A battery (primary or secondary) is a consumable and recognised as such by the industry. It's like ordering laser printer manufacturers to give the warning "this device will break and need servicing within 10,000 prints" - while technically true in the broadest interpretation, it's obviously an unreasonable misunderstanding of the nature of the device.
When the toner of a laserprinter becomes a part that can't be replaced by the user, you might have something of a point.. I have yet to find such a printer.
Given the fact that batteries are a known consumable, companies like Apple, who prevent a customer from replacing it, are knowingly selling a broken device.
Apple didn't put a removable battery with a trap because it would've broken their design, case closed.
That is a sign of their lack of design capability that significantly reduces usability and increases potential repair costs. Bad for customers, who incidentely are too ignorant to realize in most cases.
If you truely believe it is not possible to have a removable battery while maintaining nice smooth and seamless surfaces then that is a clear sign of your ignorance with regards to materials and design possibilities.
It limits usability simply because I cannot carry a spare battery with me (and an external battery to charge the internal one is not an option here, it adds bulk to the device and is not instant)
And as far as the mobile phone goes, yes it would be acceptable to have an unmoveable battery if there was a point, if it allowed a sleeker design or something, we're in an era of garbageable devices, an iPod has a life span of a pair of years so when the battery dies most people don't even think of changing the battery, they trash the old iPod and buy a new one, case closed.
Ericsson did this with the T65.. It was a once and never again experiment. Yeah, it allowed for a slighly more compact device at the time, but it also limits usability as already argued. Instead, they figured out a way to make the phone similarely small, have an internal battery, and yet allow customers to easily replace that battery.
It is just a matter of time before Apple will have to do the same thing, either because of this proposed EU regulation or due to a competitor finding a way to achieve both sleak design, good functionality and interface, and a replacable battery.
Of which, ALL li-ion batteries carry a shelf-life of 18 months so no fsking wonder they stopped working
With proper use and care, a li-ion battery can last much longer then 18 months, more in the order of 36-40 months before capacity and ability to deliver power are reduced to a not so usable level.
The iPod's sole purpose in life is to play music. So it plays music. Why should I need to know any more than that?
Because havignaan easy replacable battery means the device will be able to last longer, is easier (cheaper) to fix, and as a result is generally a better investment of your money?
If you don't want to know anything whatsoever about the things you use, don't go all balistic when something doesn't work out as you desire. You want free market? then start by being an informed consumer. No that doesn't mean uinderstanding enough to be able to BUILD such a device, but it definitely means having a basic understanding of devices you are using.
People in many countries in Europe have a day off on 1st of may, yes. I'm pretty sure that where I live (the Netherlands) we don't, and I'm also sure we aren't alone in that. Regardless, virtuallty any country has one or more national hollidays, and mandate a vacation day on a few specific religious or similar events. This is nowhere equivalent to the string of some 8 days off that are called 'banking hollidays' in the UK.
This may differ a bit throughout Europe, but where I live, you do not 'earn' or 'aquire' vacation time, it is a right that you have. An emplyer can prevent you from actually using your time off for a while (for example during the first 3 months of emplyment, or during a special project), buit that is always for a rather limited time. In other words, if you are working fulltime (40 hours/week), you end up with some 24 or so vacation days here in your first year of employment, and you are expected to use those in that first year of employment also.
Point was not so much to use the biblke to say that violence is not acceptable, but to show that dislike of violence isn't specific for 'hippies'..
Jesus also drove out the bad guys when he had to. I'm not saying that revenge or retribution or retaliation is always, or even often, the right answer. But sometimes something has to be done to stop evil and injustice.
Using violence to defend oneself can be the right answer. Revenge and retaliation do not qualify as violence to defend oneself however. As said already, the one reason I was pointing at him earlier was to dispell the 'you like peace so you must be a hippie' idiocy. but if you want to look at it from a new testament point of view, it seems pretty obvious that for someone who really believes in that, revenge cannot be an acceptable option ever.
I'm not saying that BlueSecurity is doing the right thing here either, but it seems like they're generally the good guys.
My issue is with people who believe violence as a first response is perfectly acceptable, and that revenge can be justified by the actions of others. Bluesecurity doesn't seem to qualify, quite a few of the very fanatical 'spam fighters' however do qualify.
I believe that some 2000 years ago they nailed someone to a cross who had pretty similar ideas.. Seems he has a huge following outside the hippie scene also. Ok, I have to say that he looked a bit like a hippie.
