The only place where the word "unlawful" appears in the third Geneva Convention is the sentence
"Any unlawful act or omission by the Detaining Power causing death or seriously endangering the health of a prisoner of war in its custody is prohibited, and will be regarded as a serious breach of the present Convention.".
The word "lawful" doesn't appear at all. The definitions you're talking about are prefaced with
"Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:"
The text relevant to those who don't fall under any of the POW categories is as follows:
Part I. General Provisions
...
Art. 5 Where in the territory of a Party to the conflict, the latter is satisfied that an individual protected person is definitely suspected of or engaged in activities hostile to the security of the State, such individual person shall not be entitled to claim such rights and privileges under the present Convention as would, if exercised in the favour of such individual person, be prejudicial to the security of such State.
Where in occupied territory an individual protected person is detained as a spy or saboteur, or as a person under definite suspicion of activity hostile to the security of the Occupying Power, such person shall, in those cases where absolute military security so requires, be regarded as having forfeited rights of communication under the present Convention.
In each case, such persons shall nevertheless be treated with humanity and, in case of trial, shall not be deprived of the rights of fair and regular trial prescribed by the present Convention. They shall also be granted the full rights and privileges of a protected person under the present Convention at the earliest date consistent with the security of the State or Occupying Power, as the case may be.
This is to say military planners should blissfully ignore enemy military surveillance and navigation satellites flying overhead while they are used to target our forces.
What enemies does the US have that target, or will in the near future target, US ground forces using satellites? Making hugely expensive preparations for a potential Russian invasion of mainland USA seems, uhm, less cost-effective than alternative ways of spending the same amount of cash.
I wonder how those compare to their percentages of the viewers? That would show how critical the viewers are of the sources they watch, or more accurately, what news sources the more critical viewers choose.
The RIAA is the cartel of Universal, Sony BMG, Warner and EMI. Apple negotiated with the cartel of Universal, Sony BMG, Warner and EMI. If Apple negotiated prices with the RIAA it would be too obvious that the record labels cooperate to fix their prices. Now it's just conicidence they sit in tha same room and talk to Apple at the same time.
Yes, Apple negotiated with the RIAA, not individual record labels.
Come to think of it, every dot-com era disaster was named like an Apple product. Well, it does make sense; marketing and product naming worked fine. Too well, in fact.
They don't need to force anyone to watch commercials. They could release un-DRM'ed hi-res torrents and just like with TV, most viewers would simply watch the whole thing, including commercials. Several release groups would strip the commercials within hours, but why take the risk of downloading a sloppily edited version when you can get the official one?
They have to be held accountable for what they do. Why would they be held accountable if they didn't have a choice?
To act as a deterrent, or to prevent them from repeating their actions. A civilized society does not punish criminals to get revenge or because they are "bad people".
Apparently most people contribute "choice" to our "ghost/soul" and thus the moment they find that (shocking) we're thinking with our brain, they automatically assume that our brain dictates to our soul what choices to make (therefore "we can't make anything on our own, we can't change, we're not responsible" and other nonsense).
A similar reasoning leads some religious people to reject the notion that we are descended from animals. If we are related to animals, we must behave as animals, which is obviously either false or bad. Quite immoral anyway.
It's another "God of the Gaps" fallacy, where things not understood are ascribed to supernatural causes. When natural causes are found, those are at first rejected as falsehood or immorality. When the supporters of those arguments become sufficiently rare as the new knowledge becomes accepted as established fact, the supernatural is redefined to be just beyond the borders of current knowledge.
I've seen religious people post things like "What do atheists think the universe expands into" and "What do atheists think was before the Big Bang", implying that their religion has the answers for such questions, although the questions themselves are based on knowledge uncovered long after the latest additions to their religious texts were made.
von Daniken presented as legitimate, well, give me a snarky G'aould any day.
They might not present it as legitimate science. Fictional mysteries tied in with objects and places that are real, or have been thought to be real at some point might work very well.
The Da Vinci Code was a huge success - They may well be going for something similar.
Combine that with a keyboard accessory, the N80 could be very handy for remote on-the-go system administration (via whatever Series 60 SSH client exists) or blogging while on-the-go with the built-in 3MP camera.
Yes, as a young and trendy IT professional, I often find it necessary to blog or administer systems while, for example, base jumping or scuba diving.
This would be perfectly fabulous if there were federal regulations on vehicle sizes permitted in urban or other zones, but it sounds like a logistic nightmare for lawmakers to get a gradual migration to this going at any level that would prove effective. It's not really a phased migration thing. You can't put such a small car on roads with normal compact and larger cars. It's a safety nightmare.
