I don't think so. It's doubtful she had a clue what was in it aside from a broad overview of the key parts. It was after all over 2,000 pages, right? It was a glib assurance which we see in hindsight was unjustified.
Sigh. As I said, the bill had already passed her chamber of congress, so she had either forgotten about that (I suppose you'll say that's possibility), or she was referring to the Senate reconciliation process. I'm not even saying I disagree with the point you're trying to make, but the comment is still taken entirely out of context. I'm certain there were people in the Senate debates... the *year* of debates, that knew full well what was in the bill.
FY2007's omnibus budget bill was 1400 pages. You're using an absolute number that is shocking with nothing for comparison. Either you knew that, and are being disingenuous, or you didn't, and now you do.
Ehhhhh, I'm not going to argue that the PPACA passage wasn't a massive circus, but you are taking her comments pretty far out of context.
When she said that, her chamber of Congress had already passed its bill (HR 3962) and was waiting on Senate passage/reconciliation. There are 2 possibilities regarding her statement- the first being that she forgot the House had passed the bill off to the Senate, or she was referring to what would come of the reconciliation, since at the time there was a massive effort to get Republican senate approval and changes were being actively made to it at their request.
The people making a massive deal of that soundbite also have 2 possibilities: They're woefully ignorant of how the US Congress works, or they're trying to capitalize off of a poorly worded statement by turning it into something it's not.
I hate that I'm having to defend Nancy fucking Pelosi, but media soundbites are fucking ridiculous.
I knew where you were originally going with the bandwidth vs. latency argument. That's why I threw in context. What he said *was* accurate. All you did was provide an example of how his exact wording could be inaccurate, which nobody can argue.
The NYTimes article I cited talks about the sanctions.
Those were actually Clinton-era sanctions imposed on Russians arms companies dealing with Iran and Syria, most of which had lapsed and had just been replaced with a UN resolution, dropped 3 days after the UN resolution.
There were no sanctions levied against Russia for the Georgian invasion.
Russians stopped, when Condoleeza Rice arrived to Tbilisi [wikipedia.org]. It was not enough to make Russians return the land they captured, but it was enough to make them stop short of taking the capital.
Really? Rice went there a month before the conflict broke out... Or are you referring to her flying there to witness the signing of the French-brokered peace agreement that gave the Russians exactly what they wanted?
I am a thinking human, and therefor I "shill" for Republicans. They are bad, but they aren't (quite as) awful.
This isn't even political, man- the Bush administration response to Russian aggression was even more toothless than the Obama administration's. It's pretty damn ripe for ex-Bush officials to talk like they're some kinds of badasses when they rolled over for the whole thing, unless you consider flying an absolutely insignificant brigade of troops into Tbilisi.
I don't care what color their underpants are, blue or red, I just see 2 dudes and how they handled an issue. The Bush administration's response (minus Mad-Dog Cheney's typical foaming at the mouth) did nothing but give Putin a good chuckle as he sipped Vodka with his favorite pet Bear in some hotspring resort in Siberia.
Whether in hardware or software, it's still a fair amount of computation, which means battery usage and latency.
No latency for hw crypty.
A hardware crypto device can en-/decrypt faster than the disk transfers.
If the disk can transfer 1MB/s, and the crypto engine can handle <1MB/s, then there is going to be reduction in functional disk bandwidth, or at a higher level, an increase in latency between the requested block of data and the service of that block to the higher layer.
Now, if the disk can transfer 1MB/s and the crypto engine can handle >1MB/s, the crypto engine can run transparently (unless for some godforsaken reason crypto block access is mutually blocking with attached storage access), thus introducing 0 *added* latency to the system.
Our reaction (both military moves and economic sanctions) to Georgia back then was not enough to push Russians out completely, but it kept Russia from entering Tbilisi and vanquishing the little country for good
Forgive me for demanding citations. I'm not aware of any American sanctions or military moves (minus a couple of NATO vessels moved into the black sea- almost, but not quite enough to almost dent the armor of the Russian Black Sea Fleet, while saying they have nothing to do with the crisis anyhow)
There was hand waving, condemnation, and nothing more. How can you possibly attribute the Russians withdrawing to the territorial gains that they wanted as some kind of victory of that hand waving?