Learn the difference between initiating force and resisting it. One is perfectly moral and one isn't. Resisting violence often reduces future violence instead of 'begating violence.' Since you lack clue I'll state the obvious, the violent only attack those who they believe to be weaker. (unless they are truly insane, then all bets are off)
Well considered and restrained violence can in specific cases work as a defense, and can even be the only defense, yes. That in no way means that violence is the only way to respond to violence or will solve it most of the times.
The problem is that you are wrong about whom get attacked by 'the violent'. They attack those whome are easiest to intimidate, regardless of actual strength. (which is one reason why terrorism is such an effective offensive strategy against the USA btw)
For situations in the law such as the one being discussed (where it is unclear what the exact international laws are for invasion etc.), it is not illegal unless a relevant authority says so (otherwise I can claim anything that is legally unclear is illegal).
The USA is party to a few treaties and is one of the founding members of the UN. the UN charter as well as those treaties leave little to no doubt about when an invasion might be legal. The Iraq invasion does not qualify according to those, despite far-fetched arguments of self defense by the USA. There was no imminent threat to the US. The only possible argument is that it is a continuation of the first gulf war. That argument is debatable, but it is the only one that makes any sense whatsoever legally.
If you murder someone in a society that has no/unclear law regarding murder, then yes, it is as legal as anything else because the law has never ruled otherwise.
As arguesd before, there is no such unclarity in this situation at all. GO read the UN charter for example.
Every politician gets accused of immoral, corrupt, money grabbing behaviour by the other side. If you'd like to hear my opinion on many democrats (and some supporters) I can show you that it occurs!
The USA is less then 5% of the world population wise. WHatever happens there is in no way representative for the rest of the world. That you have a 2 party supposedly democratic system that has turned itself in a mud slinging contest decades ago does not mean that every political system reduces itself to that.
I agree, the republicans are doing everything to further their own control (surprise!). This doesn't mean they went into Iraq for that as the main reason. (you really need to check the voting of your own senators at around that time).
My 'own' senators do not vote in the USA senate, if only because neither them or me live in the USA.
Just for the reccord, I am not a big fan of either big party in the USA, no democrat sympathy here unless they come up with a good idea, no republican sympathy here unless they come up with a good idea. Both happen at times btw.
Consequentely, I also don't care who is abusing the system, what party they are a member of or whatever. I do care about the abuse of the system however, and will definitely try to point it out when it becomes so blatant as it is now.
If you happen to run Suse or redhat workstation or some others, then the ati drivers usually install and work without a problem. If you run anything else, you are basicly out of luck.
The nvidia drivers may be a bit more difficult to install but at least they work on about any linux distribution that runs on x86.
That said, things are starting to look better for rv300 based cards, tho incomplete, there is some hardware 3d acceleration with open source drivers possible now.
Nothing is illegal until a relevant authority (usually -- a court of law) says so. In case of the altercation between countries, such authority is UN and its Security Council. The most you can have is "allegedly illegal". To me the simple legality derives from the fact, that this was not even a new war, but a resumption of the 1991 war, due to Iraq's (repeated) violations of the terms of the 1992 cease-fire. Yes, it would've been nicer politically if UN could make it even more clear, than 18 resolutions finding Iraq in violation did, but it was not needed legally. You may disagree, but until some court rules, US is has not done anything illegal.
Lets follow this reasoning a bit further..
I murder someone. Now, untill I get caught and a judge declares me guilty, there was nothing illegal about that murder?
An action is made illegal by the law saying so.
You are innocent untill proven guilty, sure, but that is something entirely different, that has to do with there being proof of you breaking such a law.
Every politician and political party gets accused of "hijacking the system". It is way generic.
Uhm no, not every politician gets accused of that at all, tho maybe you are right when it concerns every politician in the USA..
But the particular allegation of initiating the Iraq war as an excuse for stiffening internal control is simply wrong -- the could've used the Afghanistan war for that.
They are using it for stiffening internal control. This is intentional also, which is clear from the absurd attempts to link Saddam with Bin Laden.
If it looks like a duck, sounds like one etc... maybe it is a duck?
So because you think keeping it secret is impossible, we shouldn't even try? That's like saying, The opposing football team will watch footage of our games and figure out our plays, so we might as well just send them a copy.
No, this is like saying that cameras on the field are a nice extra safeguard to keep the game fair. More people can see what happens, it is more difficult to hide 'foul play', and yet it has extremely little effect on the ability to employ a game strategy by either team (unless that strategy would involve breaking the rules to begin with)
Without secrecy about what they are doing to track down terrorists, the things they are doing are useless, as the terrorists will know what to avoid.
