Yes, but those folks had the possibility of coming back, and quite a few did. A one way trip to Mars would mean that you're definitely not coming back, and will almost certainly die by either starvation or suicide once there.
Consequently I'm not sure that it's a fair analogy.
Citation sorely needed. Wikileaks has not broken any laws. Pfc Manning did break some laws if he did what he's alleged to have done. But Wikileaks hasn't violated any laws and the case law on that is quite clear. Spreading the leaked information is protected by our 1st amendment. Despite Bush era beliefs to the contrary, the constitution applies to the US government no matter where it's operating.
Yeah, and ask Mathew Shepard about Christian tolerance. It's easy to find the exception that proves the rule, but the reality is that Christians are hardly better than Muslims in that respect. They just have better PR.
Beyond that, there's little if any relevance in this to Wikileaks. We already know that there's a small minority of Muslims that will kill over criticism of their religious beliefs.
Citation necessary. If he was hiding from the Swedish police he was doing a piss poor job of it. They were always able to contact his attorney, the hiding had more to do with the concern for his safety in light of all the vigilante advocates out there.
And of course he fought the extradition, while he had previously volunteered, volunteering previously does not negate his right to challenge the extradition and to demand that it be done in accordance with the law. Once the British legal system makes a determination, I'm sure he'll abide by it. At least he has up until now, he did surrender to officials in the UK when ordered to.
I think a lot of that has to do with NPR and TDS not being 24 hour news networks. NPR spends a lot of time on other things which aren't news, such as a Praire Home Companion and the game shows they air.
Trying to air 24 hours of news every day is a large part of what got those other networks into trouble. There just isn't enough news resources to fill the time legitimately. So you end up with commentary by people that aren't qualified to comment or the editorial standards to tell them that opinion is fine, but making stuff up isn't.
Sure there is, you can't just plunk down new code into older GPL code and remove the licensing on it. I think you can do that if you own the original code and provided all of it originally, but I don't think you can do that once you're dealing with other people's GPL code. You only get to change the license on code that you own the rights to, not other people's patches.
And it wasn't the fact that we don't throw our citizens in jail for saying that the President sucks? Or that we extend that courtesy to foreign nationals staying with us?
That's a solid point. The main difference is that the feds aren't going to shoot anybody if they can avoid it. And they won't be going to prison for enforcing the law either.
That's one take. The other take is that people who smoke the stuff don't care about the ramifications to others of their behavior choices. Just because a large number of people considers themselves above the law, does not an argument for repeal make. It just gets less and less realistic to keep it illegal as the numbers grow.
Alcohol and tobacco should also be illegal. The problem is that there's a sufficient number of users out there that it's not likely to happen any time soon. At best what's happening is containment, trying to keep the people harmed and the people using to the same group rather than harming innocent bystanders.
I think the difference is that the dispensaries and warehouses that deal with pot are a bit difference. If for no other reason than they're illegal. Sure in some states medicinal marijuana is legal, but that's just at the state level. The DEA, FDA and various other initialisms can still exert their powers relevant to the topic.
What constitutes a dangerous lifestyle choice? In terms of injuries, running and jogging are just about the most dangerous things that anybody does. Probably the only things worse are things that people do for the express purpose of harming themselves.
OK, so instead of a mildly annoying ransom demand, you get pirates taking over ships and killing all the crew. Then taking possession of whatever isn't bolted down. Yes, that seems preferable to the current situation where the crew is typically released unharmed in exchange for a ransom payment.
I'm not a fan of piracy, but I really don't think that escalating things in that fashion is wise or beneficial to anybody. At least under the current agreement there's been little to no blood shed.
No, it's not. It depends upon the jurisdiction, but the fact that they might kill you isn't sufficient grounds for the use of deadly force. Especially if you've failed to take lesser steps to protect yourself.
I realize that the NRA and a lot of other people seem to think that's the case, but it isn't. It will likely get you out of a murder 1 conviction, but it won't get you out of a possible manslaughter conviction because you weren't thinking straight.
That's not a a valid analogy. Prior to 9/11 hijackings were operating under an informal agreement between the hijacker and the passengers. Namely that if they agreed to cooperate, the hijackers would leave them completely unharmed, albeit usually in Cuba or Libya.
What you're proposing is changing the deal so that there isn't any sort of assurance that the pirates will let the crew go unharmed. And that's stupid, especially when there are lesser alternatives available.
As it stands now, pirates expect that the crew won't be packing huge amounts of weaponry that would make a "hunting" trip with the Terminator and Rambo look piddly in comparison.
Arming the ships is inherently a bad idea. The main reason why these hijackings haven't turned deadly is that neither side really wants to start killing people. I realize that there's a large number of rather stubborn people that think that arming everybody is the solution, but it's not.
