Congratulations, he discovered the Chinese Remainder Theorem. While it's a reasonable encoding method, it offers little to no actual compression of the data.
It would make far more sense to first compress the data (LZW for example)and then encode with CRT. That would give you about a 4600 4.5K ZIP file you could send. With typical 85% compression on English language files, that means the resulting output could be about 30K in length.
This is clearly unacceptable. No hospital should stand for any of their employees stealing the property of an injured person. Because, let's face it, it's in the Hospital's best interest to make sure they've got the rings so they can pawn them to pay off the hospital bills.
In other words, no amateur thieves taking what the Hospital is planning to steal later!
The egg donor provides mitochondrial DNA, which is not unimportant to the future health of the child. Many diseases are related to mitochondrial DNA problems.
unprovoked - occurring without motivation or provocation
The men on the ground didn't shoot. They weren't close enough to swear at or give the finger. Hell there was no indication that they were aware of the helicopter.
For the 200th time today (it feels like) -- they weren't a threat to the Apache. They were a threat to the column of vehicles, already under fire, a block away. That's why the Apaches were called in for air support. Please go look at the lovely pictures from the reporter's camera that show just how close these guys with guns and RPGs were to the ground troops and a column of 4 unarmored humvees.
Do remember that the US gov pretty clearly lied about this action in cover up and refused to release the footage. That is pretty evil.
Really? Did you know that Reuters was shown the video on July 25th, 2007 in an off-the-record briefing? Did you know that their FOIA request is based not on, "this shows they were murdered," but rather Reuters filed it because they wanted to use it to show their reporters how not to get into that situation. Go look up the original Reuters articles on it. They admit they saw the video back in 2007.
The official report with footage from the video, pictures from the scene, and all the sworn testimony of the pilots and gunner is also available. Here it is. I've linked to the ground squad report above. The report here follows everything you see on the video exactly. It includes captured frames. There was no "cover-up" of what happened. They just didn't release the video.
The Army proceeded to put this entire incident through an investigation, and determined that the actions, given the circumstances, were vindicated. The video doesn't show you the convoy under fire for 49 minutes leading up to this video, it doesn't show you that they were taking small arms fire a block away when the insurgent with the RPG comes up on this corner that is giving a clear shot at the side of the humvee. (See the reporter's own photos from the corner, just before he was shot -- Page 41 above)
The only thing "indiscriminate" is that a bullet shot into a group doesn't seek out those who "deserve" it.
The gunner did the best he could with limited information, in a high-pressure situation, protecting ground troops who were under fire and apparently about to be RPG'ed. He used the best discrimination he could, and the investigation by the Pentagon agreed. The fact that we, here on Slashdot, don't, doesn't mean a hill of beans.
Fine, I'll play along. This is because American civilians are repulsed by the idea of causing harm to other people. In fact, they are so repulsed, that they see a video like this one (of soldiers using guns to kill people and break things) and they are repulsed and outraged.
American Soldiers have to be broken down and rebuilt so that they know that killing people and breaking things is what armies are meant to do. That is why we use our army to kill people and break things. The real problems come when we try to use our armies to do things like build things and be nice to people. That's not what it's for.
In fact, American Soldiers are so good at killing people and breaking things, that we get called in all over the world to save the people who think soldiers are like policemen with bigger guns.
Personally, I'd rather keep our boys at home and let you all kill each other. If only you'd promise to leave us alone. No? Then you have to be willing to deal with American Soldiers all over the world.
Re:They also left out a good deal of context
on
How Did Wikileaks Do It?
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Cover up? You know they released a full written report with pictures and statements and other items in which they fully admit that this event took place. The only thing they didn't do was release the video (probably for exactly the reason that this release is stirring up.)
We are not trained in the rules of war. We do not face these life or death decisions every day and hold the lives of other men in the palms of our hands. We will not take the video and watch it once, in real time, with no foreknowledge, and try to make decisions based on that. We, who are not in that position, will do what has been done with this video.
We will go through the video in slow motion. We will use the after-action report to point out the civilians (but not the identified RPG toting fellow.) We will zoom in to insane levels and use our after-knowledge to point out that maybe, just maybe, you can separate the blurry blob in the passenger window into two individuals. We have the luxury to scroll back and forth through the video. We don't have the sword of Damocles hanging over our friend's heads ready to plunge down if we make a wrong decision so we can be leisurely in our perusal and consideration. And someone who has spent weeks going over the video can give us a nice written opinion of what to think before we even view it.
The military knew this video would be used for propaganda by the insurgents. "Look, they shoot unarmed cameramen and children!"
The highest number of casualties in 2007 was still coming from RPG attacks against vehicles. This group had an RPG and multiple rounds. The pictures from the reporter's camera show the side of a humvee about a block away. The very vehicles the Apache was there to protect.
I will not engage in Monday Morning Quarterbacking on this video. If you can go back and watch it without preconceptions, you'd probably come to the same conclusion. It is clear, however, that you do not come to this without preconceptions. You assume that the non-release of the video was a "coverup" rather than any other possibility (For example, it demonstrates exactly how accurate [or inaccurate] the Apache's gun is, how good our FLIR video cameras are, what zoom level we can reach, how to use buildings to block the line-of-sight, etc, etc. that could be very useful to the insurgents. Not to mention a lot of information about when they will be cleared to fire, etc.) You assume the military is embarrassed by the video, even though, having worked with former military, that the most telling thing about this video is that the American troops came through it unharmed which is considered a "win" by command. You also assume that all the video the military has must be just like this. Why hasn't wikileaks put out the videos of Apaches gunning down roadside bombers burying IEDs and the ones with pickup trucks full of high explosives? Where are the videos of them gunning down clear militants on WikiLeaks? The answer is that those can't be "Monday Morning Quarterbacked" the same way. We watch those and they're just as completely justified no matter how many times it's watched.
