Dunno what happened to it? If you take it from my tone that this was a self control issue, it wasn't, I had no intention to stop texting while driving because I don't see it as inherently dangerous. Nor talking on the phone.
I am pretty convinced that the majority of the issue is the inability of people to recognize the inherent self selection bias in accident data.
While I disagree that this is that big a deal, especially in light of the evidence that the people who get in accidents with cell phones get in just as many accidents without them (gee what is the common link there?) which seriously makes me think that the whole issue is a matter of not recognizing the inherent self-selection in accident statistics than anything.....
aside from that, this is essentially the same argument I used to make when people would be concerned about me occasionally turning off the ringer on my phone or leaving it somewhere so as not to bother me.
Mom: "What if there was an emergency and your grandmother got hurt?" Me: "Then you should call the hospital, I am not an ambulance, and have no medical training; I likely can't help."
As if me not knowing the very moment someone died or was seriously injured was somehow important. Yes I may only find out hours later. Yes I may miss the opportunity to see them alive one more time.... no I don' lose any sleep over it.
I use textsecure on my phone, and I have now and will continue to maintain that texting CAN be done safely while driving, and that most of the problem with it is based on strawman arguments based on how long a person COULD spend or how long average people spend staring at the phone rather than watching the road.
In no way, of course, would I say that all drivers who text do so safely or even that the majority do, just that nobody has yet shown that it has to be unsafe, or even that it is a significant issue that rises so far above the background as to be worth solving.
That said.... two things stopped me from texting. The first was getting a smart phone....boy are touch screens hard to use without looking at them! However, I have a droid2, which has a physical keypad, basically requires two hands to use.
So this is where textsecure comes in. To read a text message, I have to decrypt my text messages. That means entering a password which requires special chars and capitals, which makes typing it a bit cumbersome. Putting in my password while driving is hard enough that I gave up shortly after setting it up.
> The reason I have limited sympathy is that if you're that ignorant, you have no business buying a > house to begin with
If you are ignorant, how do accurately judge your competence?
What I especially don't see is the point of this entire tangent. Its not relevant to the discussion and serves only to re-iterate lessons that I already learned.
Do you really think a sarcastic comment would drive the point home better than the 30 grand I went out of pocket underpinning the house foundation and having all of the oil soaked soil removed?
Does my failure to protect myself really excuse taking advantage of the situation by the people who did know better and did this professionally? I think they really are separate issues....which is why I was trying to just leave it at an offhand remark rather than going into the woods.
Yes I should have protected myself better up front. I realized that years ago. You have not informed me of a single thing I didn't already learn the hard and expensive way.
This was a really good point. Lots of people have lots of ideas that never go anywhere. Just last night I was musing about the old Chaum Digicash protocol and how it could be adapted to voting. I couldn't remember a few pieces, and did some searching and digging in boxes....
Then after a bit I moved on to see if there was already any software (GPG support) for blind signatures....I didn't really find much, except, when i looked for GPG support....
I found someone else, just days ago had posted on a crypto mailing list...asking if GPG had blind signature support because he wanted to use the digicash protocol and adapt it for a voting system...and a reply saying its not exactly a new concept but never goes anywhere:)
Ideas are great, but alone they are a dime a dozen.
Took me all of a couple of minutes and some wiki/google to find a couple: General Dynamics. Check them out in a long term graph, it has flatlined a bit as the wars cooled down and they had a lawsuit with uncle sam over some defective parts. That said, they have a diverse range of military products, from tanks to communications systems. They are likely to do well.
Bunch of rinky dinks on the list but, Nortrop Grumman stands out. They make a number of military aircraft.
Of course, who could forget Lockheed. Makers of the C-130 "moneyshaker". They have gotten congress to approve the purchase of 5000% more than the pentagon ever asked for, even doubling their order this very year (while moaning about sequesters) (Citation needed? http://www.commondreams.org/view/2013/03/10-6 )
So with more military action on the way, I think its safe to predict these stocks are looking good for the next few years at least.
Not too long ago, this is the sort of revelation that would be in the public 30 years later.
Its not just heros like Snowden who are leaking, the trend seems to be moving strongly towards the inability of large organizations to keep any real secrets at all. Nobody is giving up missle codes or anything legitimate, but.... lies told to the public seem to have a lot less staying power than they used to.
I like this trend. May it continue for all of these orgs and may they have to eventually come to the conclusion that dealing honestly with the public is the only viable option in the future.
