What have you learned today?
- Thread starter hanselthecaretaker
- Start date
I learned how the Australian voting system works, thanks to a fun online comic. I didn't need to learn about it, but I've decided to re-contextualize my recent struggle to stay focused on anything as a dedication to pursuing new knowledge rather than work burnout.
Also, I found a picture of the elusive democracy wieners I have heard about in passing. Served on bread with... onions? Or toenails.
Also, I found a picture of the elusive democracy wieners I have heard about in passing. Served on bread with... onions? Or toenails.
Democracy Sausages, and yes served in a single slice of bread folded in half with onions and either tomato sauce or bbq sauce. Butter is optional.
Anyone who puts that put yellow mustard on a democracy sausage should be banned from voting ever again.
2002 Bush signed an act allowing the US to invade the Hague and anyone else if the ICC (international criminal court) ever tries holding them accountable for war crimes. Also allowing them to block any military aid to all countries part of the ICC. No exaggeration, just brazen villain behaviour wtf.
en.wikipedia.org
.
Of course the UK ain't much better neither, the Balfour declaration which essentially created Israel was written by Lord Balfour, an actual white supremacist anti-Semite who also was one of the last openly pro-slavery Brit politicians, in case there was any doubt of the depths of their fuckery.
American Service-Members' Protection Act - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
The American Service-Members' Protection Act (ASPA, Title 2 of Pub. L.Tooltip Public Law (United States) 107–206 (text) (PDF), H.R. 4775, 116 Stat. 820, enacted August 2, 2002), known informally as the Hague Invasion Act, is a United States federal law described as "a bill to protect United States military personnel and other elected and appointed officials of the United States government against criminal prosecution by an international criminal court to which the United States is not party."[1] The text of the Act has been codified as subchapter II of chapter 81 of title 22, United States Code.
The Act gives the President power to use "all means necessary and appropriate to bring about the release of any U.S. or allied personnel being detained or imprisoned by, on behalf of, or at the request of the International Criminal Court".[2]
Description[edit]
The United States is not a member of the International Criminal Court (ICC). The Act authorizes the President of the United States to use "all means necessary and appropriate to bring about the release of any U.S. or allied personnel being detained or imprisoned by, on behalf of, or at the request of the International Criminal Court". This authorization led to the act being colloquially nicknamed "The Hague Invasion Act", as the act allows the President to order U.S. military action, such as an invasion of The Hague, where the ICC is located, to protect American officials and military personnel from prosecution or rescue them from custody.[3][4]
The bill was introduced by U.S. Senator Jesse Helms (Republican from North Carolina) and U.S. Representative Tom DeLay (Republican from Texas),[5] as an amendment to the 2002 Supplemental Appropriations Act for Further Recovery From and Response to Terrorist Attacks on the United States (H.R. 4775).[6] The amendment (S.Amdt 3597) was passed 75–19 by the US Senate,[7] with 30 Democrats and 45 Republicans voting in support. The bill was signed into law by President George W. Bush on August 2, 2002.