I want to agree with you on your points critical of the current administration, but I can't do so when you're so flagrantly blind to the precedent set by the predecessor. It makes me think you're a partisan shill instead of a thinking human.
And the CU ruling grants neither citizenship nor humanity to corporations. It reaffirms that corporations have many of the same rights as persons, such as free speech, because corporations are made up of persons. It created nothing new.
Yes, whereas Dartmouth College v. Woodward had nothing to do with the right of a Corporation, and everything to do with the rights of government. One could say that it established that a Corporation could in fact enter into a contract, but that was already part of Common Law; while the limitation of State Government toward its ability to abridge or nullify contracts was specifically enshrined in the Constitution.
It grants no right to the Corporation. It reaffirms a limitation of Government toward the treatment of Contracts.
I'm construing nothing. I referred you to a source which happens to agree with other sources as to the actual effect of CU. It does happen to disagree with the biases of people who hate corporations.
Entirely possible that I misread your intent.
"Natural citizens" is a red herring.
No, it's not. There is a difference between a person, citizen, and an entity endowed with certain rights by Government. The constitution protects one of those, but not the other. CU does set precedent in assigning protections from the Bill of Rights to said legal constructs, where precedent did not exist before. That's significant, whether the ruling is disagreed with or not.
Dartmouth College v. Woodward was a judgement that stated that the Contract Clause applied to Corporations. I can see why that section you quoted reads [citation needed].
For your reference, the Contract Clause follows:
No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.
As you can see, the Clause in question cares not about citizenship, or even humanity, and the right for a Corporation to enter into contract is certainly enshrined in Common Law.
Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railway's judgement did not even mention the 14th amendment (though it is accurate to say the defense attempted to use it)
I think you're misconstruing some judgements that favored a Corporation as acknowledgement that the Court previously held them to be natural citizens.
That is fucking awesome- go forth, multiply, and be fruitful. Maybe that's not that weird for 14 year olds these days, but when I was 14, that was pretty unique
I can't say I really care about his womanizing. Or any politicians. My concepts of sexual "morality" differ pretty seriously from the mainstream, which I consider to be utterly illogical. When you say "no longer matters", I say "should never have mattered". Sure he was a hypocrite, being he was a Pastor, but I think most Christians are hypocrites struggling with cognitive dissonance over their god-given rules and human nature/reality.
Well, that's not really true. I mean, look at what I'm asking for WRT libvirt. There's a facility already present in the system for doing what they're doing, and they simply ignore it, with consequences for users. And what's more, the facility works really well for what they're doing with it, which they're doing very poorly.
What you mean, is that there are already many facilities present in many systems for doing what they're doing. We don't all use debian (/etc/interfaces? holy crap.) w/o NetworkManager anymore. You blame libvirt for trying to handle the actual problem in a fashion that causes the least amount of headache for the majority of users across disparate systems. That's silly.
Scaffolding is actually what they're talking about. Lots and lots of really silly scaffolding to hold together a few dozen instructions of code. Java (I do regularly have to write Java code, unfortunately) really, really suffers from this.
Where do we draw the line? I'm not sure, it's hard to quantify exactly but I'd want to weight it heavily towards being pretty darn sure of hitting valid targets almost exclusively.
I understand the pragmatic need to accept collateral damage. But ISIS is an insurrection style force. Like any rebellion rising from the ranks of the populace- you CANNOT bomb it into submission. You will only strengthen its numbers. Collateral damage maybe nearly impossible to eliminate, but in a war against a popular uprising (ISIS is recruited from among the populace of the area- and outside of its area, populations that belong to the very groups it's fighting) you simply have to eliminate it. The longer it goes on, the more recruiting power every collateral kill has. Unless we're ready to just firebomb the entire fucking place into oblivion, we've got to do it the ugly way. Go in with people and catch the bad guys.
