Posts by Sanguma 540 publicly visible posts • joined 26 Jan 2017
It's actually a query that's been archived, you might say.
Here's some references to it:
https://www.essentialsql.com/what-is-a-relational-database-view/
https://learnsql.com/blog/sql-view/
https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/sql/relational-databases/views/views?view=sql-server-ver16
Just to be obnoxious, I spent a few years trying to work out what an Object-Orientated Database was. I finally owkred that out, and the entire hoo-haa about Object-Orientated Database was an attempt to combine database services with the Object-Orientated languages such as C++. Some time later, after realizing that, I had a second look at the View construct of relational database, which is an effort to set up an independent Query, so you can use it in programming applications.
I spent the least few years of the 90s wondering why others didn't see the (potential) interaction of those two constructs - database services for OOlangs like C++ and such, and programmable views that could be made Object Orientated. I still haven't worked that out. But it still seems to be the solution.
You know anything about the Jewish populations of those places? Do you know about something called the "Lavon Affair", where Israel employed some Egyptian Jews to cover the terrorist actions of the Mossad, with the consequence that the Egyptian govt cracked down on ithe Egyptian Jews? Or for that matter, are you aware that one American Jewish pro-Israel billionaire, Sheldon Adelson, called on the then-US govt to nuke part of the Iranian desert and then nuke Tehran if they didn't stop their nuclear program? At that time Tehran had 10 000 Iranian Jews living there. An American Jewish pro-Israel billionaire quite openly called for the killing of all those Jews, without any compunction - and nobody opened their mouths to protest, including you, Ian Johnston. Why do you hate Jews so much?
What "acts of genocide"? Spell this out for us. How is killing 1200 out of about 7 000 000 genocide? (And even then, the total number actually killed by Hamas is far from clear. And a number of the Israelis killed were servicemen and -women on active duty. Not civilians)
Your numbers are inaccurate. The J'Post declared the number was 1400, then mysteriously altered that to 1200, without giving any explanation. It turns out that 200 Hamas fighters had been granted Israeli Jewish citizenship posthumously, until the coroners found they were actually Hamas fighters. Thus the inelegant backtrack.
Then there's the as-yet unclarified number of Israelis actually killed by the IDF during its counterattack - we know that unless Hamas fighters have been enlisted in the IDF tank units, at least 12 of those 1200 were killed in Kibbutz Be'eri by IDF tank fire. It's that old "F around and find out" - up to half those 1200 may well owe their "deceased" status to the incompetence of the IDF. And this is the armed force that the US and the UK are so adamant about supplying with armaments? If Fiji, for example, or Kenya was in a similar situation where their armed forces quite possibly killed half the number of those they claimed were killed by insurgents, don't you think those supplying the armaments would have the decency to ask questions? It appears neither the UK nor the US has that elementary decency.
This is such an old, worn-out half-dead argument, that "Zionism equals Jewishness". It has the side-effect of demoting Jews to subhuman automatons, the sort that can only be what they have been programmed as, ie, Zionists - and is thus itself antisemitic. It's admittedly a very popular form of antisemitism, among Zionist Jews in particular.
It's a Category Error/Mistake, one of Philosophy and Logic and Computer Science profs' biggest bugbears, I suspect. It's a Category Error/Mistake of truly epic proportions, particularly when you consider a very similar category mistake, that of considering "Communism equals Jewishness" led to the death of six million European Jewish non-combatants between 1939-1945.
Consider the joys of another category error, that of confusing metric with Imperial, led to NASA losing its Mars Climate Orbiter in 1999.
So the inhabitants of Earth's large natural satellite - Lunarians? Lunatics? - have requested cat videos?
Speaking facetiously, it sounds interesting. I'm wondering how they'd get the radio telescope to the moon first. A fibre network for relaying observations back to Earth, would be small potatoes after that.
a states jurisdiction ends at its internationally recognised borders.
Not for crimes of universal jurisdiction, which any state can try. And it's beginning to look as though this sort of thing is considered a crime of universal jurisdiction, because it is being done by citizens and the state apparatchiks of one state against many others.
The USN's lost what balls it had back in the day, when it took over Brewster Aeronautical Corps
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brewster_Aeronautical_Corporation
and shuttered it in the end.
