Right, because the citizens of Bakersfield, California are powerless to regulate Police Department policy... oh, wait.
See, these people would have a lot more of my sympathy if they had first advocated a change in Police Department policy, and then when the majority of their fellow community members declined to support their cause they moved out of that community to a community that agreed with their preferences, and the Bakersfield PD helicopter followed them to that new community and continued to harass them.
Police Departments don't magically appear out of nowhere, like some mist-born horror that must be battled at all costs with whatever weapons come readily to hand. They are, by and large, the product of communal agreement, and most communities--including Bakersfield, California--have plenty of resources for community members to debate their preferences and reach a peaceful consensus on policies that affect the community. If this couple were living in the mountains of Afghanistan in the mid-1980s, I could understand them attacking helicopters with lasers and more. But in Bakersfield, California? Their beef is with their fellow community members who set the Police helicopter patrol policy, not the pilot of a helicopter in flight.
What's so stupid about it? We have a long way to go, and a lot of other problems to solve, before it makes sense to spend lots of money on manned missions to Mars. A lot of what we need is going to have to wait for the next generation or two of technological advancement in materials science, nanotechnology, and micro-electronics. If we spent money on manned missions to Mars right now, it would probably all be wasted. New technology would obsolete our prototypes and shift the entire paradigm of the project, forcing us to abandon half-completed projects and start over from scratch.
Much better to focus our resources in other areas where the development cycles are a lot shorter and the financial risks a lot smaller, to solve some of the intermediate problems between our current capabilities and manned mars missions, and stimulate research and development of the intermediate technological advances between here and there, and then authorize a new spending bill when we're actually in a good position to accomplish a manned mission.
Besides, the thing has a loophole big enough to drive a tank through. I guess the moral of the story is that even when you try to please everybody, some jackass will still find an excuse to complain.
...having a scientifically literate population can only have a positive influence on the country.
I don't know about that. Werner Von Braun and Werner Heisenberg were both scientifically literate, but neither seems to have had much positive influence on the regime under which they labored.
The Bush administration has gained a reputation for stifling dissent in the scientific community, when that dissent undermines the administration's policies or the beliefs of what is perceived to be its core constituency. Why should we be more optimistic about the Mullahs of Iran than we are about the Presidency of the United States?
I never said it was the best form of retribution. You might think that forced labor would be a better form of retribution. Personally, I'm not so sure. It seems to me that simply depriving a person of their liberty is sufficient. But this is definitely a controversial issue upon which individuals will probably never reach an agreement. Fortunately, those of us who do retain our liberty have some options as to which societies we choose to become members of. The French, for example, have reached a consensus that the death penalty is too extreme.
It seems to me that this project could be just as easily driven by a militaristic government's desire for high-tech weaponry. After all, some of the most advanced technology and some of the most powerful computers in the world are used by the American military-industrial complex to develop some of the highest-tech weaponry in the world. American universities even receive government grants to participate in high-tech military research.
And if the Iranian government did have an interest in developing high-tech weaponry, they'd certainly commission their universities to conduct research in that field, and would support the development of supercomputers for the purpose of high-tech research.
So what makes you so sure that isn't what's going on here?
I don't see punishment as a form of training at all. I see it as a form of retribution.
A criminal takes something from society. Thus, has acquired a debt that he must pay by giving up something of himself. This basic idea, of taking something and giving something up, is the core principle of Justice.
Sequestering criminals from society, or teaching them not to commit crimes in the future, or deterring others from committing crimes, are all--to the extent that they actually do exist--side benefits.
Hansel and Gretel, outlined in the style of Robert Jordan:
Book 1: Hansel and Gretel live happily with their mother and father. Their mother falls ill and dies. The family mourns her loss. The father starts courting another woman in the village, to the dismay of Hansel and Gretel. At the end of the book, she wins over the hearts and minds of the two children and marries her father. They live happily ever after.
Book 2: Oh, wait, they don't live happily after all. The stepmother turns out to be hateful and cruel. Ultimately, Hansel and Gretel resolve to run away from home. Gretel expresses fears about the wicked witch who is rumored to live in the Forest, but Hansel insists nothing could be worse than living at home with their stepmother. After much bickering, they depart.