Don't be silly. People drive motorcycles right now, on perfectly normal roads. Small, cheap cars are popular (at least in Europe) among companies whose employees need to move around rural areas. Just get the car on the market at a reasonable price and some will be sold and used. Lawmakers can help by taxing gas or emissions, without making any vehicle-specific laws.
I see this kind of thinking every time a new and larger storage device is released. Having a larger disk does not make you more vulnerable to data loss. Having fewer disks does. Seagate announcing 750GB disks does nothing to make your data less safe. A RAID array with 750G disks is just as reliable as one with 9G disks.
Actually, I think AJAX creates security problems because most coders consider problematic input from the user to their app, not necessarily input from their client to their server. I imagine sloppy coders put javascript checks on input for convenience and forget to check the input the server recieves for cases the javascript would have caught.
Why is this a violation of trust? I could agree with that in a situation where players have invested lots of time in a game and the system changed to require cash to stay competitive. This is a new game and the item, as far as I can tell, is just pixel crack. If someone's prepared to pay $2.50 or $2,500 for a shirt of slightly different color, what does it matter?
Point two: What's wrong with the restrictions here? Few commercial online games allow player made graphics into the game. If they sell the graphics for money, why should they allow others to do the same? Blizzard doesn't let you do that and they don't even sell items directly for cash.
Agreed. It's insane how MMORPG players think nothing of content that takes hundreds of hours of mind-numbing boredom to get, yet whine, bitch and moan when someone gets pixel crack in a way they think is "unfair".
None of these players care about $2.50, it's just a matter of not wanting others to have it without putting in the "work".
"The doctrine of first sale allows the purchaser to transfer (i.e. sell or give away) a particular, legally acquired copy of protected work without permission once it has been obtained. That means the distribution rights of a copyright holder end on that particular copy once the copy is sold."
Will these actually be "sold" or "purchased" instead of "licensed"?
Slashdot Mirror
Your spelling of the word "centrifuge" is strangely disturbing.
The only place where the word "unlawful" appears in the third Geneva Convention is the sentence
...
"Any unlawful act or omission by the Detaining Power causing death or seriously endangering the health of a prisoner of war in its custody is prohibited, and will be regarded as a serious breach of the present Convention.".
The word "lawful" doesn't appear at all. The definitions you're talking about are prefaced with
"Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:"
The text relevant to those who don't fall under any of the POW categories is as follows:
Part I. General Provisions
Art. 5 Where in the territory of a Party to the conflict, the latter is satisfied that an individual protected person is definitely suspected of or engaged in activities hostile to the security of the State, such individual person shall not be entitled to claim such rights and privileges under the present Convention as would, if exercised in the favour of such individual person, be prejudicial to the security of such State.
Where in occupied territory an individual protected person is detained as a spy or saboteur, or as a person under definite suspicion of activity hostile to the security of the Occupying Power, such person shall, in those cases where absolute military security so requires, be regarded as having forfeited rights of communication under the present Convention.
In each case, such persons shall nevertheless be treated with humanity and, in case of trial, shall not be deprived of the rights of fair and regular trial prescribed by the present Convention. They shall also be granted the full rights and privileges of a protected person under the present Convention at the earliest date consistent with the security of the State or Occupying Power, as the case may be.
This is to say military planners should blissfully ignore enemy military surveillance and navigation satellites flying overhead while they are used to target our forces.
What enemies does the US have that target, or will in the near future target, US ground forces using satellites? Making hugely expensive preparations for a potential Russian invasion of mainland USA seems, uhm, less cost-effective than alternative ways of spending the same amount of cash.
I wonder how those compare to their percentages of the viewers? That would show how critical the viewers are of the sources they watch, or more accurately, what news sources the more critical viewers choose.
Apple negotiated with record labels, not the RIAA
The RIAA is the cartel of Universal, Sony BMG, Warner and EMI. Apple negotiated with the cartel of Universal, Sony BMG, Warner and EMI. If Apple negotiated prices with the RIAA it would be too obvious that the record labels cooperate to fix their prices. Now it's just conicidence they sit in tha same room and talk to Apple at the same time.
Yes, Apple negotiated with the RIAA, not individual record labels.
Come to think of it, every dot-com era disaster was named like an Apple product. Well, it does make sense; marketing and product naming worked fine. Too well, in fact.
Apparently they're part of the evolutionist conspiracy.
May God have mercy on their souls.
They don't need to force anyone to watch commercials. They could release un-DRM'ed hi-res torrents and just like with TV, most viewers would simply watch the whole thing, including commercials. Several release groups would strip the commercials within hours, but why take the risk of downloading a sloppily edited version when you can get the official one?
