A human is just as, if not more likely to freak out in a helicopter than an animal.
I don't know where you get this paranoid fantasy of pets going crazy in a helicopter, it's certainly not born out in reality.
I think given how many people have now explained why you're wrong you may want to just admit you're wrong, rather than continuing to pretend you're not as everyone else looks on at you wondering why you're insisting so badly on being wrong.
Sometimes an argument is so far lost that there's no point trying to salvage it and the only way to save face is to just admit you're wrong. You're at that point I'm afraid.
I don't think you realise that people can have the same psychological attachment to pets as they can to children. Shooting it and throwing the carcass away is going to trigger the same response and resentment as shooting their child and throwing it away.
Don't be surprised if said individual goes on a shooting spree and kills a bunch of people shortly after because of your braindead plan.
"the "hard-core" dog-owners, as it were - are also the sort to buy "premium" dog food for $15.00 per can"
To be fair I buy our dogs premium dog food (though we don't buy wet canned food, we buy bags of dry food) because one of them just has permanent diarrhoea if we feed him the cheap shit. It really does vary in quality quite considerably. Our Lab is fine with the cheap shit, but I suspect this is because labs were bred to pick up all sorts of dead shit so have tougher constitutions in this respect.
Agree with you on keeping dogs busy, that's something I make sure I do given that I have two very active dogs also.
But I disagree on them not caring about things that aren't real, my border collie will happily just sit and watch the TV. When Lion Man is on his eyes are transfixed on the screen for the full duration of the show- I'm not saying he understands it or anything stupid like that but he's very clearly intrigued by the sight of the lions. He ignores it if it's just people most of the time but time and time again he'll consistently watch certain things, particularly nature shows.
Our two dogs react different to different animals on TV, even cartoon animals and it's pretty consistent, I've experimented with different footage of different animals. Also the dogs eye level things doesn't bare true for me, our TV is mounted above the fire place and our dogs will happily look up at it and pay attention.
Our border collie for example absolutely loves whales and lions, he'll literally just sit for hours quietly watching them perfectly content. He also seems to like giraffes, camels and hippos but neither him or our lab can stand other dogs, cats, monkeys, and if they see something like a snake then it literally gets their heckles up and they'll growl at it. Bears can be hit and miss, sometimes they seem content to watch, other times they growl.
But always most amusing is when you're watching a documentary about wolves, yes, as soon as the wolves start howling our dogs do too, just to make sure the wolves on TV are aware that they may be intruding on the territory of our dogs...
My biggest concern though is that I think our lab is a closet racist, because he growls at black people on TV, though he never does this out on a walk. It's all very odd.
"In other words, you don't have any evidence showing it to not have been fair... Got it."
Sorry, had no idea you were too retarded to look things up for yourself.
"You accused me of posting "lies" but remain unable to identify a single one."
This is funny because I've done exactly that. It's as if you can't even see the words in front your face you're so far lost into your little partisan pro-Republican fanboy fest.
"No, actually. Obama did switch. And people with better attention-spans than yours did notice. Bush used drones, when that was the only way to get the target. Obama uses them all the time"
So he didn't switch then. It wasn't a question of various little intricacies but a question of whether extrajudicial killings are acceptable. That was your original argument and it doesn't matter how desperately you claw for an escape from that, that was your argument and Bush started it, Obama continued it.
"But we were talking about the extrajudicial killings, which Bush ordered only when he had to, but Obama orders all the time."
Oh I see. So it's okay when Bush "has to" but when Obama deems he has to it's a completely different thing? You really can't see how utterly biased and incapable of objectivity you are can you?
"But on the particular matter of extrajudicial detentions vs. extrajudicial killings Bush wins hands down."
Yes, if we write off all the atrocities committed when troops were sent in on the ground and covered up by Bush you're right. Fortunately most of us aren't so stuck in our horrendously biased partisan "I love Bush" ways to forget those though. It's like you're completely oblivious to the thousands of extrajudicial killings committed by troops under Bush's boots on the ground strategy.
