Conversely, I see the big problem as being armed men, overstressed and under pressure, losing their cool and wasting a village full of civilians in a fit of battle-rage.
Let calmer heads prevail, I say: Let key targets be struck at long range by trained technicians studying spycam images from the relaxed comfort of an air-conditioned command center well outside the "hot zone".
Keep the troops off the battlefield as much as possible. Let robots, drones, and smart bombs do the killing, under human supervision.
...the more data there is, the more it's likely that one of those pieces of data can show where you were at the time of the alleged crime.
I dunno.
You still seem to be assuming that only data representing something that didn't happen (an innocent man committing a crime) would be collected and reviewed, whereas data representing something that did happen (an innocent man doing something else, somewhere else, at the time the crime was committed) would not be collected and reviewed.
And it still seems to me that data representing a fact would be much more common, and much more compelling, than data representing a falsehood, and that police investigators can still tell the difference between the two.
As the amount of available data increases, the chances of being caught without an alibi decreases at essentially the same rate that coincidences increase.
Thus, the ratio of coincidences to suspects without alibis will stay essentially the same as the amount of available data increases.
Also, you make it sound like investigators have no training or experience in weighting circumstantial evidence, or winnowing down a list of suspects, or differentiating between circumstantial evidence and direct evidence.
I mean, it's not like "police detective" is some kind of mysterious new space alien technology.
...and it is not necessary to preserve their rights.
You've been repeating this line over and over again throughout this thread, as if Slashdot has never heard a hardcore libertarian talking point before.
We get it. You're a hardcore libertarian. Interstate highways, most scientific research, and farm subsidies are all Very Bad Things. Yes. We understand. You can stop harping on it already.
Re:I, for one, welcome our oxygen yielding overlor
on
On Orbital Fuel Stations
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Actually, the article summary is a little misleading.
NASA's role has always been vision, specification, oversight, and operations. Design and construction have always been contracted out to the public sector, and to the universities.
Classic examples of this method are the Gemini and Apollo projects. NASA's document, Chariots for Apollo gives a fascinating account of how this process works.
It is my belief that most Americans are afraid, very afraid - of everything...
This is a conspiracy theory of the American psyche.
Those are not actions of fools;
Which is why I discounted that possibility.
The whole gist of your argument seems to be that since you think Canada is more appealing to Americans than America, it is only their cowardice that keeps them from becoming Canadians.
Have you considered the possibility that Canada isn't actually that appealing to most Americans, and that many Americans see unacceptable tradeoffs in such a change in venue?
"How many US citizens would be brave enough to risk their life & limb by sneaking through a border that is guarded by people with guns who have little respect for your life?"
What an interesting question.
I believe the answer would be,
"Quite a few, if they were convinced that living on the other side of that border would be better than living on this side of it."
Another way of phrasing the question is:
"Is it cowardice, or the relative shittiness of other nations, that keeps Americans from becoming ecnomic and political refugees?"
Now, if Mexico really is a better place to live than America, then thousands of Mexicans wouldn't be showing off their bravery by crossing the border illegally. They'd be staying in Mexico, where the conditions are better and they don't have to risk their lives to enjoy those conditions. (The other possibility is that it isn't bravery that urges them across the border, but foolishness.)
So it's probably not cowardice that keeps Americans north of the border.
On the other hand, I have noticed that there are many Americans who profess the utmost loathing for the current government, the system of government itself, the American culture, and the American people (themselves excluded). And yet these people seem unwilling to either mount a proper rebellion, which is customary when brave people are oppressed by tyrants. Nor are they willing to emigrate to some nation whose rulers are not such tyrants, and whose government does not so oppress them.
So maybe there is something to your implication that Americans are lacking in fundamental bravery, after all...
Give me one other example where people are referred to as "illegals" b/c they committed an illegal act.
It's not necessary, as long as we both understand the meaning of the term in this context--which I'm sure we do.
Also, the term "outlaw" has been used to describe fugitives from justice for hundreds (if not thousands) of years. Is this enough precedent for you?
Also, "illegal" is actually an abbreviation of "illegal immigrants"--they're categorized according to their method of immigration, which is the fundamental point being discussed. How would you refer to them, in the context of discussing their method of immigration? Immigrants? Too broad, it includes legal immigrants. Mexicans? Both too broad, for including non-immigrant Mexicans; and too narrow, for excluding non-Mexican immigrants. Please let me know if you can come up with a term for referring to illegal immigrants in a discussion where their method of immigration is of central importance.
