If only it were logical. The company I used to work for sold used Mac equipment that customers had upgraded out of and when Apple switched to Intel people were paying more for a used G5 than a brand new workstation.
I can't argue that they don't hold their value, but hell if I understand why.
No, but making your military bunkers the same you use to house civilians used to be a violation of the laws of war, and not wearing a uniform shouldn't mean that in between shots you aren't a combatant because you're not bearing your arms openly if you throw a blanket over them.
The implicit assertion (for if the assertion were not being made, the discussion would be at an end for this subthread would be considered a tasteless foray into the irrelevant) is that the crowd being fired upon were terrorists.
Nope. If you're going to comment on sub-thread please read it.
"Using Helecopters to target people is a war crime"
"No it's not"
"Yes it is"
"What enforces the rules anyway?"
"Mostly expecting reciprocal treatment"
"We're not getting it"
"We still should/shouldn't keep it up anyway"
I don't see anyone discussing the incident specifically, I don't see any terrorists, and I don't see anyone implying that either of those things that aren't being discussed are the same thing. Your post is, by nature of being based on a premise that is completely without basis, tasteless and irrelevant. It's especially so because you replied to me, a person who made no mention of terrorists in his request that the Geneva convention should be updated to respond to the kind of asymmetrical warfare that has been common since the 60s. I didn't say terrorist (and even better I wasn't even referring to "terrorists") but thank you for the lengthy diatribe.
I think the world at large would tend to disagree with you, but I know that feeling. I tend to get caught on things other than what people see as the point very frequently. (For example I hated the movie "Children of Men" because I couldn't understand how the economy functioned and didn't think the domestic security situation was a logical progression.)
Wikipedia has a pretty decent section on the book as it relates to race relations though if you feel like you might have just overlooked something.
I don't know that anyone has argued that people shouldn't be able to fight against an occupying force, in fact a spontaneous uprising in the face of opposition but without organization is specifically covered under the Geneva convention as a form of combatant, and is how I would describe those forces at war in Iraq and Afghanistan if someone asked me for legal justification for the treatment of non-uniformed forces as combatants.
What I wont tolerate is the world we've created where human shields are a perfect weapon because they either make a position an invalid target or the headline of the six o'clock news, both victories.
1 DVD gets scratched = 1 DVD of data loss
1 2TB Harddrive failure = the end of the world
I still use harddrives for my backups, but it's because it's easier and less time consuming, not because it's inherently the cheapest method, especially for movie rips. (And yes, I should have priced out dual-layer discs too but this was already 30 seconds of shopping too many)
They illustrate points, they pose questions, they re-contextualize, and all in ways that are less fumbling and heavy handed than an academic treatise. Even opinionated essays frequently make use of hypothetical situations and persons to create a situation the reflects their points.
If you want to illustrate to a child what racism is do you give them a stack of tables and statistics and hope they can connect the dots, or do you let them read To Kill and Mockingbird, something which people find not only enjoyable but with a good moral? The added beauty of fiction is that it can only be used to teach lesson with some logical basis, the message is only what you decide to take from it no matter how hard the author stacks the deck. As Mark Twain once said "The difference between fiction and nonfiction is that fiction must be absolutely believable." If you want to mislead someone look at all the people in the world that deal in news and facts.
I guess you have never heard of the French Resistance or any of the various other national resistance movements supported by the Allied during WWII.
Tito's partisans wore uniforms, the French didn't target non-combatants. The former should have received every protection available, the second should have been protected by morality if not legality. Neither were.
The issue you seem to be getting at is the incredible flaw of the Geneva Convention ever since the adoption of Protocol 1 in the 1970s. It used to be the responsibility of the defender to not place their facilities and operations in a place and manor that will endanger civilians, now it's up to the attacker to try to avoid casualties when their opponents are actively trying to make any fighting result in collateral damage if not actively harming non-combatants themselves.
The idea that non-uniformed resistance fighters should be given all the protection of civilians while acting with all the violence of combatants is ridiculous and contrary to the spirit of the rules of international law, ie to limit wartime destruction to those things which deserve to be destroyed.
When the Geneva convention has been modified to apply to the world of irregular warfare that has been forming for the last 50 years I'll be upset when there are violations, until then I can't see the logic in following a set of rules that binds only one side and gives every advantage to those who actively ignore them.