But of course, if the USN were to take over Lockheed-(whatever), it'd face a massive turf fight with the USM and the USAF over how to best mismanage the manufacturer, in a manner befitting the current best practices mismanagement guide/s Lockheed is currently using.
Nah, more sophisticated that that. It will have a pop-up display offering hotel suites with an ensuite for the master bedroom in the priciest hotel in London Town (The Tower); it'll even allow you to stay if you've stolen your Dad's credit card and are running up a massive bill enjoying Christmas all on your own in New York while your family swelters in Florida.
Well, according to some of the earliest reports, Hamas had beheaded 40 babies. Then when people started asking questions, the "40 beheaded babies" vanished into thin air. Also according to earliest reports, Hamas had killed 1400 Israelis. Fast forward a couple of weeks or so, and mysteriously, without any explanation, Hamas has killed 1200 Israelis. Apparently 200 of those Israelis who Hamas had apparently killed were actually Hamas fighters themselves ... meanwhile there are some very, very angry Israelis wanting to know about an IDF tank unit that fired into a Kibbutz Be'eri house where some Hamas fighters and their detainees, relatives of the angry Israelis, were holed up. So unless the IDF has been enlisting Hamas fighters into their tank units, we can safely say those Israelis were not killed by Hamas, but by the IDF. And again, other people have brought up the act that those 200 Hamas fighters were so badly burnt that at first they could not be identified, and have pointed out that the IDF Apache strike helicopter units were in action on the day, and while assault rifles do not have the general effect of burning someone alive so badly they cannot be identified, 30cm explosive rounds fired into groups of people will do the trick.
The difficulty is the number of News Agencies containing people who can't count. And state officials who can't tell the truth.
Take a look at the following
https://www.middleeasteye.net/opinion/israel-palestine-war-media-ignoring-evidence-actions-7-october
https://mondoweiss.net/2023/10/a-growing-number-of-reports-indicate-israeli-forces-responsible-for-israeli-civilian-and-military-deaths-following-october-7-attack/
https://electronicintifada.net/content/israeli-forces-shot-their-own-civilians-kibbutz-survivor-says/38861#transcript
https://electronicintifada.net/blogs/ali-abunimah/shoot-everything-how-israeli-pilots-killed-their-own-civilians
https://thegrayzone.com/2023/10/27/israels-military-shelled-burning-tanks-helicopters/
Itmighthelp.
is good. It should mean that there are no gotchas in the firmware, no hidden traps to catch you unawares, no IOT-Call-Home to catch you out, no unexplained behaviour from what is alleged to be single-purpose hardware, etc.
I look forward to seeing what can be done with it. I commend Microsoft for doing this. It's a good move.
For what it's worth, the cut-off of water triggers an aspect of the Genocide Convention; article 2, (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/convention-prevention-and-punishment-crime-genocide
I may not like Hamas as a political organization, but it is entitled to self-defense, and retaliation if self-defense has been by-passed. BTW, have you noticed one thing about the West's leaders on Israel and Palestine? They always claim to support Israel's right to self-defense, and if pressed, tehy would argue it's a common human right. Then they go silent on the question of if it is a common human right, why are the Palestinians not permitted it? Why are Palestinians exercising it, libelled as "terrorist"?
And then, to make matters even more murky, there's the little detail that the Palestinians have been in Palestine for over two thousand years - as evidenced by the existence of the Samaritan community in the same area they'd been living in during the 1st century CE. Romans didn't exile any more than they needed to, so most of the villages would have stayed there after the Great Revolt 70CE, as long as they didn't actively get involved. So back in the 1st century CE they were Jewish, circumcized their sons, celebrated Passover, etc. So if the West's leaders - and the Israelis - deny their humanity by denying them the right of self-defense, it gets remarkably reentrant and recursive - the people who today's Jews claim descent from, today's Zionists claim are less than human ... so where does that leave today's Jewish communities? Zionists appear positively antisemitic. Little wonder I don't have much patience for Zionists.
Reminds me of a certain group in NZ who used to make noises about New Zealand needing nuclear power, and whatnot. Then there was a massive power outage in Auckland, and they piped up and said their bit about how all this would not have happened if New Zealand had Nuclear Power.
Then people discovered the outage had been caused by a faulty insulator which hadn't been replaced, and we've never heard from them since.
