not only of our basic freedoms that we FOUGHT and DIED for, but also to our country as a whole. Look back in history and see how 'Empires' in their death throes squeeze more and more, tighten controls more and more to hold onto what is obviously disintegrating.
You know, after the Roman Republic turned into the Empire (with the attendant loss of freedoms), it survived for over 400 years. And we're nowhere near that point - no US presidents are ex-generals who conquered Washington, D.C. with their troops.
The basic point being that not all legislation is designed to somehow restrict our freedom or do us harm.
True. We're not paranoid because it might be an evil conspiracy. We're paranoid because eventually somebody will try to abuse this law (or any other). That's the reason we have a bill of rights to restrict the democratically elected government.
I'd say we should allow this, but only when declaring martial law. Declaring martial law is such an extreme measure it will only be taken when absolutely essential.
The cameras are mostly a one-time cost. However, to have people monitoring them is a continuous expense. Given the relative costs of technology vs. labor, I suspect that's a large part of the cost.
When their little pay boxes start getting filled with gasoline and set on fire, for instance. Or when their agents start getting killed.
How many people are willing to go to jail for having to walk half a block to pay for parking tickets? How many of those are sane enough to actually do anything?
Violence is sometimes necessary. But this is not worth it.
The parking meters described are user hostile to the population of Chicago. However, they do a much better job of keeping the life of the organization that bought them and runs them easy than having to physically collect coins from so many different parking meters.
Well, half the voters don't even believe in public health. If the carriers of an epidemic are deemed unworthy of health care, the free market solution is to wait until everybody gets it, then treat those with money.
That would explain why we don't have a Center for Disease Control for things like infectious diseases and plagues.
Are you armed? Do you have military training? Are things bad enough you're willing to die to fix them? If the answer to any of the above is "no", then your opinion about whether or not we should have a revolution is irrelevant.
why not just have the government hire, as regular employees, the technical staff to meet its ongoing technical needs so you also in-source the work itself rather than just the management of the work.
Because it's really hard to lay off government employees when they are no longer needed. Building a Web site requires a lot more people than maintaining it.
and do I honestly think I'll ever see any of this stuff?
Absolutely not. They have civilian contractors to do all the cool stuff. I'm a network administrator who is denied administrative rights
How many of those civilian contractors are veterans who used to do your job when they were in the military? Just because the government decided to use civilian contractors doesn't mean you don't have a career path, it's just not necessarily one that stays in the military.
That if your country takes too much (say, conscription) and gives too little, you should immigrate. I ditched Israel because I didn't like having had to serve in the military.
Note that it's not the workers who should accommodate the manager so he can do his work, it should be the other way around. The manager should manage, so the workers can work.
It goes both ways. None of us is perfect, so we need to accommodate each other so the work can get done. If I've been on a team longer than the manager, it makes sense that I'll have to do some training - same thing as a new employee.
RIAA attacks consumers, typically middle class or lower individuals who can't afford to fight back.
SCO attacks large corporations. IBM, for example, can't afford not to fight back. IBM has deep pockets, and a very diversified business. If it was known as an easy target, anybody and their cousin would sue it for the money.
Note: I am an IBM employee, but my job doesn't get me anywhere near legal strategy. This is purely my own opinion, and does not represent IBM in any way, shape or form.
I'll just point out that in a steady relationship it's _the_ most reliable method of birth control and the cheapest and simplest to implement long-term.
Only if you are 100% sure you'll never want to have children.
The problem with guerrilla warfare is a moral one - in order to engage in it you need to be willing to get a lot of innocent people killed.
Exactly. It relies on your opponent being civilized. Great if you're fighting the US and maybe Britain. Might work if you're fighting the USSR, and they're at the end of a long logistics line, and their system is almost rotten to the point of collapse.
Other than that, how many cases of guerrilla warfare working do you know? Viet Nam is one, because of the US media. Arguably Israel in Lebanon. Where else?
I'm pretty sure this system will not be used when fighting a medium/high tech enemy. It's to minimize collateral damage when fighting against guerrillas, who tend to be badly equipped.
The point, once again, is to make killing massive amounts of people as simple as pressing a button, with no soldiers on the ground
Did you read the article? The point of this technology is to kill targeted people with as little collateral damage (= dead innocents) as possible. To quote the article:
Instead of dropping Hellfires or a 500-pound bomb on an insurgent hideout, one or more Suburb Warriors could fire a volley of mini-missiles at confirmed targets, without vaporizing the wedding reception next door.
Not to down play the efforts of the men an women in are armed forces, but it sure take a lot fewer of them to do the job.
Part of it is technological progress. But a lot of it is the nature of our enemies. In WWII we fought industrialized nation states. They weren't quite as industrialized as the US, but it was a close call.
Today we fight a bunch of losers who couldn't even build an effective industry and military. They use guerrilla warfare, which is notoriously ineffective, because it's the best they can do.
Slashdot Mirror
If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Having a theoretically more efficient way to do the job is nice, but having a way that works now is priceless.
You have to show value before people will care about a new technology.
not only of our basic freedoms that we FOUGHT and DIED for, but also to our country as a whole. Look back in history and see how 'Empires' in their death throes squeeze more and more, tighten controls more and more to hold onto what is obviously disintegrating.
You know, after the Roman Republic turned into the Empire (with the attendant loss of freedoms), it survived for over 400 years. And we're nowhere near that point - no US presidents are ex-generals who conquered Washington, D.C. with their troops.
This is not the end.
