If I am correct the opposite of free rider is user pay which has it's own issues. For example, taxes pay for the National Weather Service. Does that mean that everyone who wants to know hat the weather is should pay a fee? Does it mean that everyone who wants to get tornado warnings should pay a fee? The government provides services for the good everyone and the payment is through taxes.
I don't see it as a free rider issue at all but a concentration of funds to be dispursed to projects for the good of the people. For example, there is a multi-year multi-billion dollar project to supply more water to New York City that will be used by everyone in the city. Do you know of any private company who could take on something that big with profits put off for so many years. Even the subject of this discussion is a great place for Government involvement. Telescopes need funding for construction and continued funding for operation. Is there enough profit in astronomy to cover costs and construction of new facilities? Do you really think that reasonably stable funding could be found without tax money? Governments get involved to fund projects that are good for the country.
I think the previous poster was referring to the Interstate system much of which was built by tax money.
As for telephone and electrical grids, it was government granted monopolies and gave monetary grants that required complete service to be provided. Otherwise low density areas, which are not profitable, would never get telephone or electricity. The government may not have directly paid for the grids but it influences their creation.
What what government does in relation to utilities is change the motive from profit to service.
Care to quote any of these laws? Do they apply to duly authorized police authority? I believe that deadly force is only alloed within one's own house and not just on one's land. Perhaps you should read section 36-13 of the North Dakota Livestock laws and the following paragraph in particular;
36-13-04 Claiming estrays. When the owner of an estray, prior to the sale thereof, presents to the person in possession of the animal his affidavit stating his name, place of residence and that he is the actual owner of the estray, describing it, then the person in possession of the animal shall release it to the claimant on payment of the lawful charges. The person formerly in possession shall then promptly send the affidavit to the sheriff, who shall file and keep the same as record of the disposition of the estray. After there has been a sale of an estray under the provisions of this chapter, the former owner of an estray has no rights in the animal.
So no, a farmer in North Dakota is not allowed to shoot stray animals out of hand.
This is not a realistic test of combat situations. 1. The aircraft were vectored together. In real combat the typhoon would never know the F-22 was there. 2. Single vs single. This very rarely happens in real life. It will usually be multiple vs multiple where radar tracking and targeting become more important. Fighters generally work in pairs and there are many tactics apply to pairs that don't apply to singles. It could also be an issue with unfamiliarity with the F-22. It is a new aircraft and pilots were still learning how to use it. The final telling note is the quote "They didn’t expect us to turn so aggressively.” Perhaps it was a pilot issue and not a aircraft issue. It could be a similar issue that occurred in Vietnam; pilots relying too much on missiles and not spending enough time dog fighting.
Yes, low resolution radars that require large fixed radar dishes may be effective to see stealth aircraft. The thing is that these large stationary radar dishes are very easy to take out with standoff munitions like Tomahawk cruise missiles. Stealth is designed to evade mobile systems as they are much harder to take out than stationary ones. There is also the "magic bb: syndrome. If one shoots enough bullets into the sky when one thinks there is an aircraft up there one might hit it. It happened many times in Vietnam. It's generally called luck and stealth does not help against luck. So the "See they shot down one aircraft therefore stealth is useless" is not a valid argument.
It comes down to this; how many F-117s were shot down of Baghdad? How many non-stealth aircraft do you think would have survived?
Diplomacy has worked so well with al Qaeda, Iraq/Kuwait war, Lybia and is working very well with Syria, Iran and North Korea./sarcasm
We need to stop trying to be the world's "policeman",
How very 1930's of you. So lets just ignore the world and let them sort it out. What do you think about the current state in Syria or what happened in Kuwait? I guess the country with the most guns can just invade any country they like, kill all the people and take over the land. I guess the disappearance of the following countries is fine with you; South Korea, Israel, Kuwait and Taiwan. I guess the genocide in Bosnia is fine with you. I guess the closing of the Straits of Hormuz is fine even though it would drastically raise oil prices. I guess al Qaeda terrorists training in complete security and carrying out 911 type attacks is also fine.
stop propping up dictators, stop propping up the rebels to take down the dictators we earlier propped up
Political direction changes over time. Most of the dictators that were propped up by the US government occurred during the Cold War as a way of stopping the spread of Communism. Do you really think it would have been a great idea for the USSR to be able to station nuclear missiles in a number of Central and South American Countries? That changed in the '80s and the dictators refused to reform. Hence the support of rebels. I little knowledge of history would help you here.
