If you can point me to a situation where the US has deliberately targeted only innocent civilians knowing them to be innocent civilians I will jump on your bandwagon calling for the heads of those behind such a despicable act
You're so cute when you try to move the goalposts like that. No one suggested that the military deliberately targeted innocents. What we said was that we thought it was good to have basic policies and guidelines for using drones to murder people in foreign countries that we're not at war with -- and it was a good thing that in those guidelines was an attempt to make sure that the people being murdered extra-judicially were not, in fact, innocent bystanders. Rep. Rogers suggested that was crazy talk. You, apparently, agreed with Rogers.
And now you've set up this laughable strawman.
You could, you know, just admit that you were wrong. But I know you, and we've had this discussion a hundred times. You'll just deny deny deny what's in black and white above, and keep trying to move those goalposts. Keep at it. You're adorable.
In response to your question people sitting before displays in the US are not in the front lines, but what they do absolutely assists those who are on the front lines.
Who is on the front lines in Yemen, at risk from a wedding party?
Does a Congressional declaration of war change in any way what is presented to our troops on the ground and mean they should respond to violence with both hands tied behind their backs whenever the enemy intermixes with civilians to avoid any in-kind response by our troops.
This has nothing to do with troops on the ground. I'm saying that we bombed a wedding party in a country we're not at war with, in a country where we don't have "troops on the ground" and where there was no direct and immediate risk to anyone.
You're changing the story.
Why not simply assign an attorney from a civil rights group to every person in a country where hostilities are being confronted by US troops, and then let them communicate when and as our troops can return fire and against who they can do so?
This has nothing to do with what we're talking about. You've changed the subject because I've (once again) proved that you were spewing bullshit.
No one who is sane wishes to engage in life threatening combat, but then again when in such a situation instinct kicks in for self-preservation.
Yes, I'm sure the drone pilot in Colorado was in "self-preservation" mode when he saw the wedding party halfway around the globe.
The last declaration of war by the United States was made on December 8. 1941. Your view appears to be that any hostilities conducted without a formal declaration is an illegal or quasi-illegal act that should be governed by a different set of rules when force must be used to meet force.
This is funny, since you're the one who's usually here mocking us for not explicitly following the exact letter of the law. Yet, suddenly, you can throw laws out the window. You're funny. I distinctly recall you insisting that there is no such thing as a software patent because it's not defined in the law. You also claimed there was no such thing as the "innovation economy" because it's not defined anywhere. Similarly, a "bad patent" doesn't exist, because it's not in the law.
Yet, war? Fuck, who cares what the definition is...
Judging by the remainder of your comments, you have never been associated with military service nor experienced any form of a life-threatening situation where your survival depended upon meeting force with force.
I'm curious. Could you explain to me how the CIA agent sitting in Langley and the drone pilot sitting in Colorado are in a life-threatening situation, in which they absolutely must, this very second bomb a wedding caravan in Yemen?
Remember - soldiers are not policemen. They are not trained to observe some complex legal code. They are trained to fight. Definition of "fight" differs per soldier and his/her duty - be it infantry or intelligence.
And yes, sometime pilot will be tired or simply not care enough - and will hit wrong target. And no, pilot is not guilty in anything beyond wasting ammo. He/She is a soldier and supposed to follow orders.
None of which has anything to do with the issue at hand. This is not about the rules of engagement for infantrymen. Also, despite your ignorant assertions there ARE rules for engagement.
Groups that hate the US will do so whether or not so-called collateral damage (i.e., innocents are hurt/killed) transpires.
First off, you think this makes it okay? Because the other guy does it, we should too? That's disgusting.
Second, do you not realize that doing so makes the problem worse? Killing innocent people doesn't stop the problem it makes more people want to attack us.
As for "a freakin' wedding", war is indiscriminate and not at all capable of being conducted with precision. Ask the civilians who died in WWII, whose numbers far exceeded those who died in actual combat (about 2 to 1).
