Real Men Use Android: Special Forces Favor Google Phone

>Wrong on so many levels. Primarily the assumption that real men shoot third world peasants in the face for pay.

(As a pacifist I wouldn't contribute to this project, but your comment doesn't really address the substance of the article, which is very interesting and makes some interesting statements about the sort of smartphone technology being used in warfare.)

What the military does is not a binary answer. The public chooses the commander in chief and the policy (Congress). It's a system that has endured for the last three centuries. You have the power to change it, and if you don't like it and don't speak up, remember V for Vendetta: "If you're looking for the guilty, you need only look into a mirror."

I sometimes remember the story of my girlfriend's grandpa: He was a Japanese soldier drafted in the Second World War. Around the same time, my maternal grandmother was serving as a provincial administrator of the Republic of China version of the IRS as one of the first college educated female accountants. She had to dress up as a man, cut her hair short to avoid being summarily raped and shot in Nanjing, then-capital of China. So now you know I'm of Chinese ethnicity dating a Japanese girl. My girlfriend's grandpa on a China mission was ordered by his commander to shoot one of the prisoners. If he refused, he would most likely be shot (most militaries allow this; the UCMJ allows this in combat). It was a choice between his life or somebody else's. If you watched Dark Knight, you know it's never a black or white answer. It's always a cruel decision to make. Just ask any Vietnam vet who saw combat. If my girlfriend's grandpa didn't shoot the man, my girlfriend might not exist. If he did, he would be a conscientious objector at the expense of his life, and I would not meet my girlfriend. All the while it's awful 40 million Chinese people lost their lives to the Japanese. There are your obvious offenders, the ones that do enjoy raping and killing people, but they are not normal and are present even in civilian society. A lot of them are likely decent people, and would secretly free Chinese prisoners if they had the opportunity.

I wish we could all be pacifists, but should we eliminate the military? I'm sure that's a resounding no, and I realize my sentiment may not be the most popular on HN, but we would be looking at anarchy without the men manning the silos too.

War is awful and thankfully the Internet seems to be eliminating 99.9% of armed conflicts. There is no point in senseless loss of life. But we still need a good defense--maybe not as much power as we have now, bur nonetheless something to protect the border.

Every piece of intellectual property you create will eventually belong to the public domain, albeit after 75-100+ years.

I don't think it's a problem at all that you can't enforce morality. I'd be much more offended by licenses that tried to enforce some sort of morality by forbidding redistribution to particular groups, whether it be the military, Amnesty International, Saddam Hussein ( http://www.google.com/search?q=saddam+hussein+playstation ), or even the Situation from Jersey Shore.

Theo De Raadt put it best:

But software which OpenBSD uses and redistributes must be free to all (be they people or companies), for any purpose they wish to use it, including modification, use, peeing on, or even integration into baby mulching machines or atomic bombs to be dropped on Australia.

And JIT compiled java can be faster than native code, even in situations where you would not expect it (such as signal handling code).