Consider Switzerland, for example.
There are three reasons Switzerland does not have issues. Their main industries are tourism and banking. Both of which would have problems it they "interfered" in other countries businesses. They also hold the assets of most countries which makes attacking Switzerland or not defending Switzerland a bad idea; don't piss off you banker. Two, Switzerland is a small country and does not have enough of a population to project power militarily. Three, every Swiss citizen of military age has the weapons and supplies to to fight a three day war stored in their home.
This is not designed to force people to take drugs but to see how people are actually taking their drugs. People forget things for different reasons and it is great to have a solid reminder when to take meds. Sure, one could use multiple alarms but they get annoying when one has already taken that dose. I would much prefer an alarm that went off only when I forget and this technology will facilitate that. Pill boxes are great but one must still remember to take the pills.
There are a few issues with your tin foil hat attitude; 1. The system only works if there is an external sensor and it is turned on. If you don't want to have your Doctor monitor you then turn the sensor off. 2. There are many people who forget to take their meds some times. Having an alarm go off every time I am supposed to take my meds is annoying if I have already done it. To me it would be useful to remind me when I forget. 3. You "what's next" scenario is another invalid slippery slope argument. Sensors in pills have nothing to do with shock treatment; one definitely does not lead to the other 4. It's not all about you. There are people in this world who need reminders, me for one, to take their medications. These people should not have a valuable tool denied them just because you don't like it. If you don't like it then don't use it.
I think what he meant to say was "It is only cheaper if the cost of cable and internet combined is less than the cost of internet alone". I agree with this as one may have to subscribe to a much more expensive internet plan to be able to access all the TV programs. If the necessary internet plan costs more than cable and internet combined then one is losing money.
Anyone in a car with a stranger (the driver and passengers generally do no know each other) that can be seen into by anyone on the street has little expectation of privacy in the first place. The signs just remove the last little but of expectation. They can also choose to walk, get a ride from a friend, etc. One interesting point is that CCTV is used on public transport for security reasons, Why do taxi drivers have less right to security than a bus driver?
Cameras in apartments? When one is alone with the curtains closed there is an absolute expectation of privacy. This is very different than cab rides. Also, Unless one owns a residence there is no choice but to rent and possibly no choice but to be recorded.
Blanket tracking. I do not see where the "is that OK if it's public knowledge?" comes in. Nowhere in the article says that the recordings can be seen by the public. This is a red herring.
It comes down to this; when one enters someone else's workplace, unless there is explicit privacy statements like client lawyer privileged, there should be no expectation of privacy. That there seems to be in cabs is a falsehood. The cab driver is not a doctor, lawyer, priest, etc. He has no obligation not to talk about what went on in the cab. The fact that some people think cabs are private is the problem. Education through stickers is needed to fix this misconception. Considering the number of CCTVs in retail work places, why do cab drivers deserve less security than a 7-11 worker when they come into contact with the same people.
Southampton Council in the UK has been ordered to stop snooping on every taxi cab in the city
That statement is inaccurate and inflammatory. It sounds like council has access to and is watching hours and hours of CCTV footage from cabs; that is not happening. There is a huge difference between recording and watching. Almost all the recorded footage will never leave the cab or be watched at all but will be erased as newer footage is recorded over it. How about mandating that recordings must be encrypted and can only be accessed by police with a proper warrant?
The privacy watchdog has taken a particularly harsh stance against recording of conversations, as it is intrusive, but rarely necessary in the event of a crime being committed in the back of a cab.
So cab drivers are rarely assaulted or killed. By concentrating on numbers and ignoring severity the watchdog is merely looking at half the picture. CCTV recordings are not just for violent actions. The also deter lesser crimes such as vandalism and failing to pay a fare.
