What does the phrase "take no prisoners" mean?
112491
The phrase originally meant to kill all opponents in a battle.\n\nHowever, the phrase is also used commonly to mean to do whatever you can to win. For instance, when you take no prisoners in the business world, you will lie, cheat and steal to get ahead of the competition.
584613
It's a latin legal phrase that basically means "unwilling to pursue", and it is the formal term for a prosecutor dropping all charges against a person, due to various factors such as lack of evidence to allow a conviction beyond a reasonable doubt.
962136
lol that would negate the definition of the word. To will something is to make an active choice. If you're choosing, you're not a slave. Slaves have choices made for them. I believe that humans are free to choose - it's just that they are too ready to give up that freedom. And as Henry Ford said, "whether you think you can or you think you can't, you're usually right"
1094563
ARTICLE I:\nI am an American, fighting in the forces which guard my country and our way of life. I am prepared to give my life in their defense.\n\nARTICLE II: marine dress blue\nI will never surrender of my own free will. If in command, I will never surrender the members of my command while they still have the means to resist.\n\nARTICLE III:\nIf I am captured I will continue to resist by all means available. I will make every effort to escape and to aid others to escape. I will accept neither parole nor special favors from the enemy.\n\nARTICLE IV:\nIf I become a prisoner of war, I will keep faith with my fellow prisoners. I will give no information nor take part in any action which might be harmful to my comrades. If I am senior, I will take command. If not, I will obey lawful orders of those appointed over me and will back them in every way.\n\nARTICLE V:\nWhen questioned, should I become a prisoner of war, I am required to give name, rank, service number, and date of birth. I will evade answering further questions to the utmost of my ability. I will make no oral or written statements disloyal to my country or its allies or harmful to their cause.\n\nARTICLE VI:\nI will never forget that I am an American, fighting for freedom, responsible for my actions, and dedicated to the principles which made my country free\n\nI will trust in my God and in the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.
855169
It means that the president will be able to designate anyone he wants as an enemy combatant, for almost any reason.  As a result, you can be sent away to a secret prison, held indefinitely without being charged and without legal representation, and possibly tortured.  All in the name of fighting terrorism.  We might as well flush the Constitution down the toilet.
815306
I usually hear it as, "I wouldn't even give him the time of day."  It means the person is untrustworthy and doesn't deserve anything--- \nnot even the time of day (which is free to give).  It's using irony (look it up in your dictionary).
909771
I respect your view about homework.\n\nThe answer is True\n\nThis appears to be an example of the prisoners' dilemma.  The game it is referring to could be considered the decision that the prisoner #2 makes.  However if he truly has a dominant strategy then he will pick that strategy.  Many examples of the prisoners’ dilemma have no dominant strategy.  In the absence of a dominant strategy the only choice is either to collude or assume competition and pick option that defends against competition.\n\nI'll try and give an example.  The classic one that comes to mind is bellow:\n\nTwo prisoners are caught in a crime.  They are both given the option to confess and rat out the other one in order to receive no jail time.  \n\nIf both accuse: BOTH GET 2 YEARS IN JAIL\n\nIf one accuses and the other does not: THE RAT (ACCUSOR) GETS OUT OF JAIL AND THE OTHER GUY GETS 10 YEARS.\n\nIf neither accuses the other:  NEITHER GO TO JAIL.\n\nIn this example there is no dominant strategy.  If a dominant strategy truly exists that means that player #2 will be better off with one of his choices regardless of the decision of Player #1.  He clearly gets a better deal with not ratting BUT ONLY IF THE OTEHR GUY DOES NOT.  There is no dominant strategy.  The only way they can both get out free is if the collude.\n\nIn an example where a dominant strategy exists the player is better off with ONE decision no mater what the OTHER GUY does.  So it doesn’t matter if he has to choose second.  As long as he really does have a dominant strategy he will choose it anyway.\n\nThis is what John Nash discovered.  Have you ever seen a Beautiful Mind?\n\nThis is a seemingly ambiguous question but I believe the key words are 'dominant strategy'.  What econ class is it?
9986
Well, when prisoners of war are repatriated, it means they are returned to their country of origin. I've never seen this word with an -able ending, and its not in the merriam webster dictionary (online one I think doesn't have all words though)\n\nSo I would take it to mean something or someone that is able to return to their country of origin or citizenship.