Seriously though, you're a lost cause, you can't look things up because you prefer to stay blind to reality, you can't see what's written in front of you because you're so partisan and you ignore things where it's inconvenient and try and build an argument up on half the data. You've reached the point of zealotry and you can't even see it, it's sad, but I guess it's really not my problem, so have fun with that.
"Number of troops, number of divisions, number of aircraft, number of missiles. The readiness of those units and equipment. The technology levels."
Sure but what are all these summarised by? Defence spending.
Ultimately the more money you spend the more you get, efficiency comes in to play to some extent but not so much so that the US' 5 to 6 fold increase on spending over the nearest competitor - China - is wiped out. It may well be that you have less troops but if you're spending more it just means you have more missiles or drones or whatever instead and that's really the key.
"China is likely to become an increasingly formidable adversary as times passes."
Agree that China will become more formidable, though not convinced it will ever really be a threat. It has too much internal strife and as soon as it shifts it's military focus externally it's going to lose control of Hong Kong, Xinjiang, Tibet, and all influence over Taiwan - even if it reaches US expenditure and size it's going to have to have half it's forces stationed in it's own back yard regardless to prevent itself collapsing. But sticking to the thread of discussion it was just about the current state of the US military and it's involvement in wars over the last 50 years.
Interestingly a large portion of America's military expenditure is on it's nuclear arsenal. China could become a threat to it conventionally because of this if the US opts to maintain an arsenal large enough to wipe the world out many times over rather than reduce it's nuclear arsenal to a more sensible size and shift the expenditure to conventional equipment instead.
It doesn't matter, he was put into a proper trial where he wasn't just fast tracked to the gallows. That's not a show trial. Saddam's was because there was no hope of a fair trial.
"But everything I wrote in my "highly moderated" post was perfectly true."
Keep telling yourself that. You'll still be wrong though no matter how many times you do.
"Oh, Bush had to conduct a war."
No he didn't. If it was revenge you were after than surgical strikes against the Taliban would've worked just fine. There was no reason to even bother with Iraq at all. It was far better left alone for regional stability.
"But we were talking about the "war" on terror â" and how Obama, in order to avoid extrajudicial detentions switched to extrajudicial killings."
As I said, stop lying. He didn't switch. This was already happening under Bush. Yes he expanded the programme, but he didn't switch to it, that switch had already been made.
I don't agree with it in principal but Obama has done what he's done for one reason - surgical strikes no matter how much of an affront to justice are still less messy than boots on the ground and that's why he's made the decision to expand the programme - by doing so he recognises that he doesn't need to throw as many soldier's lives away patrolling harsh border territories which is the alternative given that he took over a war that is unwinnable. He could've pulled out of Afghanistan altogether as with Iraq but the Afghan military he was handed wasn't in a state where it could be left to fend for itself like the Iraqi military could, the net result would've been the collapse of the Afghan military and ever more advanced weaponry getting into the hands of the Taliban.
Like I say, I don't like Obama but IMO he's making the best of a bad job.
"And how he is getting away with it."
So did Bush. Maybe that's the problem? When one does it and isn't held to account they all think they can?
"To paraphrase certain Florida prosecutor, Obama is killing them not because he has to, but because he wants to â" with your consent and approval."
That's just more partisan crap though. Bush didn't have to start a war in Afghanistan and Iraq but he did because he wanted to and the fundamental difference is that Obama was handed that war, he did not start it, so on the wants to/has to scale Obama is much closer to has to, but Bush was entirely wants to.
It's classic military strategy as illegal as it might be, both Bush and Obama were engaged in a war, the difference is that Bush had his forces on the defensive because the battles were on the insurgencies terms, whilst Obama has turned that around and carried the war onto the home turf of the insurgents with drone strikes.
It's a shitty mess all around and Obama is a dick, but it's ultimately still a mess that Bush created which is why he's always going to be more to blame.
Defence spending is the normal measure because troop numbers doesn't determine military strength.