I think that the subtleties in the language we use plays an important role in the transfer of ideas.
Oh, but there's nothing subtle about referring to people who immigrate illegally as illegal immigrants.
Also, I get your point. By referring to them as "illegals", you worry that we're not keeping their essential humanity firmly in mind, and may inadvertently propose inhumane solutions to the problem of illegal immigration.
My worry is that by objecting to the meaningful and relevant use of the accurately descriptive term "illegal immigrants", you're effectively prohibiting useful discussion of the problem posed by people who immigrate illegally.
Is it possible that recidivism among sex offenders is low because they're branded for life?
Perhaps recidivism amongst murderers would drop as well, if we started stigmatizing them in the same way.
Also, it's pretty obvious that our current criminal justice system is not very good at producing true punishment, true rehabilitation, or true repentance. So it may be the case that murders are much less likely to murder again if they're subjected to a proper program of rehabilitation, but that sex offenders subjected to the same program would not respond as well.
Heh. I don't think "once a thief, always a thief". But I do think our current criminal justice system isn't set up to provide either real punishment or real rehabilitation.
Thus, true justice, and true repentance, are both unlikely, and a thief today is probably going to be a thief tomorrow, whether or not he "serves his time".
Also, there seems to be some scientific basis for concluding that child molesters are much more difficult to reform than thieves.
You can probably convince most thieves that conforming to the social convention against thievery is morally and practically desireable; and you can certainly teach them other, more valuable skills to replace thievery as their primary form of entertainment or revenue.
But if it's improper to expect homosexuals to change their sexual preferences, or be chaste if they cannot change, then surely it's improper to expect pedophiles to do so, neh?
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness..."
This is the preamble to the Declaration of Independence. It's purpose was to establish a moral justification for a war of rebellion against the government.
The U.S. Constitution defines a system of government and that government's relationship to its citizens. It has a different preamble, and applies a different set of moral axioms as its justification. And no, none of those moral axioms address the inalieanble rights inherent to all people.
Further, the rights to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness..." are not substantially threatened by a U.S. policy of chipping visiting foreigners. It is simply those foreigners' option of exercising those rights in the U.S. that is curtailed. Something which I have no problem with: Presumably those foreigners can enjoy all the rights they want at home, or else should be crafting their own declaration of independence and waging their own war of rebellion against their own government, or else should be playing by whatever rules allow them to shed their old citizenship and become proper citizens of the United States (which, I hear, grants a lot of really neat rights, privileges, and entitlements to law-abiding and productive citizens).
It's inappropriate to deny citizens the right to vote. It's not inappropriate to deny foreigners the right to vote.
It's inappropriate to deport citizens to foreign countries. It's not inappropriate to deport foreigners to foreign countries.
It's inappropriate to deny citizens the right to campaign for the presidency. It's not inappropriate to deny foreigners the right to campaign for the presidency.
It's inappropriate to deny to citizens certain rights, privileges, and entitlements. It's not inappropriate to deny those same rights, privileges, and entitlements to to foreigners.
These slippery slope arguments annoy me to no end.
America is a country that's had police for 250 years, without sliding down the slippery slope to a police state.
America has had a military for 250 years, without sliding down the slippery slope to a military dictatorship.
I mean, take a look at the Patriot Act. This mere beginning, this paring away of a sliver of our freedoms, roused vocal opposition from the very beginning. It was passed as a temporary measure, and when the time came for review, its provisions were reduced rather than increased. This is hardly indicative of a slippery slope towards government oppression.
Or take the NSA wiretaps, for example. These programs were secret and unobtrusive, but they could not be kept from the public for even five years. Now they're subject to heated public debate, and will in short order go before the Supreme Court.
You'd be surprised how many of us realize how shitty our country is. It's just that we're currently in the minority in that regard and likely will be for awhile.
Okay, this is seriously not a troll or anything.
I'm truly and non-confrontationally curious:
How shitty do you think our country is? Shittier than, say, Mexico?
I mean, there aren't a lot of Americans busting their ass and risking their lives, just to be exploited as second-class citizens in Mexico. But there sure are a lot of Mexicans who are eager to do exactly that, here in America. So there's some pretty good demographic data that however shitty America is, Mexico is shittier.
Would you agree with that assessment? Or would you argue that America is, in fact, shittier than Mexico?
