Bro,
I have been using Google before 2000
Had an early invite to Gmail. Got mobile search results over text message before smart phones.
Google maps didn’t even launch until 2005.
Some of us went places and did things before Google+
I don’t disagree that if I want to go somewhere I might search g maps.
But the search results are really shit lately.
I miss competition with several web spiders
Two tools worth using:
DMDE
Photorec
If the data is extremely important make a back up first.
Most things decrease in price as production scales up.
Is called Economies of scale.
There’s also a lot hype around process improvements such as Six Sigma. Some of this has come out of factories and into IT and software dev such as kanban boards and agile.
Strangely most think that software development does not have economies of scale.
While proportionality is in LOAC, if there is ample intelligence that the hospital is being used to commit attacks, it doesn’t have to be used exclusively to commit attacks to be a legal target.
Rule 28. Medical units exclusively assigned to medical purposes must be respected and protected in all circumstances. They lose their protection if they are being used, outside their humanitarian function, to commit acts harmful to the enemy.
“the protection of medical units ceases when they are being used, outside their humanitarian function, to commit acts harmful to the enemy. This exception is provided for in the First and Fourth Geneva Conventions and in both Additional Protocols.[37] It is contained in numerous military manuals and military orders.[38] It is also supported by other practice.[39]”
“While the Geneva Conventions and Additional Protocols do not define “acts harmful to the enemy”, they do indicate several types of acts which do not constitute “acts harmful to the enemy”, for example, when the personnel of the unit is armed, when the unit is guarded, when small arms and ammunition taken from the wounded and sick are found in the unit and when wounded and sick combatants or civilians are inside the unit.[40] According to the Commentary on the First Geneva Convention, examples of acts harmful to the enemy include the use of medical units to shelter able-bodied combatants, to store arms or munitions, as a military observation post or as a shield for military action.”
And that’s before we get into the creative reinterpreting of LOAC for terrorists in non- international armed conflicts fought by non-state insurgent groups which were invented post 9-11.
It won’t matter that much UNLESS a specific setting you might want is disabled such as virtualization.
Consider checking now if virtualization is enabled or disabled. If your BIOS settings are fairly permissive it isn’t that big of a deal. But if they are restrictive it can make it a pain in the ass to work around.
Wake me when hamas releases the hostages instead of just doubling down on saying we’ll invade again and kill more civilians.
The diplomatic solution requires both sides to lay down their arms and stop attacking each other
You mean the hospital parking lot where the failed Islamic jihad rocket landed?
Did Hamas ask those 34 children to move south or were they murdered at gun point by terrorists?
All war is horrific.
But I’m so tired of hearing about how one side is righteous and innocent and the other is murdering children.
Both sides are engaging in war.
People will die in war.
Those 1,200 Israeli civilians, those 34 children were not “civilian casualties” that refused to evacuate. They were gunned down by over 1500 hamas terrorists in person, face to face.
Does that make it any less horrific that bombs are killing civilians in Gaza? No of course not. But it doesn’t give anyone the moral high ground either. It’s fucking war. Start a fucking war and people are going to die.
Hamas said they would do it again. Israel will operate on the standard for war: remove the attackers ability to fight or their will to fight. Israel is not going to tit for tat try to exchange proporte firepower. Why would they? How does that win a war?
Israel has said it’s mission is to destroy Hamas. I would take Israels word at face value to move south. Hamas never gave Israelis the option to move south before thet invaded.
In both those wars there was a plan for war. But not a plan for peace.
The civilian leadership in Iraq made a choice to send the Iraqi military home with no pay and no plan to do anything but hold up in the green zone as if everything after opening up the war would just turn to roses.
The civilian leadership refused the military leadership’s requests to negotiate with the Iraqi religious leaders calling for violence. To create a plan for peace.
These guns your jerking off over did not bring peace. Nor could they win a war. All they did was create a stalemate.
To plan for peace is a tiny bit harder than telling a few young men to leave the FOB every once in awhile. It involves negotiating with religion, creating win/wins, making sure people have the means to support themselves. Or crushing those that oppose the system. It’s easier if you get the locals to do it for you in exchange for reconstruction for instance in Germany and Japan.
There small local conflicts you’re describing are in places with a long history of tribes fighting other tribes. They are used to that. WWIII will be a flash point conflict among civilians that may not stomach a prolonged conflict and will be more likely to want to negotiate peace.