SEC. 2008. of the Act authorizes the President of the U.S. "to use all means necessary and appropriate to bring about the release of any person described in subsection (b) who is being detained or imprisoned by, on behalf of, or at the request of the International Criminal Court". The subsection (b) specifies this authority shall extend to "Covered United States persons" (members of the Armed Forces of the United States, elected or appointed officials of the United States Government, and other persons employed by or working on behalf of the United States Government) and "Covered allied persons" (military personnel, elected or appointed officials, and other persons employed by or working on behalf of the government of a NATO member country, a major non-NATO ally including Australia, Egypt, Israel, Japan, Argentina, the Republic of Korea, and New Zealand).[citation needed]
Effects and reception[edit]
The act prohibits federal, state and local governments and agencies (including courts and law enforcement agencies) from assisting the International Criminal Court (ICC). For example, it prohibits the extradition of any person from the U.S. to the ICC; it prohibits the transfer of classified national security information and law enforcement information to the ICC; and it prohibits agents of the court from conducting investigations in the U.S.[citation needed]
The act also prohibits U.S. military aid to countries that are party to the ICC. However, exceptions are allowed for aid to NATO members, major non-NATO allies, Taiwan, and countries that have entered into "Article 98 agreements", agreeing not to hand over U.S. nationals to the ICC. Additionally, the act does not prohibit the U.S. from assisting in the search and capture of foreign nationals wanted for prosecution by the ICC, specifically naming Saddam Hussein, Slobodan Milošević, and Osama bin Laden as examples.[citation needed]
The act has been condemned by human rights organizations. The Coalition for the International Criminal Court has called the act a "dangerous symbolic opposition to international criminal justice"[8] and Human Rights Watch also condemned the law.[3] The Brookings Institution says the act "chills U.S. efforts to support the ICC’s work in Ukraine".[9] A European Parliament resolution of 4 July 2002 condemned the act.[10]
Dutch reaction to the Act was negative, taking issue with section 2008 of the bill. The Dutch Ambassador to the United States, Boudewijn van Eenennaam, voiced his protests saying that the Dutch were "Not particularly amused by Section 2008" and that "we think the language used was ill-considered to say the least".[11] Meanwhile the Dutch House of Representatives passed a motion expressing its concern about the bill and its "detrimental" effects on trans-Atlantic relations.[12]
The Act gives the President power to use "all means necessary and appropriate to bring about the release of any U.S. or allied personnel being detained or imprisoned by, on behalf of, or at the request of the International Criminal Court".[2]
Description[edit]
The United States is not a member of the International Criminal Court (ICC). The Act authorizes the President of the United States to use "all means necessary and appropriate to bring about the release of any U.S. or allied personnel being detained or imprisoned by, on behalf of, or at the request of the International Criminal Court". This authorization led to the act being colloquially nicknamed "The Hague Invasion Act", as the act allows the President to order U.S. military action, such as an invasion of The Hague, where the ICC is located, to protect American officials and military personnel from prosecution or rescue them from custody.[3][4]
The bill was introduced by U.S. Senator Jesse Helms (Republican from North Carolina) and U.S. Representative Tom DeLay (Republican from Texas),[5] as an amendment to the 2002 Supplemental Appropriations Act for Further Recovery From and Response to Terrorist Attacks on the United States (H.R. 4775).[6] The amendment (S.Amdt 3597) was passed 75–19 by the US Senate,[7] with 30 Democrats and 45 Republicans voting in support. The bill was signed into law by President George W. Bush on August 2, 2002.
SEC. 2008. of the Act authorizes the President of the U.S. "to use all means necessary and appropriate to bring about the release of any person described in subsection (b) who is being detained or imprisoned by, on behalf of, or at the request of the International Criminal Court". The subsection (b) specifies this authority shall extend to "Covered United States persons" (members of the Armed Forces of the United States, elected or appointed officials of the United States Government, and other persons employed by or working on behalf of the United States Government) and "Covered allied persons" (military personnel, elected or appointed officials, and other persons employed by or working on behalf of the government of a NATO member country, a major non-NATO ally including Australia, Egypt, Israel, Japan, Argentina, the Republic of Korea, and New Zealand).[citation needed]
Effects and reception[edit]
The act prohibits federal, state and local governments and agencies (including courts and law enforcement agencies) from assisting the International Criminal Court (ICC). For example, it prohibits the extradition of any person from the U.S. to the ICC; it prohibits the transfer of classified national security information and law enforcement information to the ICC; and it prohibits agents of the court from conducting investigations in the U.S.[citation needed]
The act also prohibits U.S. military aid to countries that are party to the ICC. However, exceptions are allowed for aid to NATO members, major non-NATO allies, Taiwan, and countries that have entered into "Article 98 agreements", agreeing not to hand over U.S. nationals to the ICC. Additionally, the act does not prohibit the U.S. from assisting in the search and capture of foreign nationals wanted for prosecution by the ICC, specifically naming Saddam Hussein, Slobodan Milošević, and Osama bin Laden as examples.[citation needed]
The act has been condemned by human rights organizations. The Coalition for the International Criminal Court has called the act a "dangerous symbolic opposition to international criminal justice"[8] and Human Rights Watch also condemned the law.[3] The Brookings Institution says the act "chills U.S. efforts to support the ICC’s work in Ukraine".[9] A European Parliament resolution of 4 July 2002 condemned the act.[10]
Dutch reaction to the Act was negative, taking issue with section 2008 of the bill. The Dutch Ambassador to the United States, Boudewijn van Eenennaam, voiced his protests saying that the Dutch were "Not particularly amused by Section 2008" and that "we think the language used was ill-considered to say the least".[11] Meanwhile the Dutch House of Representatives passed a motion expressing its concern about the bill and its "detrimental" effects on trans-Atlantic relations.[12]
Of course the UK ain't much better neither, the Balfour declaration which essentially created Israel was written by Lord Balfour, an actual white supremacist anti-Semite who also was one of the last openly pro-slavery Brit politicians, in case there was any doubt of the depths of their fuckery.