Consider the mental health of all those whose ability to snigger mercilessly at the sight and sound of lobbyists putting both feet in their mouths at once, has been curtailed by lobbyists deciding to shut up!!! It's a mental health crisis, I tell you.
I'm in full agreement. I think most people's views would be exactly the same. Though we need not get our own hands dirty in offering them physical violence - I'd suggest they'd enjoy an environmentally friendly session of feeding the piranha in the Amazon basin. The full immersion feeding session.
Personal story here: during my first year as a BA (Classics(Latin)) at the Uni of Canterbury (NZ), I was knocked off my bicycle and came to, more or less, almost a full week later with a Traumatic Brain Injury, an Extradural Haematoma they cleaned out an hour or so before I shuffled off the mortal coil. As the information the hospital gave me was decidedly inadequate, I picked up Dr Oliver Sack's The Man Who Mistook His Wife For A Hat, discovered that there was a whole heap of material about people in my situation, and promptly ordered some of the books he mentions in it. I later worked out that I'd given myself the equivalent of Third and Fourth Year papers in Neuropsychology, and a paper in the medical science of Neurology (Surgery). The books included Guyton's Basic Neuroscience: Anatomy and Physiology, AR Luria's The Working Brain, Dr Muriel Lezak's Neuropsychological Assessment, and Springer and Deutsch's Left Brain Right Brain. Most neuropsychologists, starting with the neuropsychologist who managed my recovery, have treated me rather as an ungraduated colleague - and you know, the rule is it's when the professionals treat you as one of them, that you're actually one of them. But it means nothing, because although it helped me mightily in conquering the subsequent 5 years of clinical depression - easier to deal with the "personal demons" when you know they are not real - the work I did, didn't involve pieces of paper bearing the title of BA or BSc in Psychology.
During those five years I did some largely voluntary work computer-cataloguing school libraries. Finding I couldn't get any work in spite of proving I had the attitude to get up and enter the details, I thought I'd learned enough to get and make my own work as a programmer of library systems. To do that, I needed to know a lot more about databases, and the like. So again, I bought simple nightime reading, books like Andrew Tanenbaum's Operating Systems: Design and Implementation, Comer's Operating Systems Design: The Xinu Approach, CJ Date's Database Systems: An Introduction, and Elmasri and Navathe's The Fundamentals of Database Systems. I read but didn't buy, Tanenbaum's Computer Networks. I thought after reading all that, that since the daily rag and the computer press were moaning about computer network skills shortages, that I should do this short course on networks. My bank wouldn't loan unless I had work at the end of it; none of the HR companies would suggest any company who might offer me a part-time job as an assistant network administrator. Etc.
So that's my life story. It doesn't seem to matter if you actually know the material - and as an ungraduated neuropsychologist, I might have some professional opinions on the meaningfulness of the postgrad Organizational Psychology Diploma ... Clueless seems to be too tame to describe HR policies.
Human Resources is a subset of the scientific discipline of Psychology. You'll see it in University calendars marked as Organizational Psychology. And, to the best of my knowledge, it is the only subset of said Psychology discipline that does not generate a large number of research papers, so I take it that most Psychology professors regard it as a waste of time and money. (Disclaimer, I am not myself a Psychology professor nor have I asked any who I might know, about their opinions on Organizational psychology, but the general theme in the sciences, is that research is what everything's about: Organizational Psychology in that mindset's of the same order as a Mills&Boon to Nobel Prize Literature winner.)
but where is everybody? Reminds me of the time I jumped on usenet using knode, c. 2004, subscribed to a number of newsgroups, popped in to see what was doing on one, and woe and behold, the only action was a posting by someone cursing someone else in frankly not very interesting terms of unendearment ...
There's a lot more newsgroups in existence than there are people on them. It's almost zenlike in its absences. The sound of one hand clapping is the sound of usenet ghosts reminiscing about their past histories ...
I made good use of the antiX 19 386 when we were in lockdown in 2020. I was at Mum's, to help her in case anything needed to be done, away from my PC, and with only an aged Pentium laptop, where the original MS Win XP installation had bitrotted off the HD. With antiX 19 I was able to keep in touch with my email and keep up with the news.
That's what antiX is aimed at, and it's probably the best distro for the job. It's not something you'll find many other distros capable of doing.