China for example has a massive standing army but it doesn't have the logistical infrastructure to take them anywhere of interest (i.e. it has a relatively small navy right now that could do little to defend itself against the US) and this is entirely an issue of defence spending. Defence expenditure is the greater measure of military effectiveness and hence why it's the key measure of military size and strength. In 30 years time for example if the US has an all drone robo-army and only 20,000 people to run it that doesn't make them less weak than an army of 100,000 but no counter to the drones and hence that 100,000 gets slaughtered.
Major conflict normally means a conflict that spreads beyond it's own borders and/or involving a sizeable force. A small scale military incursion by special forces to rescue a hostage from Somali pirates would not be a major conflict, but a raid into Somalia and some degree of occupation as in the 90s would. It is quite arbitrary but not so much so as to invalidate the GP's point - it's pretty easy to tell which conflicts would be classed as major in common parlance. Since World War II it'd include things like Korea, the Cold War, Vietnam, Lebanon, Iraq x2, Afghanistan, Yugoslavia.
This is the way the terms are used in the media and have been for a long long time and across the globe so it's not unreasonable for the GP to use them as he has and in no way invalidates his point.
Probably not, but then I don't think it's ever been awarded to someone before they've actually done anything either so maybe they'll have to evaluate that possibility.
"He was convicted by a court of law in his own country."
Exactly. Weren't you defending the handling of Milosovic just now? That one worked well because he was tried by an impartial court more capable of administering justice. That's why it was a show trial.
"Sure. And he used the drones to get the guys, catching whom would've been too difficult or risky. But he did try to catch those, whom he could â" if only so that they can be interrogated â" but quite possibly also so that they have a chance to clear themselves."
Rubbish. Zarqawi could easily have been captured. Regardless though, how is this different to Obama? He only drone strikes those deep inside Pakistani/Yemeni territory where the troops can't go. Osama being the rather daring and dangerous exception.
"but I challenge you to point out a single "lie" in my comment."
I already did.
"And your source for these fascinating statistics is?.."
I'm sure you can go use Google. Go see how many people died as a result of Bush's actions in Iraq and Afghanistan. If you think the death count has been anywhere near as high since Obama took over then I'm not going to waste time getting a source for you because you're obviously not smart enough to get it anyway.
I'm not even from the US, I'm from the UK and I hate Obama partly because of his arrogance, partly because he's a fucking bully, and partly because he's always been a twat to us even when we've been supporting your nation in it's unjust wars, but to pretend he is somehow worse than Bush takes a particularly special kind of ignorant partisan dipshit.
Bush took 9/11 and drastically increased instability in the world, more Americans died under him fighting Bush's fight in Iraq/Afghanistan than in 9/11 and so he effectively took the American death toll and doubled it. He created Guantanamo, extraordinary rendition, extrajudicial killings in the modern era. His war on Iraq removed the only counterbalance in the region to Iran/Syria and turned them into ever stronger negative influences in the middle east. His actions and refusal to punish war criminals in his own military (rape is a war crime, US soldiers committed it) created ever more hate for America and created ever more jihadis making the world even less safe.
Obama hasn't undone much of this, but he has at least not created as many new problems and made the world less safe to anything like the degree Bush did.
Like it or not, people outside of the US can more objectively measure the quality of your presidents, and Bush is still vastly more hated than Obama, and for good reason - he was a much bigger problem for the world.
Okay I don't know anything about US law on this issue but I have a hard time believing it's this fucked up and nonsensical as you say.
You're allowed to discharge a weapon in self-defence is your claim if you feel you're in immediate danger, but your claim also seems to expand upon that by saying that if you do discharge a weapon in self-defence you must fire it at someone.
That frankly sounds like bollocks. If someone is charging at you with a knife then you're still in immediate fear for your life but discharging the weapon at the floor in front of them as they charge to make them stop would still be self-defence when in immediate fear for your life.
I'd wager the law says absolutely nothing whatsoever about having to fire directly at someone if firing in self defence which is the crux of your claim.
Bless, sounds like poor little George is just one of life's victims, wherever he goes he's just always getting attacked despite never setting a foot wrong!
What a poor unfortunate soul, we should all really feel sorry for him.
No seriously, even if the outcome of the case is justified I don't think there's any escaping the fact that this guy is a dick who finds himself in trouble all the time because he looks for it.