How many of those have you seen? Or do you assume they don't exist because you haven't seen them. I have, and it puts this one in context. It's a war, in a war zone. People die. Sometimes people who shouldn't. It's an ugly truth. I assume that, since you're outraged at these reporters' deaths, that you also have watched the Daniel Pearl and Nick Berg videos? Ask yourself which set of people were killed more unjustly.
Seriously, have you watched the video? Have you listened to the audio? Do you understand anything about military engagements? Did you read the report? Did you look at the pictures of the scene with the AK-47 and the RPG rounds and the pictures of the American soldiers a block away and under fire?
What this video shows seems brutal because you are not exposed to military situations on a daily basis. Try to put yourself in their shoes *with no preconceptions*. While watching the video imagine that your family is walking down that street and that these people may be trying to kill them. Then watch the video in a windy, noisy, hot, shaking location (maybe in a car with the windows down and the heat cranked up and the radio blaring.) Now decide whether the guy leaning around the corner and pointing and sighting along a big long tube at your family is a valid target. Now decide if you'd pull the trigger or not, knowing that, if you're wrong, your whole family is dead.
What you're engaging in is damn Monday Morning Quarterbacking at its worst.
Two men came from the same building the insurgents had just come out of and grabbed the wounded man. They were clearly known to the van driver. The driver jumped out, opened the sliding door and jumped back in. This wasn't just a guy pulling up to render aid. There was clearly a sense of organization about this. Yes, they'd only picked up the wounded guy. Now assume that you're there. Once the wounded guy is in the van, it takes only a few seconds for the two men to grab the three weapons at the scene and run in opposite directions while the van rushes away, leaving you with an apparent civilian massacre. Remember, they often leave the bodies, with no weapons, because then it looks like a bunch of unarmed civilians. Propaganda heaven!
Can you really wait for that to happen, knowing the standard operating procedure of insurgents in the area? Or, do you do as the commander does, and say, "They know they're in a combat area and picking up combatants," and give the clear to fire.
I suppose it depends on your point of view. Which did more damage to the U.S.' reputation in the world? A group of Iraqi Insurgents or the photos of Abu Grahib? Propaganda has always been one of the most powerful weapons in a war. In that respect, a journalist with enemy sympathies could easily do more damage than any enemy soldier. So, I can understand his point of view.
That said, if they're out there wearing their press vest, and not hanging out with armed enemy combatants threatening our troops, then I agree with you, they're off limits.
The vehicles they were there providing air support for were about 1 block from the insurgents. Go look at the report and see the lovely (if somewhat haunting) pictures the dead reporter took of the unarmored side of a humvee. "Under fire" for air support does not necessarily mean they were personally in danger. They were providing cover for the vehicles. They did their job.
What they initially took to be an RPG was actually the camera.
No, the point I cited in the video clearly shows a loaded RPG. It's even clearer in the full size MP4 unedited version.
And the cameraman was found by the soldiers lying on top of an RPG round. But that doesn't fit your view.
Were the pilots a bit gung-ho? Yes, they were. That's how you get a soldier past the fact that they're chopping up other human beings. It's a part of soldiering.
As for the van? Once again, you miss the context. Insurgents in Iraq often arrived in vans to collect wounded, weapons, and ammo to make any dead appear to be innocent civilians. This was well known to the Apache pilot, the gunner, and their chain of command. They didn't just "fire wildly" at the van. If you listen to the unedited video, they repeatedly ask their chain of command for a clear to fire. Their commanders were watching the video from two Apache helicopters and a UAV and made the decision that this appeared to be an insurgent group retrieving their wounded and weapons, and gave the order to fire.
The two men who attempt to load the guy into the van came from the same place the other insurgents had come from, not from the van itself. The guy in the van clearly knew who they were, knew he was in a combat zone (watch him trying to move the van to line it up for a getaway once they were loaded, almost running one of them over) and he made the choice to be there and to put his kids in danger.
Once the soldiers arrive, they continue to come under small arms fire, even while trying to rescue the wounded.
It's a war, hard decisions are made, and "under fire" doesn't necessarily mean they're shooting at you but it could mean your friends are taking fire.
Re:Who cares how? The better question is why the b
on
How Did Wikileaks Do It?
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
No, it is an after-action summary with near perfect knowledge of the situation. You know, going into the video, that these are non-combatants embedded in a group of combatants. The pilot and gunner did not know this. Under the Rules of Engagement, when some of a group is armed, they are all combatants.
Secondly, the Reuters reporters failed to wear their officially issued retro-reflective "Press" vests, that would have identified them as non-combatants. They made this choice knowing the consequences. Thus, they intentionally, and knowingly, put themselves into a situation where they were endangering their lives. They also had failed to report to Reuters that they would be in the area, or even in the city of Bagdhad. It was only because one of the reporters was talking to a third man on his cell phone that Reuters found out where they were.
Third, recovered from the scene were one (or more) AK-47 fully automatic rifles, and two RPG7 rocket launchers with two warheads. One of the RPG rounds was actually found under the body of the cameraman.
Fourth, also recovered were the two Canon EOS cameras used by the reporters. The last images on the cameraman at the corner (the one found on the RPG round) were beautiful pictures of the lightly armored side of a Humvee about a block away from them. These are included in the investigative report. Were an RPG to have been fired from his position, those American soldiers would have died.