If coolers heads prevail then peace is possible. If shareholders just want a war that drags on far away and civilian leaders ignore military leadership you end up with the wast of time and money Iraqi and Afghanistan were. The difference is the endgame of politics. Why did the war continue after Osama was caught and killed? What was the objective after that? Why was holding the dirt so important after the enemy had been reduced to a point that could no longer project power behind their hill of dirt?
If getting Osama was the main goal why did we ignore all the Intel that he was across the border in Pakistan for so long? Why did we keep searching where we knew Osama wasn’t? Because Halliburton wanted a prolonged war and the military leadership had no authority to stop the madness, win the war, negotiate peace, and move on after the mission of taking out the terrorist leader Osama was complete. So instead it devolved into holding a hill of dirt for no reason except to line pockets.
If you want to go trench by trench or door by door go ahead.
The future of war is not dirt. But instead information.
If Australian warnings for Perl Harbor had been heeded we wouldn’t have had to build so many boats. We built 9000 boats in WWII and we’ll build more than that many drones in WWIII.
But what good are drones without information? Without targets? Without information what to they do?
Targets, tactics is only one kind of information. Real time surveillance, biometrics, the ability to strike command and control. To cut the head off the snake is worth more than clearing a city.
If you need to clear a city, you need infantry.
Did we go island hoping all the way to Japan and then go door to door? Or did we break the enemies will to fight and force a surrender?
Is it always worth going door to door and holding worthless land? Trading bodies and bullets for what? Dirt?
What would it be worth however to cripple the enemies Command, Control, Communication, Computers, Cyber, and Intelligence? Do we really need to take land in future wars as much as force a surrender out of idiots that want to start shit.
There’s a terrific documentary about how the Air Force planned to win a nuclear war before ICBMs. It’s called the power of decision. It’s not about going door to door or trench by trench however. It’s about a different kind of war where you win by removing your enemies ability to fight in a flash. Unfortunately similar can be done today in cyberspace without the assurance of MAD or the early warning of an ICMB launch.
Cannon fodder?
To quote Patton
“No bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country.”
It’s a good thing this near-peer BS is thrown around about armies that can barely keep their troops fed in their own countries where we have the logistics to feed our troops around the world.
I’m sure there will always be a roll for infantry. The problem of the last few wars has been using infantry to hold ground and as a police force.
You don’t win a conflict by holding on to a hill of dirt. You win by removing your enemies ability or will to fight.
Ukraine is a bad example as they’re playing by other people’s rules. Europe and the West won’t provide them weapons if they use them in Russia. Russia won’t give up ground if Ukraine cannot reach inside of Russia to remove their will or ability to fight.
It’s trench warfare stalemate a la WWI all over again.
If there is a WWIII it’ll be marked by hybrid war, hacking, air defense reacting to missle and drone attacks and the deployment of decentralized weapons.
It’s not a stretch to imagine hundreds of thousands of civilians could be killed by killware in a hacking attack without a single traditional weapon system being involved.
People aren’t going to line up in pretty little lines fire salvos at each other. If anyone starts digging a fucking trench let them have that ground. They are no immediate threat to the factories, production, and training centers. Let them dig in. Send a bomb run later to clear them out when they come out to play.
This is actually a good question.
Law of War is often referred to as the law of armed conflict (LOAC). This is what is permissively legal to do, if you are engaged in conflict.
The Rules of Engagement (ROE) are directives regarding the exact circumstances United States (US) forces will initiate and/or continue combat engagement.
Has the hostage takers used force such as firing a weapon to take the hostage? Did they fire at US forces? Did they deploy munitions of any type? Has there been an escalation of combat or have they disarmed? Is there an immediate threat to the hostage? Have they threatened to kill the hostage? Are they retreating or advancing? Are the hostages prisoners of war? Are they being provided the required treatment for POWs?
All of these and many more can determine the rules of engagement for US forces.
The ROE is separate to the rules of war and not all forces have the same methodology. In fact some nonUS forces may receive no training for LOAC or ROE.
Finally, the current interpretation post 9-11 is that those that do not follow the LOAC are not legally combatants and therefore do not have to be provided the protections that they would if they were legally combatants. So, if they engage in war in a way that does not follow the legal methods they may not hide behind the protections.