Works 2 ways.. they'll know what not to do, and they'll know whom not to attack. They may even start considering that there are better and easier ways to make their point.
I assume you've heard of the near daily bombings in Iraq and frequent terrorist attacks in Israel.
Yes, unlike in the USA, news from around the world is usually the major ingredient for any news program where I live.
You may not realize this, but people in many places around the world have seen terrorist attacks way before 9/11, and have been dealing with terrorism for much longer then the USA. Such people do not inmediately panic as the consequence of a terrorist attack, thereby greatly reducing the effectiveness of terrorist attacks. What happens in the USA however is in fact giving the current group of 'islamist' terrorists their way by eliminating the freedoms that those people so hate. This is the primary reason why the anti terrorism policy of the USA is extremely misguided and ineffective.
The sooner you get over the panic and start using reason again, the better it is. Fear is not gonna do the job however.
This can happen here too. We are not immune.
The USA is not immune, good that after some few hundred years, people finally realize that.
The USA will face the consequences of what it does around the world, regardless of having the most powerfull army on the planet. Solution, stop fucking over others.
Just to help you understand this, ever heard about an organisation called IRA? They used to blow up stuff all over the UK as a protest against the occupation of Northern Ireland. Incidentely, the USA was the biggest financial supporter of the IRA.
You know about this Bin Laden guy who supposedly wants to blow up as much of the USA as he can? Guess who supported this guy for like a decade with money as well as equipment and technology?
If the USA wants to reduce terrorism around the planet, including for itself, it should start with not supporting terrorists itself.
Without the safeguards that people are worried infringe on their freedom, it will happen.
It would help if you'd provide a logical reasoning for this assumption. Fear is NOT an acceptable reasoning, it is a very bad one in fact.
There have been many terrorist plots foiled using these safeguards, but you don't hear about them for the most part. Information is the most valuable resource in the world; only a fool will give it to his enemies for free.
9/11 could have been prevcented if information that was there had been used correctly and had been passed to the right people. That conclusion is all over every serious investigation from any side with regards to 9/11.
The extremely clear and simple conclusion from that is:
THE INFORMATION WAS THERE.
Sorry for shouting there, but it seems extremely difficult for people to grasp this. The information was there. More information gathering would just have made the problem of dealing correctly with it bigger, and as a result would have made it more difficult even to foil. Consequentely, 9/11 is a bad and misguided excuse for intrusive information gathering.
US having a veto is part of the rules of the same "game"
Doesn't change the fact that the security council is not going to approve a resolution that declares an action from the USA illegal. It won't happen, so asking for it in this case is just stupid.
, that made us beg for French, Russian, and Chinese reapproval. But illegal our action was not, for there is no UN SC verdict to that effect.
Without explicit approval, it is.
No, much simpler explanation is that -- contrary to your world-ending allegation -- the Iraq-war was not intended as an excuse for more internal power-grabbing. And Occam tells us to take the simplest of the explanations
Disagreeing with an explanation does not in itself make for a new explanation. Maybe you would have a point if you actually brought up one? for now you don't provide a 'simpler' explanation, just deniial of the one I provided.
That idea is well known since long before Nazi Germany, and is in use by most politicians at most times (starting, at least, since Athens and Rome). Sorry, you are trying to paint an image of George W. Bush studying "Mein Kampf" late at night, and you remain patently ridiculous at that...
The idea is much older, yes. It has been very well documented during the 30s hwever, and you don't have to read Mein Kampf for that at all. At any rate, I am accusing G.W. Bush and his henchmen of hijacking the system for their own personal gain at the expense of those whom the system should serve. For your statements I gather that you consider that normal and acceptable behavior, well, I don't.
Mmm, illegally? Surely, you'll have no problems backing up this claim with a UN Security Council resolution condemning our resumption of hostilities againsst Iraq as such...
For the obvious reason of the USA having a veto there, no. Do I need one? well, the USA signed the UN charter, and lacking explicit approval of the security council, the Iraq invasion is a breach of their obligations under that charter.
So, you are alleging, the Iraq war was an excuse created to be able to spy on US citizens?
No, both are part of an attempt to permanently move power away from 'the people', their rights be damned.
Whatever the possible benefits of such spying, did not the evil Reichstag-burning Repukkkes already have an excuse for it -- the Afghan war?
Seems they didn't think it was enough.