Again, with perfect knowledge, we know that the guy leaning around the corner is holding a camera with a long lens. To an Apache gunner, guarding the convoy below, it looks like a big tube, and the guy is standing over an RPG round (remember, it was found under him) pointing right down the street at the troops the Apache is supposed to be protecting.
That convoy had already received small arms fire (the reason for calling in the Apache air support) and was attempting to move through the area.
Now, consider what the Apache pilot knew. He has been called in to protect an armored column that has been taking fire from insurgents in the area. He (and a second Apache) spot a group of armed men, one holding an RPG (which rules out the idea of "bodyguards" floated so often in this discussion.) approaching the route of the column he's been called in to protect. These men brandish the weapons, and then gather around a blind corner on the route of the column. One of them, apparently holding a long, straight tube, leans around the corner and sights down the tube directly at the column of soldiers.
Still think that "unprovoked" applies? The mere presence of an RPG means that this is not just a bunch of guys taking pictures. So the attack is provoked.
As for "indiscriminate"? Seriously? When the guy is down and wounded, and not carrying a weapon, they do not fire. Admittedly they beg for him to "give them a reason," but they do not fire. "Indiscriminate?" I think not.
At every step of the way, they are getting cleared by commanders watching the same video feed, the commanders have the feed from two different Apaches to make those decisions (and apparently a UAV in the area as well.) We are seeing a single viewpoint. And we can slow-mo and zoom in on the video in a light-controlled office environment, with all the leisure to scroll back and forth and take closer looks. We are not in the heat, light, and adrenaline rush of a helicopter cockpit, buffeted by noise, smoke,and wind, and fearing for the lives of the men below who are counting on us to protect them.
The "FACT" can only come with perfect knowledge after the facts are known, and even then, you have to ignore most of the facts to come to that conclusion.
Re:They also left out a good deal of context
on
How Did Wikileaks Do It?
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
A van, racing into a combat zone, with two men coming from the courtyard they were in to meet the van and pull a suspected terrorist into the van, while the van is quickly maneuvering to make a getaway. In a city where such "bongo" trucks are often used by insurgents to gather up weapons, and ammo, and other incriminating evidence from bodies at an attack site to create the illusion that "civilians" were massacred.
Yes, I can't imagine why these pilots would think that someone driving into a courtyard, with the dust still settling from the two Apaches pouring fire into it, would be anything but an innocent civilian. I mean, I'm sure if you were driving, and you saw a helicopter mow down an entire group of people in front of you and repeatedly pound the area with machine gun fire, that you would look over at your two kids and say, "You know, I should really stop and see if I can help the guys the helicopter was shooting at, even though he's still circling the area."
Sorry, most people would stomp the accelerator down and be gone. I'm not risking my kids in a combat zone.
Re:They also left out a good deal of context
on
How Did Wikileaks Do It?
·
· Score: 4, Informative
If they don't wish to be targets, they should be wearing a designated fluorescent press vest, specifically issued to journalists in Iraq to prevent exactly what happened here. Because they were not wearing this identification, they became part of the group of insurgents. Insurgents in Iraq often use cameras to take pictures of their attacks for propaganda purposes.
The pictures recovered from their cameras show that they were sitting one block from a group of vehicles that were under small arms fire. The perfect place from which to launch an RPG attack. The cameraman was even found lying on top of an RPG round. All that can be found in the report and sworn statements of the soldiers who came on scene.
Re:Who cares how? The better question is why the b
on
How Did Wikileaks Do It?
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
The word "indiscriminate" in the first line, and "unprovoked" in the second last sentence. Both of those express an opinion as to the *motive* of the attack. That is opinion, it is biased against the soldiers who clearly (listen to the audio) go through the correct chain of command and rules of engagement before opening fire.
Also the term "rescue" and "rescuer" bias the reader that the van that just happened to enter the area with three men who jump out immediately and attempt to put the wounded man into the van while the van is rapidly turning and moving to provide a getaway was some good Samaritan, and not at all involved despite everyone in Iraq knowing to stay away from where the Apaches are circling.
That, and naming the site, "Collateral Murder" as well.
That puts it outside the provenance of just factually "leaking" the data.
A factual release would have been, "5th April 2010 10:44 EST WikiLeaks has released a classified US military video depicting a military action in Iraq which resulted in the deaths of over a dozen people in the Iraqi suburb of New Baghdad -- including two Reuters news staff. Reuters has been trying to obtain the video through the Freedom of Information Act, without success since the time of the attack. The video, shot from an Apache helicopter gun-site, clearly shows the slaying of a wounded Reuters employee and the riders in a van apparently coming to remove him from the scene. Two young children seated in the van were also seriously wounded in the attack."
The difference is subtle, but important. The factual version lets you decide whether it is indiscriminate or not -- by watching the video. The original version acts as judge and jury on the actions of the Apache crew -- a crew vindicated as meeting all the rules of engagement by a Pentagon review of their actions.
Except for the guy with the AK-47 (3:43 in the video) and the guy with the RPG (3:35 in the video). The guy with the RPG ducks behind the building, and then someone (could be the same guy or maybe the cameraman -- it's hard to tell) points *something* around the corner of the building at the approaching Bradley vehicles that had just been engaged in a firefight minutes before (necessitating calling in the air support).
I'm sorry you can't see it, but the rules of engagement were followed. Two Reuters reporters decided to embed themselves with a group of people who were armed in a combat zone. Bad things happened. In retrospect, it was a sad situation. Hindsight being 20-20 and all.
