That's a perfect solution fallacy - but what you say is, of course, true. The U.S. would never have invaded afghanistan if it wasn't for 9/11. What I say is that they (and the all-too-complacent european states) should have, after the more atrocious dictatorships/splintered genocidal warlord-ruled hellholes had been taken care of.
Yeah, well, that's what the reason *should* have been. And no, but the occupying forces should finish the process of removing the one that was there, and make up for lost government/police force activity until such has been reestablished.
Of course they are. But I think you misunderstood me - what I meant was that the military might consider telling the fallen sodier's next of kin that they "died a hero" to be morally good. As compared to "died screaming while holding his leaking guts in as a result of falling on his knife." This reason, of course, coinciding neatly with keeping up public support.
Using my UN peacekeeping forces example from above, and keeping in mind that I'm Swedish and not American, I must say I disagree with you. Also, do you really consider the situation in afghanistan and/or iraq to be worse or equally bad compared to before the invasions? At least the afghan people seems to be rejoicing the invading/occupying tropps; as a thought experiment, try to imagine what the situation would be if the iraqi occupation forces had enough manpower and resources to actually occupy the country and keep the guerilla bands down.
Surely. I do, as well. However, the public view is that the U.S. military is covering up "stupid deaths" to keep up support for the war. I don't doubt that this is the case, I'm just saying that the "consoling grieving mothers" argument might be considered as a supporting factor.
Ah, yes. But that's because:
1. I'm only talking about moral authority.
2. I assume that the "situation" is serious enough that violence would be called for.
3. I assume that there's a universial "optimal morality" for the human spieces, based on how our brains (and thus minds) function; only actions that follow this morality and 2. above would legitimize threatening you with guns.
4. I consider morality based on religion to be equivalent to insanity, and any religious morality that happens to match up with 3. to be a manifestation of that base biological morality with delusions tacked on/used to support it.
Not really, if the warlords have all the power and guns. My point is that differentiating between nations, aggressors, and other factors is silly. One world, one sky - if someone does evil or destructive things, and you could prevent them from doing so, why hesitate? Even if it's only the lesser of two evils?
I think the whole problem with that kind of stuff is that the U.S. seems to have a highly emotionally charged "hero cult" around their soliders. On that background, who would want to tell a grieving mother that her son was hit in the back by a machinegun in a stupid accident and bled out before he got to intensive care, instead of dying valiantly in a final stand while severely outnumbered by enemy forces?
I'm not sure if I can synthesize your perspective (I'm not american, I'm swedish), but UN peacekeeping troops have had great successes in securing "unstable" regions in the past. Even if the UN is a splintered mess as it is (oppressive dictatorships have say in what constitutes "human rights" for example), the instrument itself seems to have worked. And as for only using it against governments, what about warlords and armed militias raising hell? There's nothing that can stand against that except for a military organization.
I wonder how many relatives/friends of MIA soliders will comb through these archives looking for clues as to their fate. (Just to clarify that I'm not being macabre for the sake of trolling - I support both wars and occupations, even though they ignored sane advice as to the troop strength required to hold and secure the regions.)
"In a 1976 study anthropologist Jane M. Murphy, then at Harvard University, found that an isolated group of Yupik-speaking Inuits near the Bering Strait had a term (kunlangeta) they used to describe “a man who repeatedly lies and cheats and steals things and takes sexual advantage of many women—someone who does not pay attention to reprimands and who is always being brought to the elders for punishment.” When Murphy asked an Inuit what the group would typically do with a kunlangeta, he replied, “Somebody would have pushed him off the ice when nobody else was looking.”"
So you mean you can't understand the logic "my government is good, that other government is evil, so them spying on people is bad while my government spying is largely good"?
Anyone doing that would be liable ten ways till Sunday. Anyone doing that to several banks would be called "A one-man super-hacker ring bent on destroying the western economic system."