And did not the noble Democratic lions vote for the war en masse, because they (rightly) wanted to depose Saddam too,
Disposing Saddam was a good idea, he was an absolute dissaster for his people and his country. No need to make up lame excuses about WMDs, just get your act together and stop supporting evil idiot dictators all around the planet would be an even better idea with regards to that.
and were just as concerned about his WMDs shenanigans?
Concerned? ha. you know, I don't give a fuck about republican or democrat points of view, both play the same stupid game which has little to do with reality whatsoever.
At any rate, another well known idea from the 30s.. 'make people feel so they don't think'. It seems to be another popular tactic of the current government of the USA. Fear is a powerfull emotion, so people think little seems to be the reasoning there.
Well we do have a significant number of troops deployed in a country where tens of Iraqi civilians and US/Iraqi forces are being targetted and killed each day. I would say that, at least, qualifies as a war wouldn't you agree?
Self proclaimed war, providing an excuse for abuse. You are right that that is a war, but it is not the 'war' being used initially as a general excuse for spying on US citizens however, the war quoted there is the 'war on terrorism'.
If there were no longer troops there then I would agree with you that the president has no right to invoke such measures.
You can be sure that the current government will find another country to stick its nose into illegally before a full withdraw from Iraq takes place, thereby prolonguing the excuse of 'war.
It is a lesson learned well from the reichstag burning in the 30s.. If you lack an excuse, just create one.
However, to sit around, throw up our hands and say "well, this can't be a war because we can't know when it's over." is silly and dangerous.
Which isn't what I was suggesting, I was however suggesting that it is NOT the type of war that is talked about by the consitution.
9/11 happened. Another will happen unless we take this seriously and acknowledge that in 1789 the authors of the Constitution could not have forseen this type of deadly "stateless" enemy.
Rubbish. The USA started out itself as a bunch of people forming a 'stateless' enemy of the UK. It contains guarantees so that the people in the USA can have their melitia seperate from their government.
Arguing that the concept was unknown at the time is simply absurd.
If you don't think this matters, take the recent article about the Madrid bombings. The Bombers knew that their email would be read if they sent it from Hotmail or from Yahoo mail. So they shared a email account between them, shared the password, and hence never hit any of Europe's security flags.
Please don't treat this stuff as if it were all one dimensional and simple. This is a complex issue, and a knee jerk reaction just proved how incapable people are of thinking through the issues.
You see, there are a few problems here:
Any policy has to be executed to achieve anything, which means there are always a bunch of people involved. Any organisation that already cares shit about the legality of what they are doing, would have little problem obtaining information on such policies by means of infiltration bribary etc. Keeping any large scale policy really secret is practically impossible.
No matter how complex and advanced your policy, getting around it is usually a matter of spotting a flaw and having a simple means to exploit that flaw, as per your example of the Madrid bombers.
Combine those two things and you find that secrecy does not help preventing terrorist attacks, but does prevent normal civilians from knowing what is up and having a founded opinion.
First, the President has rights and responsibilities under Article 2 that gives him broad powers in times of conflict and war.
This assumes a war or conflict that can be ended. If it doesn't then the whole article is rubbish and those powers could just be given to the president in all situations, not just in case of war or conflict.
It is obvious that the current govenrment is doing all it can to define the conflict in such a way that it can never be ended, hence it is clear that this conflict is in fact being used to get around the consitution.
I am not trying to suggest that the current US government would follow any racial policies or such similar to the nazi party in Germany in the 1930s, but they are most definitely trying for the same kind of abuse of the democratic system to gather as much power as they can.
Seeing the point you want to make, it is slightly hilarious that at least some of the examples you mention are in fact parodies on reality with the explicit purpose to make certain aspects of reality clear to the reader/viewer.
Maybe, just maybe it isn't as clear cut as you would like it to be..
So you suggest what? we go in and remove the US government to install a more sane one? Sounds like a plan... not a very realistic one tho... not to mention that such things seldom work out well in the end.
Slashdot Mirror
A battery (primary or secondary) is a consumable and recognised as such by the industry. It's like ordering laser printer manufacturers to give the warning "this device will break and need servicing within 10,000 prints" - while technically true in the broadest interpretation, it's obviously an unreasonable misunderstanding of the nature of the device.
When the toner of a laserprinter becomes a part that can't be replaced by the user, you might have something of a point.. I have yet to find such a printer.
Given the fact that batteries are a known consumable, companies like Apple, who prevent a customer from replacing it, are knowingly selling a broken device.