We recognise the Council’s desire to ensure the safety of passengers and drivers but this has to be balanced against the degree of privacy that most people would reasonably expect in the back of a taxi cab.
Any reasonable person would not expect privacy when entering a cab that has stickers all over it that states "You image and conversations will be recorded while in this vehicle". By properly informing the passenger there is no expectation of privacy. If a million hours of useless footage results in 2 minutes of usable footage that leads to the capture of a murdered that is good balance for me.
This is particularly important as many drivers will use their vehicles outside work.
Then stipulate the recording does not need to be done when the cab is not accepting fares.
I think that the main issue is that people seem to forget that a cab is the workplace of the driver who has several security issues; 1. He can not choose who to pick up. (It is illegal in most jurisdictions to discriminate against passengers). 2. He can not choose where to go. He has to take passengers to reasonable destinations. It would be OK to say Sorry but 50 miles to too far, I'll get you another car. 3. Passenger actions can change after entering the vehicle. A nice looking person can become violent at any moment. One of the main reasons for city councils mandating CCTV is that many cab owners will not do it voluntarily due to the expense. Most drivers want the cameras for safety reasons but many owners do not care. I wonder where the complaint came from. I bet it was a few well connected owners. To me the life of a cab driver, I was one, far outweighs the privacy issues of well informed passengers. How about we make those ivory tower ICO people drive a cab at night for a month and see if they would want CCTV or not.
Even if we could convince the people that it is a good idea there is not enough money in civilized countries to occupy every failed country. Money is not infinite, manpower is not infinite. At least try to be a bit realistic. Even at it height of 166K US troops in Iraq they never had complete control.
You completely misunderstand the meaning of the word "generation". A generation is what it takes for the kids today to be raised and become productive, well-established adults. It's not 90 years, more like 20-30.
And when these productive, well established adults are still being told by their fathers and grandfathers the atrocities that the US has perpetrated the children will ignore them? Not likely. Even given your numbers an occupation of 40-60 years is unreasonable.Please note that the occupation of Japan was about 7 years and Japan had surrendered completely so there was no insurgency. The western occupation Of Germany lasted about 5 years under the same circumstances. Both being much shorter than 40 to 60 years.
European countries have collectively managed to occupy the entirety of Africa a century ago, with far simpler technology and more meager resources. It's certainly possible.
Again, a lack of understanding of history. European did not militarily occupy those countries they economically occupied those countries and used their resources to fund the occupation. The colonies were there to support the home country not the other way around. There are not enough resources in the Sahara to fund that occupation so the money would have to come from the occupying country. During these economic times that much money does not exist.
Occupations of Germany and Japan after WW2 did, and they worked out very well
You are insane. The occupation of Japan lasted about 6 years and was more about re-building that changing minds. There were also thousands of troops available for the occupation because they were getting ready to invade. Attempting to draw paralells between WW2 and the war on terrorism is invalid. As I have stated before WW2 was a war between states. The war on terrorism is not.
Considering your lack of economic, history and current events understanding and lack basic math skills this will be my last post on this subject. Do not see it as an agreement with your idiotic proposals; I am just tired of talking to someone who is unwilling to see how simplistic "solutions" don't work in the real world. Occupy every threat is not a viable option.
You're wrong. There is certainly territory to occupy, the territory where training centers are located and where the locals provide recruits - like Afghanistan and parts of Pakistan.
Do you even think about things before you write them. Take the Pakistani tribal areas. The Pakistani Army is almost half as big as the US army and they can not deal with it. Then you want to occupy Somalia and Yemen. So the insurgents just move to a different country South Sudan, Ethiopia, Chad, Niger, Mali, Algeria. It becomes a giant game of whack a mole. There is no way to occupy the entire North Africa. Do you have any idea how many troops and how much money it would take to occupy even a few countries. The occupation of Afghanistan is nearly bankrupting the US and you want to add more countries for a much longer time? Who else will do it? NATO? The EU has enough economic issues with Ireland, Portugal, Spain, Italy and Greece. Think before you speak.