In fact, like it not, that's really the definition of being a neighbourhood watchman out on patrol like he was - you go out looking for trouble, that's kind of the point and it's something he's pretty clearly predisposed to and has caused him problems numerous times, because again, the guy is a dick regardless of the fact the killing wasn't his fault.
"To sum up: the "village idiot" and "Constitution-shredder" Bush presided over Milosevic and Hussein being delivered to justice. Harvard-educated lawyer and Nobel Peace Prize-winner Obama presided over bin Laden and Qaddafi shot on the spot..."
Hussein was beheaded by hanging after a show trial. Bush was the one who started the drone programme and even without drones he had people like Zarqawi assassinated by F16:
I don't agree with much of what Obama does but your post is the most stupidly partisan I've seen modded +5 on Slashdot in a while. It reads like a bunch of pro-Republican lies because most of it just isn't true. More people innocent and guilty died under Bush's orders than Obamas at the end of the day, the difference is that under Bush the killing was indiscriminate and decided upon by anyone under his command in the military who felt like it. Under Obama it is at least targeted at key militant areas and intelligence led as much as that often goes wrong still.
No it is a flaw on both iOS and Android and it's really annoying. I know exactly what the GP is saying.
Also annoying when you turn the camera and are about to reach awkwardly to push the button using a finger from the same hand you're holding it only to have the fucking thing rotate depending on angle and the button move to another place on the screen so you have to then try and move your hand one handed or convince it to flip back to where it was.
It really is stupid. The people who wrote both the iOS and Android camera apps need to be taken out back and shot.
Of course they can but when that physicist stops doing physics and starts doing engineering to produce a product they become an engineer.
It is possible to be more than one thing so yes technically if they found a physicist who is an electromechanical engineer they'd be fine also primarily what they need is an electromechanical engineer.
I have no problem with physicist, I'm a mathematician/developer whose maths background helped me get into an engineering firm to develop new applications to support their engineering team so know full well that someone from a background of physics or maths can also move into engineering fields, but as soon as they asked me to start helping produce projects and applying engineering principles I'd learnt I've had stopped being a mathematician/developer and started being an engineer.
It's nothing against physicists - on the contrary I was underwhelmed by how difficult the engineers roles I encountered actually were such that I can say with certainty that yes a mathematician/physicist most definitely could become an engineer. I'm simply pointing out that there's a real actual job title that specifically applies exactly to the merging of electrical and mechanical engineering that's all and normally you look for someone who fits the job exactly before you get desperate enough to look for someone who has the competence and background knowledge to learn the job, which means they can't hit the ground running and which is really what you're talking about. So yes a physicist can do it, but no it's not what the company will have been looking for - they want someone who can already do the job, not learn how to do it over a few months/years.
I would imagine the electromechanical engineering field has a need for electromechanical engineers no?
Sounds like the real problem is the guy applied to an electromechanical engineering role whilst only having experience as an electrical engineer.
By definition, if they want someone who can do both, they're looking for an electromechanical engineer, not simply an electrical engineer so he went for a job he's not qualified for then decided to complain about not being fit for it.
"How dare you defy the whims and rulings of not just one of my masters, but my highest master whom I serve and gift my life to defending without question!"
Well he was already complicit in working for the nazi regime and has told a number of lies about his association which is always going to raise suspicion that he was more than just a passive participant but this didn't seem to matter.
No, the rumour is that it's something far more serious to the Catholic Church than something as innocent as being a Nazi, the rumour is that he might have *gasp* been a closet gay *shock horror*. Of course, only in an organisation as backwards as the Vatican could such a harmless natural trait be a potential vector for major scandal.
Slashdot Mirror
A human is just as, if not more likely to freak out in a helicopter than an animal.
I don't know where you get this paranoid fantasy of pets going crazy in a helicopter, it's certainly not born out in reality.
I think given how many people have now explained why you're wrong you may want to just admit you're wrong, rather than continuing to pretend you're not as everyone else looks on at you wondering why you're insisting so badly on being wrong.