Mr. Wang’s work was a conventional technical exercise that in no way could be used to take down a power grid.
no practical scenarios of an attack on the real power grid can be derived from such work.
From what it sounds like the entire article is about him overreacting to a nonspecific, and in this case completely unworkable white paper. The news here is not that the US is vulnerable but that the people in charge of securing it are a little quick to fire off against anyone who undermines them even if they didn't.
Maybe the Chinese universities would be happy to take him, let him do his research and publish his stuff.
I understand that you didn't read the article, no one ever does, but to not read the summary? He's a Chinese Grad student at a Chinese university. They already let him do his research and publish his findings. The reason he didn't do it on China's grid is that they wont provide him with any data.
Mr. Wang’s work was a conventional technical exercise that in no way could be used to take down a power grid.
no practical scenarios of an attack on the real power grid can be derived from such work.
It doesn't sound like there is a problem per say, having not read his actual work, but it looks like he simply based his theoretical problem in the US because the base data set was the best maintained and he speaks English.
It's even easier to attack if you do occasionally go there, know all the jokes, and die a little inside every time you hear them screamed by 14 year olds in stores.
It's even more incredible that no one mentioned their work on this until now. I'm desperately crawling through the site trying to find out how the big cable providers screwed us on this one and I'm starting to get desperate. How is Slashdot supposed to survive if they can't tear apart ideas before they're even implemented?
Cheers to you CSPAN, and cheers to everyone else who now has 23 years of non-stop drinking game material!
The problem is that the unions stopped being the champion of the working man long ago, and now instead of getting screwed over by your management you can just get screwed over by the more senior employees and your leadership.
I propose a middle ground, all of the worker protections that the unions spend decades fighting for and none of the massive corruption or greedy efforts to price themselves out of jobs. I'm not saying we need to go full bore protectionist to keep jobs here, but if a non-union shop is paying it's employees $15 an hour to do basic lever pulling the comparable union job shouldn't be sitting at $40 and the the leadership shouldn't be living like the "boss man" they overthrew.
I don't see a company beholden to it's stockholders spending any significant part of its resources over a long span to undermine a government for reasons of pride or moral superiority.
Should he have said it's in the summary? No. Is it in TFA which you obviously didn't read? Yes. Has someone else now cited the actual EU source on the topic for you? Yes!
OP was mistaken and you should read the article before you assume things incorrectly. Issue solved.
To be fair so does the history of the populations of North America, which is not to say their fate is directly comparable to the Welsh, but I think it's important to note that the history of the people who currently rule and inhabit England aren't it's 2000+ year old population.
I do like the saying though, especially as an American living in Holland who can't understand why it's a big deal have driven the distance from Madrid to Maastricht in a day though the locals find it shocking.
But assuming that they aren't, paying per delivery only has three possible outcomes:
Tell that to UPS. A delivery bonus in conjunction with hourly wage which in the US you're required to pay for anything involving physical labor as a certain percentage of the job. His idea has problems, but they're not the problems you're bringing up.
Until a driver that's taking drugs for alertness has a heart attack or one that doesn't falls asleep at the wheel.
Professional drivers (including UPS as we're talking here I assume) have a government mandated number of hours in given time period that they're allowed to work. The only way you should have drivers taking drugs / passing out is if they're cooking their log books which no reputable employer allows because all it takes is one major accident and you've got investigations into the entire companies practices. A lot of truck drivers (commercial freight carriers not Fed Ex or Wal-Mart) do work on the side, and I know a lot of them personally who do get a little generous with their numbers sometimes but no institutionalized system can stop that.
Things like the fairness of routes is a valid concern, and UPS and Fed Ex drivers do get paid bonuses for deliveries and the routes are chosen by seniority. The routes (or areas more correctly) are surprisingly static as most of the volume in a lot of areas is businesses, I assume the guys working residential are probably the low men on the totem pole.
Slashdot Mirror
The TGIF block did fine on fridays.
If only it were logical. The company I used to work for sold used Mac equipment that customers had upgraded out of and when Apple switched to Intel people were paying more for a used G5 than a brand new workstation.