Relatedly (and seriously, this is not a flame or a troll, I really am curious as to your reasoning), assuming that America is so shitty as to be shittier than some other country, why continue to participate? Wouldn't it make more sense to add your voice and strength to a less-shitty nation, the majority of whose population shared your ideals? I mean, at the very least, if you moved to Canada or Sweden or wherever, your taxes would no longer support the American military-industrial complex. I'd imagine that alone would wipe a pretty big stain off your conscience.
But who knows? I suppose you could be one of those "change from within" types. If so, how do you like your prospects for success?
Quick note: Since neither livestock, nor house pets, nor immigrants (other than immigrant-citizens), nor felons, currently have the right (or even, in most cases) to speak up for citizens anyway.
But please, tell us more about this world in which cows and housecats normally speak out against man's inhumanity to man.
I mean, if they loved busting caps in illegals, wouldn't we have seen them in action years ago?
Their whole behavior profile really seems to imply that they spent most of their lives finding enjoyment in other ways, and only recently became Minutemen because they felt the had to, not because they thought it would be fun.
What in the world gives you the inclination to refer to people as "parents" and "grandparents"? They're people, remember, - just like you and your parents and...
Oh. I get it. You're performing that clever human trick of communicating complex idea in simple terms by grouping like things into meaningful categories, and then referring to the categories. That's pretty neat! I bet it really helps you get your ideas across in a clear and concise way, doesn't it?
Ooh. I just thought of something, though: Isn't it frustrating when others ignore the benefits of your advanced language technology, to nitpick your definitions rather than engaging your much more interesting and clearly-elucidated point?
I know my opinions on Illegal Immigration won't win me any mod points, but I don't care.
Heh.
I recently discovered that Slashdot has an automated script in place that temporarily bans your IP range if the ratio of up-mods to down-mods on your posts drops below a certain threshold.
Allegedly intended to reduce trolling, I found that it also tended to reduce dissenting opinions.
Slashdot Mirror
In 1974, the Portuguese military ousted the sitting regime, and then promptly set up democratic elections and stepped down.
Conversely, I see the big problem as being armed men, overstressed and under pressure, losing their cool and wasting a village full of civilians in a fit of battle-rage.
Let calmer heads prevail, I say: Let key targets be struck at long range by trained technicians studying spycam images from the relaxed comfort of an air-conditioned command center well outside the "hot zone".
Keep the troops off the battlefield as much as possible. Let robots, drones, and smart bombs do the killing, under human supervision.
I'm having a little difficulty figuring out what's so "unfortunate" about detonating the IED before the vehicle gets to it...
"those who do not understand UNIX are bound to reinvent it, poorly."
Those who do understand UNIX being responsible for inventing it poorly in the first place, I take it?
Give it time, GW. ain't quite there yet!
After five thousand years++ of human history, I'm thinking if we're not there yet, we're probably not going to get there any time soon.
What do you think?
...the more data there is, the more it's likely that one of those pieces of data can show where you were at the time of the alleged crime.
I dunno.
You still seem to be assuming that only data representing something that didn't happen (an innocent man committing a crime) would be collected and reviewed, whereas data representing something that did happen (an innocent man doing something else, somewhere else, at the time the crime was committed) would not be collected and reviewed.
And it still seems to me that data representing a fact would be much more common, and much more compelling, than data representing a falsehood, and that police investigators can still tell the difference between the two.
As the amount of available data increases, the chances of being caught without an alibi decreases at essentially the same rate that coincidences increase.
Thus, the ratio of coincidences to suspects without alibis will stay essentially the same as the amount of available data increases.
Also, you make it sound like investigators have no training or experience in weighting circumstantial evidence, or winnowing down a list of suspects, or differentiating between circumstantial evidence and direct evidence.
I mean, it's not like "police detective" is some kind of mysterious new space alien technology.
...and it is not necessary to preserve their rights.
You've been repeating this line over and over again throughout this thread, as if Slashdot has never heard a hardcore libertarian talking point before.
We get it. You're a hardcore libertarian. Interstate highways, most scientific research, and farm subsidies are all Very Bad Things. Yes. We understand. You can stop harping on it already.
Actually, the article summary is a little misleading.
NASA's role has always been vision, specification, oversight, and operations. Design and construction have always been contracted out to the public sector, and to the universities.
Classic examples of this method are the Gemini and Apollo projects. NASA's document, Chariots for Apollo gives a fascinating account of how this process works.
It is my belief that most Americans are afraid, very afraid - of everything...