You can shoot them up; you can never shoot them down. It's the atmosphere in its thinness that'll do that, eventually.
Lack of understanding of orbital dynamics should be a disqualifier for any role in any such "Space Force"; except this is a Donald Trump establishment, and like Donald Trump's casinos in Atlanta, I'm not expecting it to either last, or do anything of any use.
Even disabling some random opponent's military satellite's fraught with risk - if you haven't "shot it up" because it can't come down like an aircraft, and won't go down like a ship, and instead you've just rendered it "harmless", in the same way Kosmos 2251 was "harmless", you've left it around to take out some future Iridium 33. You've put a certain number of communications and remote sensing satellites at risk, which means you might find them missing when you need them.
Earth Orbit's more in need of some Hague Convention of the Neutrality sort, recognizing it as covered by the same sort of neutrality the Antarctic's covered by, than any muscle-pumping, fist-thumping Rambo All-American Can't Do!!!
an evening with Russ Meyer ... not quite. (Thank $DEITY) The US Constitution gives an admirably succinct reason for protecting creative output, and I quote:
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
Or in other words, to provide an incentive for authors and inventors to keep working by ensuring that they get paid for keeping on writing and inventing. I would dearly love to see the cheques paid to Walter Elias Disney for his posthumous output; who wouldn't? By extending the copyright to life plus 90 years, the Disney Corp has solemnly informed us that they are continuing to employ Walter Elias Disney; is it possible that they have not in fact been paying him? If so, the founder of Disney Corp et al., is posthumously enslaved. Is it possible that Walter Elias Disney is having his work continuously rejected? In which case, since no discernable NDA or non-compete agreement was ever signed, why has not the Disney Corp permitted him to seek work elsewhere?
And if Disney Corp has neither been paying Walter Elias Disney nor employing him, then they have been defrauding him of the posthumous payments he is due for the use of his creative works. And if Disney Corp has in fact employed Walter Elias Disney posthumously without paying him, it has violated any number of anti-slavery laws by continuing to employ him posthumously without payment.
"limited times" is just the tip of the iceberg.
I remember SLS, patchlevel ?? rather well. I had a 486 with 4 meg of memory, which was excessive for MS DOS 5, endured MS Windows 3.0 and 3.1 and could barely handle IBM OS/2 2.0. And I had some bare intro to Unix (SCO before Caldera took the name) before, and a copy of Tanenbaum's Operating Systems: Design and Implementation and Comer's Operating Systems: The Xinu Approach, which gave me a bare hint of what I was to expect. I survived the installation, but had no Internet connection and not much idea of what to do with it, so I kept fooling around with installing DOS, Windows, and OS/2.
A short time after, I got a CD-ROM drive for that 486 and a pile of Linux and 4.4BSDLite CD-ROMs. Feeling like a pig in clover I installed a number of the small Linux-in-FAT distros on those CD-ROMs until I knew what I was doing, then with a FreeBSD/NetBSD CD-ROM I'd also picked up, I installed the FreeBSD bootloader and the Slackware distro I'd likewise picked up. Pig in clover days alright. I'd intended to compare and contrast FreeBSD and Linux, but never got around to it. With the help of some Unix books, including Frisch's System Admin book, I got my head around Linux, and among other things, wound up using emacs to write a novel. And emacs' meta-x dissociated-press feature to make some nasty comments about some politicos who'd got up my nose.
But then I got myself an updated PC, a copy of Mandrake Linux 9.0 or thenabouts, and felt like a pig in clover again.
Linux has over its lifetime been faced with the claim that it has too many distros. And no standardization. While Red Hat ltd has claimed that it was the standard, since it was the Enterprise distro.
It now looks as though that will change. The free/community projects like CentOS and Scientific Linux etc, were part of that. Now they're not.
Red Hat/IBM have just removed a part of what made Red Hat the standard Enterprise distro, and now they are going to find themselves competing. IBM showed during the 90s it wasn't competitive, didn't know how to compete, and gave up a lot of territory it had formerly thought it owned.