I don't think we created it
You're right- that was incorrect wording from me.
More accurately, we gave an ideology the fuel it needed to become a real problem.
We gave them their Great Satan. There's way too much blood on our hands.
You're an idiot if you think that matters to the people this organization recruits.
Furthermore, I'd argue children in their homes aren't civilians who wandered into a combat zone.
We can argue all day who is more immoral, but the fact is, we're acting like the British Empire trying to put down an annoying insurrection of restless natives. Hitting them with the heavy hand of someone who is convinced in their own superiority, moral righteousness, and not afraid to use overwhelming force. These things may work against a country, but they won't work against small organizations that recruit the wronged that WE are wronging.
The only thing going our way at this point, is that they may finally end up pissing off enough of their own recruiting source that their insurrection gets stamped out by the massive reserves of manpower surrounding them.
Did the launching forces know that there were civilians on site before ordering the strike?
Of course. If not 100%, I have no doubt they were in the modeled outcome.
If so, what ratio of collateral damage was expected?
One that fell within the range of "acceptable", I imagine.
There is no such thing as a sanitary war where no civilians are ever harmed, that is especially true in cases of asymmetric warfare like that of the U.S. vs. Islamic Terrorists.
Can't argue that.
This is made even more complicated as the opposing force routinely uses civilians as shields knowing that we are reluctant to cause civilian casualties.
Not relevant to the example above, at all. But again, that they do that can't be argued.
This is a clear violation of the laws of war.
That's pretty rich, coming from us.
I'm bitching less about the morality of it (my opinion is clearly that it is wrong), but the sheer stupidity of it. We're fighting an ideology that is created by our actions. It would be like trying to fight the American Revolution by quartering Continental soldiers in private homes and taxing them without representation. It's stupidity. There's no doubt that what we are doing, is in some part, originated from a sense of trying to do right (ignoring any corrupting influences), but we're still Doing It Wrong (TM). What's the right way? I don't know. But this isn't it. We have to stop killing those innocents. We have to stop creating those grieving fathers and brothers. This isn't a symmetrical war where we're trying to stamp out morale- you can't stamp out the morale of people with a well-earned vendetta against you.
You seem like a really reasonable guy.
These people are evil, sick fucks. There's no doubt about it. But you should put what they do in the context of what is done to them. First thing to look at- the bombed out building. https://firstlook.org/theinter...
Then that.
I want these guys stomped out of existence as much as the next guy, but I'm pretty goddamn sure we're doing *nothing* but making more of them with every father that sees his child's destroyed remains in a bombing campaign against those people. I'm sure this dynamic has existed long enough that they're figured it out and actively WANT us to bomb them to some extent.
That being said, do we just let them win? Of course not. But we HAVE to find a way to fight them without creating more of them. Doing so is the very definition of fucking stupid.
You are right that the deliberateness of the act can definitely be contrasted to the indifference in the American counterpart, which would be firing missiles into houses full of people to kill a single guy, watching from a remotely piloted armed surveillance platform as they burned, with not a single picture of the charred bodies of children appearing on American media sources.
These people are fucking savages, but I don't believe our top brass in the defense-intelligence structure are any better. We're just a little more worried about being re-elected.
You are right- there is a difference. But that difference becomes muddy to the father or brother of a murdered child. If I were a psychotic religious nutjob that wanted to spread my ideology across a fertile landscape, all I'd need to do is troll the government (or people out to stop me) into creating enough sentiment against itself. At that point, it doesn't even fucking matter why they were doing it. All that matters is the blood of innocents is on their hands, and people will take up arms against them. They will rally to any fucking flag that waves high enough.
My position is correct. But how'd you make the jump toward arrest? If collaborating with terrorists were a crime, half of the top 1% of this country would be incarcerated overnight.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't think so. It's doubtful she had a clue what was in it aside from a broad overview of the key parts. It was after all over 2,000 pages, right? It was a glib assurance which we see in hindsight was unjustified.