One detail in the report struck me: the claim that they capture all web traffic and store it in an SQL server w/ a search frontend at CNC. This is evidently unfeasible, they would have to filter out only data posted into forms and the like. It would have been helpful had the report told about what "shape" this data took, what kind of auth mechanisms was leeched from. They had no whitepaper/analysis on their website, but there was this OS distribution pie chart: http://www.trusteer.com/sites/default/files/ZeusbotnetOSstats.jpg Still, imagine having a line into that kind of setup, on a pay per-password-search basis.
Too awesome and larger-than-life. I think you'd have to have a pretty normal setting, but one that focuses on the many miseries and endless torments of war, without in any way glorifying suffering. A sort of digital http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_realism.
You could depict it as a grisly survival-horror/twitch fps hybrid? But how do you get something like the slippery-brain incident from "generation kill" in a video game?
Hmm, yeah. If wikileaks can have an oversight system, couldn't a centralized vulnerability cache manned by trusted volunteers have one, to deal with ethics problems like that? To formalize the whole "full disclosure extortion" process, and make the bug fixing timetables standardized? But the risk of corruption would be extreme.
There are probably much easier ways to perform targeted attacks against most organizations. But imagine someone bribing disgruntled wallmart/other low-wage chain employees into replacing cartridges and discs with what they are told are "just pirate copies that'l most likely play perfectly, no harm done really, you'l get a cut off the sales of the originals up front."
It's a helpful development - because any edge the "public pool" of hacking software and tricks gets over the "hidden pools" exploited by immoral hackers for selling pickpocketing software and botnets to criminals is helpful, as the relationship between companies business risk/reward and the "security scene" now stands. Even if this may seem counterintuitive at first glance.
The malaria parasite is not a bacteria or virus, but could it evolve past this defense? And how would you make this variant of mosquito out-compete the normal, already established ones?
Slashdot Mirror
That's a perfect solution fallacy - but what you say is, of course, true. The U.S. would never have invaded afghanistan if it wasn't for 9/11. What I say is that they (and the all-too-complacent european states) should have, after the more atrocious dictatorships/splintered genocidal warlord-ruled hellholes had been taken care of.
Yeah, well, that's what the reason *should* have been. And no, but the occupying forces should finish the process of removing the one that was there, and make up for lost government/police force activity until such has been reestablished.
Of course they are. But I think you misunderstood me - what I meant was that the military might consider telling the fallen sodier's next of kin that they "died a hero" to be morally good. As compared to "died screaming while holding his leaking guts in as a result of falling on his knife." This reason, of course, coinciding neatly with keeping up public support.
Using my UN peacekeeping forces example from above, and keeping in mind that I'm Swedish and not American, I must say I disagree with you. Also, do you really consider the situation in afghanistan and/or iraq to be worse or equally bad compared to before the invasions? At least the afghan people seems to be rejoicing the invading/occupying tropps; as a thought experiment, try to imagine what the situation would be if the iraqi occupation forces had enough manpower and resources to actually occupy the country and keep the guerilla bands down.
Surely. I do, as well. However, the public view is that the U.S. military is covering up "stupid deaths" to keep up support for the war. I don't doubt that this is the case, I'm just saying that the "consoling grieving mothers" argument might be considered as a supporting factor.
Ah, yes. But that's because:
1. I'm only talking about moral authority.
2. I assume that the "situation" is serious enough that violence would be called for.
3. I assume that there's a universial "optimal morality" for the human spieces, based on how our brains (and thus minds) function; only actions that follow this morality and 2. above would legitimize threatening you with guns.
4. I consider morality based on religion to be equivalent to insanity, and any religious morality that happens to match up with 3. to be a manifestation of that base biological morality with delusions tacked on/used to support it.
Yes?
My point exactly. But of course, if you dissipate your forces you'd only wind up with more messes just like the one's we're discussing.
Not really, if the warlords have all the power and guns. My point is that differentiating between nations, aggressors, and other factors is silly. One world, one sky - if someone does evil or destructive things, and you could prevent them from doing so, why hesitate? Even if it's only the lesser of two evils?