Sometimes an argument is so far lost that there's no point trying to salvage it and the only way to save face is to just admit you're wrong. You're at that point I'm afraid.
I don't think you realise that people can have the same psychological attachment to pets as they can to children. Shooting it and throwing the carcass away is going to trigger the same response and resentment as shooting their child and throwing it away.
Don't be surprised if said individual goes on a shooting spree and kills a bunch of people shortly after because of your braindead plan.
"the "hard-core" dog-owners, as it were - are also the sort to buy "premium" dog food for $15.00 per can"
To be fair I buy our dogs premium dog food (though we don't buy wet canned food, we buy bags of dry food) because one of them just has permanent diarrhoea if we feed him the cheap shit. It really does vary in quality quite considerably. Our Lab is fine with the cheap shit, but I suspect this is because labs were bred to pick up all sorts of dead shit so have tougher constitutions in this respect.
Agree with you on keeping dogs busy, that's something I make sure I do given that I have two very active dogs also.
But I disagree on them not caring about things that aren't real, my border collie will happily just sit and watch the TV. When Lion Man is on his eyes are transfixed on the screen for the full duration of the show- I'm not saying he understands it or anything stupid like that but he's very clearly intrigued by the sight of the lions. He ignores it if it's just people most of the time but time and time again he'll consistently watch certain things, particularly nature shows.
Our two dogs react different to different animals on TV, even cartoon animals and it's pretty consistent, I've experimented with different footage of different animals. Also the dogs eye level things doesn't bare true for me, our TV is mounted above the fire place and our dogs will happily look up at it and pay attention.
Our border collie for example absolutely loves whales and lions, he'll literally just sit for hours quietly watching them perfectly content. He also seems to like giraffes, camels and hippos but neither him or our lab can stand other dogs, cats, monkeys, and if they see something like a snake then it literally gets their heckles up and they'll growl at it. Bears can be hit and miss, sometimes they seem content to watch, other times they growl.
But always most amusing is when you're watching a documentary about wolves, yes, as soon as the wolves start howling our dogs do too, just to make sure the wolves on TV are aware that they may be intruding on the territory of our dogs...
My biggest concern though is that I think our lab is a closet racist, because he growls at black people on TV, though he never does this out on a walk. It's all very odd.
"In other words, you don't have any evidence showing it to not have been fair... Got it."
Sorry, had no idea you were too retarded to look things up for yourself.
"You accused me of posting "lies" but remain unable to identify a single one."
This is funny because I've done exactly that. It's as if you can't even see the words in front your face you're so far lost into your little partisan pro-Republican fanboy fest.
"No, actually. Obama did switch. And people with better attention-spans than yours did notice. Bush used drones, when that was the only way to get the target. Obama uses them all the time"
So he didn't switch then. It wasn't a question of various little intricacies but a question of whether extrajudicial killings are acceptable. That was your original argument and it doesn't matter how desperately you claw for an escape from that, that was your argument and Bush started it, Obama continued it.
"But we were talking about the extrajudicial killings, which Bush ordered only when he had to, but Obama orders all the time."
Oh I see. So it's okay when Bush "has to" but when Obama deems he has to it's a completely different thing? You really can't see how utterly biased and incapable of objectivity you are can you?
"But on the particular matter of extrajudicial detentions vs. extrajudicial killings Bush wins hands down."
Yes, if we write off all the atrocities committed when troops were sent in on the ground and covered up by Bush you're right. Fortunately most of us aren't so stuck in our horrendously biased partisan "I love Bush" ways to forget those though. It's like you're completely oblivious to the thousands of extrajudicial killings committed by troops under Bush's boots on the ground strategy.
Seriously though, you're a lost cause, you can't look things up because you prefer to stay blind to reality, you can't see what's written in front of you because you're so partisan and you ignore things where it's inconvenient and try and build an argument up on half the data. You've reached the point of zealotry and you can't even see it, it's sad, but I guess it's really not my problem, so have fun with that.
"Number of troops, number of divisions, number of aircraft, number of missiles. The readiness of those units and equipment. The technology levels."
Sure but what are all these summarised by? Defence spending.