But feeding trolls their own toes is part and parcel of the sheer joy of living!!! I mean, finding an accredited "international human rights lawyer" on Twitter who fails to understand the significance of "Habeas corpus" has got to be one of the great shocks of life - feeding him his own toes (with suitable condiments) made up for the grim horror of discovering his existence ... By the time he'd got around to deleting all his offending posts, I figured he'd put both feet in his mouth, right up to the hip, and really, you can't deny such individuals the joy of tasting their own toes up to their pelvic cage ...
I like Slackware. As I like FreeBSD and OpenBSD. Minimal assumptions made, plenty of room to experiment and learn. But for the past few years I've been using the Mandrake branch - PCLinuxOS is its coolest branch IMHO - and then switching to a dual setup of Kubuntu and Fedora, because most of the people I met using Linux professionally seemed to be gravitating to those two distros.
Wouldn't mind running Slackware again.
That's what this reminds me of, way back in the 80s. IBM cut corners to get their PC out, and that included using common parts; they also published the specifications so that people could build add-ons that IBM wasn't going to waste time building themselves. And they also published the BIOS source, which a few people promptly clean-room cloned.
After suddenly realizing they'd created a marketplace out of a hobbyist niche, they tried to close things up. They soon discovered that they couldn't sue the likes of Phoenix, maker of a clone BIOS out of existence, because the law didn't agree with IBM's views. So they developed a brand new PC architecture, the MCA (microchannel architecture) and tried to establish that as the new motherboard bus. Which led to a lot of kerfuffle and the EISA (extended industry standard architecture), yadayadayada. All long since deceased, gone to the great big bit-bucket in the sky.
What we've had has been similar - a new software "architecture" has taken over, moving rapidly from mere hobbyist to serious business underpinning, and IBM has tried to corral it. And they're finding it's not what they think it is. It enables IBM to maintain its massive investment in mainframes, since it works just as well on mainframes as on PCs and smartphones. But it's not their product; it's owned by others who are willing to share, but not to let it be corralled off in any way.
Which is in large part, why I have every now and then, mentioned IBM and Microsoft letting go of the OS/2 code base (and prior such as the VAX VMS and later, such as the early MS Win 3x-9X and WinNT 3-5), so they can also let go of some of those assumptions. Because at the rate they're going, they're spending more time spinning in circles than actually getting anywhere.
I just found a term which seems to fit the current Red Hat trajectory - Cory Doctorow's enshittification, to wit:
"Here is how platforms die: first, they are good to their users; then they abuse their users to make things better for their business customers; finally, they abuse those business customers to claw back all the value for themselves. Then, they die."
It would apply to companies as well as platforms. MS Windows began to run into this during the 2000s; Linux's hedge against enshittification would be that it is free and open source; however, Red Hat as a company, doesn't have that hedge.
As Senator Diirksen apparently didn't say:
"A billion here, a billion there, and pretty soon you're talking real money"
https://www.dirksencenter.org/research-collections/everett-m-dirksen/dirksen-record/billion-here-billion-there
But he did take the credit for it, which comes to pretty much the same thing.
As far as I can make out, the only use the Pentagon and associated types have ever got out of the Budgetary Defense Initiative has been Theatre Missile Defense. Ie, not strategic ballistic missiles, but tactical ballistic missiles. Stuff I read during those days, pointed out that decoys could waste a lot of the orbital BMD resources. Someone pointed out that a pair of secateurs in the right place could take out ground control - but I knew that from seeing Silo 15 at high school in Canberra about 78 or 79.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silo_15
Though the Israelis have been touting their Iron Dome's success in shooting down the rudimentary rockets from the Gaza Strip. Much as the Pentagon has touted the success of the Patriot theatre defense system.
I'm opposed to anything that would be world-wide. Orbiting weapons "rods of god", X-ray lasers, particularly if they require a nuclear explosive to trigger them, as was reported by the popular literature about "Star Wars" during the 80s - live-testing one in orbit over the Atlantic Ocean might cause fatal EMP on civil airliners not hardened to military standards. While the Kessler Syndrome acts as a fence against widespread deployment of orbital ASATs, it won't do much to stop the paranoid narcissists who tend to gravitate to dictatorships, men like the Duke of Dorkshit himself, Donald J. Trump ...
While something that could shoot down missile launches on sight, but had an insecure command/communications structure, might be persuaded by others that Cape Canaveral is a USSR ICBM site, and bye-bye Miss American Pie ...