Book 3: Hansel and Gretel cross the boundary between Village and Forest. Gretel reprises her misgivings about the dangers of the forest. Hansel reiterates his arguments in favor of running away. After much bickering, they agree to continue, using bread crumbs to mark their trail. They get lost. Gretel blames Hansel. Hansel stubbornly refuses to admit his mistake.
Book 4: Hansel and Gretel wander through the woods, lost and disoriented. Gretel continues to complain about the foolishness of running away from home. Hansel continues to insist it's the right thing to do. Gretel continues to berate him about the bread crumbs fiasco. Hansel persists in his mule-headed self-righteousness. They meet a Wise Owl, who warns them about the Wicked Witch of the Forest.
Book 5: Hansel and Gretel wander through the woods, lost and disoriented. Gretel continues to complain about the foolishness of running away from home. Hansel continues to insist it's the right thing to do. Gretel continues to berate him about the bread crumbs fiasco. Hansel persists in his mule-headed self-righteousness. They meet a Cunning Fox, who encourages them to visit the Wise Woman of the Forest.
Book 6: Hansel and Gretel wander through the woods, lost and disoriented. Gretel continues to complain about the foolishness of running away from home. Hansel continues to insist it's the right thing to do. Gretel continues to berate him about the bread crumbs fiasco. Hansel persists in his mule-headed self-righteousness. They meet a Cryptic Raven, who warns them about the Wicked Witch of the Forest.
Book 7: Hansel and Gretel wander through the woods, lost and disoriented. Gretel continues to complain about the foolishness of running away from home. Hansel continues to insist it's the right thing to do. Gretel continues to berate him about the bread crumbs fiasco. Hansel persists in his mule-headed self-righteousness. They meet a Devious Serpent, who encourages them to visit the Wise Woman of the Forest.... and that's about the point where the Faithful Reader finally realizes that this hack has stretched a simple fairy tale into seven giant novels in which nothing actually happens.
Remember, educational institutions depend on a perception of sub-par education when it's acquired through any means other than them and their material.
That certainly explains why my teachers keep giving me research projects where I have to go out and find my own sources of information, study them on my own, and come to my own conclusions about them, instead of just educating me themselves.
It is so bizarre and still indicates the rigidness of the public service to go so over the edge that it can only be fully described as a work of surrealistic art.
On the other hand, how do we know his account is true, and not a fictional work of surrealistic art? If it's truly Kafkaesque, there's at least the possibility it's fiction.
It's foolishly naive to believe that what appointed officials think should be the last word on state secrets.
And yet that's exactly what I've hired and paid those officials to do, subject to an agreed-upon arrangements of checks and balances and public accountability. What's my arrangement with the whistleblower? Who is he accountable to? Why should I trust him? Because he flouts my laws and works in secret against my government?
Can democracy without accountability work? I don't think so. Democracy requires a transparent system to work. Which might hurt security. So it is back to freedom versus security, which is most important, and how much freedom can you sacrifice before your security is lost as well?
They are not easy questions to answer, and they certainly cannot be answered simply by a dichotomy between "publicly elected officials" and "anonymous self-appointed individuals"....
I agree that it's not an easy question to answer. But I do think it's a question we should answer together, publically, according to the system of government and the rules of law that we have all willingly submitted to. The publically-elected official is ultimately accountable to the citizenry. The anonymous whistleblower is ultimately accountable to no one.
Really? The "final arbiters of government secrecy"? Why?
Because the alternative is that private, anonymous individuals arrogate to themselves this authority, bypassing the democratic process and depriving their fellow citizens of any participation at all in the decision-making process. It's bad enough when openly elected and appointed public officials, subject to myriad checks and balances and oversights and public accountabilities, overstep their authority. Why should I be happier when private individuals, subject to no controls at all, do the same?
... I'm pretty sure I'd rather have publically-elected and appointed officials be the final arbiters of government secrecy, and not self-appointed anonymous individuals.
