Keep telling yourself that, and you might even begin to believe it's true yourself.

If you were less hasty, and not quite so prone arguing the irrelevant, you would have noticed I said "definitions", not the "usage notes" that you seem to be quoting as truth.

If only you took the advice in your own sig...

"Please read and at least attempt to understand comment before replying, kthxbye."

Take a look at how many people are currently calling for Bush to be tried as a war criminal.

Spain is currently pushing for exactly this.
Take a look at
http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2007/03/spain-judge-says-bush-and-iraq-war.php and
http://harpers.org/archive/2009/03/hbc-90004640 for example.

You think people hiding amongst the populace to force an enemy army to constantly expose themselves to danger whilst being unable to identify their enemy does not fit that very definition?

That is exactly that, a threat of force from an enemy you cannot retaliate against.

You should spend some money learning to understand the dictionary you obviously wasted all that money on.

PS. Adding an unqualified "Fucking retard." to the end of your post does not help your argument. At least you're just another troll.

So why does the very definition you link to not actually say that? Are you kidding me?

noun
1. the unnecessary, indiscriminate killing of a large number of human beings or animals, as in barbarous warfare or persecution or for revenge or plunder.
2. a general slaughter, as of persons or animals: the massacre of millions during the war.
3. Informal. a crushing defeat, esp. in sports.

verb (used with object)
4. to kill unnecessarily and indiscriminately, esp. a large number of persons.
5. Informal. to defeat decisively, esp. in sports.

Who's republishing your comments?

Hmm, no-one, because they have a near trivial value?

If someone is republishing your entire output, it has value to them.

Slashdot stories might have made a better argument - but they are "paid for" by the site link the submitter gets.

Massacre has no implication that people were not fighting back.

A 13:1 KD is still extreme, especially when it is often reported that those killed were non-combatants.

To jump the gun a little, yes I am well aware that during insurgent occupation it is impossible to distinguish between combatants and non-combatants.

There are very difficult choices to be made too - if locals are not showing you who the terrorists are, they're enemies. Irrespective of the threat they are no doubt under from these terrorists.

As soon as you are a fighting force hiding amongst the populace you are no longer part of a legal army, you are a terrorist, and anyone assisting these people are also the same.

If you're getting 13:1, you're killing huge numbers of people very easily, be that because of better training or because they are unarmed enemies. That still makes it a massacre.

Guess you did not been read the news later in the day. Turned out the whole raid was actually over a large fraud investigation into unpaid telco fees for VoIP operators, whose large number of servers were taken.

I wish I had not already posted in this thread, or you would definitely be getting some of my mod points... Let's hope someone else notices you post! :)

I think perhaps the fact it's largely other people's UNRELATED stuff is where the issue really begins to rub people up the wrong way.

There were a bunch of raids like this in the UK. The police keep taking entire sets of Indymedia servers and not giving them back for ages.

It does constantly amuse me how the targeting is rather lacking in intelligence.

My last name happens to be the same as a region of the UK - I am forever seeing adverts relating to this region.

Clearly the rest of my e-mail is too mundane to trigger and product keywords! :(

On Windows, you will largely find that although the data is in the same file, it is not actually part of the executable image, so the situation is a little different to what the GP is talking about.

If you check the headers with a PE header dump tool, you normally see the pile of installer data on the end is that - data appended after the end of what is technically the executable.

The GP is discussing actually large executables, where one of the actual segments in the PE is big. The OS only loads required pages - when a non-loaded page is generated, a page fault occurs which is trapped by the OS, which loads the relevant part of the image into memory.

Multiple copies of the same EXE can actually use the same copies of the pages too - they are write protected initially, and if the program modified them the OS traps it, creates a copy of the page allowing the modification and continues (Copy On Write - COW).

It is not necessarily a grand activation date.
It is just one of the (many) predefined dates where the worm switches auto-update mechanism.

It has a current auto-update mechanism, so a new payload could be handed out anyway, whether or not the April 1st code exists or not.

Wish I still had modpoints, as far as I am concerned you have hit the nail on the head.

Considering the direction of 3D hardware is now pretty much determined by meetings about DirectX specs between MS & ATI / MS & nVidia, the OpenGL might as well follow along closely.

Once they know it's going to appear in each manufacturer's silicon, what is the point in not supporting it ASAP.

The officially released point betas actually have had testing.

Security and stability are two very different things.

Betas do not have deliberate mistakes - once an issue is known, it would seem sensible to fix it in active branches with an update mechanism, which notably includes the official beta.

Fair enough, nightlies and stuff don't have such an update mechanism and I would not expect one.

Although I do notice the Firefox 3.1 Beta 3 has no update yet - I just tried the PoC, it is definitely vulnerable.

Maybe it's time to start using nightlies if you are a 3.1 beta user?