What's your point? That we did it once so we should have no problem doing it again under different circumstances?

That's quite the hyperbole. Osama bin laden wasn't promised any freedom by the US: he wasn't a citizen. And anyway, there's quite a bit of room between "killing someone who admitted to attacking you" and "no freedom whatsoever.

To anyone who is upset that this story popped up despite not strictly relating to computers, three things:

One: why didn't you stop it?
Two: Slashdot's motto isn't "News for linux, news that linuxes." Other nerds have different interests in you. You should realize this by now.
Three: If you don't care, go back in your browser. You do not need to click on every link on slashdot! DO NOT CLICK ON THE ONES YOU DON'T CARE ABOUT!

Because he hasn't gone to trial yet. Presumably the powers that be figure that detaining someone forever without trial, but it's another thing to execute a person without trial. In terms of PR if not in terms of ethics.

Pretty sure that's exactly what he was referencing and disagreeing with. One doesn't need a link to mention something in passing.

I think you have a much stronger case for calling them a hypocrite based on whether they drive a car or don't donate money to some group fighting climate change, or contact their reps about capping carbon emissions, but you go ahead and channel your rage into whatever idiotic direction you want.

Terminated eh? "Sky News?" More like "SKYNET!!!!"

(This would have been a better formulated joke, but my boss is coming)

Sink holes on the surface of the earth from pumping water out of the earth is a bit different from earthquakes being pumped INTO the earth.

Furthermore, science isn't about surprising us. That can happen, but it's primarily about testing hypotheses, increasing knowledge, and PROVING things. In this case, it's not shocking to anyone who is concerned about the people who live above the fracking area, but one does need proof to say "I don't care how much money you and your shareholders will get from this, you'll cause earthquakes, so you're not going to do it."

Well... at least that's slightly more likely than before.

Except the beverly hillbillies got rich first then moved to Beverly Hills. In this case, UC is currently paying their president $600K and will probably pay her. Which is odd, because last I heard, the UC system was still cutting scholarships, teachers, and classes due to budget problems.

But I'm sure that money is well spent: I mean, if Napolitano can bring the same magic to the UC system that she did to DHS, then maybe the UC system will be safe from imagingary threats from Al Quaeda. And isn't that more important than students getting an education? We decided it was more important than the constitution, so yes, the answer is yes whether you like it or not.

/s. This is idiotic. Why is a taxpayer supported institution wasting money like she's a CEO?

I'm not sure why it's an outrage. We got at lot of technological advances out of going to the moon. Nothing on the moon was going to directly pay back the investment, we knew that beforehand, but I think we got plenty of value out of it. Going back would be in many ways a waste compared to investing the money in the other things I mentioned, at least in my opinion.

And "poetic justice" is not a good reason to spend tax dollars or let private entities appropriate historical relics.

Except they haven't in this case. Anyway, the damage is done: they're already backing away from clean relatively safe nuclear power.

Why do they even bother crying "false allegations." Are their consumers out there who were awaiting the results of this trial to determine if they were going to buy an iphone or an android? Are stock brokers saying "SELL SELL SELL... wait... Oh, nevermind, apple says the court is wrong. We don't need to dump the stock."

Fitting, but not one that I think any of us would want to happen. I'd rather tax dollars be spent more higher pursuits than racing to preserve a historic relic from some rich asshole. Just tell him he CAN'T steal it, arrest him if and when he does, and spend them money you saved on research into cancer, a space elevator, or something worthwhile.

Bit of a straw-man argument there. No one is saying "Don't tolerate people who oppose gay marriage." They seem to be saying "This guy opposes gay marriage, if you approve of gay marriage, maybe you don't want to give him your money."

Ford and Disney, being dead, aren't really parallels. Chick-fil-a is a better parallel: the accusation there was that money you spent on chicken sandwiches was going to suppress gay rights, so you might not want to eat there.

Totally fine for the CEO of chick-fil-a to dislike, even hate gay people, totally legal for him to personally give money to lobbying groups to outlaw gay marriage. But I don't have to give my money to a homophobe, let alone give them money that is then going to be used against causes I'm for. It's not at all ad-homenim.

There are sensible people in both parties. Vote for them in the primaries and we'll have two sensible parties. Fail to vote in the primaries, and you may as well not bother voting in the general election either.

I can't remember the last time I heard health insurance companies promising to give people due process before they denied coverage for their claims. Plus I can vote for or against politicians. I suppose I could vote with my wallet against bad health insurance plans, but as that would realistically require changing jobs, I'm not too optimistic about that doing anything.