Apple didn't put a removable battery with a trap because it would've broken their design, case closed.
That is a sign of their lack of design capability that significantly reduces usability and increases potential repair costs. Bad for customers, who incidentely are too ignorant to realize in most cases.
If you truely believe it is not possible to have a removable battery while maintaining nice smooth and seamless surfaces then that is a clear sign of your ignorance with regards to materials and design possibilities.
It limits usability simply because I cannot carry a spare battery with me (and an external battery to charge the internal one is not an option here, it adds bulk to the device and is not instant)
And as far as the mobile phone goes, yes it would be acceptable to have an unmoveable battery if there was a point, if it allowed a sleeker design or something, we're in an era of garbageable devices, an iPod has a life span of a pair of years so when the battery dies most people don't even think of changing the battery, they trash the old iPod and buy a new one, case closed.
Ericsson did this with the T65.. It was a once and never again experiment. Yeah, it allowed for a slighly more compact device at the time, but it also limits usability as already argued. Instead, they figured out a way to make the phone similarely small, have an internal battery, and yet allow customers to easily replace that battery.
It is just a matter of time before Apple will have to do the same thing, either because of this proposed EU regulation or due to a competitor finding a way to achieve both sleak design, good functionality and interface, and a replacable battery.
Of which, ALL li-ion batteries carry a shelf-life of 18 months so no fsking wonder they stopped working
With proper use and care, a li-ion battery can last much longer then 18 months, more in the order of 36-40 months before capacity and ability to deliver power are reduced to a not so usable level.
The iPod's sole purpose in life is to play music. So it plays music. Why should I need to know any more than that?
Because havignaan easy replacable battery means the device will be able to last longer, is easier (cheaper) to fix, and as a result is generally a better investment of your money?
If you don't want to know anything whatsoever about the things you use, don't go all balistic when something doesn't work out as you desire. You want free market? then start by being an informed consumer. No that doesn't mean uinderstanding enough to be able to BUILD such a device, but it definitely means having a basic understanding of devices you are using.
People in many countries in Europe have a day off on 1st of may, yes. I'm pretty sure that where I live (the Netherlands) we don't, and I'm also sure we aren't alone in that. Regardless, virtuallty any country has one or more national hollidays, and mandate a vacation day on a few specific religious or similar events. This is nowhere equivalent to the string of some 8 days off that are called 'banking hollidays' in the UK.
This may differ a bit throughout Europe, but where I live, you do not 'earn' or 'aquire' vacation time, it is a right that you have. An emplyer can prevent you from actually using your time off for a while (for example during the first 3 months of emplyment, or during a special project), buit that is always for a rather limited time. In other words, if you are working fulltime (40 hours/week), you end up with some 24 or so vacation days here in your first year of employment, and you are expected to use those in that first year of employment also.
I believe that the rest of the EU gets 20days + bank holidays
You are wrong, bank hollidays as you have them in the UK are virtually unknown in the rest of Europe.
Matthew 21:12-16
Mark 11:15-18
Luke 19:45-48
Point was not so much to use the biblke to say that violence is not acceptable, but to show that dislike of violence isn't specific for 'hippies'..
Jesus also drove out the bad guys when he had to. I'm not saying that revenge or retribution or retaliation is always, or even often, the right answer. But sometimes something has to be done to stop evil and injustice.
Using violence to defend oneself can be the right answer. Revenge and retaliation do not qualify as violence to defend oneself however. As said already, the one reason I was pointing at him earlier was to dispell the 'you like peace so you must be a hippie' idiocy. but if you want to look at it from a new testament point of view, it seems pretty obvious that for someone who really believes in that, revenge cannot be an acceptable option ever.
I'm not saying that BlueSecurity is doing the right thing here either, but it seems like they're generally the good guys.
My issue is with people who believe violence as a first response is perfectly acceptable, and that revenge can be justified by the actions of others. Bluesecurity doesn't seem to qualify, quite a few of the very fanatical 'spam fighters' however do qualify.
Are you actually trying to use the bible as a foundation for your argument?
No, I am pointing out that dislike of violence has absolutely nothing to do with being a hippie.
Maybe the strategy will work, maybe it will not, but we all know the flaw with turtling - you can never kill the opponent, only survive.
That is only a flaw when you believe that killing the opponent is needed. Sometimes it is, more often it is not.
Violence is an at times unescapable evil if you want to survive, that doesn't make it a good solution for most situations however.
What a load of hippie crap.