Ultimately the more money you spend the more you get, efficiency comes in to play to some extent but not so much so that the US' 5 to 6 fold increase on spending over the nearest competitor - China - is wiped out. It may well be that you have less troops but if you're spending more it just means you have more missiles or drones or whatever instead and that's really the key.
"China is likely to become an increasingly formidable adversary as times passes."
Agree that China will become more formidable, though not convinced it will ever really be a threat. It has too much internal strife and as soon as it shifts it's military focus externally it's going to lose control of Hong Kong, Xinjiang, Tibet, and all influence over Taiwan - even if it reaches US expenditure and size it's going to have to have half it's forces stationed in it's own back yard regardless to prevent itself collapsing. But sticking to the thread of discussion it was just about the current state of the US military and it's involvement in wars over the last 50 years.
Interestingly a large portion of America's military expenditure is on it's nuclear arsenal. China could become a threat to it conventionally because of this if the US opts to maintain an arsenal large enough to wipe the world out many times over rather than reduce it's nuclear arsenal to a more sensible size and shift the expenditure to conventional equipment instead.
"Actually, Milosevic died in jail awaiting trial"
It doesn't matter, he was put into a proper trial where he wasn't just fast tracked to the gallows. That's not a show trial. Saddam's was because there was no hope of a fair trial.
"But everything I wrote in my "highly moderated" post was perfectly true."
Keep telling yourself that. You'll still be wrong though no matter how many times you do.
"Oh, Bush had to conduct a war."
No he didn't. If it was revenge you were after than surgical strikes against the Taliban would've worked just fine. There was no reason to even bother with Iraq at all. It was far better left alone for regional stability.
"But we were talking about the "war" on terror â" and how Obama, in order to avoid extrajudicial detentions switched to extrajudicial killings."
As I said, stop lying. He didn't switch. This was already happening under Bush. Yes he expanded the programme, but he didn't switch to it, that switch had already been made.
I don't agree with it in principal but Obama has done what he's done for one reason - surgical strikes no matter how much of an affront to justice are still less messy than boots on the ground and that's why he's made the decision to expand the programme - by doing so he recognises that he doesn't need to throw as many soldier's lives away patrolling harsh border territories which is the alternative given that he took over a war that is unwinnable. He could've pulled out of Afghanistan altogether as with Iraq but the Afghan military he was handed wasn't in a state where it could be left to fend for itself like the Iraqi military could, the net result would've been the collapse of the Afghan military and ever more advanced weaponry getting into the hands of the Taliban.
Like I say, I don't like Obama but IMO he's making the best of a bad job.
"And how he is getting away with it."
So did Bush. Maybe that's the problem? When one does it and isn't held to account they all think they can?
"To paraphrase certain Florida prosecutor, Obama is killing them not because he has to, but because he wants to â" with your consent and approval."
That's just more partisan crap though. Bush didn't have to start a war in Afghanistan and Iraq but he did because he wanted to and the fundamental difference is that Obama was handed that war, he did not start it, so on the wants to/has to scale Obama is much closer to has to, but Bush was entirely wants to.
It's classic military strategy as illegal as it might be, both Bush and Obama were engaged in a war, the difference is that Bush had his forces on the defensive because the battles were on the insurgencies terms, whilst Obama has turned that around and carried the war onto the home turf of the insurgents with drone strikes.
It's a shitty mess all around and Obama is a dick, but it's ultimately still a mess that Bush created which is why he's always going to be more to blame.
"try catching a motorcycle in an up-armor hmmwv"
I thought that's what the mounted .50 cal is for?
You terrorist! What next, you'll be wanting someone that upholds the law, and is willing to adhere to globally agreed standards on human rights too.
Defence spending is the normal measure because troop numbers doesn't determine military strength.
China for example has a massive standing army but it doesn't have the logistical infrastructure to take them anywhere of interest (i.e. it has a relatively small navy right now that could do little to defend itself against the US) and this is entirely an issue of defence spending. Defence expenditure is the greater measure of military effectiveness and hence why it's the key measure of military size and strength. In 30 years time for example if the US has an all drone robo-army and only 20,000 people to run it that doesn't make them less weak than an army of 100,000 but no counter to the drones and hence that 100,000 gets slaughtered.
