It could be, but it would come out encrypted. To unencrypt, you need both the user's passcode, *and* the unique code in the security chip. Which you can't extract from the chip short of maybe an electron tunneling microscope; it has no interface that will return it's code.
But in this case, if use of force is justified *at all*, then the next question becomes, 'If the use of force is justified, does a country have a moral imperative to minimize it's own casualties as much as possible?'
Conversely, does it have a moral imperative to minimize enemy casualties wherever possible? Or in some cases, does the enemy forfeit all expectations of, for lack of a better term, kind treatment?
Take the idea that in WW2, an invasion of the Home Islands of Japan would cost millions of lives, between American servicemen, Japanese servicemen, and civilians. Two nukes and substantially fewer deaths all around, arguably, were the lesser of the two evils.
> Oh, and never justified means you are willing to watch someone torture, maim, blind and mutilate your friends and family (and yourself) because it only takes one side to start something. Anyone who says differently has no idea how cruel the world - and people - can be.
Personally, I agree. Violence begets violence (although not always; violence untempered with after-violence reconciliation certainly does) but pacifism begets slavery.
How so? Either the use of force a) requires no justification, b) can be sometimes justified, or c) is never justified. If b) we can discuss the 'sometimes.' If a) or c), there's no room for discussion.
I'd like to hear your thoughts on this, so to speak.
A nuke hitting somewhere in your country at more-or-less random is still a nuke hitting your country.
Sure, you might luck out and have it land somewhere completely uninhabited. But then again, you might not. And you still have radiation and fallout issues.
Not to mention the whole 'now we either MUST nuke them back, potentially kicking off a war with China, or admit that deterrence is a huge bluff, and watch everybody rush the tech tree to nukes.'
In this context, think of 'a reasonably stable orbit' as 'an over-enthusiastic ballistic launch.'
Or, think of a ballistic launch intended to land on a continent on the other side of the planet as 'something with a really short orbital period.'
In other words, if they can get something that high, they can put it slightly less high, and have it come back down.
People need to realize that 'being offended' puts the onus on the person being offended to not expose themselves to whatever it is that offends them, NOT on the person saying or doing something they find offensive.
It's been a while since I read my 80s techno thrillers, but the idea was a nuke sub (or mobile land-based launchers, in theory, but I don't think they ever bothered with that) would use GPS to get an exact fix on where it was, and input that into the missiles as their start point for inertial navigation. This allowed for 'first-strike' capability, which required silly amounts of precision to hit hardened launch sites on short notice, before enemy C&C could authorize retaliatory strikes, and simultaneously denied the enemy the ability to perform a first-strike on you, as first they'd have to find your hidden SSBNs.
The GPS system was originally called 'NavStar,' as it was intended as a navigation aide. The missiles themselves were intended to be as autonomous as possible after launch; after all, the GPS satellites were easy to find and destroy, what with them broadcasting their locations.
So what would you rather have, a health-care system at the expense of some unneeded jobs, or a jobs-creation system at the expense of much-needed healthcare?
Or are you advocating for FDR style programs to employ Americans?
And the same is true of the states. Trying to cross the border from Canada into the States to start a job, transferring a Canadian company to it's brand new American owner, and getting stopped. Should have been a thirty second conversation with the border folks, under Trade NAFTA. Nope. I was trying to steal an American Jerb, and that was that.
The company started to lawyer up, but I declined to continue the process, and stayed in Canada. What can I say, I was young, and foolish. In retrospect, I made the correct choice.
It doesn't mean they have to accept it, it means they're not allowed to accuse you of trying to cheat them when you offer them said piece of paper, rather than, say, two oxen and a goat, in exchange for new wheels for your cart.
By that logic, a hummer, a smart car, a Toyota camery and a kia Sedona all should have almost equal mpg ratings. After all, they're all the same species (four wheeled internal combustion engine vehicles.)
If Wikipedia is imperfect, and the response is 'neither is Britannia, or Merriam-Webster, or whatever,' then I think the point is, indeed, being missed completely.
The response *should* be 'You're right. But unlike Britannia, or Merriam-Webster, or whatever, we can, indeed, improve Wikipedia.'
Thus illustrating the problem with American political thought; the believe that all political thought is a single, binary choice, an not a whole series of spectrums.
Guess what? It IS, in fact, possible, to be a 'liberal' and be pro-gun. It IS, in fact, possible to be a 'conservative' and be pro-choice.
Creationism: The theory that Koala Bears lived and thrived in the Middle East until the Flood, at which time the lone remaining male and female picked up the last known Eucalyptus tree, which had enough leaves to feed them, trekked across the Middle East, across Asia, across the ocean, and into Australia. In one mighty march. Upon arrival, they planted the tree, then proceeded to be fruitful and multiply. Without leaving any evidence of their passing along the way.
Slashdot Mirror
It could be, but it would come out encrypted. To unencrypt, you need both the user's passcode, *and* the unique code in the security chip. Which you can't extract from the chip short of maybe an electron tunneling microscope; it has no interface that will return it's code.
This would be more accurate if the sign said "Eat at Joes: Best Food in the World!"
Ok, let me try again.
Please point to the section of the US Constitution that grants the Supreme Court the power to declare a duly enacted law as unconstitutional.
