate to keep the peace by engaging the RUF, then watching thousands die is sad. It makes me shameful of my government for allowing genocide to take place by putting pressure on the UN because of some twisted sense that an international body can do better than 300 men on the ground...
Interesstingly enough he saw what was happening, he saw it coming before it happened AND he asked the UN for a change of his orders. His superiors in the UN coulnd't agree (politics again), when they finally saw what was starting they tried to get a new UN resolution that
I think you lack a bit of understanding when it comes to International Law.
First of all Military Contractors are NOT governed by the same laws / rules as the armys of nations. True, you could stipulate that in the contract but how are you going to enforce it? Send in the US Army if / when things go wrong?
Second of all. The reason why the UN is in "charge" of such operations is exactly because they are "neutral" from an organizational standpoint. They do not answer to ONE government but rather to the assembly which (in theory at least) makes the abuse of an army under UN control hard if not impossible.
Third, "legitimate governments" are you usually not the ones who neeed the help of peace keeping troops. Peace keeping is usually needed in areas in which there is no more law, be it government or police. Be it because of shifted political power, foreign intervention or a myriade of other reasons.
By claiming that the local "authorities" can hire military contractors to solve the problem you just prove that you don't quite understand under which circumstances intervention forces are sent. In Rwanda for example the "legitament government" was responsible for the genocide.
The UN has been irrelevant since they basically allowed the genocide of thousands (millions possibly) in Sierra Leone, Rwanda and the Balkans. Their "peacekeeping" force is COMPLETELY WORTHLESS. If the UN wasn't completely worthless, they would have let Executive Outcomes complete their operation in Sierra Leone, start the contract in Rwanda and another PMC could have easily worked in the Balkans.
The UN does NOT possess a peace keeping force. The UN has to rely on the nations to supply them with troops etc.
and exactly because of this the UN isn't as effective as she could be. Why? Because everytime a UN soldier might be put in harms way THEY have to figure out if they can survive the political fallout.
Rwanda is the perfect example, when some belgian troops where killed belgium pulled ALL of their troops out.
THAT is the problem. There is no UN General, there is no UN Army. There are nations who send troops and general(s) to do something that doesn't politically upset the contributing nations.
Instead of the UN wasting billions of dollars on their ineffective peacekeeping force, EO could have stopped the genocide in Rwanda for $100 million with 1500 operatives. They stopped the RUF in Sierra Leone with 300 men, against a force of 17,500, for fucks sake. The peacekeepers that came in to Sierra Leone after EO was forced to leave allowed another period of genocide during their presence. The UN is completely worthless.
The UN is a political animal, until we can get rid of the idea that everything the UN does has to be "approved" by everybody we won't get anywhere.
Hiring companies to do the dirty work isn't a solution either, because how do you control what they are doing?
Fact is: If you want a successful peace keeping operation you would need a UN Army. But where would you put them? How would you make sure that the troops (who would be from different nations) are truly loyal to the blue flag and not just leave when Bush Junior is almost suffocating on a prezel again?
He said they didn't apply to the people at GITMO, he NEVER said they were invalid.
By first declaring war on a country, then arresting their soldiers and then all of the sudden claiming they were "illegal combatants" I'd say his actions made it pretty clear that he considers the Geneva Convention irrelevant.... Unless of course it doesn't help him politically (say, by pictures of dead US soldiers showing up in the evening news).
He also said the the UN is at risk of becoming irrelevent, which some would argue is a bit late.
No, he is making the UN irrelevant, he and the US government ignore the UN whenever they like, and because they are the biggest whatever they do has a lot of consequences. The US is also one of the biggest debtors to the UN. Rather sad if you think about it.
The UN never was (and in all probablity) will never be "world government" despite what the US conspiracy nuts say. The UN doesn't have an army, doesn't have any real power. It is a "townhall meeting" on global scale where people come together to make decisions together.
This somewhat seems to have escaped the US Administration for quite some time as well as a lot of the "right wing zealots" who seem to decry the UN every chance they get.
Slashdot Mirror
A lot of your smell has to do with what you eat.
Most people who are very active tend to eat rather well.
Sure, after 180K on the bike I tend to "reek" a bit, but usually I don't commute to work for over 100K and at least the last two places I worked they had showeres exactly because people biked in.
This year on a rather hilly Bike course in a half ironman totally undertrained (don't ask) I managed to average 34kph average.
The top people on the same course did ~39kph.
And there is no Peloton, the top Tri guys average ~40kph over 180K.... And then run a Marathon.
I agree that there is a lot of great software out there that warrants to be paid for. And yes, CuBASE is a good example of excellent software.
BUT. There is a lot of software out there (including CuBASE) that is extremely expensive, and yes, that is warranted as they are "professional grade". Now look at me, small town boy who wants to play around with it for some time. Use the demo version? Sure, but it only allows certain functions, I can't save and I can't really test it, and, in all likelyhood if I would spent all the money I wouldn't be using it enough to justify it.
No, that doesn't make the pirating right, but the reality is if I am using the software "free" the company didn't really lose a sale. Now if I would use the software to produce something / work with it every day it is a different thing.
