And I hold the position that he missed my original point; just because the means of delivery are new does not make the killing of civilians any more OK than with the previous means of delivery, the drones are included in the opening argument because as of now they are the main mains of delivery currently employed, thus; the drones themselves are completely irrelevant in the actual argument, its the murder unarmed civilians going on without any type of reprisal against the aggressors I have my problems with.
They aren't some kind of "new evil", it just happens theyre pretty much one of the few kinds of evil being *committed right now as we have this discussion* by a country that officially claims to be the champion of human rights and protector(and chief exporter) of democracy.
Nice try dodging the argument but you have to try better than that.
One thing I cant understand about this whole thing; how is it possible they blanket label everyone on the receiving end of the hellfire missile as 'enemy combatant' or 'a dog', even if theyre just civilians and or children.
There used to be this country that stood up for human rights and had war criminals executed over something called the 'command responsibility' and 'war crimes' and 'crimes against humanity'.
Can't remember what country that was but I bet theres someone here who can.
Contracts between online service vendors and consumers need to be regulated by law. There has to be some kind of way to define some bare minimums that these contracts adhere to. Such as, the terms of contract changes, ownership of data, etc.
Either that, or online contracts should simply be invalid. In this case I suppose that the owners of the data (pictures) would own them.
In the EU you cannot simply sign away most of your rights and futhermore, if the law is in contradiction with the EULA its a case of 'too bad for the EULA', as in: its uneforcable. (you cannot legally enforce contract terms that are in contradiction of the law)
So it is already regulated by law, atleast around here and the people enforcing it usually have no qualms about going about punishing a company that cant cant keep its tendrils within boundries of the law.
Why, they dont need to have straight line of sight from any single drone because they plan to blot the sky out with drones so they have floating network of wireless ad-hoc access points!
Dear Mr Hamadoun Toure: If it won't be curbed or controlled why not define attempts to do so as a crime against humanity [wikipedia.org] and access to the internet a human right?
For one thing, I'd bet dollars to doughnuts that at least five of the security council members (Russia, China, the US, India, and Pakistan) would have strong feelings against giving up their ability to block the internet if and when they felt like it.
I wouldnt bet anything on it, 'cause they can always have and "infrastructural failure" when convenient.:)
If said hypothetical senator is smart he'll just publicly point out that NASA is spying on US citizens and all those involved at NASA will be spending the rest of their lives in jail as the agency is dismantled.
It is very rare that anyone really cares if a politician is fucking around.
All right, at the risk on sounding stupid: why is it so tightly held secret then?
>This just in; In a freak incident NASA HQ gets attacked by an armada of rogue Predator drones armed with hellfire missiles. Anonymous CIA source says Iranian hackers are thought be to involved.
Just point them at key members' of Congress' homes for a while. Then, when budget reviews come up, NASA simply goes to Congress with a thumb drive. "We need funding for a new Mars mission, Senator. If not, we'll have to start selling some of these picture-filled drives to the public to offset the costs. Wouldn't it be a damn shame if certain images of that high school cheerleading squad coming and going from your house at all hours of the night were to...accidentally...end up on the Internet? That would be a damn, criminal, shame...wouldn't it, Senator?"
>Coming up on 10 o'clock news: A senior NASA official died today in a strange car accident...
The internet can be shut down by those in control of physical space, but if we are to lose control of physical space we have very little recourse.
Also if we are to build autonomous combat drones in the future the angry roomba starts getting much more scarier. And we are likely to have some pretty dextrerous robots in relative near future aswell.
There are a lot of countries with multi-party systems that actually work.
If your reprentatives put their party affiliations ahead of the good of the country perhaps you should consider changing your presentatives.
... I'm not american so I'm not all that familiar with your system, but are you saying that if Perot had got over 50% of the popular vote he still wouldnt have won?
I don't know what you are getting at. Anyone can have any sort of debate they want. you can't force the front runners to attend it though..
Appearantly you didn't read the message. I wasnt advocating forcing the big players attend small game debates but actually let other real candidates in the big debates in order to show their viability against the front runners to get some real traction(by winning the debate) to give the front runners a run for their money.
Slashdot Mirror
And I hold the position that he missed my original point; just because the means of delivery are new does not make the killing of civilians any more OK than with the previous means of delivery, the drones are included in the opening argument because as of now they are the main mains of delivery currently employed, thus; the drones themselves are completely irrelevant in the actual argument, its the murder unarmed civilians going on without any type of reprisal against the aggressors I have my problems with.
They aren't some kind of "new evil", it just happens theyre pretty much one of the few kinds of evil being *committed right now as we have this discussion* by a country that officially claims to be the champion of human rights and protector(and chief exporter) of democracy. Nice try dodging the argument but you have to try better than that.