I believe that some 2000 years ago they nailed someone to a cross who had pretty similar ideas.. Seems he has a huge following outside the hippie scene also. Ok, I have to say that he looked a bit like a hippie.
Learn the difference between initiating force and resisting it. One is perfectly moral and one isn't. Resisting violence often reduces future violence instead of 'begating violence.' Since you lack clue I'll state the obvious, the violent only attack those who they believe to be weaker. (unless they are truly insane, then all bets are off)
Well considered and restrained violence can in specific cases work as a defense, and can even be the only defense, yes. That in no way means that violence is the only way to respond to violence or will solve it most of the times.
The problem is that you are wrong about whom get attacked by 'the violent'. They attack those whome are easiest to intimidate, regardless of actual strength. (which is one reason why terrorism is such an effective offensive strategy against the USA btw)
For situations in the law such as the one being discussed (where it is unclear what the exact international laws are for invasion etc.), it is not illegal unless a relevant authority says so (otherwise I can claim anything that is legally unclear is illegal).
The USA is party to a few treaties and is one of the founding members of the UN. the UN charter as well as those treaties leave little to no doubt about when an invasion might be legal. The Iraq invasion does not qualify according to those, despite far-fetched arguments of self defense by the USA. There was no imminent threat to the US. The only possible argument is that it is a continuation of the first gulf war. That argument is debatable, but it is the only one that makes any sense whatsoever legally.
If you murder someone in a society that has no/unclear law regarding murder, then yes, it is as legal as anything else because the law has never ruled otherwise.
As arguesd before, there is no such unclarity in this situation at all. GO read the UN charter for example.
Every politician gets accused of immoral, corrupt, money grabbing behaviour by the other side. If you'd like to hear my opinion on many democrats (and some supporters) I can show you that it occurs!
The USA is less then 5% of the world population wise. WHatever happens there is in no way representative for the rest of the world. That you have a 2 party supposedly democratic system that has turned itself in a mud slinging contest decades ago does not mean that every political system reduces itself to that.
I agree, the republicans are doing everything to further their own control (surprise!). This doesn't mean they went into Iraq for that as the main reason. (you really need to check the voting of your own senators at around that time).
My 'own' senators do not vote in the USA senate, if only because neither them or me live in the USA.
Just for the reccord, I am not a big fan of either big party in the USA, no democrat sympathy here unless they come up with a good idea, no republican sympathy here unless they come up with a good idea. Both happen at times btw.
Consequentely, I also don't care who is abusing the system, what party they are a member of or whatever. I do care about the abuse of the system however, and will definitely try to point it out when it becomes so blatant as it is now.
If you happen to run Suse or redhat workstation or some others, then the ati drivers usually install and work without a problem. If you run anything else, you are basicly out of luck.
The nvidia drivers may be a bit more difficult to install but at least they work on about any linux distribution that runs on x86.
That said, things are starting to look better for rv300 based cards, tho incomplete, there is some hardware 3d acceleration with open source drivers possible now.
xv can also do motion compensation and colorspace conversion.
the scaling is usually better done with opengl anyway.
Nothing is illegal until a relevant authority (usually -- a court of law) says so. In case of the altercation between countries, such authority is UN and its Security Council. The most you can have is "allegedly illegal". To me the simple legality derives from the fact, that this was not even a new war, but a resumption of the 1991 war, due to Iraq's (repeated) violations of the terms of the 1992 cease-fire. Yes, it would've been nicer politically if UN could make it even more clear, than 18 resolutions finding Iraq in violation did, but it was not needed legally. You may disagree, but until some court rules, US is has not done anything illegal.
Lets follow this reasoning a bit further..
I murder someone. Now, untill I get caught and a judge declares me guilty, there was nothing illegal about that murder?
An action is made illegal by the law saying so.
You are innocent untill proven guilty, sure, but that is something entirely different, that has to do with there being proof of you breaking such a law.
Every politician and political party gets accused of "hijacking the system". It is way generic.
Uhm no, not every politician gets accused of that at all, tho maybe you are right when it concerns every politician in the USA..
But the particular allegation of initiating the Iraq war as an excuse for stiffening internal control is simply wrong -- the could've used the Afghanistan war for that.
They are using it for stiffening internal control. This is intentional also, which is clear from the absurd attempts to link Saddam with Bin Laden.
If it looks like a duck, sounds like one etc... maybe it is a duck?
So because you think keeping it secret is impossible, we shouldn't even try? That's like saying, The opposing football team will watch footage of our games and figure out our plays, so we might as well just send them a copy.