Easy. To him, RBG is a person. The 'lefties' are a vague and amorphous group.
Well, under that theory, can you point out where the Constitution grants anybody the right to license drivers, pilots, et all?
They won't care. GPS is already more accurate than it needs to be for any conceivable military usage.
Well, the what ifs are important.
But in this case, if use of force is justified *at all*, then the next question becomes, 'If the use of force is justified, does a country have a moral imperative to minimize it's own casualties as much as possible?'
Conversely, does it have a moral imperative to minimize enemy casualties wherever possible? Or in some cases, does the enemy forfeit all expectations of, for lack of a better term, kind treatment?
Take the idea that in WW2, an invasion of the Home Islands of Japan would cost millions of lives, between American servicemen, Japanese servicemen, and civilians. Two nukes and substantially fewer deaths all around, arguably, were the lesser of the two evils.
> Oh, and never justified means you are willing to watch someone torture, maim, blind and mutilate your friends and family (and yourself) because it only takes one side to start something. Anyone who says differently has no idea how cruel the world - and people - can be.
Personally, I agree. Violence begets violence (although not always; violence untempered with after-violence reconciliation certainly does) but pacifism begets slavery.
How so? Either the use of force a) requires no justification, b) can be sometimes justified, or c) is never justified. If b) we can discuss the 'sometimes.' If a) or c), there's no room for discussion.
I'd like to hear your thoughts on this, so to speak.
Don't forget 'avoid left turns across traffic' mode.
Honest question: Do you believe that there are situations where a country is either a) justified, or b) morally required to utilize force of arms?
A nuke hitting somewhere in your country at more-or-less random is still a nuke hitting your country.
Sure, you might luck out and have it land somewhere completely uninhabited. But then again, you might not. And you still have radiation and fallout issues.
Not to mention the whole 'now we either MUST nuke them back, potentially kicking off a war with China, or admit that deterrence is a huge bluff, and watch everybody rush the tech tree to nukes.'
In this context, think of 'a reasonably stable orbit' as 'an over-enthusiastic ballistic launch.' Or, think of a ballistic launch intended to land on a continent on the other side of the planet as 'something with a really short orbital period.' In other words, if they can get something that high, they can put it slightly less high, and have it come back down.
People need to realize that 'being offended' puts the onus on the person being offended to not expose themselves to whatever it is that offends them, NOT on the person saying or doing something they find offensive.
It's been a while since I read my 80s techno thrillers, but the idea was a nuke sub (or mobile land-based launchers, in theory, but I don't think they ever bothered with that) would use GPS to get an exact fix on where it was, and input that into the missiles as their start point for inertial navigation. This allowed for 'first-strike' capability, which required silly amounts of precision to hit hardened launch sites on short notice, before enemy C&C could authorize retaliatory strikes, and simultaneously denied the enemy the ability to perform a first-strike on you, as first they'd have to find your hidden SSBNs.
The GPS system was originally called 'NavStar,' as it was intended as a navigation aide. The missiles themselves were intended to be as autonomous as possible after launch; after all, the GPS satellites were easy to find and destroy, what with them broadcasting their locations.
Or they could call it what it is, 'Romneycare.'
So what would you rather have, a health-care system at the expense of some unneeded jobs, or a jobs-creation system at the expense of much-needed healthcare?
Or are you advocating for FDR style programs to employ Americans?
Then, you hire the government to do it, with very frequent breaks to read new policies on toilet paper pools.
And the same is true of the states. Trying to cross the border from Canada into the States to start a job, transferring a Canadian company to it's brand new American owner, and getting stopped. Should have been a thirty second conversation with the border folks, under Trade NAFTA. Nope. I was trying to steal an American Jerb, and that was that.
The company started to lawyer up, but I declined to continue the process, and stayed in Canada. What can I say, I was young, and foolish. In retrospect, I made the correct choice.
Consolidated Union of Network Technology Specialists.
Bolo!
It doesn't mean they have to accept it, it means they're not allowed to accuse you of trying to cheat them when you offer them said piece of paper, rather than, say, two oxen and a goat, in exchange for new wheels for your cart.
By that logic, a hummer, a smart car, a Toyota camery and a kia Sedona all should have almost equal mpg ratings. After all, they're all the same species (four wheeled internal combustion engine vehicles.)
If Wikipedia is imperfect, and the response is 'neither is Britannia, or Merriam-Webster, or whatever,' then I think the point is, indeed, being missed completely.
The response *should* be 'You're right. But unlike Britannia, or Merriam-Webster, or whatever, we can, indeed, improve Wikipedia.'
Thus illustrating the problem with American political thought; the believe that all political thought is a single, binary choice, an not a whole series of spectrums.
Guess what? It IS, in fact, possible, to be a 'liberal' and be pro-gun. It IS, in fact, possible to be a 'conservative' and be pro-choice.
Creationism: The theory that Koala Bears lived and thrived in the Middle East until the Flood, at which time the lone remaining male and female picked up the last known Eucalyptus tree, which had enough leaves to feed them, trekked across the Middle East, across Asia, across the ocean, and into Australia. In one mighty march. Upon arrival, they planted the tree, then proceeded to be fruitful and multiply. Without leaving any evidence of their passing along the way.