As for occupying for two generation, are you insane? A generation can last 90 years these days. Are you really proposing that the US occupy and "re-educate" entire countries for 180 years. Even that will not work as there will be nationalist movements that will rise up to throw off the US yoke much sooner than that. There will also be smaller freedom movements from day one that will stoke the hatred for Americans as oppressive invaders. It also gives al Qaeda a great rallying cry "Destroy the bully of the world before he takes over your country". There is enough trouble staying in Afghanistan for more than ten years and you propose 180?
There will always be people in a country occupied by a foreign power that will have a grudge against an invading power. They could be the relatives of people killed during the invasion, relatives of freedom fighters killed by the occupiers, freedom fighters who want the invader out, relatives of innocent people killed in conflicts between the occupiers and the freedom fighters, etc. Occupation of a foreign land is never the solution. Violence does not stop when the US army occupies. I some cases it just escalates (remember Iraq?).
Try a little critical thinking before proposing simplistic and/or outlandish solutions when they are unrealistic (occupy a large number of nations for 180 years) or have already failed repeatedly (occupations of Afghanistan twice, Somalia, Vietnam).
Al Qaeda was right in what? Please finish the statement.
Are you saying the the average Arab could not make the connection that if the al Qaeda leader was not there the bomb would never have been dropped there. I think the average Arab IQ is much higher than that.
Perhaps the average Arab needs to realize that al Qaeda is not helping them and only bringing death to their people for no gain what so ever.
So human shields work in your vision of things. Just stay around civilians and terrorists can go on planning and training for attacks on foreign countries.
In my mind the deaths of any innocents is on the terrorist hiding in their midst and not the country dropping the bomb. The terrorist knew he was endangering the villagers but stayed there anyway. He could have hid somewhere else but chose a village in a cowardly attempt to use human shields.
The discussion is about drone strikes. How about you stay on topic.
Bin Ladin was within a couple of miles of a Pakistani military base for over two years. All it would have taken is one person in the chain of command in Pakistan to spill the beans and he would be gone again. Yes the Pakistanis were upset over the raid but even they understood why it was done that way.
On another note, would you really call Pakistan stable when they can't control the tribal regions of their own country? It is obvious that some of their military and security forces are supporting al Qaeda/
If you are trying to draw parallels between WW2 and the war on terrorism then you need to learn a little history. WW2 was a conventional war between states where there were armies, occupied states, front lines, production facilities, etc on both sides. Both sides stood on the battlefield and fought. It ended when the enemy's ability to produce enough weapons and deploy them was destroyed. WW2 was not a war against ideology; it was a war against states. No one convinced the Germans to quit; they were forced to quit by military might. Terrorism is people slinking in the night placing bombs or convincing others to commit suicide to kill the enemy. There are no front lines, little territory to occupy, and many places where terrorists can hide and plan attacks. How do you convince someone that their spiritual leaders are wrong? There is a reason they are called zealots because they do not question their teachings. Change has to come from inside the individual and not from outside.
If US policy at their borders is to pull their guns on people who ONLY share a name with someone they're looking for, why would anyone believe that unaccountable figures in the US government, CIA and military should be allowed to be the world's judge, jury and executioners?
How are those two things connected at all? So they allow you to go through customs and then stop you while the complete profile of the person they are looking for comes up. To be safe they draw their guns. You have not been shot; just detained. That has nothing to do with direct military action against terrorists who have murdered American civilians? They are not being "the world's judge, jury and executioner". Military action authorized by Congress does not need judicial due process therefore no judge or jury is required. As for executioner that can be said for any soldier prosecuting a Congressional mandate.
The Predator strike is the Philippines is completely unsubstantiated. It is all speculation and there is no proof at all. I just love this quote from the article you referenced;
“The Philippine Air Force is not capable of this kind of pinpoint air strike. The strike was done at 2 a.m.,” said Reyes. “Imagine the visibility at that hour.”