817263
Exactly. Prison restricts your freedom but body helps the soul to have new experiences that the soul cannot have on its own. It is a useful tool given to a soul so that it can explore life.\nYou are put into a prison but you are not put into a body. You choose to be ina body because you want to experience what you have missed.\nGiving you the freedon is in other people's hands depending on your behavior in the prison, who are there to judge, but the soul passes its own judgement. When we die, we judge for ourselves. We may not realize that we are dead and haunt the place. We may be miserable over something we did or something we could not do and just refuse to pass on and live as ghosts. We may want to repent and choose a more miserable life for ourselves. We may want to see something new that we wanted to so much in the past life but couldn't and plan our own life and lessons we think we will learn while being there. Our soul is the piece of God, pure and just and we are our own authorities. We are not guided by others.\nWe choose to keep on learning until our desire to see more, to experience more, ultimately gets quenched and we go back to join the Whole or get 'Moksha', as you call it.\nYou get a body as a tool it. You use it, misuse it, abuse it is all up to yourself. You are your own authority in this world too. As a soul, you plan some events for yourself with a view to learn something from it and gain Consciousness but in this world, we may refuse to learn the lesson and gain the experiences, we planned for ourselves, and may wish to get liberated again. Then, after death, we may regret our decision and would want to come back again to learn what was left and then we get lazy and leave it unfinished, to regret it later again.\n\nThe only catch is we do not remember about the world beyond Death in this world and only realize what we have done, when we are a Soul. This is the reason that it is said that people who can detach themselves from the body and understand that it's a tool, can retain their Consciousness. We get Enlightened when we retain Consciousness in both the worlds.
567416
I think that quote came from a philosopher or a writer during the times wherein swords and spears are the only weapons and guns are not yet invented. These kind of men fought their government by writing novels,essays poems,etc. denouncing the dictatorship of their leaders. Instead of a bloody revolt,w/c means taking up arms (swords),they choose to convey their grievances w/c in turn influenced the public. Because of what they learned from the writings.the public revolt causing many governments to topple down.
557731
I agree with The Professor (real or not) but regarding the last example he used (See below)\n>>>Thus, the rule requires you to say We can come to an agreement only if everyone is willing to compromise. But you can say more naturally, with slightly different emphasis and with no risk of misunderstanding, We can only come to an agreement if everyone is willing to compromise.<<<\nI tend to disagree.  These two arrangements do convey different meanings.  The first one means "No compromise, no agreement (i.e. a compromise is the requirement for an agreement)."  The second sentence means "An agreement is the only thing and nothing else we arrive at upon a compromise. (i.e. when a compromise is reached, we have no choice but agree)."
813232
Im gonna try something and see if it makes sense:\n\nFirst on a lower scale:\n\nYou're saying that there is no free will because there is coercion.\n\nTherefore without coercion, we would have free will.\n\nNow if lets define coercion as "punishment"\n\nFree will is the ability to choose between "right" and "wrong"\n\nHowever, something is only "wrong" if there is some sort of negative consequence associated with it.  In most cases this would be a punishment in society (i.e. robbery leads to jail time, stealing a cookie leads to a slap on the wrist)\n\nSo without coercion, there is no "wrong" making "Free Will" a matter of "right" or "right."\nThis means we would have no distinction between choices and it would not be called "Free Will" because there is no choice to make.\n\nTherefore: coercion is essential in order to define "Free Will" because it makes a distinction between right and wrong.\nSo to answer your question free will only exists with coercion. yes.\n\n(if any of my high school logic makes sense)
937978
Red is saying that he won't get out of prison until he's old and gray. \nAlso, the term "lost my marbles" refers to ones loss of sanity, so Red is implying that his "marbles", or sanity, will be almost gone before he gets out.\n\nGreat movie, great book.
69841
become a prisoner for someone .
894677
It is an expression that means there is no room for negotiations, nor arguments, adjustments or deviations.  Usually this expression is used by a parent to a child (powerful to powerless) in an effort to establish the rules of a household or those given by the parent.  It is also used in various other relationships when the rules are being explained.\nThe powerless has no other choice but to absolutely obey what the powerful says or commands.\n\nExamples:\n1. Young man,  in five minutes, I want your toys inside the toy box, and you in your bedroom  in bed, and there are no ifs and buts about it.\n2. Sir, I told you twice already. This certificate can only be given to the person who signed the application, he has to present the release document we have already mailed to him, and be here in person. There are no ifs and buts about this.
890426
This is about children of Israel (the Jews): you shall not shed your blood.  Means: you are not to kill each other.\nNo suicide or civil war concerned.
1108164
imprisonment without any biased nature