Here is a radical concept. Stop treating children like animals and start treating them like human beings.
Not radical enough. Animals need food. If we're going to stop treating children like animals, we should stop feeding them too, right? Who knew Somalia and Ethiopia were the most enlightened places on Earth?
I know, I know: Feeding animals is different from feeding children. So here's a radical concept: Tracking animals is different from tracking children.
Not only that, but we don't even track all animals all the time. We only track some animals some of the time. So it's not like tracking things is automatically treating them like animals. We track people, too: Paramedics, police officers, nuclear power plant workers... You could just as easily say that by tracking kids, we're treating them like mature adults with significant responsibilites and in whom we have placed great trust. How's that for a radical concept?
The biggest concern seems to be finding the glitches in the system instead of reconsidering automated arms altogether.
Because human gunners never flip out and kill innocent bystanders, right?
Besides, it seems to me that lethal malfunctions in robot guns are more likely to occur in the early phases of development, under controlled conditions that put very few lives at risk. By the time these weapons get to the battlefield, most of the glitches will be worked out, and additional improvements can be made on an ongoing basis. On the other hand, a human generally performs much more reliably during training, but has a much greater chance of losing self-control when subjected to the stresses of the battlefield.
The things I say here are all that you'll know of me, and thus my words can only benefit me by spreading the ideas they contain... hopefully based on their merit.
I subscribe to the GIF theory of Internet discourse. So I have to consider the possibility that your words could also benefit you because you derive personal pleasure from presenting them anonymously, regardless of their merit.
If I knew you as more than an anonymous Internet debater, if I had the opportunity to look at your actions, I might take your words more seriously.
Everybody thinks their own favorite court jester makes sense.
If you can't recognize the absurdity of modern political discourse in America, you simply aren't paying attention.
You and I are having modern political discourse right now; are you saying our discourse is absurd? Besides, the absurdity of modern political discourse in America isn't particularly significant once you're paying enough attention to notice that all modern discourse in America is equally absurd, that modern discourse--political and otherwise--in other nations is equally absurd, and that it's all just as absurd as the various discourses of the various other eras of human history.
Slashdot Mirror
I wasn't aware that "enemies getting their asses kicked" was getting a lot of tube coverage these days. What tube are you looking at?
So? You don't like the values and priorities of the community you live in? Find, or make, a better community.
Right, because the citizens of Bakersfield, California are powerless to regulate Police Department policy... oh, wait.
See, these people would have a lot more of my sympathy if they had first advocated a change in Police Department policy, and then when the majority of their fellow community members declined to support their cause they moved out of that community to a community that agreed with their preferences, and the Bakersfield PD helicopter followed them to that new community and continued to harass them.
Police Departments don't magically appear out of nowhere, like some mist-born horror that must be battled at all costs with whatever weapons come readily to hand. They are, by and large, the product of communal agreement, and most communities--including Bakersfield, California--have plenty of resources for community members to debate their preferences and reach a peaceful consensus on policies that affect the community. If this couple were living in the mountains of Afghanistan in the mid-1980s, I could understand them attacking helicopters with lasers and more. But in Bakersfield, California? Their beef is with their fellow community members who set the Police helicopter patrol policy, not the pilot of a helicopter in flight.
What's so stupid about it? We have a long way to go, and a lot of other problems to solve, before it makes sense to spend lots of money on manned missions to Mars. A lot of what we need is going to have to wait for the next generation or two of technological advancement in materials science, nanotechnology, and micro-electronics. If we spent money on manned missions to Mars right now, it would probably all be wasted. New technology would obsolete our prototypes and shift the entire paradigm of the project, forcing us to abandon half-completed projects and start over from scratch.
Much better to focus our resources in other areas where the development cycles are a lot shorter and the financial risks a lot smaller, to solve some of the intermediate problems between our current capabilities and manned mars missions, and stimulate research and development of the intermediate technological advances between here and there, and then authorize a new spending bill when we're actually in a good position to accomplish a manned mission.