I guess Mr Reyes has never heard of JDAMS. The Philippine Airforce has OV-10 Broncos which have the capability of dropping these bombs. The pilot does not need to see the target to drop the bomb all that is needed is a GPS location and it can be done from up to 12 miles away. He also refers to a barrage of missiles. A predator drone can carry two Hellfire missiles; two is not a barrage. It was more likely a conventional helicopter firing unguided rockets.
Then you completely miss my original statements. To stop the violence we need to change the motivations which are currently "your society attacked my society therefore I fell justified in killing anyone in your society". That is the whole point. It does not matter what the motivations and justifications are until they change the violence will continue.
I was merely explaining motivations of Muslims in Iraq and Afghanistan, not motivations of Americans; that's a whole different kettle of fish.
Explaining the motivations of one side is only half the story. Both sides have to agree to stop for violence to stop.
There's a very wide range of opinions on this subject, as well as what constitutes "civilian" precisely.
It is strange how you can allow a broad interpretation of "civilian" on the account of Muslims but do not give the same latitude to the US when they consider someone an "enemy combatant".
It wouldn't, because USA is dar al-amn, not dar al-Islam, and the attackers are themselves Muslim.
Have you read the US Oath of Allegiance ? The pertinent part being "that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic". So Muslims have fard al-ayn and the US has an oath. The combine to create an unending war.
Slashdot Mirror
If I am correct the opposite of free rider is user pay which has it's own issues. For example, taxes pay for the National Weather Service. Does that mean that everyone who wants to know hat the weather is should pay a fee? Does it mean that everyone who wants to get tornado warnings should pay a fee? The government provides services for the good everyone and the payment is through taxes.
I don't see it as a free rider issue at all but a concentration of funds to be dispursed to projects for the good of the people. For example, there is a multi-year multi-billion dollar project to supply more water to New York City that will be used by everyone in the city. Do you know of any private company who could take on something that big with profits put off for so many years. Even the subject of this discussion is a great place for Government involvement. Telescopes need funding for construction and continued funding for operation. Is there enough profit in astronomy to cover costs and construction of new facilities? Do you really think that reasonably stable funding could be found without tax money? Governments get involved to fund projects that are good for the country.
I think the previous poster was referring to the Interstate system much of which was built by tax money.
As for telephone and electrical grids, it was government granted monopolies and gave monetary grants that required complete service to be provided. Otherwise low density areas, which are not profitable, would never get telephone or electricity. The government may not have directly paid for the grids but it influences their creation.
What what government does in relation to utilities is change the motive from profit to service.
Care to quote any of these laws? Do they apply to duly authorized police authority? I believe that deadly force is only alloed within one's own house and not just on one's land.
Perhaps you should read section 36-13 of the North Dakota Livestock laws and the following paragraph in particular;
36-13-04 Claiming estrays.
When the owner of an estray, prior to the sale thereof, presents to the person in possession of the animal his affidavit stating his name, place of residence and that he is the actual owner of the estray, describing it, then the person in possession of the animal shall release it to the claimant on payment of the lawful charges. The person formerly in possession shall then promptly send the affidavit to the sheriff, who shall file and keep the same as record of the disposition of the estray. After there has been a sale of an estray under the provisions of this chapter, the former owner of an estray has no rights in the animal.
So no, a farmer in North Dakota is not allowed to shoot stray animals out of hand.
This is not a realistic test of combat situations.
1. The aircraft were vectored together. In real combat the typhoon would never know the F-22 was there.
2. Single vs single. This very rarely happens in real life. It will usually be multiple vs multiple where radar tracking and targeting become more important. Fighters generally work in pairs and there are many tactics apply to pairs that don't apply to singles.
It could also be an issue with unfamiliarity with the F-22. It is a new aircraft and pilots were still learning how to use it.
The final telling note is the quote "They didn’t expect us to turn so aggressively.” Perhaps it was a pilot issue and not a aircraft issue. It could be a similar issue that occurred in Vietnam; pilots relying too much on missiles and not spending enough time dog fighting.
Another reason the F-14 did so little in the Gulf wars was that it is an air superiority aircraft and Iraq didn't launch many fighters.