In the heat of the moment, everything they did was checked and re-checked by their command chain to coincide with the rules of engagement. The audio shows they were repeatedly requesting permission up the command chain for the clear to fire. Commanders reviewed the information available against the rules of engagement, and determined they should be allowed to fire. That's why they were determined to have complied with those rules in this situation.
Just because Wikileaks can now review the video in "super-zoom" and "super-slo-mo" and determine that the pilots and gunners might have been able to discern whether the reporters were carrying cameras on straps instead of guns on straps does not make them liable for murder. It doesn't change the fact that these were people walking in a combat zone, with other people who had weapons, and were standing in a position waiting for a column of American vehicles to come into range.
Occam's razor does not say, "These were murderous thugs," Occam's Razor says, "This was a sad situation that occurred in the 'fog of war'."
As I understand it, about three months after production, the BBC asked to get the set, keeping in reserve the idea that they might start the new series, and the TARDIS set was missing, so, at least as I understood the story, it was supposed to have been preserved by the BBC.
I didn't know that the console had been located, as I heard about the set disappearing about 3 years ago.
And while I do blame the BBC for the generally shoddy treatment the Doctor received in the 1980's, I can't really blame them for not bringing the series back in 1996, after the movie, as, for one, Fox and Universal wanted to change the entire canon of the show to make the Doctor half-human, to make Rasillon as the Doctor's father and make him a political exile rather than just a Time Lord who couldn't stand the boredom of Time Lord culture.
In typical American fashion, they had to give him a complete back-story that would have been revealed in the first season, totally taking the mystery out of him and the series.
And I can't really blame RTD for not bringing Paul McGann back in 2005 either, as Paul would now be 10 years older, and would have forced him (RTD) into a certain direction for scripts and the storyline.
Besides, there's nothing that stops the BBC from spinning off "Doctor Who: The Lost Adventures" and shooting some out-of-order Doctor Who...
Unfortunately, in a rather odd true Hollywood story, that entire set was stolen from the lot. No one knows what happened to it. It is a shame as it rather grew on me during that movie. Shame they never did any more 8th doctor (video) stories.
You completely missed the point. I'm not arguing that these are the same, I'm arguing against the original poster's point that the Government has a "Right" to do anything. My point was that we give up certain rights to the government in order to make our lives more convenient, but that even when we give up those rights, in reality we still retain them. However, if we give up the right to the choice to make poor decisions (whether about our health, driving habits, or anything else) then we have turned from a government to a tyranny. Because by making the State into our Nanny, we give up the ability to "fire the nanny," because the Nanny can always just say, "No, that's bad for you."
This is the slippery slope at it's finest. We, as a people, have lost the demarcation between, "Wouldn't it be better to have one professional health inspector who can apply a consistent standard to all restaurants," to "Please save me from my own poor eating habits because I can't be trusted to make the decision for myself."
One of those is a societal good, one is the epitome of the "March to Serfdom."
Your straw-man is invalid. Fugu is sold in many restaurants, and contains levels of neurotoxins even if prepared correctly. Nutmeg is an hallucinogenic, but is served in many desert items. Half a dozen ingredients in cooking are poisonous but we use them anyway, because in small amounts they taste really good. Salt is a direct taste stimulator and enhances the flavor of foods as well as adding to the chemistry of the Maillard Reaction and many other processes critical to cooking.
You have forgotten the very first rule of Government and Society. Government power comes from the Consent of the Governed. The government has no inherent right to do anything but what, We, the people, allow it to do. There's a reason that those are the first three words of the Constitution. The Government has no rights but the ones we, the people, surrender to it.
If we all were personally responsible for our lives, we would ask to look at the kitchen of a restaurant before dining there. We have chosen, instead, to abdicate that duty to a guy called a "Health Inspector" by passing laws establishing such a post and a set of standards for restaurants. We have, in fact, given up our right to inspect the kitchen because of this. (Actually, we haven't given up that right entirely, you can ask to inspect any restaurant's kitchen and are free to refuse to eat there if you find it shabby, or if they refuse to show it to you. That's a free market society.)
We expect that the inspector does their job and insures that the kitchen is clean and sanitary. However, they do not sit on-site and inspect every plate that goes out the door. So nothing - nothing at all - stops a cook from pouring rat poison into every dish that he sends out and killing the entire clientele of the restaurant.
Were he to do this, then HE would be responsible for murder. This is the utter proof that it is not the Government's "right" to regulate the restaurant, or we would, instead, hold the Health Inspector responsible because he didn't stop the cook from sending out poison laced food. Rights come with responsibility.
We have given up our responsibility to check the quality of the food we consume for the sake of convenience. This, however, does not mean that we are secure in the food we eat, as demonstrated above. One cannot sacrifice rights to gain security.
The bill that started this whole discussion is simply an attempt to make us give up our rights further by appropriating our right to make poor choices. I'd argue that this is the most critical right of a human being. If we sacrifice that right to the government, then we surrender our free will as well.
Pike's Peak Marathon is held every summer too. That's 13 miles to go up 7000 feet, and then 13 miles back down. I believe Matt Carpenter ran it last year in a record time of 3:37:02, with the ascent part of that being 2:12:04. They also go from summer temperatures at the base of Barr Trail (elev 6500'+) of 70-80 degrees to sub-freezing at the summit (elev 14,111').
Slashdot Mirror
Congratulations, he discovered the Chinese Remainder Theorem. While it's a reasonable encoding method, it offers little to no actual compression of the data.