You cite these facts, but it's pretty clear that you've got no clue what's going on beyond what some NRA lacky told you about it. The reality tends to be that without a lot of training the weapons end up causing far more trouble than they're worth. Even with training it's common for soldiers to intentionally miss the people they're supposed to be killing during their early engagements.
Or you know, the owners of the ships could pay what it costs to defend them properly instead of paying the ransom. It isn't exactly a kill them or give up scenario. The corporations running those ships have decided that it's more cost effective to pay the ransom than fight it.
As it is, it's just too profitable for pirates to voluntarily stop.
As the other poster pointed out they an have opinions. And for diplomatic cables to be useful, they have to be frank. It's not particularly useful to have diplomats if they're expected to act with complete decorum in what are supposed to be private cables.
Apples and oranges, this isn't a threat of similar severity. Plus, there's a tendency of people to interpret that sort of blanket suspicion as a case of everybody doing it and be more likely to let something slip accidentally.
I think the real difference is that Facebook is a part of the internet rather than separate from it. The problem that AOL had was that it was a separate entity for most of its existence then had to find a way of competing with the much larger collection of people and works.
I don't think it's quite as bleak for FB as for AOL. There's always going to be sheeple, and while it'll almost certainly whither away significantly, I don't see it as going down like AOL did.
That being said, I think it goes without saying that a social networking site set up primarily to spy on the users and provide the opportunity to ruin ones life more efficiently is eventually going to be found out by enough people to ruin it.
That was my thought. This wasn't a problem with the metric system, he'd have made it 88km/h if he could, as that's just shy of 55mph, which is a lot easier to get a vehicle up to than 88mph.
I've got a similar problem here in Seattle. My options come down to Comcast or Qwest. Technically, I could go with Hughes or Clear, but the latency on those suck.
I've heard that Sonic is really good, but they aren't available in this region because of the company controlling the infrastructure. All the other options suck or suck and are expensive. I think Speakeasy is probably the best alternative at the moment, but the speeds aren't really any higher and the cost is at least double what I'm paying now. Even if you factor in for moving phone service to them.
Wait, you had a 486DX and you had broad band? I assume that wasn't a computer that you were using for the purposes of being anachronistic. We didn't get the option of high speed until about a decade or so ago, and the speed has changed little if at all in that time.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, but those folks had the possibility of coming back, and quite a few did. A one way trip to Mars would mean that you're definitely not coming back, and will almost certainly die by either starvation or suicide once there.
Consequently I'm not sure that it's a fair analogy.
Citation sorely needed. Wikileaks has not broken any laws. Pfc Manning did break some laws if he did what he's alleged to have done. But Wikileaks hasn't violated any laws and the case law on that is quite clear. Spreading the leaked information is protected by our 1st amendment. Despite Bush era beliefs to the contrary, the constitution applies to the US government no matter where it's operating.
Yeah, and ask Mathew Shepard about Christian tolerance. It's easy to find the exception that proves the rule, but the reality is that Christians are hardly better than Muslims in that respect. They just have better PR.
Beyond that, there's little if any relevance in this to Wikileaks. We already know that there's a small minority of Muslims that will kill over criticism of their religious beliefs.
Citation necessary. If he was hiding from the Swedish police he was doing a piss poor job of it. They were always able to contact his attorney, the hiding had more to do with the concern for his safety in light of all the vigilante advocates out there.
And of course he fought the extradition, while he had previously volunteered, volunteering previously does not negate his right to challenge the extradition and to demand that it be done in accordance with the law. Once the British legal system makes a determination, I'm sure he'll abide by it. At least he has up until now, he did surrender to officials in the UK when ordered to.
I think a lot of that has to do with NPR and TDS not being 24 hour news networks. NPR spends a lot of time on other things which aren't news, such as a Praire Home Companion and the game shows they air.
Trying to air 24 hours of news every day is a large part of what got those other networks into trouble. There just isn't enough news resources to fill the time legitimately. So you end up with commentary by people that aren't qualified to comment or the editorial standards to tell them that opinion is fine, but making stuff up isn't.
Because you're making a movie?
Sure there is, you can't just plunk down new code into older GPL code and remove the licensing on it. I think you can do that if you own the original code and provided all of it originally, but I don't think you can do that once you're dealing with other people's GPL code. You only get to change the license on code that you own the rights to, not other people's patches.
And it wasn't the fact that we don't throw our citizens in jail for saying that the President sucks? Or that we extend that courtesy to foreign nationals staying with us?
That's a solid point. The main difference is that the feds aren't going to shoot anybody if they can avoid it. And they won't be going to prison for enforcing the law either.
That's one take. The other take is that people who smoke the stuff don't care about the ramifications to others of their behavior choices. Just because a large number of people considers themselves above the law, does not an argument for repeal make. It just gets less and less realistic to keep it illegal as the numbers grow.