Sigh. As I said, the bill had already passed her chamber of congress, so she had either forgotten about that (I suppose you'll say that's possibility), or she was referring to the Senate reconciliation process. I'm not even saying I disagree with the point you're trying to make, but the comment is still taken entirely out of context. I'm certain there were people in the Senate debates... the *year* of debates, that knew full well what was in the bill.
FY2007's omnibus budget bill was 1400 pages. You're using an absolute number that is shocking with nothing for comparison. Either you knew that, and are being disingenuous, or you didn't, and now you do.
Ehhhhh, I'm not going to argue that the PPACA passage wasn't a massive circus, but you are taking her comments pretty far out of context. When she said that, her chamber of Congress had already passed its bill (HR 3962) and was waiting on Senate passage/reconciliation. There are 2 possibilities regarding her statement- the first being that she forgot the House had passed the bill off to the Senate, or she was referring to what would come of the reconciliation, since at the time there was a massive effort to get Republican senate approval and changes were being actively made to it at their request.
The people making a massive deal of that soundbite also have 2 possibilities: They're woefully ignorant of how the US Congress works, or they're trying to capitalize off of a poorly worded statement by turning it into something it's not.
I hate that I'm having to defend Nancy fucking Pelosi, but media soundbites are fucking ridiculous.
I knew where you were originally going with the bandwidth vs. latency argument. That's why I threw in context. What he said *was* accurate. All you did was provide an example of how his exact wording could be inaccurate, which nobody can argue.
The NYTimes article I cited talks about the sanctions.
Those were actually Clinton-era sanctions imposed on Russians arms companies dealing with Iran and Syria, most of which had lapsed and had just been replaced with a UN resolution, dropped 3 days after the UN resolution.
There were no sanctions levied against Russia for the Georgian invasion.
Russians stopped, when Condoleeza Rice arrived to Tbilisi [wikipedia.org]. It was not enough to make Russians return the land they captured, but it was enough to make them stop short of taking the capital.
Really? Rice went there a month before the conflict broke out... Or are you referring to her flying there to witness the signing of the French-brokered peace agreement that gave the Russians exactly what they wanted?
I am a thinking human, and therefor I "shill" for Republicans. They are bad, but they aren't (quite as) awful.
This isn't even political, man- the Bush administration response to Russian aggression was even more toothless than the Obama administration's. It's pretty damn ripe for ex-Bush officials to talk like they're some kinds of badasses when they rolled over for the whole thing, unless you consider flying an absolutely insignificant brigade of troops into Tbilisi.
I don't care what color their underpants are, blue or red, I just see 2 dudes and how they handled an issue. The Bush administration's response (minus Mad-Dog Cheney's typical foaming at the mouth) did nothing but give Putin a good chuckle as he sipped Vodka with his favorite pet Bear in some hotspring resort in Siberia.
Whether in hardware or software, it's still a fair amount of computation, which means battery usage and latency.
No latency for hw crypty.
A hardware crypto device can en-/decrypt faster than the disk transfers.
If the disk can transfer 1MB/s, and the crypto engine can handle <1MB/s, then there is going to be reduction in functional disk bandwidth, or at a higher level, an increase in latency between the requested block of data and the service of that block to the higher layer.
Now, if the disk can transfer 1MB/s and the crypto engine can handle >1MB/s, the crypto engine can run transparently (unless for some godforsaken reason crypto block access is mutually blocking with attached storage access), thus introducing 0 *added* latency to the system.
I think his assumption is quite safe.
Our reaction (both military moves and economic sanctions) to Georgia back then was not enough to push Russians out completely, but it kept Russia from entering Tbilisi and vanquishing the little country for good
Forgive me for demanding citations. I'm not aware of any American sanctions or military moves (minus a couple of NATO vessels moved into the black sea- almost, but not quite enough to almost dent the armor of the Russian Black Sea Fleet, while saying they have nothing to do with the crisis anyhow)
There was hand waving, condemnation, and nothing more. How can you possibly attribute the Russians withdrawing to the territorial gains that they wanted as some kind of victory of that hand waving?