It would make far more sense to first compress the data (LZW for example)and then encode with CRT. That would give you about a 4600 4.5K ZIP file you could send. With typical 85% compression on English language files, that means the resulting output could be about 30K in length.
This is clearly unacceptable. No hospital should stand for any of their employees stealing the property of an injured person. Because, let's face it, it's in the Hospital's best interest to make sure they've got the rings so they can pawn them to pay off the hospital bills.
In other words, no amateur thieves taking what the Hospital is planning to steal later!
The egg donor provides mitochondrial DNA, which is not unimportant to the future health of the child. Many diseases are related to mitochondrial DNA problems.
A self-catalyzing, replicating virus that converts water into hydrogen and oxygen.
Please don't spill this into the ocean.
Apparently money really can buy happiness?
unprovoked - occurring without motivation or provocation
The men on the ground didn't shoot. They weren't close enough to swear at or give the finger. Hell there was no indication that they were aware of the helicopter.
For the 200th time today (it feels like) -- they weren't a threat to the Apache. They were a threat to the column of vehicles, already under fire, a block away. That's why the Apaches were called in for air support. Please go look at the lovely pictures from the reporter's camera that show just how close these guys with guns and RPGs were to the ground troops and a column of 4 unarmored humvees.
Link to the Report See page 41.
Do remember that the US gov pretty clearly lied about this action in cover up and refused to release the footage. That is pretty evil.
Really? Did you know that Reuters was shown the video on July 25th, 2007 in an off-the-record briefing? Did you know that their FOIA request is based not on, "this shows they were murdered," but rather Reuters filed it because they wanted to use it to show their reporters how not to get into that situation. Go look up the original Reuters articles on it. They admit they saw the video back in 2007.
The official report with footage from the video, pictures from the scene, and all the sworn testimony of the pilots and gunner is also available. Here it is. I've linked to the ground squad report above. The report here follows everything you see on the video exactly. It includes captured frames. There was no "cover-up" of what happened. They just didn't release the video.
The Army proceeded to put this entire incident through an investigation, and determined that the actions, given the circumstances, were vindicated. The video doesn't show you the convoy under fire for 49 minutes leading up to this video, it doesn't show you that they were taking small arms fire a block away when the insurgent with the RPG comes up on this corner that is giving a clear shot at the side of the humvee. (See the reporter's own photos from the corner, just before he was shot -- Page 41 above)
The only thing "indiscriminate" is that a bullet shot into a group doesn't seek out those who "deserve" it.
The gunner did the best he could with limited information, in a high-pressure situation, protecting ground troops who were under fire and apparently about to be RPG'ed. He used the best discrimination he could, and the investigation by the Pentagon agreed. The fact that we, here on Slashdot, don't, doesn't mean a hill of beans.
Fine, I'll play along. This is because American civilians are repulsed by the idea of causing harm to other people. In fact, they are so repulsed, that they see a video like this one (of soldiers using guns to kill people and break things) and they are repulsed and outraged.
American Soldiers have to be broken down and rebuilt so that they know that killing people and breaking things is what armies are meant to do. That is why we use our army to kill people and break things. The real problems come when we try to use our armies to do things like build things and be nice to people. That's not what it's for.
In fact, American Soldiers are so good at killing people and breaking things, that we get called in all over the world to save the people who think soldiers are like policemen with bigger guns.
Personally, I'd rather keep our boys at home and let you all kill each other. If only you'd promise to leave us alone. No? Then you have to be willing to deal with American Soldiers all over the world.
Maximum effective range of RPG: ~1000m
Distance to humvee that Apache was providing air support for: ~100m
These are pictures (the last ones on the "roll") from the reporter's camera:
2nd BCT Investigation (Go to page 41 of 43)
Cover up? You know they released a full written report with pictures and statements and other items in which they fully admit that this event took place. The only thing they didn't do was release the video (probably for exactly the reason that this release is stirring up.)
We are not trained in the rules of war. We do not face these life or death decisions every day and hold the lives of other men in the palms of our hands. We will not take the video and watch it once, in real time, with no foreknowledge, and try to make decisions based on that. We, who are not in that position, will do what has been done with this video.
We will go through the video in slow motion. We will use the after-action report to point out the civilians (but not the identified RPG toting fellow.) We will zoom in to insane levels and use our after-knowledge to point out that maybe, just maybe, you can separate the blurry blob in the passenger window into two individuals. We have the luxury to scroll back and forth through the video. We don't have the sword of Damocles hanging over our friend's heads ready to plunge down if we make a wrong decision so we can be leisurely in our perusal and consideration. And someone who has spent weeks going over the video can give us a nice written opinion of what to think before we even view it.
The military knew this video would be used for propaganda by the insurgents. "Look, they shoot unarmed cameramen and children!"
The highest number of casualties in 2007 was still coming from RPG attacks against vehicles. This group had an RPG and multiple rounds. The pictures from the reporter's camera show the side of a humvee about a block away. The very vehicles the Apache was there to protect.
I will not engage in Monday Morning Quarterbacking on this video. If you can go back and watch it without preconceptions, you'd probably come to the same conclusion. It is clear, however, that you do not come to this without preconceptions. You assume that the non-release of the video was a "coverup" rather than any other possibility (For example, it demonstrates exactly how accurate [or inaccurate] the Apache's gun is, how good our FLIR video cameras are, what zoom level we can reach, how to use buildings to block the line-of-sight, etc, etc. that could be very useful to the insurgents. Not to mention a lot of information about when they will be cleared to fire, etc.) You assume the military is embarrassed by the video, even though, having worked with former military, that the most telling thing about this video is that the American troops came through it unharmed which is considered a "win" by command. You also assume that all the video the military has must be just like this. Why hasn't wikileaks put out the videos of Apaches gunning down roadside bombers burying IEDs and the ones with pickup trucks full of high explosives? Where are the videos of them gunning down clear militants on WikiLeaks? The answer is that those can't be "Monday Morning Quarterbacked" the same way. We watch those and they're just as completely justified no matter how many times it's watched.