Major conflict normally means a conflict that spreads beyond it's own borders and/or involving a sizeable force. A small scale military incursion by special forces to rescue a hostage from Somali pirates would not be a major conflict, but a raid into Somalia and some degree of occupation as in the 90s would. It is quite arbitrary but not so much so as to invalidate the GP's point - it's pretty easy to tell which conflicts would be classed as major in common parlance. Since World War II it'd include things like Korea, the Cold War, Vietnam, Lebanon, Iraq x2, Afghanistan, Yugoslavia.
This is the way the terms are used in the media and have been for a long long time and across the globe so it's not unreasonable for the GP to use them as he has and in no way invalidates his point.
Probably not, but then I don't think it's ever been awarded to someone before they've actually done anything either so maybe they'll have to evaluate that possibility.
"He was convicted by a court of law in his own country."
Exactly. Weren't you defending the handling of Milosovic just now? That one worked well because he was tried by an impartial court more capable of administering justice. That's why it was a show trial.
"Sure. And he used the drones to get the guys, catching whom would've been too difficult or risky. But he did try to catch those, whom he could â" if only so that they can be interrogated â" but quite possibly also so that they have a chance to clear themselves."
Rubbish. Zarqawi could easily have been captured. Regardless though, how is this different to Obama? He only drone strikes those deep inside Pakistani/Yemeni territory where the troops can't go. Osama being the rather daring and dangerous exception.
"but I challenge you to point out a single "lie" in my comment."
I already did.
"And your source for these fascinating statistics is?.."
I'm sure you can go use Google. Go see how many people died as a result of Bush's actions in Iraq and Afghanistan. If you think the death count has been anywhere near as high since Obama took over then I'm not going to waste time getting a source for you because you're obviously not smart enough to get it anyway.
I'm not even from the US, I'm from the UK and I hate Obama partly because of his arrogance, partly because he's a fucking bully, and partly because he's always been a twat to us even when we've been supporting your nation in it's unjust wars, but to pretend he is somehow worse than Bush takes a particularly special kind of ignorant partisan dipshit.
Bush took 9/11 and drastically increased instability in the world, more Americans died under him fighting Bush's fight in Iraq/Afghanistan than in 9/11 and so he effectively took the American death toll and doubled it. He created Guantanamo, extraordinary rendition, extrajudicial killings in the modern era. His war on Iraq removed the only counterbalance in the region to Iran/Syria and turned them into ever stronger negative influences in the middle east. His actions and refusal to punish war criminals in his own military (rape is a war crime, US soldiers committed it) created ever more hate for America and created ever more jihadis making the world even less safe.
Obama hasn't undone much of this, but he has at least not created as many new problems and made the world less safe to anything like the degree Bush did.
Like it or not, people outside of the US can more objectively measure the quality of your presidents, and Bush is still vastly more hated than Obama, and for good reason - he was a much bigger problem for the world.
Even better, take Obama's away and give it to Snowden.
Okay I don't know anything about US law on this issue but I have a hard time believing it's this fucked up and nonsensical as you say.
You're allowed to discharge a weapon in self-defence is your claim if you feel you're in immediate danger, but your claim also seems to expand upon that by saying that if you do discharge a weapon in self-defence you must fire it at someone.
That frankly sounds like bollocks. If someone is charging at you with a knife then you're still in immediate fear for your life but discharging the weapon at the floor in front of them as they charge to make them stop would still be self-defence when in immediate fear for your life.
I'd wager the law says absolutely nothing whatsoever about having to fire directly at someone if firing in self defence which is the crux of your claim.
Bless, sounds like poor little George is just one of life's victims, wherever he goes he's just always getting attacked despite never setting a foot wrong!
What a poor unfortunate soul, we should all really feel sorry for him.
No seriously, even if the outcome of the case is justified I don't think there's any escaping the fact that this guy is a dick who finds himself in trouble all the time because he looks for it.