This is a conspiracy theory of the American psyche.
Those are not actions of fools;
Which is why I discounted that possibility.
The whole gist of your argument seems to be that since you think Canada is more appealing to Americans than America, it is only their cowardice that keeps them from becoming Canadians.
Have you considered the possibility that Canada isn't actually that appealing to most Americans, and that many Americans see unacceptable tradeoffs in such a change in venue?
What an interesting question.
I believe the answer would be,
Another way of phrasing the question is:
Now, if Mexico really is a better place to live than America, then thousands of Mexicans wouldn't be showing off their bravery by crossing the border illegally. They'd be staying in Mexico, where the conditions are better and they don't have to risk their lives to enjoy those conditions. (The other possibility is that it isn't bravery that urges them across the border, but foolishness.)
So it's probably not cowardice that keeps Americans north of the border.
On the other hand, I have noticed that there are many Americans who profess the utmost loathing for the current government, the system of government itself, the American culture, and the American people (themselves excluded). And yet these people seem unwilling to either mount a proper rebellion, which is customary when brave people are oppressed by tyrants. Nor are they willing to emigrate to some nation whose rulers are not such tyrants, and whose government does not so oppress them.
So maybe there is something to your implication that Americans are lacking in fundamental bravery, after all...
Give me one other example where people are referred to as "illegals" b/c they committed an illegal act.
It's not necessary, as long as we both understand the meaning of the term in this context--which I'm sure we do.
Also, the term "outlaw" has been used to describe fugitives from justice for hundreds (if not thousands) of years. Is this enough precedent for you?
Also, "illegal" is actually an abbreviation of "illegal immigrants"--they're categorized according to their method of immigration, which is the fundamental point being discussed. How would you refer to them, in the context of discussing their method of immigration? Immigrants? Too broad, it includes legal immigrants. Mexicans? Both too broad, for including non-immigrant Mexicans; and too narrow, for excluding non-Mexican immigrants. Please let me know if you can come up with a term for referring to illegal immigrants in a discussion where their method of immigration is of central importance.
I think that the subtleties in the language we use plays an important role in the transfer of ideas.
Oh, but there's nothing subtle about referring to people who immigrate illegally as illegal immigrants.
Also, I get your point. By referring to them as "illegals", you worry that we're not keeping their essential humanity firmly in mind, and may inadvertently propose inhumane solutions to the problem of illegal immigration.
My worry is that by objecting to the meaningful and relevant use of the accurately descriptive term "illegal immigrants", you're effectively prohibiting useful discussion of the problem posed by people who immigrate illegally.
What next, do regress to placing brand marks on peoples foreheads.
Branding technology has been around for thousands of years. Don't you think that if your fears were at all realistic, we'd all be branded already?
Is it possible that recidivism among sex offenders is low because they're branded for life?
Perhaps recidivism amongst murderers would drop as well, if we started stigmatizing them in the same way.
Also, it's pretty obvious that our current criminal justice system is not very good at producing true punishment, true rehabilitation, or true repentance. So it may be the case that murders are much less likely to murder again if they're subjected to a proper program of rehabilitation, but that sex offenders subjected to the same program would not respond as well.
Heh. I don't think "once a thief, always a thief". But I do think our current criminal justice system isn't set up to provide either real punishment or real rehabilitation.
Thus, true justice, and true repentance, are both unlikely, and a thief today is probably going to be a thief tomorrow, whether or not he "serves his time".
Also, there seems to be some scientific basis for concluding that child molesters are much more difficult to reform than thieves.
You can probably convince most thieves that conforming to the social convention against thievery is morally and practically desireable; and you can certainly teach them other, more valuable skills to replace thievery as their primary form of entertainment or revenue.
But if it's improper to expect homosexuals to change their sexual preferences, or be chaste if they cannot change, then surely it's improper to expect pedophiles to do so, neh?
Actually, I think the fundamental freedom is the freedom to destroy someone else.
Chipping foreigners is simply a logical progression from Roe vs. Wade.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness..."
This is the preamble to the Declaration of Independence. It's purpose was to establish a moral justification for a war of rebellion against the government.
The U.S. Constitution defines a system of government and that government's relationship to its citizens. It has a different preamble, and applies a different set of moral axioms as its justification. And no, none of those moral axioms address the inalieanble rights inherent to all people.