Yes, low resolution radars that require large fixed radar dishes may be effective to see stealth aircraft. The thing is that these large stationary radar dishes are very easy to take out with standoff munitions like Tomahawk cruise missiles. Stealth is designed to evade mobile systems as they are much harder to take out than stationary ones.
There is also the "magic bb: syndrome. If one shoots enough bullets into the sky when one thinks there is an aircraft up there one might hit it. It happened many times in Vietnam. It's generally called luck and stealth does not help against luck. So the "See they shot down one aircraft therefore stealth is useless" is not a valid argument.
It comes down to this; how many F-117s were shot down of Baghdad? How many non-stealth aircraft do you think would have survived?
We need diplomacy, not bombs.
Diplomacy has worked so well with al Qaeda, Iraq/Kuwait war, Lybia and is working very well with Syria, Iran and North Korea. /sarcasm
We need to stop trying to be the world's "policeman",
How very 1930's of you. So lets just ignore the world and let them sort it out. What do you think about the current state in Syria or what happened in Kuwait? I guess the country with the most guns can just invade any country they like, kill all the people and take over the land. I guess the disappearance of the following countries is fine with you; South Korea, Israel, Kuwait and Taiwan. I guess the genocide in Bosnia is fine with you. I guess the closing of the Straits of Hormuz is fine even though it would drastically raise oil prices. I guess al Qaeda terrorists training in complete security and carrying out 911 type attacks is also fine.
stop propping up dictators, stop propping up the rebels to take down the dictators we earlier propped up
Political direction changes over time. Most of the dictators that were propped up by the US government occurred during the Cold War as a way of stopping the spread of Communism. Do you really think it would have been a great idea for the USSR to be able to station nuclear missiles in a number of Central and South American Countries? That changed in the '80s and the dictators refused to reform. Hence the support of rebels. I little knowledge of history would help you here.
Consider Switzerland, for example.
There are three reasons Switzerland does not have issues. Their main industries are tourism and banking. Both of which would have problems it they "interfered" in other countries businesses. They also hold the assets of most countries which makes attacking Switzerland or not defending Switzerland a bad idea; don't piss off you banker. Two, Switzerland is a small country and does not have enough of a population to project power militarily. Three, every Swiss citizen of military age has the weapons and supplies to to fight a three day war stored in their home.
This is not designed to force people to take drugs but to see how people are actually taking their drugs. People forget things for different reasons and it is great to have a solid reminder when to take meds. Sure, one could use multiple alarms but they get annoying when one has already taken that dose. I would much prefer an alarm that went off only when I forget and this technology will facilitate that. Pill boxes are great but one must still remember to take the pills.
That is not a problem with the doctor and not the pill. If my doctor did not believe what I told him I would find another doctor.
There are a few issues with your tin foil hat attitude;
1. The system only works if there is an external sensor and it is turned on. If you don't want to have your Doctor monitor you then turn the sensor off.
2. There are many people who forget to take their meds some times. Having an alarm go off every time I am supposed to take my meds is annoying if I have already done it. To me it would be useful to remind me when I forget.
3. You "what's next" scenario is another invalid slippery slope argument. Sensors in pills have nothing to do with shock treatment; one definitely does not lead to the other
4. It's not all about you. There are people in this world who need reminders, me for one, to take their medications. These people should not have a valuable tool denied them just because you don't like it. If you don't like it then don't use it.
I think what he meant to say was "It is only cheaper if the cost of cable and internet combined is less than the cost of internet alone". I agree with this as one may have to subscribe to a much more expensive internet plan to be able to access all the TV programs. If the necessary internet plan costs more than cable and internet combined then one is losing money.
Anyone in a car with a stranger (the driver and passengers generally do no know each other) that can be seen into by anyone on the street has little expectation of privacy in the first place. The signs just remove the last little but of expectation. They can also choose to walk, get a ride from a friend, etc. One interesting point is that CCTV is used on public transport for security reasons, Why do taxi drivers have less right to security than a bus driver?
Cameras in apartments? When one is alone with the curtains closed there is an absolute expectation of privacy. This is very different than cab rides. Also, Unless one owns a residence there is no choice but to rent and possibly no choice but to be recorded.