Drafts have not won recent wars. Wars are not PVP.
The US has made an effort to maintain a highly trained and extremely specialized fighting force. It can take over a year of training in certain specialities before you even get to the last school house.
There’s a focus on making advanced weapon systems easy to use through human factors analysis and that’s slowly transitioning into killbots that do everything but pull the trigger and need a human in the loop to authorize the kill.
During WWII there was a massive increase in manufacturing which was beyond the enemies reach. If you got drafted to do anything it’d likely be work in a plant making drones or something logistical such as transporting drones.
The rules of war aren’t about perfection, they’re very much a do not let perfect be the enemy of good, and filled with compromises to do less evil.
If you want protections for medical staff you have to clear a section of ground for them that isn’t used for war.
It’s important to realize these rules were agreed to in order to try to prevent total war. Where carpet bombs flattened entire cities like what happened in Dresden.
War is horrific. Those that wage war unleash hell. We cannot make war logically or compassionate. We can try to afford safety nets for those to help others and reduce harm in war. However, the rules do not elimt harm for “innocents.” They simply offer a way to have less civilian casualties by doing things like not running a command center out of a hospital.
The rules of war do not state it has to be used exclusively to commit attacks to be a legal target.
Rule 28. Medical units exclusively assigned to medical purposes must be respected and protected in all circumstances. They lose their protection if they are being used, outside their humanitarian function, to commit acts harmful to the enemy.
the protection of medical units ceases when they are being used, outside their humanitarian function, to commit acts harmful to the enemy. This exception is provided for in the First and Fourth Geneva Conventions and in both Additional Protocols.[37] It is contained in numerous military manuals and military orders.[38] It is also supported by other practice.[39]
While the Geneva Conventions and Additional Protocols do not define “acts harmful to the enemy”, they do indicate several types of acts which do not constitute “acts harmful to the enemy”, for example, when the personnel of the unit is armed, when the unit is guarded, when small arms and ammunition taken from the wounded and sick are found in the unit and when wounded and sick combatants or civilians are inside the unit.[40] According to the Commentary on the First Geneva Convention, examples of acts harmful to the enemy include the use of medical units to shelter able-bodied combatants, to store arms or munitions, as a military observation post or as a shield for military action.[41]
Several presidents have put tax dollars to work on medical research. For example the The U.S. President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) paved the way for money for the PreP trials in 2005.
Obama kicked off precision medicine and gene research.
Obama’s HITECH Act reformed HIPAA in a way that improved outcomes for patients and the industry.
But yea, everything is black and white. Conflicts in Africa and the middle east are the only concern I could ever have.
I especially do not care at all about any medical advancements or harm reductions.
Everyone must survive and no one can ever be harmed or everything is lost.
You know you sound just like the every sperm is sacred anti abortion activists.
War = so bad we must sabotage anyone involved in war and trade all our liberties, freedoms, health, etc just to not have war!
I let perfect be the enemy of good.
I’m doing my part, for the Republicans!
People are always ready with some morality test but the cold hard truth is trying to enforce your absolutes on others is not going to work out. It just backs you into a corner supporting a turd sandwich. Compromises suck though. Can’t have that. You do you.
Unfortunately based on the rules of was the medical staff do not have to cooperate, or even be aware, simply storing weapons, or a command center, or staging armed soldiers for war next to a hospital removes the protections.
The rules of war aren’t about making things perfect, they’re very much a do not let perfect be the enemy of good and filled with compromises.
If you want protections for medical staff you have to clear a section of ground for them that isn’t used for war.
I didn’t make these rules. These rules were agreed to in order to try to prevent total war. Where carpet bombs flattened entire cities like what happened in Dresden.
I mean, are you incapable of having any sympathy for individuals that walked into what seemed to be peaceful but turned into a warzone?
Sure, the Israel Palestine conflict has been going on since 1948 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli–Palestinian_conflict
But if your work told you to go on a quick in and out trip to Jamaica would you know there’s an older persistent conflict that could cause you harm? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jamaican_political_conflict
Shit Sudan and Myanmar both have higher body counts so far. You check with the state department and lists of all armed conflicts before all your trips?
Yea Exact Audio Copy in secure mode will re-read each sector double-checking results until it has a consistent perfect rip. It takes a little while longer, but the results are worth it.