One thing I cant understand about this whole thing; how is it possible they blanket label everyone on the receiving end of the hellfire missile as 'enemy combatant' or 'a dog', even if theyre just civilians and or children. There used to be this country that stood up for human rights and had war criminals executed over something called the 'command responsibility' and 'war crimes' and 'crimes against humanity'. Can't remember what country that was but I bet theres someone here who can.
Nothing to worry about, MAFIAA has already dispatched a squad to deal with her.
Contracts between online service vendors and consumers need to be regulated by law. There has to be some kind of way to define some bare minimums that these contracts adhere to. Such as, the terms of contract changes, ownership of data, etc.
Either that, or online contracts should simply be invalid. In this case I suppose that the owners of the data (pictures) would own them.
In the EU you cannot simply sign away most of your rights and futhermore, if the law is in contradiction with the EULA its a case of 'too bad for the EULA', as in: its uneforcable. (you cannot legally enforce contract terms that are in contradiction of the law) So it is already regulated by law, atleast around here and the people enforcing it usually have no qualms about going about punishing a company that cant cant keep its tendrils within boundries of the law.
Why, they dont need to have straight line of sight from any single drone because they plan to blot the sky out with drones so they have floating network of wireless ad-hoc access points!
Funny, this shouldnt be scored funny if it wasnt so true.
Dear Mr Hamadoun Toure: If it won't be curbed or controlled why not define attempts to do so as a crime against humanity [wikipedia.org] and access to the internet a human right?
For one thing, I'd bet dollars to doughnuts that at least five of the security council members (Russia, China, the US, India, and Pakistan) would have strong feelings against giving up their ability to block the internet if and when they felt like it.
I wouldnt bet anything on it, 'cause they can always have and "infrastructural failure" when convenient. :)
"What backup plan, if any, should the average nerd have for something like this?"
Select a new exit node, duh.
If said hypothetical senator is smart he'll just publicly point out that NASA is spying on US citizens and all those involved at NASA will be spending the rest of their lives in jail as the agency is dismantled.
It is very rare that anyone really cares if a politician is fucking around.
All right, at the risk on sounding stupid: why is it so tightly held secret then?
>This just in; In a freak incident NASA HQ gets attacked by an armada of rogue Predator drones armed with hellfire missiles. Anonymous CIA source says Iranian hackers are thought be to involved.
Just point them at key members' of Congress' homes for a while. Then, when budget reviews come up, NASA simply goes to Congress with a thumb drive. "We need funding for a new Mars mission, Senator. If not, we'll have to start selling some of these picture-filled drives to the public to offset the costs. Wouldn't it be a damn shame if certain images of that high school cheerleading squad coming and going from your house at all hours of the night were to...accidentally...end up on the Internet? That would be a damn, criminal, shame...wouldn't it, Senator?"
>Coming up on 10 o'clock news: A senior NASA official died today in a strange car accident...
The internet can be shut down by those in control of physical space, but if we are to lose control of physical space we have very little recourse. Also if we are to build autonomous combat drones in the future the angry roomba starts getting much more scarier. And we are likely to have some pretty dextrerous robots in relative near future aswell.
There are an insufficient number of Picards to adequately supply the amount of facepalm this requires and deserves.
The Reinforcements Have Arrived
imho when you hear it straight form gabes mouth is as good as news.
I didnt know Berkley was in Switzerland.
I though that was called "snake handling".
Long ago, they should have just put in a copyright request for i* - paving the way in the future for the iTV, the iE-Cig, the iCar, etc...
Copyright cannot be created by request but by creating a copyrighted work. But I think there is prior art of people using the letter i anyways.
One would think that in the land of the free those kind of shenanigans would only provoke a stronger response from the populace..
LSD in still being used in human studies, and most hospitals do stock heroin.
...Or the majorty parties could grow some balls and actually let them in the debates...
Also, its not like your congress can get anything done anyway with the way it is.
There are a lot of countries with multi-party systems that actually work. If your reprentatives put their party affiliations ahead of the good of the country perhaps you should consider changing your presentatives.
... I'm not american so I'm not all that familiar with your system, but are you saying that if Perot had got over 50% of the popular vote he still wouldnt have won?
I don't know what you are getting at. Anyone can have any sort of debate they want. you can't force the front runners to attend it though..
Appearantly you didn't read the message. I wasnt advocating forcing the big players attend small game debates but actually let other real candidates in the big debates in order to show their viability against the front runners to get some real traction(by winning the debate) to give the front runners a run for their money.