Because otherwise they would be adding more bodies to the unemployment rolls. Plus weapons, unlike most other things, are still manufactured here, so they have to keep up the orders, and congress can't make up for all the slack on their own by JUST purchasing more equipment from their contracts than the military even asks for.
Be that as it may, it really has no bearing on this discussion, nor did I really state otherwise.
However, I do take issue with the idea that a person is solely at fault for having their ignorance taken advantage of, however, I have better things to do than spend much more time on the particulars of that situation, its eaten up enough of my time and money over the years.
Of course, silly me, at the time, I guess I never should have assumed that the bank doing the financing, and putting in such a huge up front investment (far more than me) with their only guarantee of repayment being the lien on the property....would have insisted on thorough above board inspectors.
I guess it should have been obvious to me at um 24, while I was still living with a bunch of guys in essentially a frat house, that banks were originating bunk loans and selling them without any care whether the investment was any good or not. Hell, maybe I shouldn't have assumed that since I was buying it with a friend whose father was selling it to us, that we didn't need to worry as much since...aferall...what father would screw over his own son?
But shit, I never even looked into researching whether I could sue anyone, I just fixed all that out of pocket and bitched that the business was shady, and it was. Because, if it wasn't shady, my assumptions would have been right, and the bank.... who was really the one putting up the bulk of the money, would have been out to make secure investments, not defraud other banks.
So there, now I have wasted another 10 minutes of my life on remembering a few details of a bad investment. I fully admit, I was negligent, but, I don't think my assumptions were entirely unreasonable or uncommon either. Taking advantage of people's ignorance and assumptions is....shady business.
I am not even seeking compensation though, I am just calling a spade a spade.
> Some (e.g. Countrywide) encouraged people to lie on their applications.
Having bought a house back then, I was under the impression that this was the industry-wide SOP.
When I bought, we ran into some minor documentation problem relating to documenting our income. I forget the exact issue, but, it wasn't even a matter of us not having the income, it was just a documentation issue. (We had the income, our sale had other issues... like that it maybe shouldn't have ever passed inspection, but some things are hard to prove after the fact.... )
So the broker explained to us that there was another way, and we could just write a letter stating what our income was, and the bank would then accept it. There were some implications that would have effected the final interest rate or something but, it was an option.
I had heard there was shady stuff going on but, the very idea that one could just....opt out of documenting their income and state it, and be taken at their word? The implications of that were not at all lost on me. I mean, clearly for someone in my position it was potentially a boon but, what was to stop someone who actually didn't have the income from getting the loan? I wondered....
well as it turns out, the answer was: nothing at all. This was SOP. There is no reason to allow such declarations at all except.... to originate bunk mortgages....and no reason to originate bunk mortgages except.... to bundle and sell them.
You would have to take into account the one variable he doesn't... the speed of light. Even at distances where the curve and spin of the earth matter, the latency caused by light itself is not an issue.
Thing is, aiming at where the target will be is exactly what a sniper would tell you to do...that is what he does when leading a target.
Then you have to take into account another variable thats simpler for him: Fuel. Straight line accleration is easy, you just accelerate till you reach desired vector and then.... cruise until its time to slow down... course corrections take energy.
Likely you can't avoid some corrections over time, but, if you can minimize them up front, why wouldn't you? Especially when doing so just isn't that hard.
At least its not hard compared to.... figuring out your fuel requirements for both accelerating up to the required speed and then slowing back down: http://what-if.xkcd.com/58/
This exponential increase is the central problem of rocketry: The fuel required to increase your speed by one km/s multiplies your weight by about 1.4. To get into orbit, you need to increase your speed to 8 km/s, which means you'll need a lot of fuel: $ 1.4\times1.4\times1.4\times1.4\times1.4\times1.4\times1.4\times1.4\approx 15$ times the original weight of your ship.
Using a rocket to slow down carries the same problem: Every 1 km/s decrease in speed multiplies your starting mass by that same factor of 1.4. If you want to slow all the way down to zeroâ"and drop gently into the atmosphereâ"the fuel requirements multiply your weight by 15 again.
Same problem.... but at a much larger scale and well.... if YOU want to try atmospheric braking at.9 c, I would like to observe that, from no closer than the nearest moon....
