Unfortunately, DavidTC, I think you'll find that Geneva very clearly contemplates a class of detainees who are not classified as POWs. Read any of the four conventions, Common Article 3. It sets out a minimum standard for all detainees, POWs or not.
The convention on POWs additionally addresses determining POW status, saying you should assume POW status until you're sure they're not deserving of such privileged status.
POW status is a privilege afforded to detainees who followed the laws of war. It is not the only classification of detainees.
The issue here is the treatment of unlawful combatants (who are, by our own treaties, entitled to a bare minimum of Common Article 3 protections), not the "made up" term. Hell, our Supreme Court has even discussed this issue recently in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld (2006).
Technically, presuming guilt before innocence only applies to trials, not within the court of public opinion. I think you're free to presume someone is guilty, so long as you hold no decision-making power with regards to the accused.
Clerked for an odd combination of judges (wonder why?)
I just checked what you said. He clerked for the D.C. Circuit and for two justices on the SCOTUS. You want to know why?
Because those are three of the most prestigious positions in the world for a young lawyer to have. Any one of those, especially either of the two SCOTUS jobs, practically guarantees that your first year after that job you can make $600K walking on to any law firm in the country. Additionally, the D.C. Circuit sees every important case arising out of the federal government. It's fascinating and important work. I'd hope that anyone with a moderate amount of interest in having a good job can understand the appeal of doing things that matter on a wide scale. All of his three clerkships were this type of job.
And you can't make any sort of "poitical" pattern out of the clerks, either: Brennan and Souter are practically on different sides of the world, politically. At least, at the time Genachowski clerked for them, Souter was still on the right.
And as for the "schoolchum of Obama" reference, the man went to Harvard and served on HLR at the same time as Obama. Obama has first-hand knowledge that the man is extremely gifted; experience that dates back to the late 80s and early 90s.
And the guy was a high-ranking official in the FCC in the 90s. It's not like he doesn't have the pedigree: prior relevant experience, prestigious education, and an obvious intellect (you don't get any of those clerkships without being in the top 1% of all students graduating from Tier 1 law schools, which shows you know how to at least get very high grades).
Note that I know nothing about his politics whatsoever. I'm merely refuting your uninformed accusations that somehow this guy cannot possibly be qualified for his position by any stretch of the imagination.
I believe that even federal judges' ruling are only regional unless the judges happen to be on the Supreme Court.
Essentially, you're correct. There are basically three layers of courts in the US (there are exceptions, but this is general we're talking): SCOTUS > Circuit > District courts. The SCOTUS decisions are binding upon all lower courts. Circuit courts are binding upon District courts.
However, Circuit courts and District courts have varying degrees of persuasive authority as well. Courts will often look to each other for good reasoning.
For example, a judge in Tyler, Texas (the Northern District of Texas) might look at a judge in Victoria, Texas (the Southern District of Texas) and mimic the Victoria judge's reasoning for a certain issue. This is an example of persuasive authority.
On the other hand, as I was told at my first legal internship: Don't cite a Ninth Circuit (CA, HI, etc.) decision in the Fifth Circuit (TX, LA, etc.); it won't be persuasive.
I think it will come in the form of a rush to get ISP's headquartered in Austin. Many shools looking to avoid the legal problems would change ISP's as a risk avoidance move.
I'm not sure that would make much difference. The RIAA would file suit where they are headquartered. As this is a battle between two national companies (RIAA and ISP), I fail to see how the ISP could plead a burden and get venue transferred to their headquarters if they do business across the nation.
Of course, federal civil procedure is quirky. I could be wrong.
If it were in AAC Lossless...then it would be easy I guess to convert it to FLAC with no degradation of signal...and in doing so, delete the identifying information?
And that is different from the current situation in what way? I can currently convert iTunes DRM-free music into FLAC with no degradation of signal and in doing so delete the identifying information.
Beyond that, the submitter is sort-of uninformed about MP3 tags:
I checked, and I found I couldn't access the information using an ID3 tag editor, but using Notepad I found my email address stored inside the audio file itself.
There are a ton of defined tags out there that ID3 tag editors don't deal with at all.
Additionally, there's a whole namespace of possible "custom" ID3 tags any vendor may define. Apple might do this for your iTunes account info. An ID3v2.4 frame may be called "TXXX," where the "X"s are any alphabetical character. Apple could use TUSR to denote the iTunes username (i.e., email address). http://www.id3.org/id3v2.4.0-frames
I'd avoid at all costs, as the clear reference of GP is to a certain cult that committed mass suicide in the 90s. Unless, of course, you want to die...
Now that I think about it, this was the first instance I'm aware of of "hear about death and visit the dead person's webpage" that was possible. Does anyone else remember going here after you heard the terrible news? Oh, 1997.
The closest you can come on land is probably the Australian Outback
I think this image reveals other places you could go.
I imagine parts of Africa in the Sahara, Nunavut (Canada), Northcentral Russia, Western China, all of Antarctica, and a couple of the -stans would also afford you a nice view. And at least one of those locations is politically friendly to practically everyone, so vacationing wouldn't be a problem for that reason!