How many of those have you seen? Or do you assume they don't exist because you haven't seen them. I have, and it puts this one in context. It's a war, in a war zone. People die. Sometimes people who shouldn't. It's an ugly truth. I assume that, since you're outraged at these reporters' deaths, that you also have watched the Daniel Pearl and Nick Berg videos? Ask yourself which set of people were killed more unjustly.
Seriously, have you watched the video? Have you listened to the audio? Do you understand anything about military engagements? Did you read the report? Did you look at the pictures of the scene with the AK-47 and the RPG rounds and the pictures of the American soldiers a block away and under fire?
What this video shows seems brutal because you are not exposed to military situations on a daily basis. Try to put yourself in their shoes *with no preconceptions*. While watching the video imagine that your family is walking down that street and that these people may be trying to kill them. Then watch the video in a windy, noisy, hot, shaking location (maybe in a car with the windows down and the heat cranked up and the radio blaring.) Now decide whether the guy leaning around the corner and pointing and sighting along a big long tube at your family is a valid target. Now decide if you'd pull the trigger or not, knowing that, if you're wrong, your whole family is dead.
What you're engaging in is damn Monday Morning Quarterbacking at its worst.
Two men came from the same building the insurgents had just come out of and grabbed the wounded man. They were clearly known to the van driver. The driver jumped out, opened the sliding door and jumped back in. This wasn't just a guy pulling up to render aid. There was clearly a sense of organization about this. Yes, they'd only picked up the wounded guy. Now assume that you're there. Once the wounded guy is in the van, it takes only a few seconds for the two men to grab the three weapons at the scene and run in opposite directions while the van rushes away, leaving you with an apparent civilian massacre. Remember, they often leave the bodies, with no weapons, because then it looks like a bunch of unarmed civilians. Propaganda heaven!
Can you really wait for that to happen, knowing the standard operating procedure of insurgents in the area? Or, do you do as the commander does, and say, "They know they're in a combat area and picking up combatants," and give the clear to fire.
I suppose it depends on your point of view. Which did more damage to the U.S.' reputation in the world? A group of Iraqi Insurgents or the photos of Abu Grahib? Propaganda has always been one of the most powerful weapons in a war. In that respect, a journalist with enemy sympathies could easily do more damage than any enemy soldier. So, I can understand his point of view.
That said, if they're out there wearing their press vest, and not hanging out with armed enemy combatants threatening our troops, then I agree with you, they're off limits.
The vehicles they were there providing air support for were about 1 block from the insurgents. Go look at the report and see the lovely (if somewhat haunting) pictures the dead reporter took of the unarmored side of a humvee. "Under fire" for air support does not necessarily mean they were personally in danger. They were providing cover for the vehicles. They did their job.
What they initially took to be an RPG was actually the camera.
No, the point I cited in the video clearly shows a loaded RPG. It's even clearer in the full size MP4 unedited version.
And the cameraman was found by the soldiers lying on top of an RPG round. But that doesn't fit your view.
Were the pilots a bit gung-ho? Yes, they were. That's how you get a soldier past the fact that they're chopping up other human beings. It's a part of soldiering.
As for the van? Once again, you miss the context. Insurgents in Iraq often arrived in vans to collect wounded, weapons, and ammo to make any dead appear to be innocent civilians. This was well known to the Apache pilot, the gunner, and their chain of command. They didn't just "fire wildly" at the van. If you listen to the unedited video, they repeatedly ask their chain of command for a clear to fire. Their commanders were watching the video from two Apache helicopters and a UAV and made the decision that this appeared to be an insurgent group retrieving their wounded and weapons, and gave the order to fire.
The two men who attempt to load the guy into the van came from the same place the other insurgents had come from, not from the van itself. The guy in the van clearly knew who they were, knew he was in a combat zone (watch him trying to move the van to line it up for a getaway once they were loaded, almost running one of them over) and he made the choice to be there and to put his kids in danger.
Once the soldiers arrive, they continue to come under small arms fire, even while trying to rescue the wounded.
It's a war, hard decisions are made, and "under fire" doesn't necessarily mean they're shooting at you but it could mean your friends are taking fire.
No, it is an after-action summary with near perfect knowledge of the situation. You know, going into the video, that these are non-combatants embedded in a group of combatants. The pilot and gunner did not know this. Under the Rules of Engagement, when some of a group is armed, they are all combatants.
Secondly, the Reuters reporters failed to wear their officially issued retro-reflective "Press" vests, that would have identified them as non-combatants. They made this choice knowing the consequences. Thus, they intentionally, and knowingly, put themselves into a situation where they were endangering their lives. They also had failed to report to Reuters that they would be in the area, or even in the city of Bagdhad. It was only because one of the reporters was talking to a third man on his cell phone that Reuters found out where they were.
Third, recovered from the scene were one (or more) AK-47 fully automatic rifles, and two RPG7 rocket launchers with two warheads. One of the RPG rounds was actually found under the body of the cameraman.