Can you point out when the US Congress declared war on Yemen? Thanks.
So Google own 67% of the search market and there's competition?
Yes. There's Bing and Yahoo and Ask and Blekko and DuckDuckGo and Startpage and a bunch of others. And to use any of them costs nothing with no real switching costs.
Marketshare does not indicate whether or not there's competition. If all the competitors suck, well... how is that Google's fault?
There's far more competition in broadband between telcos, cable companies, over-the-air and satellite.
That's laughable and clearly not true.
Also you of course skipped over the point that I raised about switching costs. Because you're dishonest. Even worse, you're paid to be dishonest.
Bah, that article was terrible. There was major coverage in nearly every major publication about Pike's death, and because one reporter missed it he thinks everyone else did too.
So because the people have failed by continuing to re-elect someone who actually represents them, the USTR should turn to crowd sourcing rather than utilize the constitutionally-enshrined principle of representative democracy?
No one said anything about crowdsourcing. We just said they should make their negotiating position transparent. After all, they're trying to lock in laws that impact us all, and we can't even see it.
I know that you're paid by companies who want to rush through a bad TPP, but maybe, just maybe, TRY to be intellectually honest.
Maybe, just maybe a very large number of representatives do actually represent the views of a majority of their constituents on a majority of their issues.
Must be why Congress hovers around a 10% approval rating, huh?
So because the people have failed by continuing to re-elect someone who actually represents them, the USTR should turn to crowd sourcing rather than utilize the constitutionally-enshrined principle of representative democracy?
No one said anything about crowdsourcing. We just said they should make their negotiating position transparent. After all, they're trying to lock in laws that impact us all, and we can't even see it.
I know that you're paid by companies who want to rush through a bad TPP, but maybe, just maybe, TRY to be intellectually honest.
Maybe, just maybe a very large number of representatives do actually represent the views of a majority of their constituents on a majority of their issues.
Must be why Congress hovers around a 10% approval rating, huh?
I just got back from shopping and found nary a store that sells "culture kits". People do not make culture, no matter how many times you and others may say it. They create music, movies, photos, paintings, books, etc., each of which are a discrete "object", otherwise know in the parlance of copyright law a "work of authorship", which if "original" may be subject to copyright law. I can accept that such works may contribute to the wealth of works that help define our culture, but to say that someone makes culture is inapt.
I still suggest you need to get out a lot more. I know lots of people who create culture. I don't know anyone who creates "a work of authorship for the sake of getting a copyright." Lots of people make culture. I know no one who makes "works to copyright."
As for "innovation economy", it remains undefined.
No. It doesn't. Not only are these two rather easy to understand words, but others here in this thread have defined it for you.
Look, I recognize that you're a lawyer, and a lawyer who loves to slobber over copyright and patent maximalists, while trolling Techdirt, but you honestly look incredibly stupid here. You have to be either incredibly stupid or simply trolling to be an asshole. Given our usual interactions here, we'll take it as confirmed that you're the latter.
Not sure why you do that, though I do understand why you no longer sign your name.
Once again: I know, I know, you think because you once had a high profile job, that you know things that no one else could possibly know. However, now you're just an internet troll. You must be so proud of yourself.
On the post: Rep. Mike Rogers Angry That 'Red Tape' Is Preventing More Drone Bombings Of Innocent People
Re:
You're so cute when you try to move the goalposts like that. No one suggested that the military deliberately targeted innocents. What we said was that we thought it was good to have basic policies and guidelines for using drones to murder people in foreign countries that we're not at war with -- and it was a good thing that in those guidelines was an attempt to make sure that the people being murdered extra-judicially were not, in fact, innocent bystanders. Rep. Rogers suggested that was crazy talk. You, apparently, agreed with Rogers.
And now you've set up this laughable strawman.
You could, you know, just admit that you were wrong. But I know you, and we've had this discussion a hundred times. You'll just deny deny deny what's in black and white above, and keep trying to move those goalposts. Keep at it. You're adorable.