I can't argue that they don't hold their value, but hell if I understand why.
attacking soldiers doesn't make you a terrorist
No, but making your military bunkers the same you use to house civilians used to be a violation of the laws of war, and not wearing a uniform shouldn't mean that in between shots you aren't a combatant because you're not bearing your arms openly if you throw a blanket over them.
The implicit assertion (for if the assertion were not being made, the discussion would be at an end for this subthread would be considered a tasteless foray into the irrelevant) is that the crowd being fired upon were terrorists.
Nope. If you're going to comment on sub-thread please read it.
"Using Helecopters to target people is a war crime"
"No it's not"
"Yes it is"
"What enforces the rules anyway?"
"Mostly expecting reciprocal treatment"
"We're not getting it"
"We still should/shouldn't keep it up anyway"
I don't see anyone discussing the incident specifically, I don't see any terrorists, and I don't see anyone implying that either of those things that aren't being discussed are the same thing. Your post is, by nature of being based on a premise that is completely without basis, tasteless and irrelevant. It's especially so because you replied to me, a person who made no mention of terrorists in his request that the Geneva convention should be updated to respond to the kind of asymmetrical warfare that has been common since the 60s. I didn't say terrorist (and even better I wasn't even referring to "terrorists") but thank you for the lengthy diatribe.
I still use harddrives for my backups, but it's because it's easier and less time consuming,
I think the world at large would tend to disagree with you, but I know that feeling. I tend to get caught on things other than what people see as the point very frequently. (For example I hated the movie "Children of Men" because I couldn't understand how the economy functioned and didn't think the domestic security situation was a logical progression.)
Wikipedia has a pretty decent section on the book as it relates to race relations though if you feel like you might have just overlooked something.
I don't know that anyone has argued that people shouldn't be able to fight against an occupying force, in fact a spontaneous uprising in the face of opposition but without organization is specifically covered under the Geneva convention as a form of combatant, and is how I would describe those forces at war in Iraq and Afghanistan if someone asked me for legal justification for the treatment of non-uniformed forces as combatants.
What I wont tolerate is the world we've created where human shields are a perfect weapon because they either make a position an invalid target or the headline of the six o'clock news, both victories.
1 DVD-R = 4.7GB/$.18 = $.03/GB
Harddrive = 2TB/$149 = $.07/GB
1 DVD gets scratched = 1 DVD of data loss
1 2TB Harddrive failure = the end of the world
I still use harddrives for my backups, but it's because it's easier and less time consuming, not because it's inherently the cheapest method, especially for movie rips. (And yes, I should have priced out dual-layer discs too but this was already 30 seconds of shopping too many)
The correct answer to "Why didn't the eagles just fly it in?" is "Because it's a story, if the eagles just flew it in there would be no story."
The answer is not a long winded apologist rant about how that never would have worked, because it would have.
They illustrate points, they pose questions, they re-contextualize, and all in ways that are less fumbling and heavy handed than an academic treatise. Even opinionated essays frequently make use of hypothetical situations and persons to create a situation the reflects their points.
If you want to illustrate to a child what racism is do you give them a stack of tables and statistics and hope they can connect the dots, or do you let them read To Kill and Mockingbird, something which people find not only enjoyable but with a good moral? The added beauty of fiction is that it can only be used to teach lesson with some logical basis, the message is only what you decide to take from it no matter how hard the author stacks the deck. As Mark Twain once said "The difference between fiction and nonfiction is that fiction must be absolutely believable." If you want to mislead someone look at all the people in the world that deal in news and facts.
I guess you have never heard of the French Resistance or any of the various other national resistance movements supported by the Allied during WWII.
Tito's partisans wore uniforms, the French didn't target non-combatants. The former should have received every protection available, the second should have been protected by morality if not legality. Neither were.
The issue you seem to be getting at is the incredible flaw of the Geneva Convention ever since the adoption of Protocol 1 in the 1970s. It used to be the responsibility of the defender to not place their facilities and operations in a place and manor that will endanger civilians, now it's up to the attacker to try to avoid casualties when their opponents are actively trying to make any fighting result in collateral damage if not actively harming non-combatants themselves.
The idea that non-uniformed resistance fighters should be given all the protection of civilians while acting with all the violence of combatants is ridiculous and contrary to the spirit of the rules of international law, ie to limit wartime destruction to those things which deserve to be destroyed.