If your kid kills someone it's your fault - if you kill your kid it's your fault. Just can't win!
My understanding is that it's 'krazy kewl'.
They have to be held accountable for what they do. Why would they be held accountable if they didn't have a choice?
To act as a deterrent, or to prevent them from repeating their actions. A civilized society does not punish criminals to get revenge or because they are "bad people".
Apparently most people contribute "choice" to our "ghost/soul" and thus the moment they find that (shocking) we're thinking with our brain, they automatically assume that our brain dictates to our soul what choices to make (therefore "we can't make anything on our own, we can't change, we're not responsible" and other nonsense).
A similar reasoning leads some religious people to reject the notion that we are descended from animals. If we are related to animals, we must behave as animals, which is obviously either false or bad. Quite immoral anyway.
It's another "God of the Gaps" fallacy, where things not understood are ascribed to supernatural causes. When natural causes are found, those are at first rejected as falsehood or immorality. When the supporters of those arguments become sufficiently rare as the new knowledge becomes accepted as established fact, the supernatural is redefined to be just beyond the borders of current knowledge.
I've seen religious people post things like "What do atheists think the universe expands into" and "What do atheists think was before the Big Bang", implying that their religion has the answers for such questions, although the questions themselves are based on knowledge uncovered long after the latest additions to their religious texts were made.
von Daniken presented as legitimate, well, give me a snarky G'aould any day.
They might not present it as legitimate science. Fictional mysteries tied in with objects and places that are real, or have been thought to be real at some point might work very well.
The Da Vinci Code was a huge success - They may well be going for something similar.
Combine that with a keyboard accessory, the N80 could be very handy for remote on-the-go system administration (via whatever Series 60 SSH client exists) or blogging while on-the-go with the built-in 3MP camera.
Yes, as a young and trendy IT professional, I often find it necessary to blog or administer systems while, for example, base jumping or scuba diving.
Thank you Nokia for making this possible!
This would be perfectly fabulous if there were federal regulations on vehicle sizes permitted in urban or other zones, but it sounds like a logistic nightmare for lawmakers to get a gradual migration to this going at any level that would prove effective. It's not really a phased migration thing. You can't put such a small car on roads with normal compact and larger cars. It's a safety nightmare.
Don't be silly. People drive motorcycles right now, on perfectly normal roads. Small, cheap cars are popular (at least in Europe) among companies whose employees need to move around rural areas. Just get the car on the market at a reasonable price and some will be sold and used. Lawmakers can help by taxing gas or emissions, without making any vehicle-specific laws.
Put the chips in the kids!
What happens when the paranoid parents find out they're not the only ones who can track their kids?
5 bucks Automatic withdrawl from a street band playing crappy music. Just bcos ur in range of their payment device.
We already have that...
Don't worry. Trusted Computing will be out soon, and then you can legally own a computer again.
I see this kind of thinking every time a new and larger storage device is released. Having a larger disk does not make you more vulnerable to data loss. Having fewer disks does. Seagate announcing 750GB disks does nothing to make your data less safe. A RAID array with 750G disks is just as reliable as one with 9G disks.
Odd. I watched that episode not fifteen minutes ago!
Do you really think someone would try to compile it?
Actually, I think AJAX creates security problems because most coders consider problematic input from the user to their app, not necessarily input from their client to their server. I imagine sloppy coders put javascript checks on input for convenience and forget to check the input the server recieves for cases the javascript would have caught.
Two points:
Why is this a violation of trust? I could agree with that in a situation where players have invested lots of time in a game and the system changed to require cash to stay competitive. This is a new game and the item, as far as I can tell, is just pixel crack. If someone's prepared to pay $2.50 or $2,500 for a shirt of slightly different color, what does it matter?
Point two: What's wrong with the restrictions here? Few commercial online games allow player made graphics into the game. If they sell the graphics for money, why should they allow others to do the same? Blizzard doesn't let you do that and they don't even sell items directly for cash.
Agreed. It's insane how MMORPG players think nothing of content that takes hundreds of hours of mind-numbing boredom to get, yet whine, bitch and moan when someone gets pixel crack in a way they think is "unfair".
None of these players care about $2.50, it's just a matter of not wanting others to have it without putting in the "work".
Even more so: The first sale doctrine
"The doctrine of first sale allows the purchaser to transfer (i.e. sell or give away) a particular, legally acquired copy of protected work without permission once it has been obtained. That means the distribution rights of a copyright holder end on that particular copy once the copy is sold."
Will these actually be "sold" or "purchased" instead of "licensed"?