Besides, the thing has a loophole big enough to drive a tank through. I guess the moral of the story is that even when you try to please everybody, some jackass will still find an excuse to complain.
I don't know about that. Werner Von Braun and Werner Heisenberg were both scientifically literate, but neither seems to have had much positive influence on the regime under which they labored.
The Bush administration has gained a reputation for stifling dissent in the scientific community, when that dissent undermines the administration's policies or the beliefs of what is perceived to be its core constituency. Why should we be more optimistic about the Mullahs of Iran than we are about the Presidency of the United States?
I never said it was the best form of retribution. You might think that forced labor would be a better form of retribution. Personally, I'm not so sure. It seems to me that simply depriving a person of their liberty is sufficient. But this is definitely a controversial issue upon which individuals will probably never reach an agreement. Fortunately, those of us who do retain our liberty have some options as to which societies we choose to become members of. The French, for example, have reached a consensus that the death penalty is too extreme.
Okay, I have a serious question about your post.
It seems to me that this project could be just as easily driven by a militaristic government's desire for high-tech weaponry. After all, some of the most advanced technology and some of the most powerful computers in the world are used by the American military-industrial complex to develop some of the highest-tech weaponry in the world. American universities even receive government grants to participate in high-tech military research.
And if the Iranian government did have an interest in developing high-tech weaponry, they'd certainly commission their universities to conduct research in that field, and would support the development of supercomputers for the purpose of high-tech research.
So what makes you so sure that isn't what's going on here?
I don't see punishment as a form of training at all. I see it as a form of retribution.
A criminal takes something from society. Thus, has acquired a debt that he must pay by giving up something of himself. This basic idea, of taking something and giving something up, is the core principle of Justice.
Sequestering criminals from society, or teaching them not to commit crimes in the future, or deterring others from committing crimes, are all--to the extent that they actually do exist--side benefits.
Hansel and Gretel, outlined in the style of Robert Jordan:
... and that's about the point where the Faithful Reader finally realizes that this hack has stretched a simple fairy tale into seven giant novels in which nothing actually happens.
Book 1: Hansel and Gretel live happily with their mother and father. Their mother falls ill and dies. The family mourns her loss. The father starts courting another woman in the village, to the dismay of Hansel and Gretel. At the end of the book, she wins over the hearts and minds of the two children and marries her father. They live happily ever after.
Book 2: Oh, wait, they don't live happily after all. The stepmother turns out to be hateful and cruel. Ultimately, Hansel and Gretel resolve to run away from home. Gretel expresses fears about the wicked witch who is rumored to live in the Forest, but Hansel insists nothing could be worse than living at home with their stepmother. After much bickering, they depart.
Book 3: Hansel and Gretel cross the boundary between Village and Forest. Gretel reprises her misgivings about the dangers of the forest. Hansel reiterates his arguments in favor of running away. After much bickering, they agree to continue, using bread crumbs to mark their trail. They get lost. Gretel blames Hansel. Hansel stubbornly refuses to admit his mistake.
Book 4: Hansel and Gretel wander through the woods, lost and disoriented. Gretel continues to complain about the foolishness of running away from home. Hansel continues to insist it's the right thing to do. Gretel continues to berate him about the bread crumbs fiasco. Hansel persists in his mule-headed self-righteousness. They meet a Wise Owl, who warns them about the Wicked Witch of the Forest.
Book 5: Hansel and Gretel wander through the woods, lost and disoriented. Gretel continues to complain about the foolishness of running away from home. Hansel continues to insist it's the right thing to do. Gretel continues to berate him about the bread crumbs fiasco. Hansel persists in his mule-headed self-righteousness. They meet a Cunning Fox, who encourages them to visit the Wise Woman of the Forest.
Book 6: Hansel and Gretel wander through the woods, lost and disoriented. Gretel continues to complain about the foolishness of running away from home. Hansel continues to insist it's the right thing to do. Gretel continues to berate him about the bread crumbs fiasco. Hansel persists in his mule-headed self-righteousness. They meet a Cryptic Raven, who warns them about the Wicked Witch of the Forest.
