> ...which sort of runs counter to the point
Perhaps they did have a clear directive to not shoot at down-and-unarmed targets.

> It seems to me that at the beginning of the video (~4:15), the guy peeping out from behind the wall is holding something long and thin aggressively. It looked that way briefly and that's when they think they saw an RPG and even shooting. However, when they swing around, the crowd or the said person do not realign themselves. They just seem busy with themselves. It hard to confuse a group of mostly unarmed people even if a couple were thought to have arms so closely grouped together as getting ready to fire an RPG at a gun ship. But then again, what do I know. Hind sight - 20/20.

> I guess he thought the guy in the van was giving aid to the enemy. Even then... if the gunner thought that the wounded insurgent should not be removed, a warning shot at a little distance would have communicated that quite well to the people from the van playing good Samaritans. But then he goes to open fire on them taking cover by the wall as well. So he must have assumed that they were insurgents as well even though there was no indication that these people were ever armed or hostile. I hope it caused a broad review of the engagement protocols.

Cython is really about writing C code in a Python like style to create Python extensions. This adds additional complexities in debugging (can't step through in your IDE seamlessly), building and distributing. The trade-off is acceptable in specific cases, but quite clunky otherwise. I am not eager to write anything substantial in it since tool support is not super. Cython is a neat hack. But a better example of using a statically typed native code for performance and a dynamically typed language for productivity is Java + Groovy. Ultimately however, the language choice boils down to it's eco-system, the point that Miguel was stressing. I pick the language based on whatever community has the libraries and experience for the kind of problem I am solving, even if the language and performance are not the best fit. Python is great for my scientific projects (lots of easy-to-use libraries, quick prototyping). But I am yet to see proper mature equivalents with tooling for things like ZK, and Eclipse RCP on the Python VM.

The point of "wax on wax off" is to teach our karate kid to react with instinctive speed, without needing to think. Quite appropriate for a fighting scenario where split second reactions are required. If you want to teach a student to be a human calculator replacement, then yes, that would be a great strategy. What a waste it is to waste a human potential to replace a device that costs less than a cheap meal... and can still outperform the said human. There are many learning methods to reach the stated goals. But there is much more to learning than dry goals, and every method choice has its own unique consequences.

What do you think are the chances that a mother in a *developing country* is English literate and understands computer terms - and what hacking means, no less? What's strange about a son spending all his time on computers when working on computers happens to be his educational background and his current job. To her, that's just a good boy who is working hard. Given the level of US outsourcing to China, is an occasional western face so unusual now? He might even be working for a company that might be a subsidiary to a US firm. All this does not translate to her being stupid either. Her competence would be better measured elsewhere.

This is a vulnerability, not an attack that has happened. Vulnerabilities can *potentially* lead to attacks. The title implies that it had already happened. AFAIK, testing vulnerabilities is not termed an attack; only when they are exploited by a malicious third party.

I don't know Australian law, but armed rebellion is not a "legitimate" (definition: complying with the law) choice anywhere. If you disagree, quote the law which says so. Armed rebellion may be be just, but never legitimate. The nice bit about a democratic government of laws is that you can use *legitimate* methods to have the laws and rulers changed, without having to resort to violence. If one cannot be bothered to campaign to the general public (or their representatives) to create enough public understanding to have the laws changed, that one is certainly unlikely to succeed through the use of violent force.

I disagree. It believe it is *mostly* the fault of systems. Nurses and Doctors will embrace technology if they feel it is working for them. It is the systems that don't adequately take into account the nature of the work that they do. Good technologies are viral. They don't need enforcement.

HL7 3.0 is XML. But not enough adopted it. And it's not all the fault of XML... really :-).