Again, it reminded me of the coffee that I had in Turkey only that won't make any sense to anyone unless they've had Turkish coffee. The coffee I was served, multiple times in multiple places, in Turkey was burnt and very strong - strong to the point of absurd. Also burnt to the point of gross. It was bitter, burnt, and stronger than anyone should make coffee. It was served like that anywhere that I went so I am assuming it is a cultural thing and I've heard people mention it since. I've even heard a few people claim to like it.
Funny thing about "testing positive for explosive residue", is more loaded than accurate.
The test is not for "explosive residue" it is for redidues of categories of substances which include both explosives and various known and possibly unknown substances which it can't distinguish from them. The problem is you are only looking at specificity, that it can detect explosives.
The population of people who are not blowing up planes is much larger than the people who are. In fact, the population of people who handle some form of explosives occasionally, or come into contact with them (possibly through contact with someone who does) is itself a much larger population than people looking to do anything maliscious, and to such a degree that even a miniscule false positive rate is far too much.
Saying that someone "tested positive" is far too strong for such a test. If you see a guy in the vicinity of a shed, and that shed has an explosives lab in it, and he tests positive on a test like this, then yes he is testing positive for explosives.
J Random public just testing positive on this test is NOT credibly a positive result for explosives or evil intent with them.
> and everything snowballed from there like some kind of comedy skit, where everything he did and said was > interpreted as matching the profile of a terrorist.
They call it security THEATER for a reason. These people's jobs are best understood as acting jobs as part of a demented straight faced comedy troupe whose schtik is acting like they have no sense of humor at all.
Well not to malign either of them, I have no problem with anonymity or choosing it. However, that would apply more to Snowden to Manning, as Manning did not give up his own name to the public, he was discovered and outed by a con man who had gained his confidence:
(10:23:34 AM) info@adrianlamo.com: I'm a journalist and a minister. You can pick either, and treat this as a confession or an interview (never to be published) & enjoy a modicum of legal protection.
Though apparently it is true, he filled out some webform to get an ordination certificate; which is totally legit and the kind of thing people who are not con men do:
I doubt that is a useful stat. First, individuals driving skill changes over time, so, at what age are we talking? Most drivers get in less accidents as they age....and those that get in really bad ones tend to stop getting in them too:)
But I am looking at my own driving, I don't know that I have driven 250k miles in the past 15 years....and I have driven back and forth to work for the majority of that time. The car I have had since 2005 only had 90k miles on it, and at least 18k of that was put on by a friend I leant it to for a while.
Is a person who gets in a couple of accidents in his early 20s really a bad driver because by the time he hits his mid 30s he hasn't driven enough miles average it out for his age with all the people who live out in the sticks and put on 100 miles round trip going to the store.
Damn helicopters are quite an upgrade to transmission of IP via avian carrier, but, I am not sure its a very smart one, as carrier drops could be very expensive.
All accounts I have seen indicate that he was starting to feel this way long before any of this happened. I have some Tranny friends (will be camping with them this weekend in fact) and it isn't something one just suddenly one day decide, or that people go crazy and decide to do....its usually accompanied by lifelong feelings of not really being "right".
Hell, I met one woman who lived as a man for years, never felt right, transitioned, and not till the age of about 50 did doctors find some small ovaries inside her. Had apparently really been part woman the whole time, never knew it.
This transition creates an odd conflict. Bradley Manning is a household name. He leaked secrets, he is either a hero of villian. He is a symbol.
Who is Chelsea Manning? She is just a woman going to jail. Nobody knows her. She is not a household name, not a symbol.
Maybe that works out in her favor in the long run? I don't really know, it is a bit of a toss up.... but we have been talking about the plight of Bradley Manning so long, I wonder that maybe this is bad timing, but, maybe there is no good timing.
Yes I only admitted that and had two other posts point it out, one of which I even replied to and pointed out that I already admitted I got that backwards. Also, I fucked that up twice....moron
Now that we have that cleared up, maybe there is a spelling or grammar error you would like to point out?
If you had so much access, then why is Bradley Manning the only one who did the right thing with that access?
In no uncertain terms, as far as I am concerned, the only people who ere betrayed were the American people's enemies. The enemies who take our money with lies of necessity, and then turn around and use it for their wars, even lieing to us about the purpose of those wars.
He is a hero, and this sentence only makes it more so, and sets him apart from everyone else who works for these traitors.
Those 31 million were responsible for how many deaths on Alderaan? Fuck them, and I don't even care how many of them were just government contractors trying to make a living. They were responsible for the murder of almost 2 billion people!