I want to agree with you on your points critical of the current administration, but I can't do so when you're so flagrantly blind to the precedent set by the predecessor. It makes me think you're a partisan shill instead of a thinking human.
And the CU ruling grants neither citizenship nor humanity to corporations. It reaffirms that corporations have many of the same rights as persons, such as free speech, because corporations are made up of persons. It created nothing new.
Yes, whereas Dartmouth College v. Woodward had nothing to do with the right of a Corporation, and everything to do with the rights of government. One could say that it established that a Corporation could in fact enter into a contract, but that was already part of Common Law; while the limitation of State Government toward its ability to abridge or nullify contracts was specifically enshrined in the Constitution. It grants no right to the Corporation. It reaffirms a limitation of Government toward the treatment of Contracts.
I'm construing nothing. I referred you to a source which happens to agree with other sources as to the actual effect of CU. It does happen to disagree with the biases of people who hate corporations.
Entirely possible that I misread your intent.
"Natural citizens" is a red herring.
No, it's not. There is a difference between a person, citizen, and an entity endowed with certain rights by Government. The constitution protects one of those, but not the other. CU does set precedent in assigning protections from the Bill of Rights to said legal constructs, where precedent did not exist before. That's significant, whether the ruling is disagreed with or not.
No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.
As you can see, the Clause in question cares not about citizenship, or even humanity, and the right for a Corporation to enter into contract is certainly enshrined in Common Law.
Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railway's judgement did not even mention the 14th amendment (though it is accurate to say the defense attempted to use it) I think you're misconstruing some judgements that favored a Corporation as acknowledgement that the Court previously held them to be natural citizens.
Putin would not have dared to invade Ukraine.
Ya, because fear of a neocon president sure scared him away from invading Georgia.
They have nothing to loose.
Sure they do- an entire army of lobbyists. They'll loose them like the dogs of war. Now, they may very well have nothing to lose
;)
That is fucking awesome- go forth, multiply, and be fruitful. Maybe that's not that weird for 14 year olds these days, but when I was 14, that was pretty unique
Fatality.
oh_my_080980980 wins.
I can't say I really care about his womanizing. Or any politicians. My concepts of sexual "morality" differ pretty seriously from the mainstream, which I consider to be utterly illogical. When you say "no longer matters", I say "should never have mattered". Sure he was a hypocrite, being he was a Pastor, but I think most Christians are hypocrites struggling with cognitive dissonance over their god-given rules and human nature/reality.
Well, that's not really true. I mean, look at what I'm asking for WRT libvirt. There's a facility already present in the system for doing what they're doing, and they simply ignore it, with consequences for users. And what's more, the facility works really well for what they're doing with it, which they're doing very poorly.
What you mean, is that there are already many facilities present in many systems for doing what they're doing. We don't all use debian (/etc/interfaces? holy crap.) w/o NetworkManager anymore. You blame libvirt for trying to handle the actual problem in a fashion that causes the least amount of headache for the majority of users across disparate systems. That's silly.
Scaffolding is actually what they're talking about. Lots and lots of really silly scaffolding to hold together a few dozen instructions of code. Java (I do regularly have to write Java code, unfortunately) really, really suffers from this.
Where do we draw the line? I'm not sure, it's hard to quantify exactly but I'd want to weight it heavily towards being pretty darn sure of hitting valid targets almost exclusively.
I understand the pragmatic need to accept collateral damage. But ISIS is an insurrection style force. Like any rebellion rising from the ranks of the populace- you CANNOT bomb it into submission. You will only strengthen its numbers. Collateral damage maybe nearly impossible to eliminate, but in a war against a popular uprising (ISIS is recruited from among the populace of the area- and outside of its area, populations that belong to the very groups it's fighting) you simply have to eliminate it. The longer it goes on, the more recruiting power every collateral kill has. Unless we're ready to just firebomb the entire fucking place into oblivion, we've got to do it the ugly way. Go in with people and catch the bad guys.
I don't think we created it
You're right- that was incorrect wording from me.