Alcohol and tobacco should also be illegal. The problem is that there's a sufficient number of users out there that it's not likely to happen any time soon. At best what's happening is containment, trying to keep the people harmed and the people using to the same group rather than harming innocent bystanders.
I think the difference is that the dispensaries and warehouses that deal with pot are a bit difference. If for no other reason than they're illegal. Sure in some states medicinal marijuana is legal, but that's just at the state level. The DEA, FDA and various other initialisms can still exert their powers relevant to the topic.
What constitutes a dangerous lifestyle choice? In terms of injuries, running and jogging are just about the most dangerous things that anybody does. Probably the only things worse are things that people do for the express purpose of harming themselves.
Well, Johnny Cash stole an entire car one piece at a time over a couple decades, if his music is any indication.
OK, so instead of a mildly annoying ransom demand, you get pirates taking over ships and killing all the crew. Then taking possession of whatever isn't bolted down. Yes, that seems preferable to the current situation where the crew is typically released unharmed in exchange for a ransom payment.
I'm not a fan of piracy, but I really don't think that escalating things in that fashion is wise or beneficial to anybody. At least under the current agreement there's been little to no blood shed.
No, it's not. It depends upon the jurisdiction, but the fact that they might kill you isn't sufficient grounds for the use of deadly force. Especially if you've failed to take lesser steps to protect yourself.
I realize that the NRA and a lot of other people seem to think that's the case, but it isn't. It will likely get you out of a murder 1 conviction, but it won't get you out of a possible manslaughter conviction because you weren't thinking straight.
That's not a a valid analogy. Prior to 9/11 hijackings were operating under an informal agreement between the hijacker and the passengers. Namely that if they agreed to cooperate, the hijackers would leave them completely unharmed, albeit usually in Cuba or Libya.
What you're proposing is changing the deal so that there isn't any sort of assurance that the pirates will let the crew go unharmed. And that's stupid, especially when there are lesser alternatives available.
As it stands now, pirates expect that the crew won't be packing huge amounts of weaponry that would make a "hunting" trip with the Terminator and Rambo look piddly in comparison.
Arming the ships is inherently a bad idea. The main reason why these hijackings haven't turned deadly is that neither side really wants to start killing people. I realize that there's a large number of rather stubborn people that think that arming everybody is the solution, but it's not.
You cite these facts, but it's pretty clear that you've got no clue what's going on beyond what some NRA lacky told you about it. The reality tends to be that without a lot of training the weapons end up causing far more trouble than they're worth. Even with training it's common for soldiers to intentionally miss the people they're supposed to be killing during their early engagements.
Or you know, the owners of the ships could pay what it costs to defend them properly instead of paying the ransom. It isn't exactly a kill them or give up scenario. The corporations running those ships have decided that it's more cost effective to pay the ransom than fight it.
As it is, it's just too profitable for pirates to voluntarily stop.
As the other poster pointed out they an have opinions. And for diplomatic cables to be useful, they have to be frank. It's not particularly useful to have diplomats if they're expected to act with complete decorum in what are supposed to be private cables.
Apples and oranges, this isn't a threat of similar severity. Plus, there's a tendency of people to interpret that sort of blanket suspicion as a case of everybody doing it and be more likely to let something slip accidentally.
I think the real difference is that Facebook is a part of the internet rather than separate from it. The problem that AOL had was that it was a separate entity for most of its existence then had to find a way of competing with the much larger collection of people and works.
I don't think it's quite as bleak for FB as for AOL. There's always going to be sheeple, and while it'll almost certainly whither away significantly, I don't see it as going down like AOL did.
That being said, I think it goes without saying that a social networking site set up primarily to spy on the users and provide the opportunity to ruin ones life more efficiently is eventually going to be found out by enough people to ruin it.
That was my thought. This wasn't a problem with the metric system, he'd have made it 88km/h if he could, as that's just shy of 55mph, which is a lot easier to get a vehicle up to than 88mph.
According to Wolfram Alpha it's ~~ 0.99 × speed at (or below) which Sammy Hagar cannot drive.
I've got a similar problem here in Seattle. My options come down to Comcast or Qwest. Technically, I could go with Hughes or Clear, but the latency on those suck.
I've heard that Sonic is really good, but they aren't available in this region because of the company controlling the infrastructure. All the other options suck or suck and are expensive. I think Speakeasy is probably the best alternative at the moment, but the speeds aren't really any higher and the cost is at least double what I'm paying now. Even if you factor in for moving phone service to them.
Wait, you had a 486DX and you had broad band? I assume that wasn't a computer that you were using for the purposes of being anachronistic. We didn't get the option of high speed until about a decade or so ago, and the speed has changed little if at all in that time.