> You and I may not like it but torture was in fact not illegal.
In that case, there should be no problem in letting a public court come to that conclusion and exonerate them. Personally though, i dislike it enough that I say, if it was legal, then the legal is illegitimate.
Slashdot Mirror
Dunno what happened to it? If you take it from my tone that this was a self control issue, it wasn't, I had no intention to stop texting while driving because I don't see it as inherently dangerous. Nor talking on the phone.
I am pretty convinced that the majority of the issue is the inability of people to recognize the inherent self selection bias in accident data.
While I disagree that this is that big a deal, especially in light of the evidence that the people who get in accidents with cell phones get in just as many accidents without them (gee what is the common link there?) which seriously makes me think that the whole issue is a matter of not recognizing the inherent self-selection in accident statistics than anything.....
aside from that, this is essentially the same argument I used to make when people would be concerned about me occasionally turning off the ringer on my phone or leaving it somewhere so as not to bother me.
Mom: "What if there was an emergency and your grandmother got hurt?"
Me: "Then you should call the hospital, I am not an ambulance, and have no medical training; I likely can't help."
As if me not knowing the very moment someone died or was seriously injured was somehow important. Yes I may only find out hours later. Yes I may miss the opportunity to see them alive one more time.... no I don' lose any sleep over it.
I use textsecure on my phone, and I have now and will continue to maintain that texting CAN be done safely while driving, and that most of the problem with it is based on strawman arguments based on how long a person COULD spend or how long average people spend staring at the phone rather than watching the road.
In no way, of course, would I say that all drivers who text do so safely or even that the majority do, just that nobody has yet shown that it has to be unsafe, or even that it is a significant issue that rises so far above the background as to be worth solving.
That said.... two things stopped me from texting. The first was getting a smart phone....boy are touch screens hard to use without looking at them! However, I have a droid2, which has a physical keypad, basically requires two hands to use.
So this is where textsecure comes in. To read a text message, I have to decrypt my text messages. That means entering a password which requires special chars and capitals, which makes typing it a bit cumbersome. Putting in my password while driving is hard enough that I gave up shortly after setting it up.
> The reason I have limited sympathy is that if you're that ignorant, you have no business buying a
> house to begin with
If you are ignorant, how do accurately judge your competence?
What I especially don't see is the point of this entire tangent. Its not relevant to the discussion and serves only to re-iterate lessons that I already learned.
Do you really think a sarcastic comment would drive the point home better than the 30 grand I went out of pocket underpinning the house foundation and having all of the oil soaked soil removed?
Does my failure to protect myself really excuse taking advantage of the situation by the people who did know better and did this professionally? I think they really are separate issues....which is why I was trying to just leave it at an offhand remark rather than going into the woods.
Yes I should have protected myself better up front. I realized that years ago. You have not informed me of a single thing I didn't already learn the hard and expensive way.
This was a really good point. Lots of people have lots of ideas that never go anywhere. Just last night I was musing about the old Chaum Digicash protocol and how it could be adapted to voting. I couldn't remember a few pieces, and did some searching and digging in boxes....
Then after a bit I moved on to see if there was already any software (GPG support) for blind signatures....I didn't really find much, except, when i looked for GPG support....
I found someone else, just days ago had posted on a crypto mailing list...asking if GPG had blind signature support because he wanted to use the digicash protocol and adapt it for a voting system...and a reply saying its not exactly a new concept but never goes anywhere :)
Ideas are great, but alone they are a dime a dozen.
Took me all of a couple of minutes and some wiki/google to find a couple:
General Dynamics. Check them out in a long term graph, it has flatlined a bit as the wars cooled down and they had a lawsuit with uncle sam over some defective parts. That said, they have a diverse range of military products, from tanks to communications systems. They are likely to do well.
Bunch of rinky dinks on the list but, Nortrop Grumman stands out. They make a number of military aircraft.
Of course, who could forget Lockheed. Makers of the C-130 "moneyshaker". They have gotten congress to approve the purchase of 5000% more than the pentagon ever asked for, even doubling their order this very year (while moaning about sequesters) (Citation needed? http://www.commondreams.org/view/2013/03/10-6 )
So with more military action on the way, I think its safe to predict these stocks are looking good for the next few years at least.
Not too long ago, this is the sort of revelation that would be in the public 30 years later.