More accurately, we gave an ideology the fuel it needed to become a real problem.
We gave them their Great Satan. There's way too much blood on our hands.
You're an idiot if you think that matters to the people this organization recruits.
Furthermore, I'd argue children in their homes aren't civilians who wandered into a combat zone.
We can argue all day who is more immoral, but the fact is, we're acting like the British Empire trying to put down an annoying insurrection of restless natives. Hitting them with the heavy hand of someone who is convinced in their own superiority, moral righteousness, and not afraid to use overwhelming force. These things may work against a country, but they won't work against small organizations that recruit the wronged that WE are wronging.
The only thing going our way at this point, is that they may finally end up pissing off enough of their own recruiting source that their insurrection gets stamped out by the massive reserves of manpower surrounding them.
As with many things context matters.
Agreed- 100%.
Did the launching forces know that there were civilians on site before ordering the strike?
Of course. If not 100%, I have no doubt they were in the modeled outcome.
If so, what ratio of collateral damage was expected?
One that fell within the range of "acceptable", I imagine.
There is no such thing as a sanitary war where no civilians are ever harmed, that is especially true in cases of asymmetric warfare like that of the U.S. vs. Islamic Terrorists.
Can't argue that.
This is made even more complicated as the opposing force routinely uses civilians as shields knowing that we are reluctant to cause civilian casualties.
Not relevant to the example above, at all. But again, that they do that can't be argued.
This is a clear violation of the laws of war.
That's pretty rich, coming from us.
I'm bitching less about the morality of it (my opinion is clearly that it is wrong), but the sheer stupidity of it. We're fighting an ideology that is created by our actions. It would be like trying to fight the American Revolution by quartering Continental soldiers in private homes and taxing them without representation. It's stupidity. There's no doubt that what we are doing, is in some part, originated from a sense of trying to do right (ignoring any corrupting influences), but we're still Doing It Wrong (TM). What's the right way? I don't know. But this isn't it. We have to stop killing those innocents. We have to stop creating those grieving fathers and brothers. This isn't a symmetrical war where we're trying to stamp out morale- you can't stamp out the morale of people with a well-earned vendetta against you.
Damn, I really regret commenting on this page now. You're down at the bottom and very deserving of my mod points :/
Mod this dude up. His brain works.
You seem like a really reasonable guy.
These people are evil, sick fucks. There's no doubt about it. But you should put what they do in the context of what is done to them. First thing to look at- the bombed out building.
https://firstlook.org/theinter...
Then that.
I want these guys stomped out of existence as much as the next guy, but I'm pretty goddamn sure we're doing *nothing* but making more of them with every father that sees his child's destroyed remains in a bombing campaign against those people. I'm sure this dynamic has existed long enough that they're figured it out and actively WANT us to bomb them to some extent.
That being said, do we just let them win? Of course not. But we HAVE to find a way to fight them without creating more of them. Doing so is the very definition of fucking stupid.
You are right that the deliberateness of the act can definitely be contrasted to the indifference in the American counterpart, which would be firing missiles into houses full of people to kill a single guy, watching from a remotely piloted armed surveillance platform as they burned, with not a single picture of the charred bodies of children appearing on American media sources.
These people are fucking savages, but I don't believe our top brass in the defense-intelligence structure are any better. We're just a little more worried about being re-elected.
You are right- there is a difference. But that difference becomes muddy to the father or brother of a murdered child. If I were a psychotic religious nutjob that wanted to spread my ideology across a fertile landscape, all I'd need to do is troll the government (or people out to stop me) into creating enough sentiment against itself. At that point, it doesn't even fucking matter why they were doing it. All that matters is the blood of innocents is on their hands, and people will take up arms against them. They will rally to any fucking flag that waves high enough.
Nonsense. I know some "things" that have the right of free political spending... I mean speech.
I didn't see that- you're dead on, then.
My position is correct. But how'd you make the jump toward arrest? If collaborating with terrorists were a crime, half of the top 1% of this country would be incarcerated overnight.