On the post: Rep. Mike Rogers Angry That 'Red Tape' Is Preventing More Drone Bombings Of Innocent People
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: And?
Who is on the front lines in Yemen, at risk from a wedding party?
On the post: Rep. Mike Rogers Angry That 'Red Tape' Is Preventing More Drone Bombings Of Innocent People
Re: Re: Re: Re: you forgot something mike
You left out dangerous. People like that are a danger to the world around them.
On the post: Rep. Mike Rogers Angry That 'Red Tape' Is Preventing More Drone Bombings Of Innocent People
Re: Re: Re: Re: And?
This has nothing to do with troops on the ground. I'm saying that we bombed a wedding party in a country we're not at war with, in a country where we don't have "troops on the ground" and where there was no direct and immediate risk to anyone.
You're changing the story.
Why not simply assign an attorney from a civil rights group to every person in a country where hostilities are being confronted by US troops, and then let them communicate when and as our troops can return fire and against who they can do so?
This has nothing to do with what we're talking about. You've changed the subject because I've (once again) proved that you were spewing bullshit.
No one who is sane wishes to engage in life threatening combat, but then again when in such a situation instinct kicks in for self-preservation.
Yes, I'm sure the drone pilot in Colorado was in "self-preservation" mode when he saw the wedding party halfway around the globe.
Are you really that clueless?
On the post: Rep. Mike Rogers Angry That 'Red Tape' Is Preventing More Drone Bombings Of Innocent People
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: And?
This is funny, since you're the one who's usually here mocking us for not explicitly following the exact letter of the law. Yet, suddenly, you can throw laws out the window. You're funny. I distinctly recall you insisting that there is no such thing as a software patent because it's not defined in the law. You also claimed there was no such thing as the "innovation economy" because it's not defined anywhere. Similarly, a "bad patent" doesn't exist, because it's not in the law.
Yet, war? Fuck, who cares what the definition is...
Judging by the remainder of your comments, you have never been associated with military service nor experienced any form of a life-threatening situation where your survival depended upon meeting force with force.
I'm curious. Could you explain to me how the CIA agent sitting in Langley and the drone pilot sitting in Colorado are in a life-threatening situation, in which they absolutely must, this very second bomb a wedding caravan in Yemen?
Thanks.
On the post: Rep. Mike Rogers Angry That 'Red Tape' Is Preventing More Drone Bombings Of Innocent People
Re: Re: Re: Re: And?
And yes, sometime pilot will be tired or simply not care enough - and will hit wrong target. And no, pilot is not guilty in anything beyond wasting ammo. He/She is a soldier and supposed to follow orders.
None of which has anything to do with the issue at hand. This is not about the rules of engagement for infantrymen. Also, despite your ignorant assertions there ARE rules for engagement.
On the post: Rep. Mike Rogers Angry That 'Red Tape' Is Preventing More Drone Bombings Of Innocent People
Re: Must understand other side too
When did the US Congress issue a declaration of war against Yemen?
On the post: Rep. Mike Rogers Angry That 'Red Tape' Is Preventing More Drone Bombings Of Innocent People
Re: Re: And?
First off, you think this makes it okay? Because the other guy does it, we should too? That's disgusting.
Second, do you not realize that doing so makes the problem worse? Killing innocent people doesn't stop the problem it makes more people want to attack us.
As for "a freakin' wedding", war is indiscriminate and not at all capable of being conducted with precision. Ask the civilians who died in WWII, whose numbers far exceeded those who died in actual combat (about 2 to 1).
Can you point out when the US Congress declared war on Yemen? Thanks.
On the post: Google Promises To Point To Competitor's Results To Settle Antitrust Claims In Europe
Re: Re: Re:
Yes. There's Bing and Yahoo and Ask and Blekko and DuckDuckGo and Startpage and a bunch of others. And to use any of them costs nothing with no real switching costs.
Marketshare does not indicate whether or not there's competition. If all the competitors suck, well... how is that Google's fault?
