Introduce Transparency In Government. Release all internal memos regarding controversial subjects, open your visitor logs, and publish transcripts of all your [non-classified] meetings. Require all administrative branch personnel to do the same.
Apply Civil Rights Uniformly. Restore Habeas Corpus and eliminate kangaroo courts. Try prisoners as either POWs or in our own criminal courts. End renditions. And for FSM's sake, end the discrimination against gay couples and soldiers.
End Wiretapping. Stop spying on your citizens. Remove ex post facto legal protections from those who broke the law.
Prosecute War Crimes. Either bring the war criminals and profiteers to justice, or get out of the way and let someone else do it. Stop obfuscating and obstructing.
I understand you wish to choose your fights, Mr. President, and you are saving your ammo for the Health Care battles ahead. But trust me, if you do the right things on the above issues, you will have an army of support on the progressive side that will overwhelm your opposition on Universal Health Care.
I'm giving up mod privileges to post this. But nobody has made this point, so I need to.
The flaw in your argument is your failure to recognize that the spam "solutions" that the EFF have opposed were worse than the spam problem. Solutions that restrict rights online or which are so vague as to permit abuse in non-spam situations are more dangerous than a few hundred pen!s oil ads.
The EFF are one of the few NPOs that I give to, because they actually are effective and coincide with my values. If they don't coincide with yours, fine. Don't give. I also advise that you don't trash talk them either, at least not here...
The Motorola's are a pain in the butt so nobody uses them
I use one. And my wife just bought a Sprint-branded Blackberry 8830. Two of your premises are therefore false. And since your conclusion requires your premises form a logical AND condition, your conclusion is also logically false.
Just another data point correlated with the general trend of Congresscritters whoring for the **AA. Even Wexler, who is a member of the progressive congress, needs wealthy donors. And he gets them by fellating the copyright cosa nostra, in this example...
Everyone in congress is owned by one or more corporate interests, and although it seems the recording and movie industries target those with a (D) after their names, Orrin Hatch proves that their corruption is bipartisan.
Thank you for the only intellectually honest reply to my original post.
Personally I draw the line at weapons on unmanned aircraft, and I won't develop or support it. But that's a judgment call, and I'm not saying the other judgment is wrong. All we can do is draw the lines where we will, then accept the consequences.
I respect your judgment call. We have many employees who make similar ones, and we respect their decisions without prejudice. We also have employees who love to blow shit up, and think anything that goes 'boom' is cool. They're the ones whose judgment we question.
I've also thought about the "passing the buck" counterargument to my decision, and my response is similar to a statement you made. One has to consider the likely uses of one's craft and decide whether its beneficial uses outweigh the misuses and potential abuses, taking into account the likelihood of each as well as their effect. We build systems that have saved the lives of many hundreds of US soldiers, at the very least by putting fewer of them in harm's way -- but also by giving them better tactical and strategic awareness, and by allowing them to make pinpoint strikes.
If someone decides to take that system and misuse it to kill civilians or commit war crimes, the karma is theirs, not mine. They would have done so using whatever tools were at their disposal, whether I built one of them or not.
Either you're trolling or your reading comprehension needs work. The very next sentence after the one you quoted reads: "I will not build something that discharges automatically, or which has such a large area of effect that collateral casualties are unavoidable, or that will be used against civilian targets."
And as I replied above, the final part should have been written "that is intended to be used against civilian targets, e.g., strategic weapons."
But thanks for replying.
Re:rock or a UAV
on
Wired for War
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Sorry - hasty choice of words. I should have more accurately written "intended for use against civilian targets" - e.g., a strategic weapon.
We don't build decision-making into UAVs. Nobody does. They're waldoes, remotely piloted at all times. The "skynet" scenario is a SF cliche, made joke, now becoming a scare tactic. It's a cliche, nothing more. If you believe otherwise, you're woefully ignorant about how they work and how they're made.
Re:rock or a UAV
on
Wired for War
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
You can parse it that way if you feel the need for moral superiority, or you can parse it in context.
If "allowing someone else to be in control" is your definition of morally bankrupt, then you are in an equally indefensible position as I. Especially if you are an American citizen who enjoys things like cheap oil.
Re:rock or a UAV
on
Wired for War
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
No, not in your example. Not as long as it still requires a willful act of a human to take another human's life.