That makes sense, but you could still get around it presently by doing something like m=lambda x:print x or something like that, though. Personally, I'd think this ability makes the fact that you're changing a big piece of syntax of greater weight than the inability to assign m=print that way.
But then again, IANA computer scientist. I've just always disliked print() from an aesthetic perspective.
You're right about the then/than error. What are the borderline things? I'm an editor on an academic journal, and I'd like to know precisely what I'm missing that is so huge that would provoke such a defensive reaction to the assertion of lack of sexual prowess among Slashdotters.
I'm a little confused as to what GP's grammar or spelling error is. Aside from the punctuation error (a period is needed after "min") and some quasi-error where you think "Slashdot" needs to be spelled out (as if abbreviations are suddenly unacceptable here), I see no errors.
"That" is the subject of the sentence, and everything beginning with "is" is the predicate. It's a fully formed and perfectly cromulent sentence.
Oh darnit. I've been programming amateurely (as an amateur?) for twenty years, starting with BASIC as a kindergartener or preschooler.
I've always disliked print() and preferred print as a statement. Likely because of my background in BASIC and the fact that I learned C++ and cout before I learned C and printf().
Can someone tell me why it was changed to print()? Philosophical reason or pragmatic? Just to conform with the more popular Java/JavaScript/C convention or something?
I've always thought it'd be a good idea to have altitude be a function of cardinality, in that as you turn your car, your altitude changes.
The only traffic intersections would be people merging from above or below when turning. If you were going straight, you'd never have to merge (except with people aligning themselves with your direction who happened to have a remarkably similar path as you to the point that they'd be located at (X_1,Y_1) at the exact time as you going the exact same direction as you).
That is true. I typically translate "blah blah" to "nani nani" when writing scripts, stories and the like. E.g., "All I hear from her is 'nani nani'!"
However, I don't think you would typically say "nani nani yo" if your intent was to make "nani nani" mean "whatever." Of course, I'm a non-native Japanese speaker; there's always something I don't know!
I welcome corrections. How will I ever attain native fluency otherwise?
I do Not believe in providing government help to everyone.
Come on, now. Do you use roads? Would you call 911 if you had to? Would you send your kids to a state school?
"I do not believe in providing government help to everyone" is code for "I do not believe in providing certain government programs, and I'm going to arbitrarily pick which ones."
That doesn't make any sense. This doctor said, "This is a million dollar workup, so don't have it done." Also, if a doctor lies to you, that's malpractice, and he can be sued for tons of money.
Slashdot Mirror
Unfortunately, DavidTC, I think you'll find that Geneva very clearly contemplates a class of detainees who are not classified as POWs. Read any of the four conventions, Common Article 3. It sets out a minimum standard for all detainees, POWs or not.
The convention on POWs additionally addresses determining POW status, saying you should assume POW status until you're sure they're not deserving of such privileged status.
POW status is a privilege afforded to detainees who followed the laws of war. It is not the only classification of detainees.
The issue here is the treatment of unlawful combatants (who are, by our own treaties, entitled to a bare minimum of Common Article 3 protections), not the "made up" term. Hell, our Supreme Court has even discussed this issue recently in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld (2006).
Technically, presuming guilt before innocence only applies to trials, not within the court of public opinion. I think you're free to presume someone is guilty, so long as you hold no decision-making power with regards to the accused.
Guys, calm down. You're both virgins.
I just checked what you said. He clerked for the D.C. Circuit and for two justices on the SCOTUS. You want to know why?
Because those are three of the most prestigious positions in the world for a young lawyer to have. Any one of those, especially either of the two SCOTUS jobs, practically guarantees that your first year after that job you can make $600K walking on to any law firm in the country. Additionally, the D.C. Circuit sees every important case arising out of the federal government. It's fascinating and important work. I'd hope that anyone with a moderate amount of interest in having a good job can understand the appeal of doing things that matter on a wide scale. All of his three clerkships were this type of job.
And you can't make any sort of "poitical" pattern out of the clerks, either: Brennan and Souter are practically on different sides of the world, politically. At least, at the time Genachowski clerked for them, Souter was still on the right.
And as for the "schoolchum of Obama" reference, the man went to Harvard and served on HLR at the same time as Obama. Obama has first-hand knowledge that the man is extremely gifted; experience that dates back to the late 80s and early 90s.
And the guy was a high-ranking official in the FCC in the 90s. It's not like he doesn't have the pedigree: prior relevant experience, prestigious education, and an obvious intellect (you don't get any of those clerkships without being in the top 1% of all students graduating from Tier 1 law schools, which shows you know how to at least get very high grades).
Note that I know nothing about his politics whatsoever. I'm merely refuting your uninformed accusations that somehow this guy cannot possibly be qualified for his position by any stretch of the imagination.
That'd be pretty difficult for him to do, considering he only had sons.
Essentially, you're correct. There are basically three layers of courts in the US (there are exceptions, but this is general we're talking): SCOTUS > Circuit > District courts. The SCOTUS decisions are binding upon all lower courts. Circuit courts are binding upon District courts.