Not that useful if your opponent discovers you've got an insecure connection somewhere along the line - IDK, someone with gambling debts and insecure accounts on his HomePC, or suchlike - the Russians did something like that with the Austro-Hungarians before WW I. And uses it to alter targeting to "more useful" targets, such as your nice big Brand New Base in the middle of somewhere-or-other ...
Blue-on-Blue aka Friendly Fire's not something to aim for, but if you insist on universal connection and insecure ie human connectors, and stationing orbiting weapons, it may well be what you get. While Artificial Intelligence might be even more frightening than Natural Stupidity ...
Isn't this a retread of The Third Ronnie, appropriately surnamed Raygun, and his Evil Empire rants of the early 80s? With its very own Budgetary Defense Initiative, nicknamed "Star Wars"?
Overall, I'd say that the US situation in Earth Orbit is very well set up, with more satellites in orbit than any other power, and alliances to "borrow" satellites from in need. And most likely the ability to "borrow" information more quickly and easily than most other space powers, from commercial operations.
This reads more like a proverbial scam spam in my inbox, telling me that I can add an extra foot to my proverbial if I take this-or-that, or gain extra tonnage in my bank balance if I spend this-or-that, or the like.
I think this particular Think Tank has sprung a leak, and to compensate, they've thrown in a few dead horses from The Third Ronnie's era.
One of the examples of hate speech that I can think that I was actually the target of, happened in December 2003 (summer in Southern Hemisphere) when I was house-sitting for my youngest sister in New Zealand while she was off on her honeymoon with her husband. I was riding along one street on a bicycle, when a couple of young girls came out and one said to the other, "I think New Zealand should be for whites only." It took me some time to realize I had been the target of that, but yes, I'd burnt well and truly brown, and the halfwits concerned had decided I was too black to reside in New Zealand ... interesting what a mix of ancestry does for one, but my ancestors include plenty of nut-brown maids ...
No reference to anything other than my colour, which was well and truly brown then. Thankfully it was only a couple of halfwitted girls, but if you meet it in a pub from a drunk doofus or in a shop from a bored and dull shopkeeper, it's a bit more serious.
The one problem I see with "hate speech" laws is that they'll wind up being used and abused by the wrong sort - the halfwits who claim "free speech" for their own ravings, but claim it's "hate speech" whenever I make fun of them for their obvious deficiencies in ... humour, for starters ... it's been seen in action: His Serene Grace the Duke of Dorkshit Donald J. Trump claiming "Free Speech" for his ravings, while claiming anyone who criticizes him is a "hater" ....
"Trump Has Vowed To Fill Guantanamo With 'Some Bad Dudes' — But Who?"
https://www.npr.org/sections/parallels/2016/11/14/502007304/trump-has-vowed-to-fill-guantanamo-with-some-bad-dudes-but-who
"Trump Wisely Keeping ‘Really Bad Dudes’ in Guantanamo Bay"
https://www.heritage.org/terrorism/commentary/trump-wisely-keeping-really-bad-dudes-guantanamo-bay
"This morning, I watched President Obama talking about Gitmo, right, Guantanamo Bay, which by the way, which by the way, we are keeping open. Which we are keeping open ... and we're gonna load it up with some bad dudes, believe me, we're gonna load it up."
If it were up to Trump, those suspects might actually come from the United States. Asked last summer by the Miami Herald if Americans accused of terrorism should be tried by military commissions in Guantanamo, Trump endorsed such a policy.
As the saying goes, be careful what you wish for - you just might get it. Under a Trump administration, Trump would be eligible for trial and "re-settlement" in Guantanamo Bay, where all he would need to do would be to answer some questions - repeatedly ...
"Q&A: Guantanamo Bay, US Detentions, and the Trump Administration"
https://www.hrw.org/news/2018/06/27/qa-guantanamo-bay-us-detentions-and-trump-administration
Then-Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld labeled Guantanamo’s first detainees “unlawful combatants” who “do not have any rights under the Geneva Convention.”
As it happens, Donald J. Trump, as an insurrectionist and "mastermind" (very loosely defined) of an act of domestic terrorism against the US equivalent of the UK Parliament, the US Congress, does not have any rights under the Geneva Conventions, and indeed, under most state jurisdictions, they would have no rights either.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2025