In fact, like it not, that's really the definition of being a neighbourhood watchman out on patrol like he was - you go out looking for trouble, that's kind of the point and it's something he's pretty clearly predisposed to and has caused him problems numerous times, because again, the guy is a dick regardless of the fact the killing wasn't his fault.
"To sum up: the "village idiot" and "Constitution-shredder" Bush presided over Milosevic and Hussein being delivered to justice. Harvard-educated lawyer and Nobel Peace Prize-winner Obama presided over bin Laden and Qaddafi shot on the spot..."
Hussein was beheaded by hanging after a show trial. Bush was the one who started the drone programme and even without drones he had people like Zarqawi assassinated by F16:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Musab_al-Zarqawi#Death
I don't agree with much of what Obama does but your post is the most stupidly partisan I've seen modded +5 on Slashdot in a while. It reads like a bunch of pro-Republican lies because most of it just isn't true. More people innocent and guilty died under Bush's orders than Obamas at the end of the day, the difference is that under Bush the killing was indiscriminate and decided upon by anyone under his command in the military who felt like it. Under Obama it is at least targeted at key militant areas and intelligence led as much as that often goes wrong still.
No it is a flaw on both iOS and Android and it's really annoying. I know exactly what the GP is saying.
Also annoying when you turn the camera and are about to reach awkwardly to push the button using a finger from the same hand you're holding it only to have the fucking thing rotate depending on angle and the button move to another place on the screen so you have to then try and move your hand one handed or convince it to flip back to where it was.
It really is stupid. The people who wrote both the iOS and Android camera apps need to be taken out back and shot.
Of course they can but when that physicist stops doing physics and starts doing engineering to produce a product they become an engineer.
It is possible to be more than one thing so yes technically if they found a physicist who is an electromechanical engineer they'd be fine also primarily what they need is an electromechanical engineer.
I have no problem with physicist, I'm a mathematician/developer whose maths background helped me get into an engineering firm to develop new applications to support their engineering team so know full well that someone from a background of physics or maths can also move into engineering fields, but as soon as they asked me to start helping produce projects and applying engineering principles I'd learnt I've had stopped being a mathematician/developer and started being an engineer.
It's nothing against physicists - on the contrary I was underwhelmed by how difficult the engineers roles I encountered actually were such that I can say with certainty that yes a mathematician/physicist most definitely could become an engineer. I'm simply pointing out that there's a real actual job title that specifically applies exactly to the merging of electrical and mechanical engineering that's all and normally you look for someone who fits the job exactly before you get desperate enough to look for someone who has the competence and background knowledge to learn the job, which means they can't hit the ground running and which is really what you're talking about. So yes a physicist can do it, but no it's not what the company will have been looking for - they want someone who can already do the job, not learn how to do it over a few months/years.
No, they're looking for an electromechanical engineer. In fact, that's the exact definition of what they're looking for.
Physicists focus on the experimental, engineers focus on producing a product.
Yes I didn't really get that.
I would imagine the electromechanical engineering field has a need for electromechanical engineers no?
Sounds like the real problem is the guy applied to an electromechanical engineering role whilst only having experience as an electrical engineer.
By definition, if they want someone who can do both, they're looking for an electromechanical engineer, not simply an electrical engineer so he went for a job he's not qualified for then decided to complain about not being fit for it.
Really? I read it as:
"How dare you defy the whims and rulings of not just one of my masters, but my highest master whom I serve and gift my life to defending without question!"
Interesting theory Mr denzacar. I think this possibility deserves government funding and further investigation.
"I have to wonder if your post isn't just a clever way to libel not just a priest, but a Pope"
Why is libelling a Pope any more bad than libelling a priest or anyone else for that matter?
Well he was already complicit in working for the nazi regime and has told a number of lies about his association which is always going to raise suspicion that he was more than just a passive participant but this didn't seem to matter.
No, the rumour is that it's something far more serious to the Catholic Church than something as innocent as being a Nazi, the rumour is that he might have *gasp* been a closet gay *shock horror*. Of course, only in an organisation as backwards as the Vatican could such a harmless natural trait be a potential vector for major scandal.