Its not just heros like Snowden who are leaking, the trend seems to be moving strongly towards the inability of large organizations to keep any real secrets at all. Nobody is giving up missle codes or anything legitimate, but.... lies told to the public seem to have a lot less staying power than they used to.
I like this trend. May it continue for all of these orgs and may they have to eventually come to the conclusion that dealing honestly with the public is the only viable option in the future.
I don't expect it but....I hope for it.
Because otherwise they would be adding more bodies to the unemployment rolls. Plus weapons, unlike most other things, are still manufactured here, so they have to keep up the orders, and congress can't make up for all the slack on their own by JUST purchasing more equipment from their contracts than the military even asks for.
Be that as it may, it really has no bearing on this discussion, nor did I really state otherwise.
However, I do take issue with the idea that a person is solely at fault for having their ignorance taken advantage of, however, I have better things to do than spend much more time on the particulars of that situation, its eaten up enough of my time and money over the years.
Of course, silly me, at the time, I guess I never should have assumed that the bank doing the financing, and putting in such a huge up front investment (far more than me) with their only guarantee of repayment being the lien on the property....would have insisted on thorough above board inspectors.
I guess it should have been obvious to me at um 24, while I was still living with a bunch of guys in essentially a frat house, that banks were originating bunk loans and selling them without any care whether the investment was any good or not. Hell, maybe I shouldn't have assumed that since I was buying it with a friend whose father was selling it to us, that we didn't need to worry as much since...aferall...what father would screw over his own son?
But shit, I never even looked into researching whether I could sue anyone, I just fixed all that out of pocket and bitched that the business was shady, and it was. Because, if it wasn't shady, my assumptions would have been right, and the bank.... who was really the one putting up the bulk of the money, would have been out to make secure investments, not defraud other banks.
So there, now I have wasted another 10 minutes of my life on remembering a few details of a bad investment. I fully admit, I was negligent, but, I don't think my assumptions were entirely unreasonable or uncommon either. Taking advantage of people's ignorance and assumptions is....shady business.
I am not even seeking compensation though, I am just calling a spade a spade.
> Some (e.g. Countrywide) encouraged people to lie on their applications.
Having bought a house back then, I was under the impression that this was the industry-wide SOP.
When I bought, we ran into some minor documentation problem relating to documenting our income. I forget the exact issue, but, it wasn't even a matter of us not having the income, it was just a documentation issue. (We had the income, our sale had other issues... like that it maybe shouldn't have ever passed inspection, but some things are hard to prove after the fact.... )
So the broker explained to us that there was another way, and we could just write a letter stating what our income was, and the bank would then accept it. There were some implications that would have effected the final interest rate or something but, it was an option.
I had heard there was shady stuff going on but, the very idea that one could just....opt out of documenting their income and state it, and be taken at their word? The implications of that were not at all lost on me. I mean, clearly for someone in my position it was potentially a boon but, what was to stop someone who actually didn't have the income from getting the loan? I wondered....
well as it turns out, the answer was: nothing at all. This was SOP. There is no reason to allow such declarations at all except.... to originate bunk mortgages....and no reason to originate bunk mortgages except.... to bundle and sell them.
> You could bring a sniper to do the aiming.
You would have to take into account the one variable he doesn't... the speed of light. Even at distances where the curve and spin of the earth matter, the latency caused by light itself is not an issue.
Thing is, aiming at where the target will be is exactly what a sniper would tell you to do...that is what he does when leading a target.
Then you have to take into account another variable thats simpler for him: Fuel. Straight line accleration is easy, you just accelerate till you reach desired vector and then.... cruise until its time to slow down... course corrections take energy.
Likely you can't avoid some corrections over time, but, if you can minimize them up front, why wouldn't you? Especially when doing so just isn't that hard.
At least its not hard compared to.... figuring out your fuel requirements for both accelerating up to the required speed and then slowing back down: http://what-if.xkcd.com/58/
Same problem.... but at a much larger scale and well.... if YOU want to try atmospheric braking at .9 c, I would like to observe that, from no closer than the nearest moon....
If you really want to get to it, we should expect a bathtub curve shouldn't we?
mmmm sounds good, I need some coffee
Funny thing about "testing positive for explosive residue", is more loaded than accurate.
The test is not for "explosive residue" it is for redidues of categories of substances which include both explosives and various known and possibly unknown substances which it can't distinguish from them. The problem is you are only looking at specificity, that it can detect explosives.