Book 7: Hansel and Gretel wander through the woods, lost and disoriented. Gretel continues to complain about the foolishness of running away from home. Hansel continues to insist it's the right thing to do. Gretel continues to berate him about the bread crumbs fiasco. Hansel persists in his mule-headed self-righteousness. They meet a Devious Serpent, who encourages them to visit the Wise Woman of the Forest.
That certainly explains why my teachers keep giving me research projects where I have to go out and find my own sources of information, study them on my own, and come to my own conclusions about them, instead of just educating me themselves.
Oh, wait. No it doesn't.
You left out a third option:
3. the society that exists outside the nation's borders.
If you care so much about it, feel free to step up and pledge whatever you think is appropriate. Protetcing your interests isn't just for rich strangers, you know.
On the other hand, how do we know his account is true, and not a fictional work of surrealistic art? If it's truly Kafkaesque, there's at least the possibility it's fiction.
And yet that's exactly what I've hired and paid those officials to do, subject to an agreed-upon arrangements of checks and balances and public accountability. What's my arrangement with the whistleblower? Who is he accountable to? Why should I trust him? Because he flouts my laws and works in secret against my government?
I agree that it's not an easy question to answer. But I do think it's a question we should answer together, publically, according to the system of government and the rules of law that we have all willingly submitted to. The publically-elected official is ultimately accountable to the citizenry. The anonymous whistleblower is ultimately accountable to no one.
Because the alternative is that private, anonymous individuals arrogate to themselves this authority, bypassing the democratic process and depriving their fellow citizens of any participation at all in the decision-making process. It's bad enough when openly elected and appointed public officials, subject to myriad checks and balances and oversights and public accountabilities, overstep their authority. Why should I be happier when private individuals, subject to no controls at all, do the same?
I'm with you so far. So how do you and I go about choosing the right people for the job?
... I'm pretty sure I'd rather have publically-elected and appointed officials be the final arbiters of government secrecy, and not self-appointed anonymous individuals.
Actually, I was simply responding to the faulty logic that "tracking = treating like an animal".
Tracking teenagers in this way may be a bad idea for all the reasons you claim.
Not radical enough. Animals need food. If we're going to stop treating children like animals, we should stop feeding them too, right? Who knew Somalia and Ethiopia were the most enlightened places on Earth?
I know, I know: Feeding animals is different from feeding children. So here's a radical concept: Tracking animals is different from tracking children.
Not only that, but we don't even track all animals all the time. We only track some animals some of the time. So it's not like tracking things is automatically treating them like animals. We track people, too: Paramedics, police officers, nuclear power plant workers... You could just as easily say that by tracking kids, we're treating them like mature adults with significant responsibilites and in whom we have placed great trust. How's that for a radical concept?
All the more reason to work the kinks out of the robot gunners.
True. On the other hand, a gun can only screw up at its maximum rate of fire, which is the same whether a human or a computer is pulling the trigger.
Because human gunners never flip out and kill innocent bystanders, right?
Besides, it seems to me that lethal malfunctions in robot guns are more likely to occur in the early phases of development, under controlled conditions that put very few lives at risk. By the time these weapons get to the battlefield, most of the glitches will be worked out, and additional improvements can be made on an ongoing basis. On the other hand, a human generally performs much more reliably during training, but has a much greater chance of losing self-control when subjected to the stresses of the battlefield.
I subscribe to the GIF theory of Internet discourse. So I have to consider the possibility that your words could also benefit you because you derive personal pleasure from presenting them anonymously, regardless of their merit.
If I knew you as more than an anonymous Internet debater, if I had the opportunity to look at your actions, I might take your words more seriously.
Everybody thinks their own favorite court jester makes sense.
You and I are having modern political discourse right now; are you saying our discourse is absurd? Besides, the absurdity of modern political discourse in America isn't particularly significant once you're paying enough attention to notice that all modern discourse in America is equally absurd, that modern discourse--political and otherwise--in other nations is equally absurd, and that it's all just as absurd as the various discourses of the various other eras of human history.