No, this is like saying that cameras on the field are a nice extra safeguard to keep the game fair. More people can see what happens, it is more difficult to hide 'foul play', and yet it has extremely little effect on the ability to employ a game strategy by either team (unless that strategy would involve breaking the rules to begin with)
Without secrecy about what they are doing to track down terrorists, the things they are doing are useless, as the terrorists will know what to avoid.
Works 2 ways.. they'll know what not to do, and they'll know whom not to attack.
They may even start considering that there are better and easier ways to make their point.
I assume you've heard of the near daily bombings in Iraq and frequent terrorist attacks in Israel.
Yes, unlike in the USA, news from around the world is usually the major ingredient for any news program where I live.
You may not realize this, but people in many places around the world have seen terrorist attacks way before 9/11, and have been dealing with terrorism for much longer then the USA. Such people do not inmediately panic as the consequence of a terrorist attack, thereby greatly reducing the effectiveness of terrorist attacks. What happens in the USA however is in fact giving the current group of 'islamist' terrorists their way by eliminating the freedoms that those people so hate. This is the primary reason why the anti terrorism policy of the USA is extremely misguided and ineffective.
The sooner you get over the panic and start using reason again, the better it is. Fear is not gonna do the job however.
This can happen here too. We are not immune.
The USA is not immune, good that after some few hundred years, people finally realize that.
The USA will face the consequences of what it does around the world, regardless of having the most powerfull army on the planet. Solution, stop fucking over others.
Just to help you understand this, ever heard about an organisation called IRA? They used to blow up stuff all over the UK as a protest against the occupation of Northern Ireland. Incidentely, the USA was the biggest financial supporter of the IRA.
You know about this Bin Laden guy who supposedly wants to blow up as much of the USA as he can? Guess who supported this guy for like a decade with money as well as equipment and technology?
If the USA wants to reduce terrorism around the planet, including for itself, it should start with not supporting terrorists itself.
Without the safeguards that people are worried infringe on their freedom, it will happen.
It would help if you'd provide a logical reasoning for this assumption. Fear is NOT an acceptable reasoning, it is a very bad one in fact.
There have been many terrorist plots foiled using these safeguards, but you don't hear about them for the most part. Information is the most valuable resource in the world; only a fool will give it to his enemies for free.
9/11 could have been prevcented if information that was there had been used correctly and had been passed to the right people. That conclusion is all over every serious investigation from any side with regards to 9/11.
The extremely clear and simple conclusion from that is:
THE INFORMATION WAS THERE.
Sorry for shouting there, but it seems extremely difficult for people to
grasp this. The information was there. More information gathering would
just have made the problem of dealing correctly with it bigger, and as a
result would have made it more difficult even to foil. Consequentely, 9/11
is a bad and misguided excuse for intrusive information gathering.
US having a veto is part of the rules of the same "game"
Doesn't change the fact that the security council is not going to approve a resolution that declares an action from the USA illegal. It won't happen, so asking for it in this case is just stupid.
, that made us beg for French, Russian, and Chinese reapproval. But illegal our action was not, for there is no UN SC verdict to that effect.
Without explicit approval, it is.
No, much simpler explanation is that -- contrary to your world-ending allegation -- the Iraq-war was not intended as an excuse for more internal power-grabbing. And Occam tells us to take the simplest of the explanations
Disagreeing with an explanation does not in itself make for a new explanation. Maybe you would have a point if you actually brought up one? for now you don't provide a 'simpler' explanation, just deniial of the one I provided.
That idea is well known since long before Nazi Germany, and is in use by most politicians at most times (starting, at least, since Athens and Rome). Sorry, you are trying to paint an image of George W. Bush studying "Mein Kampf" late at night, and you remain patently ridiculous at that...
The idea is much older, yes. It has been very well documented during the 30s hwever, and you don't have to read Mein Kampf for that at all. At any rate, I am accusing G.W. Bush and his henchmen of hijacking the system for their own personal gain at the expense of those whom the system should serve. For your statements I gather that you consider that normal and acceptable behavior, well, I don't.
Mmm, illegally? Surely, you'll have no problems backing up this claim with a UN Security Council resolution condemning our resumption of hostilities againsst Iraq as such...
For the obvious reason of the USA having a veto there, no. Do I need one? well, the USA signed the UN charter, and lacking explicit approval of the security council, the Iraq invasion is a breach of their obligations under that charter.
So, you are alleging, the Iraq war was an excuse created to be able to spy on US citizens?