However, Circuit courts and District courts have varying degrees of persuasive authority as well. Courts will often look to each other for good reasoning.
For example, a judge in Tyler, Texas (the Northern District of Texas) might look at a judge in Victoria, Texas (the Southern District of Texas) and mimic the Victoria judge's reasoning for a certain issue. This is an example of persuasive authority.
On the other hand, as I was told at my first legal internship: Don't cite a Ninth Circuit (CA, HI, etc.) decision in the Fifth Circuit (TX, LA, etc.); it won't be persuasive.
I'm not sure that would make much difference. The RIAA would file suit where they are headquartered. As this is a battle between two national companies (RIAA and ISP), I fail to see how the ISP could plead a burden and get venue transferred to their headquarters if they do business across the nation.
Of course, federal civil procedure is quirky. I could be wrong.
Yes, continue to redefine legal terms to mean what you want them to mean. I'm sure that will work out perfectly for you.
"No, officer, I wasn't speeding! I was using advanced velocity techniques!"
They're infringing copyright, not stealing. The sooner you realize that, the sooner you'll gain credibility in discussing the law.
And that is different from the current situation in what way? I can currently convert iTunes DRM-free music into FLAC with no degradation of signal and in doing so delete the identifying information.
Beyond that, the submitter is sort-of uninformed about MP3 tags:
There are a ton of defined tags out there that ID3 tag editors don't deal with at all.
Additionally, there's a whole namespace of possible "custom" ID3 tags any vendor may define. Apple might do this for your iTunes account info. An ID3v2.4 frame may be called "TXXX," where the "X"s are any alphabetical character. Apple could use TUSR to denote the iTunes username (i.e., email address). http://www.id3.org/id3v2.4.0-frames
I'd avoid at all costs, as the clear reference of GP is to a certain cult that committed mass suicide in the 90s. Unless, of course, you want to die...
Now that I think about it, this was the first instance I'm aware of of "hear about death and visit the dead person's webpage" that was possible. Does anyone else remember going here after you heard the terrible news? Oh, 1997.
I think this image reveals other places you could go.
I imagine parts of Africa in the Sahara, Nunavut (Canada), Northcentral Russia, Western China, all of Antarctica, and a couple of the -stans would also afford you a nice view. And at least one of those locations is politically friendly to practically everyone, so vacationing wouldn't be a problem for that reason!
Since Caturday got boingboinged into Lolcats. And I can't believe that sentence makes any sense.
Except that in this context, eleven is decidedly worse than six. Unless you prefer your metaphorical comets to be less visible, that is...
So Python is Gandalf?
That makes sense, but you could still get around it presently by doing something like m=lambda x:print x or something like that, though. Personally, I'd think this ability makes the fact that you're changing a big piece of syntax of greater weight than the inability to assign m=print that way.
But then again, IANA computer scientist. I've just always disliked print() from an aesthetic perspective.
You're right about the then/than error. What are the borderline things? I'm an editor on an academic journal, and I'd like to know precisely what I'm missing that is so huge that would provoke such a defensive reaction to the assertion of lack of sexual prowess among Slashdotters.
I'm a little confused as to what GP's grammar or spelling error is. Aside from the punctuation error (a period is needed after "min") and some quasi-error where you think "Slashdot" needs to be spelled out (as if abbreviations are suddenly unacceptable here), I see no errors.
"That" is the subject of the sentence, and everything beginning with "is" is the predicate. It's a fully formed and perfectly cromulent sentence.
Oh darnit. I've been programming amateurely (as an amateur?) for twenty years, starting with BASIC as a kindergartener or preschooler.
I've always disliked print() and preferred print as a statement. Likely because of my background in BASIC and the fact that I learned C++ and cout before I learned C and printf().
Can someone tell me why it was changed to print()? Philosophical reason or pragmatic? Just to conform with the more popular Java/JavaScript/C convention or something?
I've always thought it'd be a good idea to have altitude be a function of cardinality, in that as you turn your car, your altitude changes.
The only traffic intersections would be people merging from above or below when turning. If you were going straight, you'd never have to merge (except with people aligning themselves with your direction who happened to have a remarkably similar path as you to the point that they'd be located at (X_1,Y_1) at the exact time as you going the exact same direction as you).
That is true. I typically translate "blah blah" to "nani nani" when writing scripts, stories and the like. E.g., "All I hear from her is 'nani nani'!"
However, I don't think you would typically say "nani nani yo" if your intent was to make "nani nani" mean "whatever." Of course, I'm a non-native Japanese speaker; there's always something I don't know!
I welcome corrections. How will I ever attain native fluency otherwise?
Well, you don't need anything other than "baka yo" to say that.
What what!
Your idiot! [yes, the possessive]
You're annoying!
Come on, now. Do you use roads? Would you call 911 if you had to? Would you send your kids to a state school?
"I do not believe in providing government help to everyone" is code for "I do not believe in providing certain government programs, and I'm going to arbitrarily pick which ones."
That doesn't make any sense. This doctor said, "This is a million dollar workup, so don't have it done." Also, if a doctor lies to you, that's malpractice, and he can be sued for tons of money.