There's far more competition in broadband between telcos, cable companies, over-the-air and satellite.
That's laughable and clearly not true.
Also you of course skipped over the point that I raised about switching costs. Because you're dishonest. Even worse, you're paid to be dishonest.
On the post: DOJ Admits That NSA Collection Of Phone Records 'Probably' Sweeps Up Congress As Well
Re:
Bah, that article was terrible. There was major coverage in nearly every major publication about Pike's death, and because one reporter missed it he thinks everyone else did too.
On the post: Google Promises To Point To Competitor's Results To Settle Antitrust Claims In Europe
Re:
Except that only works if there's competition and switching costs are effectively low. In search, that's true. In broadband, it's not.
But, you know, you've never been big on basic things like "facts."
On the post: USTR Claims It's Transparent On TPP Because Congress Is 'The People's Representatives'
Re:
No one said anything about crowdsourcing. We just said they should make their negotiating position transparent. After all, they're trying to lock in laws that impact us all, and we can't even see it.
I know that you're paid by companies who want to rush through a bad TPP, but maybe, just maybe, TRY to be intellectually honest.
Maybe, just maybe a very large number of representatives do actually represent the views of a majority of their constituents on a majority of their issues.
Must be why Congress hovers around a 10% approval rating, huh?
On the post: USTR Claims It's Transparent On TPP Because Congress Is 'The People's Representatives'
Re:
No one said anything about crowdsourcing. We just said they should make their negotiating position transparent. After all, they're trying to lock in laws that impact us all, and we can't even see it.
I know that you're paid by companies who want to rush through a bad TPP, but maybe, just maybe, TRY to be intellectually honest.
Maybe, just maybe a very large number of representatives do actually represent the views of a majority of their constituents on a majority of their issues.
Must be why Congress hovers around a 10% approval rating, huh?
On the post: Skinny Puppy Invoices US Government After It Played The Band's Music To Torture Gitmo Prisoners [Updated]
Updated...
On the post: Our Broken Patent System: Company That Does Nothing May Get Hundreds Of Millions Of Dollars From Google
Re: Google
So Vringo no longer has it?
Oh wait, that's not true.
does continue to wilfully infringe on the patent
Which even Vringo *flat out admitted* Google did not copy.
Yeah, okay.
On the post: New Net Neutrality Bill Introduced, Has No Chance Of Passing
Re: You've been listening to too much right-wing radio
On the post: Parallel Construction Revealed: How The DEA Is Trained To Launder Classified Surveillance Info
Re: Misplaced end tag?
On the post: Podcasting Patent Troll Files Bogus Subpoena To Intimidate Donors To EFF's 'Save Podcasting' Campaign
Re:
From the inventor himself in an interview he gave to NPR.
On the post: Dr. Matthew Rimmer Takes A Closer Look At Fair Use
Re: Re: Re:
I still suggest you need to get out a lot more. I know lots of people who create culture. I don't know anyone who creates "a work of authorship for the sake of getting a copyright." Lots of people make culture. I know no one who makes "works to copyright."
As for "innovation economy", it remains undefined.
No. It doesn't. Not only are these two rather easy to understand words, but others here in this thread have defined it for you.
Look, I recognize that you're a lawyer, and a lawyer who loves to slobber over copyright and patent maximalists, while trolling Techdirt, but you honestly look incredibly stupid here. You have to be either incredibly stupid or simply trolling to be an asshole. Given our usual interactions here, we'll take it as confirmed that you're the latter.
Not sure why you do that, though I do understand why you no longer sign your name.
Once again: I know, I know, you think because you once had a high profile job, that you know things that no one else could possibly know. However, now you're just an internet troll. You must be so proud of yourself.
On the post: Dr. Matthew Rimmer Takes A Closer Look At Fair Use
Re:
You must lead a rather sad life, because nearly everyone I know makes culture, and is involved in the innovation economy.
Get out a bit. See the world.