Piracy in and on itself does not mean that every sale is lost. To argue like this is like RIAA who is arguing the same way, that eveyr MP3 downloaded from the net is a lost sale.
I am dealing with computers now for more than 18 years and in all this time the programs I know people copied where the ones they wouldn't have bought in the first place. The problem is not the crack or serial that floats around on the net and gets used by ma at home, but rather the professionel copy shops you pirate the entire package, including serials, and sell them.
A pirated version is in my opinion still free advertising with the end user, if you need to do work with it you will buy, because you would want support. Or do you truly believe that all the Photoshops out there, used by individuals, are a lost sale? Adobe has recognized that too and they do offer Elements now, a "light" version.
Copying software / music / movies isn't right, but in the end people will always do this. Destroying their computers is as correct as stealing the software, or say, invading another country on the remote possibility that it might pose a threat.
Oh, and on a legal standpoint: If he did delete someones home directory with all their work I suggest they sue the guy. Why? Because he clearly stepped over a boundary, and he might be able to sue the guy for damages by pirating his software, but in return the guy can sue for all the data that got destroyed. I would guess that the "smart programmer" get's the short end of the stick on this one. Then they can both shake hands in a jail cell.
Actually the ou is not even the british spelling (well, not always anyways).
;)
And, even though do live in Canada these days, I wasn't born here. I also wasn't born in the US or any other commonwealth member state....
So, I am truly an outsider here
Actually self driving (to some degree) is already possible today.
Not in the robot kind of way but rather in the "all car's in a lane" kinda way.
In essence all you need are two sensors, one in the front, one in the rear and the ability to communicate. You "file" in, press a button and your car keeps the distance to the one in front of you.
Of course the question is: who would want that, when they can try to pass you on the left, squeeze in front of you etc. etc.
Obviously not long enough I still have nightmares.
You Sir, ain't no Canadian.
It is colour, eh!
Oh come on now, that was so long ago. Let sleeping dogs lie.
It's a different country now, you know.
Well,
people in hot climates manages for a very long time to live without AC, by building accordingly.
Let's face it: A concrete Tower with ton's of glass looks impressive, but from a heating / cooling perspecitve it is a nightmare.
So, deep water cooling can help, changing the way we build as well.
It's a combination of things and it is almost comical that Europe is further ahead in the "game" than North America.
Toronto already gets it's drinking water from the lake so there won't be any change in the amount of water extracted.
Second of all: Do you have any idea how LARGE Lake Ontario is?
And finally, there is still a winter here, the lake will at least have some ice on it and this will cool it down again.
Between the impact of (maybe) warming the lake by a 10th of a degree and thus saving 75% of the energy that had been spent for cooling before, or by not doing it and blowing more pollutants in the air (and powerplants need water too) I rather take the alek.
The lesser of two evils.
So you think removing the cold water (and last I checked we still have Winters in Toronto so it will cool down again) will be more damaging than pumping all the CO2 into the air by trying to cool conventionally?
THAT assumes that the seller is actually then paying his employee more and not just keeping the higher profit for himself.
The reality is that judging the quality of life by income alone is deeply flawed.
They're immune to red lights too (at least in Toronto), Red lights, don't want to stop? Turn on the lights and blow through the intersection.
Almost nailed me twice while I was on my bike.
Assholes.
Really?
Doesn't Insurance Fraud mean I make a claim that didn't really happen?
I don't agree.
.com, .net or .org?
We all had though luck in our lives, for whatever reason, but that doesn't make anyone special.
Yes, what happened to her is bad, but it does not give her any rights to other peoples property.
"When I grew up, we were piss poor, because of that I have the RIGHT to take your Jag."
That wouldn't fly either.
The name of the book is Katie.com and THAT could have been easily changed. As the "real" Katie says, originally the book was supposed to be entitled "girl.com" but was changed when they found out it was a porn website.
Why not register a different domain name? Or why not just forget about it and get a name that does not coincide with
My domain name is "thedarkerside.to" so if someone had a dark experience in the past he can just go out and take my domain?
... to judge where I am at my training / during racing.
I know that ;) I have a sattle myself, riding 200K on a "coushy" one would kill my ass pretty fast.
Actually,
that's why they call them 'sattles' not seats....
Just have a look at some of the bike photos from this years tour.
I have seen some Time Trial set ups where the saddle is nothing more but a thin "slice" of carbon fibre.
I may be mistaken, but it seems to me that the supreme court lately ruled that you can't just "throw away the key" and leave them in Gitmo.
Besides, where was the Geneva convention when they showed pictures of killed Iraquis? There is a double standard at work here and one must be blind not to see it.
Peacekeepers move in after the fighting has stopped. They are supposed to prevent more fighting.
Agreed.
Exactly. The decision for the UN NOT to try to "escalate" the situation was mainly driven because unofficial they asked teh US if they would be willing to send combat troops and the US made it clear that they will NOT send any troops.
I remember a video snipped from a State Department Spokesperson in the middle of the genocide saying:
"We have reports of isolated incidents of Genocide."
How can you have an "isolated incident of genocide"? This was clearly a very cynical view on things.