Blanket tracking. I do not see where the "is that OK if it's public knowledge?" comes in. Nowhere in the article says that the recordings can be seen by the public. This is a red herring.
It comes down to this; when one enters someone else's workplace, unless there is explicit privacy statements like client lawyer privileged, there should be no expectation of privacy. That there seems to be in cabs is a falsehood. The cab driver is not a doctor, lawyer, priest, etc. He has no obligation not to talk about what went on in the cab. The fact that some people think cabs are private is the problem. Education through stickers is needed to fix this misconception. Considering the number of CCTVs in retail work places, why do cab drivers deserve less security than a 7-11 worker when they come into contact with the same people.
Southampton Council in the UK has been ordered to stop snooping on every taxi cab in the city
That statement is inaccurate and inflammatory. It sounds like council has access to and is watching hours and hours of CCTV footage from cabs; that is not happening. There is a huge difference between recording and watching. Almost all the recorded footage will never leave the cab or be watched at all but will be erased as newer footage is recorded over it. How about mandating that recordings must be encrypted and can only be accessed by police with a proper warrant?
The privacy watchdog has taken a particularly harsh stance against recording of conversations, as it is intrusive, but rarely necessary in the event of a crime being committed in the back of a cab.
So cab drivers are rarely assaulted or killed. By concentrating on numbers and ignoring severity the watchdog is merely looking at half the picture. CCTV recordings are not just for violent actions. The also deter lesser crimes such as vandalism and failing to pay a fare.
We recognise the Council’s desire to ensure the safety of passengers and drivers but this has to be balanced against the degree of privacy that most people would reasonably expect in the back of a taxi cab.
Any reasonable person would not expect privacy when entering a cab that has stickers all over it that states "You image and conversations will be recorded while in this vehicle". By properly informing the passenger there is no expectation of privacy.
If a million hours of useless footage results in 2 minutes of usable footage that leads to the capture of a murdered that is good balance for me.
This is particularly important as many drivers will use their vehicles outside work.
Then stipulate the recording does not need to be done when the cab is not accepting fares.
I think that the main issue is that people seem to forget that a cab is the workplace of the driver who has several security issues;
1. He can not choose who to pick up. (It is illegal in most jurisdictions to discriminate against passengers).
2. He can not choose where to go. He has to take passengers to reasonable destinations. It would be OK to say Sorry but 50 miles to too far, I'll get you another car.
3. Passenger actions can change after entering the vehicle. A nice looking person can become violent at any moment.
One of the main reasons for city councils mandating CCTV is that many cab owners will not do it voluntarily due to the expense. Most drivers want the cameras for safety reasons but many owners do not care. I wonder where the complaint came from. I bet it was a few well connected owners. To me the life of a cab driver, I was one, far outweighs the privacy issues of well informed passengers. How about we make those ivory tower ICO people drive a cab at night for a month and see if they would want CCTV or not.
What law had been broken? They never quote any legal reason to file a suit except that they do not like it.
Even if we could convince the people that it is a good idea there is not enough money in civilized countries to occupy every failed country. Money is not infinite, manpower is not infinite. At least try to be a bit realistic. Even at it height of 166K US troops in Iraq they never had complete control.
You completely misunderstand the meaning of the word "generation". A generation is what it takes for the kids today to be raised and become productive, well-established adults. It's not 90 years, more like 20-30.
And when these productive, well established adults are still being told by their fathers and grandfathers the atrocities that the US has perpetrated the children will ignore them? Not likely. Even given your numbers an occupation of 40-60 years is unreasonable.Please note that the occupation of Japan was about 7 years and Japan had surrendered completely so there was no insurgency. The western occupation Of Germany lasted about 5 years under the same circumstances. Both being much shorter than 40 to 60 years.
European countries have collectively managed to occupy the entirety of Africa a century ago, with far simpler technology and more meager resources. It's certainly possible.
Again, a lack of understanding of history. European did not militarily occupy those countries they economically occupied those countries and used their resources to fund the occupation. The colonies were there to support the home country not the other way around. There are not enough resources in the Sahara to fund that occupation so the money would have to come from the occupying country. During these economic times that much money does not exist.