Fourth, also recovered were the two Canon EOS cameras used by the reporters. The last images on the cameraman at the corner (the one found on the RPG round) were beautiful pictures of the lightly armored side of a Humvee about a block away from them. These are included in the investigative report. Were an RPG to have been fired from his position, those American soldiers would have died.
Again, with perfect knowledge, we know that the guy leaning around the corner is holding a camera with a long lens. To an Apache gunner, guarding the convoy below, it looks like a big tube, and the guy is standing over an RPG round (remember, it was found under him) pointing right down the street at the troops the Apache is supposed to be protecting.
That convoy had already received small arms fire (the reason for calling in the Apache air support) and was attempting to move through the area.
Now, consider what the Apache pilot knew. He has been called in to protect an armored column that has been taking fire from insurgents in the area. He (and a second Apache) spot a group of armed men, one holding an RPG (which rules out the idea of "bodyguards" floated so often in this discussion.) approaching the route of the column he's been called in to protect. These men brandish the weapons, and then gather around a blind corner on the route of the column. One of them, apparently holding a long, straight tube, leans around the corner and sights down the tube directly at the column of soldiers.
Still think that "unprovoked" applies? The mere presence of an RPG means that this is not just a bunch of guys taking pictures. So the attack is provoked.
As for "indiscriminate"? Seriously? When the guy is down and wounded, and not carrying a weapon, they do not fire. Admittedly they beg for him to "give them a reason," but they do not fire. "Indiscriminate?" I think not.
At every step of the way, they are getting cleared by commanders watching the same video feed, the commanders have the feed from two different Apaches to make those decisions (and apparently a UAV in the area as well.) We are seeing a single viewpoint. And we can slow-mo and zoom in on the video in a light-controlled office environment, with all the leisure to scroll back and forth and take closer looks. We are not in the heat, light, and adrenaline rush of a helicopter cockpit, buffeted by noise, smoke,and wind, and fearing for the lives of the men below who are counting on us to protect them.
The "FACT" can only come with perfect knowledge after the facts are known, and even then, you have to ignore most of the facts to come to that conclusion.
A van, racing into a combat zone, with two men coming from the courtyard they were in to meet the van and pull a suspected terrorist into the van, while the van is quickly maneuvering to make a getaway. In a city where such "bongo" trucks are often used by insurgents to gather up weapons, and ammo, and other incriminating evidence from bodies at an attack site to create the illusion that "civilians" were massacred.
Yes, I can't imagine why these pilots would think that someone driving into a courtyard, with the dust still settling from the two Apaches pouring fire into it, would be anything but an innocent civilian. I mean, I'm sure if you were driving, and you saw a helicopter mow down an entire group of people in front of you and repeatedly pound the area with machine gun fire, that you would look over at your two kids and say, "You know, I should really stop and see if I can help the guys the helicopter was shooting at, even though he's still circling the area."
Sorry, most people would stomp the accelerator down and be gone. I'm not risking my kids in a combat zone.
If they don't wish to be targets, they should be wearing a designated fluorescent press vest, specifically issued to journalists in Iraq to prevent exactly what happened here. Because they were not wearing this identification, they became part of the group of insurgents. Insurgents in Iraq often use cameras to take pictures of their attacks for propaganda purposes.
The pictures recovered from their cameras show that they were sitting one block from a group of vehicles that were under small arms fire. The perfect place from which to launch an RPG attack. The cameraman was even found lying on top of an RPG round. All that can be found in the report and sworn statements of the soldiers who came on scene.
The word "indiscriminate" in the first line, and "unprovoked" in the second last sentence. Both of those express an opinion as to the *motive* of the attack. That is opinion, it is biased against the soldiers who clearly (listen to the audio) go through the correct chain of command and rules of engagement before opening fire.
Also the term "rescue" and "rescuer" bias the reader that the van that just happened to enter the area with three men who jump out immediately and attempt to put the wounded man into the van while the van is rapidly turning and moving to provide a getaway was some good Samaritan, and not at all involved despite everyone in Iraq knowing to stay away from where the Apaches are circling.
That, and naming the site, "Collateral Murder" as well.
That puts it outside the provenance of just factually "leaking" the data.
A factual release would have been, "5th April 2010 10:44 EST WikiLeaks has released a classified US military video depicting a military action in Iraq which resulted in the deaths of over a dozen people in the Iraqi suburb of New Baghdad -- including two Reuters news staff. Reuters has been trying to obtain the video through the Freedom of Information Act, without success since the time of the attack. The video, shot from an Apache helicopter gun-site, clearly shows the slaying of a wounded Reuters employee and the riders in a van apparently coming to remove him from the scene. Two young children seated in the van were also seriously wounded in the attack."
The difference is subtle, but important. The factual version lets you decide whether it is indiscriminate or not -- by watching the video. The original version acts as judge and jury on the actions of the Apache crew -- a crew vindicated as meeting all the rules of engagement by a Pentagon review of their actions.
Except for the guy with the AK-47 (3:43 in the video) and the guy with the RPG (3:35 in the video). The guy with the RPG ducks behind the building, and then someone (could be the same guy or maybe the cameraman -- it's hard to tell) points *something* around the corner of the building at the approaching Bradley vehicles that had just been engaged in a firefight minutes before (necessitating calling in the air support).
I'm sorry you can't see it, but the rules of engagement were followed. Two Reuters reporters decided to embed themselves with a group of people who were armed in a combat zone. Bad things happened. In retrospect, it was a sad situation. Hindsight being 20-20 and all.