So you don't cónsider the removal of a barbaric religious dictatorship cause in and of itself?
I think the whole problem with that kind of stuff is that the U.S. seems to have a highly emotionally charged "hero cult" around their soliders. On that background, who would want to tell a grieving mother that her son was hit in the back by a machinegun in a stupid accident and bled out before he got to intensive care, instead of dying valiantly in a final stand while severely outnumbered by enemy forces?
I'm not sure if I can synthesize your perspective (I'm not american, I'm swedish), but UN peacekeeping troops have had great successes in securing "unstable" regions in the past. Even if the UN is a splintered mess as it is (oppressive dictatorships have say in what constitutes "human rights" for example), the instrument itself seems to have worked. And as for only using it against governments, what about warlords and armed militias raising hell? There's nothing that can stand against that except for a military organization.
I wonder how many relatives/friends of MIA soliders will comb through these archives looking for clues as to their fate.
(Just to clarify that I'm not being macabre for the sake of trolling - I support both wars and occupations, even though they ignored sane advice as to the troop strength required to hold and secure the regions.)
"In a 1976 study anthropologist Jane M. Murphy, then at Harvard University, found that an isolated group of Yupik-speaking Inuits near the Bering Strait had a term (kunlangeta) they used to describe “a man who repeatedly lies and cheats and steals things and takes sexual advantage of many women—someone who does not pay attention to reprimands and who is always being brought to the elders for punishment.” When Murphy asked an Inuit what the group would typically do with a kunlangeta, he replied, “Somebody would have pushed him off the ice when nobody else was looking.”"
So you mean you can't understand the logic "my government is good, that other government is evil, so them spying on people is bad while my government spying is largely good"?
Anyone doing that would be liable ten ways till Sunday. Anyone doing that to several banks would be called "A one-man super-hacker ring bent on destroying the western economic system."
Too tiring - compared to what?
One detail in the report struck me: the claim that they capture all web traffic and store it in an SQL server w/ a search frontend at CNC. This is evidently unfeasible, they would have to filter out only data posted into forms and the like. It would have been helpful had the report told about what "shape" this data took, what kind of auth mechanisms was leeched from. They had no whitepaper/analysis on their website, but there was this OS distribution pie chart: http://www.trusteer.com/sites/default/files/ZeusbotnetOSstats.jpg
Still, imagine having a line into that kind of setup, on a pay per-password-search basis.
Too awesome and larger-than-life. I think you'd have to have a pretty normal setting, but one that focuses on the many miseries and endless torments of war, without in any way glorifying suffering. A sort of digital http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_realism.
You could depict it as a grisly survival-horror/twitch fps hybrid? But how do you get something like the slippery-brain incident from "generation kill" in a video game?
Hmm, yeah. If wikileaks can have an oversight system, couldn't a centralized vulnerability cache manned by trusted volunteers have one, to deal with ethics problems like that? To formalize the whole "full disclosure extortion" process, and make the bug fixing timetables standardized? But the risk of corruption would be extreme.
There are probably much easier ways to perform targeted attacks against most organizations. But imagine someone bribing disgruntled wallmart/other low-wage chain employees into replacing cartridges and discs with what they are told are "just pirate copies that'l most likely play perfectly, no harm done really, you'l get a cut off the sales of the originals up front."
It's a helpful development - because any edge the "public pool" of hacking software and tricks gets over the "hidden pools" exploited by immoral hackers for selling pickpocketing software and botnets to criminals is helpful, as the relationship between companies business risk/reward and the "security scene" now stands. Even if this may seem counterintuitive at first glance.
I'm going to hate myself tomorrow.
:D
*cough*
WHY SO SERIOUS?
The malaria parasite is not a bacteria or virus, but could it evolve past this defense? And how would you make this variant of mosquito out-compete the normal, already established ones?