Obviously the murder of a 14 year old child is wrong.
So is the use of drones to kill civilians.
It's not complicated.
Using drones to kill a terrorist as equivalent to bombing an apartment block to kill a fugitive.
They get away with it because of bullshit propaganda and the pussy media. When was the last time you saw the results of these drone bombings on kids being shown on the TV? You think the families are going to grow up to love the West?
So you live in an Afghan village. You've not been to school, know nothing about America, don't have a television or access to any media.
The Taliban come along and stay in your village for the night. You can't do much about it as they are all armed and you don't want them to kill your family.
You are now 'housing' terrorists and fair game for a bomb fired by someone sat in a room with a joystick who's been raised to believe the same bullshit propaganda that cayenne8 glibly trots out here.
You wouldn't be so blasé about killing children if you had a decent media that showed you the results.
Just because we've been in the 'game' for a while doesn't make it right.
As a Brit who's proud of our fight against the Nazis, I still see the bombing policy we undertook as a massive mistake, not some kind of precedent we can trot out when we want to go around killing innocent people.
The issue is not whether 'drone children killing is less in our interest than more established methods of children killing' , it's what's wrong with a society that drops bombs on civilians without a thought.
You had to google the meaning of agnostic, and then you felt the need to share that with everyone, but you don't have the time to sit around and give money/donation/tithe to the fucking place.
Before that EU directive, that's essentially what was in place.
That is what you said.
The directive you are implying has changed something for the worse relates to the gender of the applicant for the insurance. Any normal person would infer that you were criticising the directive and therefore approving of the discrmination the directive removed.
You were arguing that not being able to discriminate on the grounds of sex was 'stupid':
Which is stupid, if you really think about it. Insurance should be based on one thing and one thing alone - the likelihood of you making a claim. Before that EU directive, that's essentially what was in place.
I am arguing that the EU directive is not stupid. Not sure any longer what you are now arguing about.
I read and understood your point. You clearly missed mine. Men are more likely to make a claim, I don't dispute that.
Doesn't follow that you should charge a particular man more.
Re read my post, what if blacks make more claims, presumably someone knows if they do or don't but nobody suggest charging people more or less depending on their ethnicity.
It's not stupid at all. Would you be happy for insurers to take into account race and sexuality? What if they found that men with big dicks were more dangerous? You want your dick measured so you can get a discount?
It's just the same argument about shops having 'No Blacks' signs in the window, only at a slightly less obviously 'wrong' end of the spectrum.
An insurance company can only go on personal driving history or generalities. This is just a new rule to stop them lumping all members of one group together and discriminating against them.
Actually, as anyone working in IT in the UK can attest, we have very strict rules on what you can do with people's data.
I've spent a whole day at 3 different jobs attending a Data Protection Awareness course.
Companies are also realising that the data they collect isn't quite as valuable as they once thought. That's why the big supermarkets that lead the way on this data mining with their loyalty cards are actually reducing the rewards they offer.
New technology brings new challenges, but to pretend we are slipping towards a 1984 state just betrays your ignorance of history which actually shows that the majority of movement is going towards increased rights.
Magna Carta only applied to the aristocracy at the time remember, and as recently as 1918 women couldn't vote here.
I think he is saying that Obama's father was a polygamist which is true.
I really don't see what difference it makes though, you are not your father after all.
You're perfectly free to be as selfish as you like mate. Don't pay your taxes, fuck others, hey even shoot them if you want.
I'm perfectly free to join up with the rest of society and stick you in jail though.
I'm a social animal and I try to get by in society. You're free to do otherwise. If you're so self sufficient you'll be fine, if not I guess we'll lock you up.
You know Ann Rand accepted money from the Medicare system?
You may turn out to be right, but to assert that human free will does not exist in your first 2 sentences without any real argument is a bit of a leap.
That 'inconsequential' scale that seems random as far as we can tell is where the action is at.
Who knows if it is truly random or whether our consciences control the universe at some level we don't understand. I certainly feel like I have free will and you need more than the current incomplete laws of physics to persuade me that I'm essentially an algorithm with a few random inputs.
Anyway, how does the randomness that we see, such as nuclear decay, actually happen? Generating random numbers from a computer is impossible, and the current idea that the universe is deterministic with random elements seems a little contradictory to me.
Of course if there is no free will I had to write this, and you had to have whatever reaction you are having to reading it.
Yeah you're right, taking into account the massive differences in estimations depending on who you read, I shouldn't have said 'certainly killed more people'.
Looks like they were probably evenly matched, although Stalin was in power for a lot longer than the 15 years of the Taiping Rebellion.
Was trying to make the point that I've heard this 'biggest killers were all atheists' stuff before and it isn't really true.
Slashdot Mirror
Obviously the murder of a 14 year old child is wrong.
So is the use of drones to kill civilians.
It's not complicated.
Using drones to kill a terrorist as equivalent to bombing an apartment block to kill a fugitive.
They get away with it because of bullshit propaganda and the pussy media. When was the last time you saw the results of these drone bombings on kids being shown on the TV? You think the families are going to grow up to love the West?
So you live in an Afghan village. You've not been to school, know nothing about America, don't have a television or access to any media.
The Taliban come along and stay in your village for the night. You can't do much about it as they are all armed and you don't want them to kill your family.
You are now 'housing' terrorists and fair game for a bomb fired by someone sat in a room with a joystick who's been raised to believe the same bullshit propaganda that cayenne8 glibly trots out here.
You wouldn't be so blasé about killing children if you had a decent media that showed you the results.