I'm baffled you Aussies didn't go for Rover McRoverface
Some British dude filed a patent once for a pocket-sized, portable solid state music player with a memory chip, a display screen and buttons for four-way navigation. Music content for it would be stored on a central server and distributed to music stores over telephone lines, and it would have provisions to prevent illegal copying of this content.
Here's what that music player was supposed to look like
The patent was from 1979.
Here's what that music player was supposed to look like
The patent was from 1979.
Seems like whatever nutritional advice/recommendations given by public health is like always wrong. Salt is another thing that has gotten a bad name.
- Apr 1, 2009
- 15,024
- 3,892
- 118
- Gender
- Whatever, just wash your hands.
Too much salt isn't good and we have a habit of really loading up food with a lot. Not like table salt, but salt that is used to emphasize other flavors. Really though, the biggest issue is sugar, sugar is killer and probably the worst thing you can regularly eat.
Lowering salt intake in those with hypertension helps in lowering blood pressure but saying everyone should has no basis in fact.
You're going down a dangerous path here saying sugar is killer because when I said sugar is a slow acting poison I got hounded endlessly for it because to several users here, if I say something it just must be wrong. But yeah, sugar is pretty fucking bad for you outside of very minimal quantities. Public health had (and mainly still does) a war on fat that caused sugar intake to sky rocket. Usually whatever public health says about nutrition is not just bad, it's completely ass backwards.
That you can stream games from your Steam library to your Steam Deck. Similar great thing I did 1st on the Meta Quest 3. To be truly portable load only those games you must take with you. Then down load all the games you want onto your PC (Oculus App library or Steam Library) and can play those on their respective systems without loading onto either of them. All runs from your PC making storage less of a concern for these devices.
Apparently, asking scientologists what beliefs their religion teaches just completely short circuits their programming lol. Gonna file this alongside the "ask libertarians their belief on age of consent laws" in the cabinet of chaos.
Okay, I'm kind of disappointed that She-Ra was meant to be in the Masters of the Universe movie - the one with Dolph Lungren and Frank Langella - and was cut, but given this was her costume, the character and audience probably dodged a bullet.
See You at POWER-CON!
Tomorrow (Saturday, September 11) and Sunday I’ll be guesting at Power-Con, the convention devoted to Masters of the Universe. Come by my booth!It’s at the Anaheim Hilton. I’ll ha…
www.williamstout.com
Student's answer to math question sparks discussion after teacher marks it as incorrect
The internet debates a student's answer to a seemingly simple maths question when it was marked as incorrect by the kid's teacher.
scoop.upworthy.com
The post about the textbook being technically wrong in the first place by showing a half “disc” instead of an actual “semicircle” (ie no adjacent line) is the most correct answer.
Yeah I kind of have to agree with the kid answering as they did; as presented on the paper there are indeed two corners.Student's answer to math question sparks discussion after teacher marks it as incorrect
The internet debates a student's answer to a seemingly simple maths question when it was marked as incorrect by the kid's teacher.
The post about the textbook being technically wrong in the first place by showing a half “disc” instead of an actual “semicircle” (ie no adjacent line) is the most correct answer.