In the heat of the moment, everything they did was checked and re-checked by their command chain to coincide with the rules of engagement. The audio shows they were repeatedly requesting permission up the command chain for the clear to fire. Commanders reviewed the information available against the rules of engagement, and determined they should be allowed to fire. That's why they were determined to have complied with those rules in this situation.
Just because Wikileaks can now review the video in "super-zoom" and "super-slo-mo" and determine that the pilots and gunners might have been able to discern whether the reporters were carrying cameras on straps instead of guns on straps does not make them liable for murder. It doesn't change the fact that these were people walking in a combat zone, with other people who had weapons, and were standing in a position waiting for a column of American vehicles to come into range.
Occam's razor does not say, "These were murderous thugs," Occam's Razor says, "This was a sad situation that occurred in the 'fog of war'."
Or, more succinctly, "War Sucks."
As I understand it, about three months after production, the BBC asked to get the set, keeping in reserve the idea that they might start the new series, and the TARDIS set was missing, so, at least as I understood the story, it was supposed to have been preserved by the BBC.
I didn't know that the console had been located, as I heard about the set disappearing about 3 years ago.
And while I do blame the BBC for the generally shoddy treatment the Doctor received in the 1980's, I can't really blame them for not bringing the series back in 1996, after the movie, as, for one, Fox and Universal wanted to change the entire canon of the show to make the Doctor half-human, to make Rasillon as the Doctor's father and make him a political exile rather than just a Time Lord who couldn't stand the boredom of Time Lord culture.
In typical American fashion, they had to give him a complete back-story that would have been revealed in the first season, totally taking the mystery out of him and the series.
And I can't really blame RTD for not bringing Paul McGann back in 2005 either, as Paul would now be 10 years older, and would have forced him (RTD) into a certain direction for scripts and the storyline.
Besides, there's nothing that stops the BBC from spinning off "Doctor Who: The Lost Adventures" and shooting some out-of-order Doctor Who...
Now that would be cool.
Unfortunately, in a rather odd true Hollywood story, that entire set was stolen from the lot. No one knows what happened to it. It is a shame as it rather grew on me during that movie. Shame they never did any more 8th doctor (video) stories.
Genera is still sold by Symbolics DKS (Germany) and Open Genera is now a closed-source project that runs on Tru64 Unix boxes.
There's supposedly still an open port of Open Genera that's supposed to run on Linux on Alpha CPU's.
Google is your friend: Open Genera
You completely missed the point. I'm not arguing that these are the same, I'm arguing against the original poster's point that the Government has a "Right" to do anything. My point was that we give up certain rights to the government in order to make our lives more convenient, but that even when we give up those rights, in reality we still retain them. However, if we give up the right to the choice to make poor decisions (whether about our health, driving habits, or anything else) then we have turned from a government to a tyranny. Because by making the State into our Nanny, we give up the ability to "fire the nanny," because the Nanny can always just say, "No, that's bad for you."
This is the slippery slope at it's finest. We, as a people, have lost the demarcation between, "Wouldn't it be better to have one professional health inspector who can apply a consistent standard to all restaurants," to "Please save me from my own poor eating habits because I can't be trusted to make the decision for myself."
One of those is a societal good, one is the epitome of the "March to Serfdom."
Your straw-man is invalid. Fugu is sold in many restaurants, and contains levels of neurotoxins even if prepared correctly. Nutmeg is an hallucinogenic, but is served in many desert items. Half a dozen ingredients in cooking are poisonous but we use them anyway, because in small amounts they taste really good. Salt is a direct taste stimulator and enhances the flavor of foods as well as adding to the chemistry of the Maillard Reaction and many other processes critical to cooking.
You have forgotten the very first rule of Government and Society. Government power comes from the Consent of the Governed. The government has no inherent right to do anything but what, We, the people , allow it to do. There's a reason that those are the first three words of the Constitution. The Government has no rights but the ones we, the people, surrender to it.
If we all were personally responsible for our lives, we would ask to look at the kitchen of a restaurant before dining there. We have chosen, instead, to abdicate that duty to a guy called a "Health Inspector" by passing laws establishing such a post and a set of standards for restaurants. We have, in fact, given up our right to inspect the kitchen because of this. (Actually, we haven't given up that right entirely, you can ask to inspect any restaurant's kitchen and are free to refuse to eat there if you find it shabby, or if they refuse to show it to you. That's a free market society.)
We expect that the inspector does their job and insures that the kitchen is clean and sanitary. However, they do not sit on-site and inspect every plate that goes out the door. So nothing - nothing at all - stops a cook from pouring rat poison into every dish that he sends out and killing the entire clientele of the restaurant.
Were he to do this, then HE would be responsible for murder. This is the utter proof that it is not the Government's "right" to regulate the restaurant, or we would, instead, hold the Health Inspector responsible because he didn't stop the cook from sending out poison laced food. Rights come with responsibility.
We have given up our responsibility to check the quality of the food we consume for the sake of convenience. This, however, does not mean that we are secure in the food we eat, as demonstrated above. One cannot sacrifice rights to gain security.
The bill that started this whole discussion is simply an attempt to make us give up our rights further by appropriating our right to make poor choices. I'd argue that this is the most critical right of a human being. If we sacrifice that right to the government, then we surrender our free will as well.
Pike's Peak Marathon is held every summer too. That's 13 miles to go up 7000 feet, and then 13 miles back down. I believe Matt Carpenter ran it last year in a record time of 3:37:02, with the ascent part of that being 2:12:04. They also go from summer temperatures at the base of Barr Trail (elev 6500'+) of 70-80 degrees to sub-freezing at the summit (elev 14,111').