The population of people who are not blowing up planes is much larger than the people who are. In fact, the population of people who handle some form of explosives occasionally, or come into contact with them (possibly through contact with someone who does) is itself a much larger population than people looking to do anything maliscious, and to such a degree that even a miniscule false positive rate is far too much.
Saying that someone "tested positive" is far too strong for such a test. If you see a guy in the vicinity of a shed, and that shed has an explosives lab in it, and he tests positive on a test like this, then yes he is testing positive for explosives.
J Random public just testing positive on this test is NOT credibly a positive result for explosives or evil intent with them.
> and everything snowballed from there like some kind of comedy skit, where everything he did and said was
> interpreted as matching the profile of a terrorist.
They call it security THEATER for a reason. These people's jobs are best understood as acting jobs as part of a demented straight faced comedy troupe whose schtik is acting like they have no sense of humor at all.
Well not to malign either of them, I have no problem with anonymity or choosing it. However, that would apply more to Snowden to Manning, as Manning did not give up his own name to the public, he was discovered and outed by a con man who had gained his confidence:
http://news.slashdot.org/story/11/07/15/000213/wired-releases-full-manninglamo-chat-logs
Though apparently it is true, he filled out some webform to get an ordination certificate; which is totally legit and the kind of thing people who are not con men do:
http://www.deathandtaxesmag.com/170703/witness-against-bradley-manning-is-a-universal-life-church-minister/
He is a minister, and we are all popes.
I doubt that is a useful stat. First, individuals driving skill changes over time, so, at what age are we talking? Most drivers get in less accidents as they age....and those that get in really bad ones tend to stop getting in them too :)
But I am looking at my own driving, I don't know that I have driven 250k miles in the past 15 years....and I have driven back and forth to work for the majority of that time. The car I have had since 2005 only had 90k miles on it, and at least 18k of that was put on by a friend I leant it to for a while.
Is a person who gets in a couple of accidents in his early 20s really a bad driver because by the time he hits his mid 30s he hasn't driven enough miles average it out for his age with all the people who live out in the sticks and put on 100 miles round trip going to the store.
Damn helicopters are quite an upgrade to transmission of IP via avian carrier, but, I am not sure its a very smart one, as carrier drops could be very expensive.
All accounts I have seen indicate that he was starting to feel this way long before any of this happened. I have some Tranny friends (will be camping with them this weekend in fact) and it isn't something one just suddenly one day decide, or that people go crazy and decide to do....its usually accompanied by lifelong feelings of not really being "right".
Hell, I met one woman who lived as a man for years, never felt right, transitioned, and not till the age of about 50 did doctors find some small ovaries inside her. Had apparently really been part woman the whole time, never knew it.
This transition creates an odd conflict. Bradley Manning is a household name. He leaked secrets, he is either a hero of villian. He is a symbol.
Who is Chelsea Manning? She is just a woman going to jail. Nobody knows her. She is not a household name, not a symbol.
Maybe that works out in her favor in the long run? I don't really know, it is a bit of a toss up.... but we have been talking about the plight of Bradley Manning so long, I wonder that maybe this is bad timing, but, maybe there is no good timing.
Yes I only admitted that and had two other posts point it out, one of which I even replied to and pointed out that I already admitted I got that backwards. Also, I fucked that up twice....moron
Now that we have that cleared up, maybe there is a spelling or grammar error you would like to point out?
Ok I overstated. You are likely correct except....Fatty liver disease. Excess sugar is implicated in that, and fruit juices are an excellent source of excess sugar: http://blog.liverdoctor.com/2012/05/what-causes-fatty-liver-fatty-liver.html
Its ok, I disagree with them about whether soldier is a respectable or even morally acceptable career choice.
If you had so much access, then why is Bradley Manning the only one who did the right thing with that access?
In no uncertain terms, as far as I am concerned, the only people who ere betrayed were the American people's enemies. The enemies who take our money with lies of necessity, and then turn around and use it for their wars, even lieing to us about the purpose of those wars.
He is a hero, and this sentence only makes it more so, and sets him apart from everyone else who works for these traitors.
Those 31 million were responsible for how many deaths on Alderaan? Fuck them, and I don't even care how many of them were just government contractors trying to make a living. They were responsible for the murder of almost 2 billion people!
> You and I may not like it but torture was in fact not illegal.
In that case, there should be no problem in letting a public court come to that conclusion and exonerate them. Personally though, i dislike it enough that I say, if it was legal, then the legal is illegitimate.