Just because we've been in the 'game' for a while doesn't make it right.
As a Brit who's proud of our fight against the Nazis, I still see the bombing policy we undertook as a massive mistake, not some kind of precedent we can trot out when we want to go around killing innocent people.
The issue is not whether 'drone children killing is less in our interest than more established methods of children killing' , it's what's wrong with a society that drops bombs on civilians without a thought.
You had to google the meaning of agnostic, and then you felt the need to share that with everyone, but you don't have the time to sit around and give money/donation/tithe to the fucking place.
Seriously, please.
-- be seeing you..
This gets modded up now on slashot?
Got to say that the American system which is basically the English system ruined by plea bargaining is one of the worst around.
If I was innocent I'd rather be tried pretty much anywhere else.
I think you're entirely wrong.
A much more likely scenario is that the self driving cars prove statistically to be safer than human driven cars.
At that point expect legislation to ban humans from driving.
Imagine trying to defend yourself in court if you've caused a fatal accident.
'Why did you turn off the computer when you know it is proven to be safer?'
It's not illegal in Belgium, Italy or Spain.
What you meant by 'many EU countries' was in fact France.
Can you list these countries? I call bullshit.
So that if she maims someone she can afford to compensate them
Of course I thought about it. I even referred to it in my original post.
Society has long rehearsed this argument and if you really think you've some up with a new argument you are an idiot.
You are either in the 'No blacks allowed' camp or you are not. I'm not.
Before that EU directive, that's essentially what was in place.
That is what you said.
The directive you are implying has changed something for the worse relates to the gender of the applicant for the insurance. Any normal person would infer that you were criticising the directive and therefore approving of the discrmination the directive removed.
Which is stupid, if you really think about it. Insurance should be based on one thing and one thing alone - the likelihood of you making a claim. Before that EU directive, that's essentially what was in place.
I am arguing that the EU directive is not stupid. Not sure any longer what you are now arguing about.
You can always pursue it yourself ...
How to claim compensation
I read and understood your point. You clearly missed mine. Men are more likely to make a claim, I don't dispute that.
Doesn't follow that you should charge a particular man more.
Re read my post, what if blacks make more claims, presumably someone knows if they do or don't but nobody suggest charging people more or less depending on their ethnicity.
Why do you personally deserve to pay less just because you are female?
It's not stupid at all. Would you be happy for insurers to take into account race and sexuality? What if they found that men with big dicks were more dangerous? You want your dick measured so you can get a discount?
It's just the same argument about shops having 'No Blacks' signs in the window, only at a slightly less obviously 'wrong' end of the spectrum.
An insurance company can only go on personal driving history or generalities. This is just a new rule to stop them lumping all members of one group together and discriminating against them.
Well off the top of my head, Insurance Companies can no longer discriminate against you based on your sex.
Actually, as anyone working in IT in the UK can attest, we have very strict rules on what you can do with people's data.
I've spent a whole day at 3 different jobs attending a Data Protection Awareness course.
Companies are also realising that the data they collect isn't quite as valuable as they once thought. That's why the big supermarkets that lead the way on this data mining with their loyalty cards are actually reducing the rewards they offer.
New technology brings new challenges, but to pretend we are slipping towards a 1984 state just betrays your ignorance of history which actually shows that the majority of movement is going towards increased rights.
Magna Carta only applied to the aristocracy at the time remember, and as recently as 1918 women couldn't vote here.
No, I mean I social network like the article describes, where anyone could host a server.
Google could possibly change Google+ into something like that though.
I think he is saying that Obama's father was a polygamist which is true.
I really don't see what difference it makes though, you are not your father after all.
You could imagine a rival company such as Google, creating such as system to ruin Facebook.
Almost everyone would use Google's 'node' but as long as anyone who wished could host their own 'node' or whatever then I'd be pretty happy.
Well the law they are planning to use in this case wasn't on the books during the Libyan seige.
I don't really see how expelling all of the diplomats and severing diplomatic relations with Libya counts as 'didn't do shit' either.
That said I'm not completely convinced that they would be considering doing this if Assange was just a nobody facing the same charges in Sweden.
You're perfectly free to be as selfish as you like mate. Don't pay your taxes, fuck others, hey even shoot them if you want.
I'm perfectly free to join up with the rest of society and stick you in jail though.
I'm a social animal and I try to get by in society. You're free to do otherwise. If you're so self sufficient you'll be fine, if not I guess we'll lock you up.
You know Ann Rand accepted money from the Medicare system?
Whoa, hold on there a bit.
You may turn out to be right, but to assert that human free will does not exist in your first 2 sentences without any real argument is a bit of a leap.
That 'inconsequential' scale that seems random as far as we can tell is where the action is at.
Who knows if it is truly random or whether our consciences control the universe at some level we don't understand. I certainly feel like I have free will and you need more than the current incomplete laws of physics to persuade me that I'm essentially an algorithm with a few random inputs.
Anyway, how does the randomness that we see, such as nuclear decay, actually happen? Generating random numbers from a computer is impossible, and the current idea that the universe is deterministic with random elements seems a little contradictory to me.
Of course if there is no free will I had to write this, and you had to have whatever reaction you are having to reading it.
Yeah you're right, taking into account the massive differences in estimations depending on who you read, I shouldn't have said 'certainly killed more people'.
Looks like they were probably evenly matched, although Stalin was in power for a lot longer than the 15 years of the Taiping Rebellion.
Was trying to make the point that I've heard this 'biggest killers were all atheists' stuff before and it isn't really true.