Sand

So it is okay to be ordered to be in a illegal situation and be a party to an illegal act? :confused:

But his orders have to be legal in order for him to follow them otherwise he is criminally responsible for his actions for the excuse of "I was just following orders" does not make one immune to prosecution.

His orders was to head to war in Iraq. He views the war being illegal, thusly his orders are illegal and a soldier can be criminally responsible for his or her actions if they follow illegal orders. That is his chain of thought, and the only way to break that chain of thought is to deem the war in Iraq has being fully legal by the highest court in the land. As long as there is a shadow of doubt that his orders are illegal he should not follow them.

It is not his place to determine his orders are illegal or not? Then whose place is it to tell him that he is following illegal orders? If no one tells him that he is following illegal orders should he be held accountable for following those illegal orders?

Oh, I plan on getting a HD DVD burner but after I get the motherboard, CPU, a 1 TB harddrive, new RAM, new case, keyboard and mouse.

So, he is to follow his orders no matter what, no matter what those orders to be? If that is the case then why are the soldiers who were "just obeying orders" are criminally responsible for their actions at Abu Grajb? They were just following orders from a legally appointed superior.

No, but I upgraded so that I wouldn't have to later on.

That is something for the courts to decide and the Supreme Court hasn't decided one way or another yet. The man contends that the war in Iraq is illegal and being ordered to go and fight is an illegal order. So, what constitues a illegal order then? In Abu Grajb (msp) they were ordered to interrogate the prisoners and use whatever means to get the information necessary out of them. Those soldiers were following their orders. If this is a legal war then their orders were legal, yet there are those who are being sent to prison, but those who gave the orders are free as a bird in an open birdcage.

Why would I have a HD-DVD version of LotR when I don't have a HD-DVD on my computer? You are making it sound like all video output is going to looking like fuzzy dice which is obviously not true. I don't think there will be a need for HD DVD players in computers for a very very very long time. Just take how long it took for DVD players to become the norm.

Well, to put what you said to the test I just put in my copy of Lord of the Rings in and well, it looks fine. Everything is still crisp and clear and the play back is very smooth. I think you are just being an alarmist for no reason.

So Dark Raven, you see that "I am just following orders" excuse as a way to circumvent liability for conducting illegal, unethical, and immoral acts?

I don't watch movies/DVDs on my PC so how does this effect me?

Dark Moth, are you saying that it is alright for a soldier to obey illegal orders? He views his orders are illegal, that the war is illegal, thusly if he was held responsible the only recourse he has to defend himself would be "I was only following orders" which is not a defense in following illegal orders. So in either way he is screwed.

Yes, and there has been many cases that copy protection messes things up for legitimate users, like Starforce and SecuROM. However if copy protection doesn't hamper legitimate use then I am all for it. It is the only reasonable recourse to solve the situation of software piracy. If Microsoft developed a copy protection scheme that does not hamper legitimate use but stops piracy then I am all for it. I am also giddy for I just tested Fallout 1 and 2 on Vista and they work! HAHAHAHAHA!

Why was your neighbor trying to break into your house, Walsie?

So, it is okay to participate in an illegal war but not follow illegal orders? :confused:

Will someone think of the Irish Muslims! WILL SOMEONE THINK ABOUT THEIR PLIGHT! :'(

I have never been hit with any copy protection problems with Microsoft and Vista, so far, is no different. I am only against copy protection that hampers legitimate use. So far I haven't came across any that hampers my over all use of Vista.

We need free medical for all.

Required? Well, if you want to use DirectX 10 games and software in their full splendor it will be required. Is it required at this very moment in time? No, but does it make sense to spend a $100 or so on XP then having to spend another $200 or so on Vista later? Think it as a preemptive strike. As for DRM I have no plans on doing any piracy along those lines so I doubt that will even effect me.

I am not advising to get Vista because it is the latest software. I am advising him to get Vista because if you are going to spend the money to get a new OS anyway you might as well get what is current that way you don't have to worry about upgrading later. If I wasn't seeking to get a upgraded system I wouldn't have bothered getting Vista but so far I am happy with it. The only quirk it has so far is when I have Firefox running the screen bounces.

Ah yes, freedom. You gotta give what you take!

Mac user? Bleh. Who in their right mind uses a Mac? Then probably XP would be best because it is tried and true with working with Boot Camp. I don't know anyone who has gotten Boot Camp working with Vista.

The problem I have is that, yes, our soldiers are suppose to follow orders no questions asked but if those orders have them do something illegal they are held responsible and not those who gave the order. In his mind he was given illegal orders, so should he follow such orders then when he gets arrested and held on trial should he just use the "I was just following orders" excuse or should he disobey the orders to begin with?

HA!