Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:Yeah, and? (Score 1) 320

When it is war, possibly yes. When it is a domestic police issue, the answer is maybe but probably no.

You see, the world does not operate in black or white. There are so many shades and colors that one solution does not fit all. If it did, every one would be rich and happy from making all the same correct decisions.

Comment Re:Yeah, and? (Score 2) 320

Why don't you get real. The hospital is in a territory recently taken over by the Taliban and the air strikes were called in by afghan police who claimed they were taking fire from the building.

Given the history of the Taliban killing people from the west, what indication is there that this was still only a hospital and that these allied people were still alive and free at the time the air strike was called in? You do understand that when an enemy army takes over a city, that city is now behind enemy lines. What you know or thought you knew about it may or may not be even close to correct anymore because it is controlled by the enemy.

Comment Re:Wait a day or two before passing judgment (Score 1) 320

Why would or should any military or government for that matter have a problem bombing or attacking anyone, any building, or any organization who is directly aiding and comforting the enemy in a war?

Yes, it was a hospital. Outside of that, what makes it any different than any other building that the enemy captures and fires on the government or coalition soldiers? Docs without borders knew it was dangerous to go to the front lines and practice medicine in a war zone. It's like you running out in the middle of a street during rush hour traffic. Sure it's tragic if you get hit, but unless you are an imbecile and generally do not know any better, its your own fault. Why should I blame a driver for your death?

Comment Re:In other news (Score 1) 320

The US is there because we started the current problem in Afghanistan after ousting the old leadership (Taliban) who was protecting terrorist (Al Qaeda) who actually did plan and commit acts of terror on US soil as well as soil of US allies.

To say we have no reason to be there is idiotic and ignorant of history. If you are old enough to post an opinion of your own about this on slashdot, you are likely old enough to have lived through that BS and the progression to date. Perhaps you were too young to care and should ask you mom about it.

Comment Re:pedestrian has right of way. (Score 1) 277

The distinction is legal liability and criminal penalties. You should not be in front of a judge if you had the right of way. No charges should be filled in the first place and if you need to calm a grieving mother, just declare it an accident.

I guess that the term right of way is somewhat troubling the discussion. Even though a driver might have the right of way, they cannot hit or run over obstacles in the roadway if they could otherwise stop. So it isn't a matter of "get off the road, i'm in the right of way ". Its a matter of who can sue who and if someone will go to jail or not. If you run in front of me and i hit you, my insurance will cover most medical (because of law ) but you cannot sue me for lost wages or pain and suffering. But if you are standing in the road and i fail to stop even though I had time , You can.

Comment Re:You know what's wrong with the world? (Score 1) 160

quite right, the systems that handle your money, insurance, communications, inventories of things your buy, are all admined by rooms of people either clicking and pointing on GUIs or moving holograms in the air with finger gestures or speaking into microphone.

Bwhahahaha, you are one ignorant fuck

Comment pedestrian has right of way. (Score 1) 277

Giving pedestrians the right of way is the problem. In my state the right of way is determined by the rules of the road. If someone is in a cross walk i
or crossing corn to adjacent corner against a red light for traffic or with a lit walk light they have the right of way. If they are crossing that, its a matter of circumstances as in who was there first even though the car has a duty to not hit anything or drive faster than they can stop for their vision. Essentially the car is mostly at fault except when someone walks in front of them.

Anyways, a few towns decided to give pedestrians the right of way always. In those towns the idiots Will walk right in front of a semi truck and cross the road in between intersections. I called the cops thinking one dude was trying to kill himself or something and was told he had the right of way. They don't even look to see if something is coming, just stepped out into traffic and yell at you if your screeching halt from 20-30mph took you a little close to them . It is as if the laws of physics don't exist in those towns because the pedestrian has the right of way.

Comment Re:Just makes them look even more guilty (Score 1) 319

Ok. So i will believe your presumption for the sake of argument. Why are all used car salesman not in jail? Yup, it's a good car. You buy it and it needs towed two months later with a hefty repair bill.

Maybe it would be easier if you point to an actual statute in law saying what you have said.

Comment Re:Just makes them look even more guilty (Score 2) 319

Fraud is not illegal in off iself. Fraud is a class of laws covering types of crime or civil laws. Basically, fraud is just a type of crime and the crime itself needs defined by law.

I see a lot of people who do not understand this. But ask yourself, does a magician face criminal penalties for doing tricks? That's fraud by definition. How about a 12 year old who tricks her brother into doing the dishes by saying her parents told her to tell him that.

Now something that is fraud is your ISP saying your service will be up to a speed then limiting i w to a slower speed. (Up to 5m and limiting it to up to 2m.) But no one seemed to be able to find any law making it illegal.

Nonsense. Space is blue and birds fly through it. -- Heisenberg