I help build one of the most heavily used UAVs in the US Military, and when it was proposed we put a weapon system on board, I had to consider my ethical position. The question boiled down to the issue in the first paragraph: will the person pulling the trigger be in control, or will it be an indiscriminate killing machine?
The answer to this question is different for a missile than it is for, say, a cluster munition or a land mine... or a nuclear weapon.
I have no problem building a weapon that retains operator control over the targeting. I will not build something that discharges automatically, or which has such a large area of effect that collateral casualties are unavoidable, or that will be used against civilian targets.
Scribblenauts reminds me of things like the Fantasy Game from Ender's Game, and the Young Lady's Illustrated Primer; a Propædeutic Enchiridion in which is told the tale of Princess Nell and her various friends, kin, associates, &c. from Diamond Age by Neal Stephenson.
That's exactly what some people said to folks like Alec Baldwin eight years ago when they threatened to leave the country because they didn't agree with the politics of new leadership (iow, "don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out").
But then those comments were accompanied by accusations of treason and worse... now that it's a corporation instead of a liberal, let's see if Ballmer receives the same treatment as Baldwin.
While I agree with your sentiment entirely, I wonder if you know what that sounds like to someone athletic like my wife?
"Real sex can be fun, but anyone who has engaged in it much knows how tiring it can be to have to stand or use full body motions for an extended period to achieve orgasm. Sometimes I just want to lock myself in my office with my pr0n and rub one out. If I have to hump and thrust all over the place, I'm gonna often consider it more work than fun."
(Sorry. I enjoy pr0n as much as the next guy. And I've put in my time vegging on the couch with an NES... but it's the first thing I thought of.)
I'd be happy if it just leads to a ruling that I can back up my DVDs onto my networked media server so i can a) bypass advertisements and b) stream them to other TVs in the house. I don't copy from or make available to anyone outside the walls of my house, and my media server is not shared over the internet.
Slashdot Mirror
And the twist at the end is that the guy with the r/c controller is really a robot!
Put me down for a laser stimulation implant of the nucleus accumbens .
Speaking of "stimulated emissions," I'll never leave the house!
I understand you wish to choose your fights, Mr. President, and you are saving your ammo for the Health Care battles ahead. But trust me, if you do the right things on the above issues, you will have an army of support on the progressive side that will overwhelm your opposition on Universal Health Care.
I'm giving up mod privileges to post this. But nobody has made this point, so I need to.
The flaw in your argument is your failure to recognize that the spam "solutions" that the EFF have opposed were worse than the spam problem. Solutions that restrict rights online or which are so vague as to permit abuse in non-spam situations are more dangerous than a few hundred pen!s oil ads.
The EFF are one of the few NPOs that I give to, because they actually are effective and coincide with my values. If they don't coincide with yours, fine. Don't give. I also advise that you don't trash talk them either, at least not here...
Bend =/= Portland.
Comparing Bend to Portland is like comparing Houston to San Francisco. (For one thing, I don't think either city would appreciate the comparison.)
I've been to both OR cities; it's no surprise that people are fleeing Bend. Pastures are much greener just a few leagues to the West.
I use one. And my wife just bought a Sprint-branded Blackberry 8830. Two of your premises are therefore false. And since your conclusion requires your premises form a logical AND condition, your conclusion is also logically false.
Because AT&T has a history of acting like a thug to protect its markets, even (and especially) the ones that its entering.
So now, as an Earthlink DSL* subscriber who rides on AT&T wires, I now have to worry that AT&T is going to mess with my WoW connection.
*(Ya, I know, I need to do something about that. It seemed like a good idea 13 years ago.)
You mean kinda like this?
Just another data point correlated with the general trend of Congresscritters whoring for the **AA. Even Wexler, who is a member of the progressive congress, needs wealthy donors. And he gets them by fellating the copyright cosa nostra, in this example...
Everyone in congress is owned by one or more corporate interests, and although it seems the recording and movie industries target those with a (D) after their names, Orrin Hatch proves that their corruption is bipartisan.
Thank you for the only intellectually honest reply to my original post.
I respect your judgment call. We have many employees who make similar ones, and we respect their decisions without prejudice. We also have employees who love to blow shit up, and think anything that goes 'boom' is cool. They're the ones whose judgment we question.