This could only be rectified if the countries who supply the trooops could not pull them out on a whim. Until that happens though things won't change. And let's be honest, would you want to surrender US troops to a UN command? And how would you feel if those guys get killed while trying to prevent a genocide?
The UN is not an "international government". The UN is an organization in which the US is a member. Thus the US has to pay their membership fee's, it's like a professional association for Nations.
Of course people for example at the Cato institute argue that the US doesn't owe any money to the UN because of their support in peace keeping operations, but that is IMO penny pinching. If the US thinks the UN isn't worth anything, then maybe the UN should relocate out of NYC into a another part of the world and continue on without the US.
I am curious: How do you think the world would be better off without the UN? Soley relying on the US to "clean up messes"? Or just give everyone a machete and let them solve their own problems?
Seriously: If the UNn is gone tomorrow, what would replace her / how would issues that are currently handled by the UN be handled? The UN is more than the General Assembly and the Security Council, there is UNHCR etc. You might want to read their website before you paint me a picture of a UN free world.
A Peacekeeping force by their own definition is not meant to fight a war but to prevent the outbreak of one. For example by keeping two factions apart. They are not intended to fight a war or "repel" isurgence from another country.
I don't quite see your last argument. The point is that those companies only report to their shareholders. And how do you tell a company that their people on the ground CANNOT (for example) go on a search and destroy mission as their "client" requests because it would violate the geneva convention to torch a village and kill the inhabitants?
Granted, you can't be sure that a "regular" army isn't doing the same thing, but if we assume that this is the army of a democractic nation we should hope that the media keeps an eye on them (who am I kidding, I guess the Iraq war already showed that the media isn't critical anymore either, or do you believe that the US army has a clean slate now while in Vietnam the whole thing was different?).
Point is: A UN Lead force will most likely not be linked to atrocities (though they are known to look the other way), with private contractors you could never be sure what they are doing. Because in the end they are only loyal to their paycheck.
Two things about Rwanda:
1. "The Last Just Man", a documentary about the Rwandan genocide.
2. "Shake Hands with the devil - The failure of humanity in Rwanda." An account of what happened written by Romeo Dallaire the Canadian Colonel who was in charge of the actual UN mission.
Interesstingly enough he saw what was happening, he saw it coming before it happened AND he asked the UN for a change of his orders. His superiors in the UN coulnd't agree (politics again), when they finally saw what was starting they tried to get a new UN resolution that
I think you lack a bit of understanding when it comes to International Law.
First of all Military Contractors are NOT governed by the same laws / rules as the armys of nations. True, you could stipulate that in the contract but how are you going to enforce it? Send in the US Army if / when things go wrong?
Second of all. The reason why the UN is in "charge" of such operations is exactly because they are "neutral" from an organizational standpoint. They do not answer to ONE government but rather to the assembly which (in theory at least) makes the abuse of an army under UN control hard if not impossible.
Third, "legitimate governments" are you usually not the ones who neeed the help of peace keeping troops. Peace keeping is usually needed in areas in which there is no more law, be it government or police. Be it because of shifted political power, foreign intervention or a myriade of other reasons.
By claiming that the local "authorities" can hire military contractors to solve the problem you just prove that you don't quite understand under which circumstances intervention forces are sent. In Rwanda for example the "legitament government" was responsible for the genocide.
Now now now.
Don't be so cynical. you DO know that the US is your friend, right?
The UN does NOT possess a peace keeping force. The UN has to rely on the nations to supply them with troops etc.
and exactly because of this the UN isn't as effective as she could be. Why? Because everytime a UN soldier might be put in harms way THEY have to figure out if they can survive the political fallout.
Rwanda is the perfect example, when some belgian troops where killed belgium pulled ALL of their troops out.
THAT is the problem. There is no UN General, there is no UN Army. There are nations who send troops and general(s) to do something that doesn't politically upset the contributing nations.
The UN is a political animal, until we can get rid of the idea that everything the UN does has to be "approved" by everybody we won't get anywhere.
Hiring companies to do the dirty work isn't a solution either, because how do you control what they are doing?
Fact is: If you want a successful peace keeping operation you would need a UN Army. But where would you put them? How would you make sure that the troops (who would be from different nations) are truly loyal to the blue flag and not just leave when Bush Junior is almost suffocating on a prezel again?
By first declaring war on a country, then arresting their soldiers and then all of the sudden claiming they were "illegal combatants" I'd say his actions made it pretty clear that he considers the Geneva Convention irrelevant.... Unless of course it doesn't help him politically (say, by pictures of dead US soldiers showing up in the evening news).
No, he is making the UN irrelevant, he and the US government ignore the UN whenever they like, and because they are the biggest whatever they do has a lot of consequences. The US is also one of the biggest debtors to the UN. Rather sad if you think about it.
The UN never was (and in all probablity) will never be "world government" despite what the US conspiracy nuts say. The UN doesn't have an army, doesn't have any real power. It is a "townhall meeting" on global scale where people come together to make decisions together.
This somewhat seems to have escaped the US Administration for quite some time as well as a lot of the "right wing zealots" who seem to decry the UN every chance they get.