Further, the rights to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness..." are not substantially threatened by a U.S. policy of chipping visiting foreigners. It is simply those foreigners' option of exercising those rights in the U.S. that is curtailed. Something which I have no problem with: Presumably those foreigners can enjoy all the rights they want at home, or else should be crafting their own declaration of independence and waging their own war of rebellion against their own government, or else should be playing by whatever rules allow them to shed their old citizenship and become proper citizens of the United States (which, I hear, grants a lot of really neat rights, privileges, and entitlements to law-abiding and productive citizens).
It's inappropriate to deny citizens the right to vote. It's not inappropriate to deny foreigners the right to vote.
It's inappropriate to deport citizens to foreign countries. It's not inappropriate to deport foreigners to foreign countries.
It's inappropriate to deny citizens the right to campaign for the presidency. It's not inappropriate to deny foreigners the right to campaign for the presidency.
It's inappropriate to deny to citizens certain rights, privileges, and entitlements. It's not inappropriate to deny those same rights, privileges, and entitlements to to foreigners.
Apparently this can't be obvious enough.
Gah.
These slippery slope arguments annoy me to no end.
America is a country that's had police for 250 years, without sliding down the slippery slope to a police state.
America has had a military for 250 years, without sliding down the slippery slope to a military dictatorship.
I mean, take a look at the Patriot Act. This mere beginning, this paring away of a sliver of our freedoms, roused vocal opposition from the very beginning. It was passed as a temporary measure, and when the time came for review, its provisions were reduced rather than increased. This is hardly indicative of a slippery slope towards government oppression.
Or take the NSA wiretaps, for example. These programs were secret and unobtrusive, but they could not be kept from the public for even five years. Now they're subject to heated public debate, and will in short order go before the Supreme Court.
I'm honestly not seeing much slippery slope here.
You'd be surprised how many of us realize how shitty our country is. It's just that we're currently in the minority in that regard and likely will be for awhile.
Okay, this is seriously not a troll or anything.
I'm truly and non-confrontationally curious:
How shitty do you think our country is? Shittier than, say, Mexico?
I mean, there aren't a lot of Americans busting their ass and risking their lives, just to be exploited as second-class citizens in Mexico. But there sure are a lot of Mexicans who are eager to do exactly that, here in America. So there's some pretty good demographic data that however shitty America is, Mexico is shittier.
Would you agree with that assessment? Or would you argue that America is, in fact, shittier than Mexico?
Relatedly (and seriously, this is not a flame or a troll, I really am curious as to your reasoning), assuming that America is so shitty as to be shittier than some other country, why continue to participate? Wouldn't it make more sense to add your voice and strength to a less-shitty nation, the majority of whose population shared your ideals? I mean, at the very least, if you moved to Canada or Sweden or wherever, your taxes would no longer support the American military-industrial complex. I'd imagine that alone would wipe a pretty big stain off your conscience.
But who knows? I suppose you could be one of those "change from within" types. If so, how do you like your prospects for success?
Too bad I can't vote for you for president.
Sure you can!
Move to Mexico, become a Mexican citizen, and begin your active participation in their system of government!
Quick note: Since neither livestock, nor house pets, nor immigrants (other than immigrant-citizens), nor felons, currently have the right (or even, in most cases) to speak up for citizens anyway.
But please, tell us more about this world in which cows and housecats normally speak out against man's inhumanity to man.
They'll love it.
Are you sure?
I mean, if they loved busting caps in illegals, wouldn't we have seen them in action years ago?
Their whole behavior profile really seems to imply that they spent most of their lives finding enjoyment in other ways, and only recently became Minutemen because they felt the had to, not because they thought it would be fun.
What in the world gives you the inclination to refer to people as "parents" and "grandparents"? They're people, remember, - just like you and your parents and...
Oh. I get it. You're performing that clever human trick of communicating complex idea in simple terms by grouping like things into meaningful categories, and then referring to the categories. That's pretty neat! I bet it really helps you get your ideas across in a clear and concise way, doesn't it?
Ooh. I just thought of something, though: Isn't it frustrating when others ignore the benefits of your advanced language technology, to nitpick your definitions rather than engaging your much more interesting and clearly-elucidated point?
I know my opinions on Illegal Immigration won't win me any mod points, but I don't care.
Heh.
I recently discovered that Slashdot has an automated script in place that temporarily bans your IP range if the ratio of up-mods to down-mods on your posts drops below a certain threshold.
Allegedly intended to reduce trolling, I found that it also tended to reduce dissenting opinions.