berntb

21 ms·

151.
by berntb 10y ago
As I understand it, the reason the world have become more democratic and liberal for generations was because freedom made a society work better. The open societies out competed the closed ones. If this model really works for China and other
152.
by berntb 10y ago
I note the long list of obvious examples...? :-) But sure, the world would be a better place if Rust, Go and/or Swift could fulfill that niche. I really don't know enough. (Go seems a bit boring. Rust is too new. Swift is a bit li
153.
by berntb 10y ago
Bold. :-) I do hope you're correct. (Given a modest test suite and checking parameters at external API interfaces, scripting languages didn't have much problems with bugs that could be found at compile time, imho.)
154.
by berntb 10y ago
Sorry for coming back late. I didn't study psychology, but from reading a bit and seeing people over the years -- I think there is a common thread with a need for perpetrators to dehumanize their victims. About being depressed over hum
155.
by berntb 10y ago
Are you saying that Rust, a system programming language, can compete with the scripting languages in speed of developing features?! Or are you saying that it is a pleasure to use, so you'll use it for smaller backends where development
156.
by berntb 10y ago
I assume that was written by a secondary account from someone here. It seems to be a common way around the HN demands for civility... :-( Regarding the victim, my guess would be on early stages of dementia and/or emotional trauma after
157.
by berntb 10y ago
Discussing a person is what follows after you're shown to be wrong. :-) Never mind. I have stopped discussing with people that dismiss Wikipedia pages with good sources -- when they have neither references nor understanding of a subjec
158.
by berntb 10y ago
If a Wikipedia link with multiple good sources already in the introduction isn't enough for someone without a clue on a subject, I should have left the discussion. My personal heuristic to avoid grief in the future: Don't discuss
159.
by berntb 10y ago
1. That Guantanamo discussion was a continuation of the content came right before. 2. I started to argue that everything was legal re Guantanamo, as a reply to the moral claim. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12736070
160.
by berntb 10y ago
I upvote lots of articles for the comments, to keep a reference. (A good way to find the best open source product for X in the world is probably to post a link to a bad product for X here.)
161.
by berntb 10y ago
Condemn Guantanamo from a moral viewpoint if you want. (Note that all POW camps will certainly have innocents, so the same moral apply to the whole Geneva Convention.) But stop arguing against legal facts when you don't have a clue...
162.
by berntb 10y ago
You knew that 3 hours earlier, when I wrote this in https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12738620 [...] Unlawful combatants don't have access to the rights under war laws, except Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions (se
163.
by berntb 10y ago
... which were released when determined not to be enemy combatants. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_longer_enemy_combatant (If you want to accuse someone of breaking war laws, go to ICC in Hague...) I think you'r
164.
by berntb 10y ago
>> Where in the Geneva conventions does it say that they apply to all warring parties? [Edit: ptaipale discussed that here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12738768 too.] Unlawful combatants don't have acces
165.
by berntb 10y ago
>> But Guantanamo is some kind of horrific, Kafka-esque limbo You ignored the main point on what you comment on. To quote myself: afaik, you can keep enemy combatants in prison until after the war >> The problem is we know no
166.
by berntb 10y ago
>> No, my position is based on the fact that our treaties on the treatment of prisoners of war apply to nation states. [...] our treaties around prisoners of war are not directly applicable, as the past administrations have made clear
167.
by berntb 10y ago
Your whole position is based on a claim that there must exist a nation state to have a "war". You also claim that the laws of war are not applicable to the remaining types of military conflicts (with clans/tribes, any organiz
168.
by berntb 10y ago
So, give references to international law about what exactly qualify as a war -- and what does not? Because obviously, the top law specialists don't agree with you -- presidents aren't above the law. Edit: Here is the US law about
169.
by berntb 10y ago
Please explain this, I really don't understand this argument: >> I find Guantanamo morally indefensible. Guantanamo -- afaik, you can keep enemy combatants in prison until after the war. E.g. the conflict in Afghanistan is still
170.
by berntb 10y ago
You just repeated your position and ignored what I wrote. I will assume that means you have no serious arguments. If you really don't understand: A serious argument would be showing that it is not a war situation -- or that you have to
171.
by berntb 10y ago
>> But that rationality also gave us execution by drone without trial. The point with smart weapons like drones is that they kill people in a few meters radius. They don't take out a whole village, or more. If a country should be
172.
by berntb 10y ago
Exhaustive, informative and insightful. Please don't write that stuff were people won't see it. :-) (I'd add that X.25 was moved into the OSI standards, btw. But you certainly know that.) But you agree with my point that you
173.
by berntb 10y ago
Like this, then: You started by arguing that following the laws of war is terrorism. That subject of law have been really discussed, there are lots of academic papers. I'd be happy to see references? And your follow up was just not pos
174.
by berntb 10y ago
Look up the OSI standards. They were a horror to implement and use. The telecom companies wanted those to be used instead of the US tcp/ip stack. They would have had much more control and could have been fat cats, taking a large piece
175.
by berntb 10y ago
Because the laws of war is different when you have civilians as your main targets? Here is my standard reference about the subject. Note that it is critical of the US -- and that ROE is still followed quite closely. Compare that to [terrori
176.
by berntb 10y ago
I don't understand why environmentalists have problems with forced natural reserves like Chernobyl and Fukushima? But maybe I should be happy -- if they had a clue, then they might start building dirty bomb together with the islamists.
177.
by berntb 10y ago
Solar can certainly solve the energy problems for many countries, given that cheaper energy storage really is created. But not for e.g. northern Europe. There just is too little sun, especially in the winter. Also, it seems transports will
178.
by berntb 10y ago
He he, point. But a probe doing multiple gravity assists to get close to the sun is different from going from point A to point B -- and stopping at B. :-)
179.
by berntb 10y ago
It is a theoretical "can". :-) It will be a long time before anyone use a fraction of C inside the solar system. Interstellar flight is a problem after we have gotten to a reasonable cost/kg for both launching from the Earth
180.
by berntb 10y ago
I meant that the material thrown at the plate were planned to be plasma of more lightweight materials, iirc. (That is different than how to make an atomic bomb directed.) I haven't seen any real details of directed bomb design discusse

More ›