The basic point being that not all legislation is designed to somehow restrict our freedom or do us harm.
True. We're not paranoid because it might be an evil conspiracy. We're paranoid because eventually somebody will try to abuse this law (or any other). That's the reason we have a bill of rights to restrict the democratically elected government.
I'd say we should allow this, but only when declaring martial law. Declaring martial law is such an extreme measure it will only be taken when absolutely essential.
The cameras are mostly a one-time cost. However, to have people monitoring them is a continuous expense. Given the relative costs of technology vs. labor, I suspect that's a large part of the cost.
When their little pay boxes start getting filled with gasoline and set on fire, for instance. Or when their agents start getting killed.
How many people are willing to go to jail for having to walk half a block to pay for parking tickets? How many of those are sane enough to actually do anything?
Violence is sometimes necessary. But this is not worth it.
The parking meters described are user hostile to the population of Chicago. However, they do a much better job of keeping the life of the organization that bought them and runs them easy than having to physically collect coins from so many different parking meters.
The government is not the people.
Well, half the voters don't even believe in public health. If the carriers of an epidemic are deemed unworthy of health care, the free market solution is to wait until everybody gets it, then treat those with money.
That would explain why we don't have a Center for Disease Control for things like infectious diseases and plagues.
Are you armed? Do you have military training? Are things bad enough you're willing to die to fix them? If the answer to any of the above is "no", then your opinion about whether or not we should have a revolution is irrelevant.
The short short version is: hard work can make you smarter.
Smarter in that particular domain. Outside of business administration, how many professors spent a lot of time thinking about marketing tricks?
why not just have the government hire, as regular employees, the technical staff to meet its ongoing technical needs so you also in-source the work itself rather than just the management of the work.
Because it's really hard to lay off government employees when they are no longer needed. Building a Web site requires a lot more people than maintaining it.
How many Trillions in debt do you need to be before people think you don't have any money?
and do I honestly think I'll ever see any of this stuff?
Absolutely not. They have civilian contractors to do all the cool stuff. I'm a network administrator who is denied administrative rights
How many of those civilian contractors are veterans who used to do your job when they were in the military? Just because the government decided to use civilian contractors doesn't mean you don't have a career path, it's just not necessarily one that stays in the military.
That if your country takes too much (say, conscription) and gives too little, you should immigrate. I ditched Israel because I didn't like having had to serve in the military.
If you'll excuse the shameless self promotion, this book teaches UNIX security people how to use Mainframes: http://www.amazon.com/Mainframe-Basics-Security-Professionals-Getting/dp/0131738569/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1202746607&sr=8-1
Note that it's not the workers who should accommodate the manager so he can do his work, it should be the other way around. The manager should manage, so the workers can work.
It goes both ways. None of us is perfect, so we need to accommodate each other so the work can get done. If I've been on a team longer than the manager, it makes sense that I'll have to do some training - same thing as a new employee.
I can't imagine how forcing a 13-year old girl to strip ensures anyone's health and safety,
If they were looking for something really dangerous, on the basis of credible evidence, I'd be the first to applaud them. It sucks, but kids have been used for fighting before.
However, in this case they were just enforcing a "zero common sense" policy.
As long as they keep losing. Some law firms deserve to waste their efforts on non-renumerative issues.
RIAA attacks consumers, typically middle class or lower individuals who can't afford to fight back.
SCO attacks large corporations. IBM, for example, can't afford not to fight back. IBM has deep pockets, and a very diversified business. If it was known as an easy target, anybody and their cousin would sue it for the money.
Note: I am an IBM employee, but my job doesn't get me anywhere near legal strategy. This is purely my own opinion, and does not represent IBM in any way, shape or form.
I'll just point out that in a steady relationship it's _the_ most reliable method of birth control and the cheapest and simplest to implement long-term.
Only if you are 100% sure you'll never want to have children.
Sorry, but both sound like losers. Withholding such important information from a spouse / potential spouse is a recipe for disaster.
At least your friend won't procreate.
Just a modern version, maybe with slightly better planning, of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ghost_towns_in_the_United_States .
The problem with guerrilla warfare is a moral one - in order to engage in it you need to be willing to get a lot of innocent people killed.
Exactly. It relies on your opponent being civilized. Great if you're fighting the US and maybe Britain. Might work if you're fighting the USSR, and they're at the end of a long logistics line, and their system is almost rotten to the point of collapse.
Other than that, how many cases of guerrilla warfare working do you know? Viet Nam is one, because of the US media. Arguably Israel in Lebanon. Where else?
I'm pretty sure this system will not be used when fighting a medium/high tech enemy. It's to minimize collateral damage when fighting against guerrillas, who tend to be badly equipped.
It's not the only tool in the arsenal.
The point, once again, is to make killing massive amounts of people as simple as pressing a button, with no soldiers on the ground
Did you read the article? The point of this technology is to kill targeted people with as little collateral damage (= dead innocents) as possible. To quote the article:
Instead of dropping Hellfires or a 500-pound bomb on an insurgent hideout, one or more Suburb Warriors could fire a volley of mini-missiles at confirmed targets, without vaporizing the wedding reception next door.
Not to down play the efforts of the men an women in are armed forces, but it sure take a lot fewer of them to do the job.
Part of it is technological progress. But a lot of it is the nature of our enemies. In WWII we fought industrialized nation states. They weren't quite as industrialized as the US, but it was a close call.
Today we fight a bunch of losers who couldn't even build an effective industry and military. They use guerrilla warfare, which is notoriously ineffective, because it's the best they can do.