I've also thought about the "passing the buck" counterargument to my decision, and my response is similar to a statement you made. One has to consider the likely uses of one's craft and decide whether its beneficial uses outweigh the misuses and potential abuses, taking into account the likelihood of each as well as their effect. We build systems that have saved the lives of many hundreds of US soldiers, at the very least by putting fewer of them in harm's way -- but also by giving them better tactical and strategic awareness, and by allowing them to make pinpoint strikes.
If someone decides to take that system and misuse it to kill civilians or commit war crimes, the karma is theirs, not mine. They would have done so using whatever tools were at their disposal, whether I built one of them or not.
Either you're trolling or your reading comprehension needs work. The very next sentence after the one you quoted reads: "I will not build something that discharges automatically, or which has such a large area of effect that collateral casualties are unavoidable, or that will be used against civilian targets."
And as I replied above, the final part should have been written "that is intended to be used against civilian targets, e.g., strategic weapons."
But thanks for replying.
Sorry - hasty choice of words. I should have more accurately written "intended for use against civilian targets" - e.g., a strategic weapon.
We don't build decision-making into UAVs. Nobody does. They're waldoes, remotely piloted at all times. The "skynet" scenario is a SF cliche, made joke, now becoming a scare tactic. It's a cliche, nothing more. If you believe otherwise, you're woefully ignorant about how they work and how they're made.
You can parse it that way if you feel the need for moral superiority, or you can parse it in context.
If "allowing someone else to be in control" is your definition of morally bankrupt, then you are in an equally indefensible position as I. Especially if you are an American citizen who enjoys things like cheap oil.
No, not in your example. Not as long as it still requires a willful act of a human to take another human's life.
I help build one of the most heavily used UAVs in the US Military, and when it was proposed we put a weapon system on board, I had to consider my ethical position. The question boiled down to the issue in the first paragraph: will the person pulling the trigger be in control, or will it be an indiscriminate killing machine?
The answer to this question is different for a missile than it is for, say, a cluster munition or a land mine... or a nuclear weapon.
I have no problem building a weapon that retains operator control over the targeting. I will not build something that discharges automatically, or which has such a large area of effect that collateral casualties are unavoidable, or that will be used against civilian targets.
Great, so now we can add "-1, Meatpuppet" to the list of needed moderation tags.
Aye, same here. And just like every other time before, I wound up going back to WoW.
Good point.
For instance, when was the first *.com domain registered? Wouldn't that be the "dawn of dot-com?"
Damn you. Damn you all. I miss usenet.
Scribblenauts reminds me of things like the Fantasy Game from Ender's Game, and the Young Lady's Illustrated Primer; a Propædeutic Enchiridion in which is told the tale of Princess Nell and her various friends, kin, associates, &c. from Diamond Age by Neal Stephenson.
That's exactly what some people said to folks like Alec Baldwin eight years ago when they threatened to leave the country because they didn't agree with the politics of new leadership (iow, "don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out").
But then those comments were accompanied by accusations of treason and worse... now that it's a corporation instead of a liberal, let's see if Ballmer receives the same treatment as Baldwin.
Considering the amount of kinky pr0n allegedly being served up, I'd say more than the moles will be getting whacked off...
an occasional phone call, a cheeseburger, and surfing for a little porn
I dunno. I can only eat, chat, and fap so much. But I could play CivIII day and night.
While I agree with your sentiment entirely, I wonder if you know what that sounds like to someone athletic like my wife?
"Real sex can be fun, but anyone who has engaged in it much knows how tiring it can be to have to stand or use full body motions for an extended period to achieve orgasm. Sometimes I just want to lock myself in my office with my pr0n and rub one out. If I have to hump and thrust all over the place, I'm gonna often consider it more work than fun."
(Sorry. I enjoy pr0n as much as the next guy. And I've put in my time vegging on the couch with an NES... but it's the first thing I thought of.)
This sounds like a Fark thread, not a /. thread... bewbs or gtfo?
I'd be happy if it just leads to a ruling that I can back up my DVDs onto my networked media server so i can a) bypass advertisements and b) stream them to other TVs in the house. I don't copy from or make available to anyone outside the walls of my house, and my media server is not shared over the internet.