When the Geneva convention has been modified to apply to the world of irregular warfare that has been forming for the last 50 years I'll be upset when there are violations, until then I can't see the logic in following a set of rules that binds only one side and gives every advantage to those who actively ignore them.
Mr. Wang’s work was a conventional technical exercise that in no way could be used to take down a power grid.
no practical scenarios of an attack on the real power grid can be derived from such work.
From what it sounds like the entire article is about him overreacting to a nonspecific, and in this case completely unworkable white paper. The news here is not that the US is vulnerable but that the people in charge of securing it are a little quick to fire off against anyone who undermines them even if they didn't.
Maybe the Chinese universities would be happy to take him, let him do his research and publish his stuff.
I understand that you didn't read the article, no one ever does, but to not read the summary? He's a Chinese Grad student at a Chinese university. They already let him do his research and publish his findings. The reason he didn't do it on China's grid is that they wont provide him with any data.
Mr. Wang’s work was a conventional technical exercise that in no way could be used to take down a power grid.
no practical scenarios of an attack on the real power grid can be derived from such work.
It doesn't sound like there is a problem per say, having not read his actual work, but it looks like he simply based his theoretical problem in the US because the base data set was the best maintained and he speaks English.
STFU FGT
Except the ones who value Wikipedia as a resource.
I bet you shit where you eat too.
It's even easier to attack if you do occasionally go there, know all the jokes, and die a little inside every time you hear them screamed by 14 year olds in stores.
It's even more incredible that no one mentioned their work on this until now. I'm desperately crawling through the site trying to find out how the big cable providers screwed us on this one and I'm starting to get desperate. How is Slashdot supposed to survive if they can't tear apart ideas before they're even implemented?
Cheers to you CSPAN, and cheers to everyone else who now has 23 years of non-stop drinking game material!
The problem is that the unions stopped being the champion of the working man long ago, and now instead of getting screwed over by your management you can just get screwed over by the more senior employees and your leadership.
I propose a middle ground, all of the worker protections that the unions spend decades fighting for and none of the massive corruption or greedy efforts to price themselves out of jobs. I'm not saying we need to go full bore protectionist to keep jobs here, but if a non-union shop is paying it's employees $15 an hour to do basic lever pulling the comparable union job shouldn't be sitting at $40 and the the leadership shouldn't be living like the "boss man" they overthrew.
I don't see a company beholden to it's stockholders spending any significant part of its resources over a long span to undermine a government for reasons of pride or moral superiority.
It'd be pretty fun to watch though.
Should he have said it's in the summary? No. Is it in TFA which you obviously didn't read? Yes. Has someone else now cited the actual EU source on the topic for you? Yes!
OP was mistaken and you should read the article before you assume things incorrectly. Issue solved.
To be fair so does the history of the populations of North America, which is not to say their fate is directly comparable to the Welsh, but I think it's important to note that the history of the people who currently rule and inhabit England aren't it's 2000+ year old population.
I do like the saying though, especially as an American living in Holland who can't understand why it's a big deal have driven the distance from Madrid to Maastricht in a day though the locals find it shocking.
That's a good question. Are you imply you don't believe a cabby has ever forgotten to turn on the meter?
But assuming that they aren't, paying per delivery only has three possible outcomes:
Tell that to UPS. A delivery bonus in conjunction with hourly wage which in the US you're required to pay for anything involving physical labor as a certain percentage of the job. His idea has problems, but they're not the problems you're bringing up.
Until a driver that's taking drugs for alertness has a heart attack or one that doesn't falls asleep at the wheel.
Professional drivers (including UPS as we're talking here I assume) have a government mandated number of hours in given time period that they're allowed to work. The only way you should have drivers taking drugs / passing out is if they're cooking their log books which no reputable employer allows because all it takes is one major accident and you've got investigations into the entire companies practices. A lot of truck drivers (commercial freight carriers not Fed Ex or Wal-Mart) do work on the side, and I know a lot of them personally who do get a little generous with their numbers sometimes but no institutionalized system can stop that.
Things like the fairness of routes is a valid concern, and UPS and Fed Ex drivers do get paid bonuses for deliveries and the routes are chosen by seniority. The routes (or areas more correctly) are surprisingly static as most of the volume in a lot of areas is businesses, I assume the guys working residential are probably the low men on the totem pole.