No, both are part of an attempt to permanently move power away from 'the people', their rights be damned.
Whatever the possible benefits of such spying, did not the evil Reichstag-burning Repukkkes already have an excuse for it -- the Afghan war?
Seems they didn't think it was enough.
And did not the noble Democratic lions vote for the war en masse, because they (rightly) wanted to depose Saddam too,
Disposing Saddam was a good idea, he was an absolute dissaster for his people and his country. No need to make up lame excuses about WMDs, just get your act together and stop supporting evil idiot dictators all around the planet would be an even better idea with regards to that.
and were just as concerned about his WMDs shenanigans?
Concerned? ha. you know, I don't give a fuck about republican or democrat points of view, both play the same stupid game which has little to do with reality whatsoever.
At any rate, another well known idea from the 30s.. 'make people feel so they don't think'. It seems to be another popular tactic of the current government of the USA. Fear is a powerfull emotion, so people think little seems to be the reasoning there.
Oops...
Well we do have a significant number of troops deployed in a country where tens of Iraqi civilians and US/Iraqi forces are being targetted and killed each day. I would say that, at least, qualifies as a war wouldn't you agree?
Self proclaimed war, providing an excuse for abuse.
You are right that that is a war, but it is not the 'war' being used initially as a general excuse for spying on US citizens however, the war quoted there is the 'war on terrorism'.
If there were no longer troops there then I would agree with you that the president has no right to invoke such measures.
You can be sure that the current government will find another country to stick its nose into illegally before a full withdraw from Iraq takes place, thereby prolonguing the excuse of 'war.
It is a lesson learned well from the reichstag burning in the 30s.. If you lack an excuse, just create one.
However, to sit around, throw up our hands and say "well, this can't be a war because we can't know when it's over." is silly and dangerous.
Which isn't what I was suggesting, I was however suggesting that it is NOT the type of war that is talked about by the consitution.
9/11 happened. Another will happen unless we take this seriously and acknowledge that in 1789 the authors of the Constitution could not have forseen this type of deadly "stateless" enemy.
Rubbish. The USA started out itself as a bunch of people forming a 'stateless' enemy of the UK. It contains guarantees so that the people in the USA can have their melitia seperate from their government.
Arguing that the concept was unknown at the time is simply absurd.
If you don't think this matters, take the recent article about the Madrid bombings. The Bombers knew that their email would be read if they sent it from Hotmail or from Yahoo mail. So they shared a email account between them, shared the password, and hence never hit any of Europe's security flags.
Please don't treat this stuff as if it were all one dimensional and simple. This is a complex issue, and a knee jerk reaction just proved how incapable people are of thinking through the issues.
You see, there are a few problems here:
Any policy has to be executed to achieve anything, which means there are always a bunch of people involved. Any organisation that already cares shit about the legality of what they are doing, would have little problem obtaining information on such policies by means of infiltration bribary etc. Keeping any large scale policy really secret is practically impossible.
No matter how complex and advanced your policy, getting around it is usually a matter of spotting a flaw and having a simple means to exploit that flaw, as per your example of the Madrid bombers.
Combine those two things and you find that secrecy does not help preventing terrorist attacks, but does prevent normal civilians from knowing what is up and having a founded opinion.
First, the President has rights and responsibilities under Article 2 that gives him broad powers in times of conflict and war.
This assumes a war or conflict that can be ended. If it doesn't then the whole article is rubbish and those powers could just be given to the president in all situations, not just in case of war or conflict.
It is obvious that the current govenrment is doing all it can to define the conflict in such a way that it can never be ended, hence it is clear that this conflict is in fact being used to get around the consitution.
I am not trying to suggest that the current US government would follow any racial policies or such similar to the nazi party in Germany in the 1930s, but they are most definitely trying for the same kind of abuse of the democratic system to gather as much power as they can.
Making a valid argument as to why a certain thing is wrong in no way requires having a working solution, those are 2 entirely different things.
Your way of reasoning is a well known way to avoid hearing about your own mistakes.
Seeing the point you want to make, it is slightly hilarious that at least some of the examples you mention are in fact parodies on reality with the explicit purpose to make certain aspects of reality clear to the reader/viewer.
Maybe, just maybe it isn't as clear cut as you would like it to be..
For now, I live in the EU, and it seems that voting still has some use here at times.. will try that way first.
So you suggest what? we go in and remove the US government to install a more sane one? Sounds like a plan... not a very realistic one tho... not to mention that such things seldom work out well in the end.