Occupations of Germany and Japan after WW2 did, and they worked out very well
You are insane. The occupation of Japan lasted about 6 years and was more about re-building that changing minds. There were also thousands of troops available for the occupation because they were getting ready to invade. Attempting to draw paralells between WW2 and the war on terrorism is invalid. As I have stated before WW2 was a war between states. The war on terrorism is not.
Considering your lack of economic, history and current events understanding and lack basic math skills this will be my last post on this subject. Do not see it as an agreement with your idiotic proposals; I am just tired of talking to someone who is unwilling to see how simplistic "solutions" don't work in the real world. Occupy every threat is not a viable option.
You're wrong. There is certainly territory to occupy, the territory where training centers are located and where the locals provide recruits - like Afghanistan and parts of Pakistan.
Do you even think about things before you write them. Take the Pakistani tribal areas. The Pakistani Army is almost half as big as the US army and they can not deal with it. Then you want to occupy Somalia and Yemen. So the insurgents just move to a different country South Sudan, Ethiopia, Chad, Niger, Mali, Algeria. It becomes a giant game of whack a mole. There is no way to occupy the entire North Africa. Do you have any idea how many troops and how much money it would take to occupy even a few countries. The occupation of Afghanistan is nearly bankrupting the US and you want to add more countries for a much longer time? Who else will do it? NATO? The EU has enough economic issues with Ireland, Portugal, Spain, Italy and Greece. Think before you speak.
As for occupying for two generation, are you insane? A generation can last 90 years these days. Are you really proposing that the US occupy and "re-educate" entire countries for 180 years. Even that will not work as there will be nationalist movements that will rise up to throw off the US yoke much sooner than that. There will also be smaller freedom movements from day one that will stoke the hatred for Americans as oppressive invaders. It also gives al Qaeda a great rallying cry "Destroy the bully of the world before he takes over your country". There is enough trouble staying in Afghanistan for more than ten years and you propose 180?
There will always be people in a country occupied by a foreign power that will have a grudge against an invading power. They could be the relatives of people killed during the invasion, relatives of freedom fighters killed by the occupiers, freedom fighters who want the invader out, relatives of innocent people killed in conflicts between the occupiers and the freedom fighters, etc. Occupation of a foreign land is never the solution. Violence does not stop when the US army occupies. I some cases it just escalates (remember Iraq?).
Try a little critical thinking before proposing simplistic and/or outlandish solutions when they are unrealistic (occupy a large number of nations for 180 years) or have already failed repeatedly (occupations of Afghanistan twice, Somalia, Vietnam).
Al Qaeda was right in what? Please finish the statement.
Are you saying the the average Arab could not make the connection that if the al Qaeda leader was not there the bomb would never have been dropped there. I think the average Arab IQ is much higher than that.
Perhaps the average Arab needs to realize that al Qaeda is not helping them and only bringing death to their people for no gain what so ever.
So human shields work in your vision of things. Just stay around civilians and terrorists can go on planning and training for attacks on foreign countries.
In my mind the deaths of any innocents is on the terrorist hiding in their midst and not the country dropping the bomb. The terrorist knew he was endangering the villagers but stayed there anyway. He could have hid somewhere else but chose a village in a cowardly attempt to use human shields.
The discussion is about drone strikes. How about you stay on topic.
Bin Ladin was within a couple of miles of a Pakistani military base for over two years. All it would have taken is one person in the chain of command in Pakistan to spill the beans and he would be gone again. Yes the Pakistanis were upset over the raid but even they understood why it was done that way.
On another note, would you really call Pakistan stable when they can't control the tribal regions of their own country? It is obvious that some of their military and security forces are supporting al Qaeda/
Or the half that are innocent should be mad at al Qaeda for putting them in danger by being there.
If you are trying to draw parallels between WW2 and the war on terrorism then you need to learn a little history. WW2 was a conventional war between states where there were armies, occupied states, front lines, production facilities, etc on both sides. Both sides stood on the battlefield and fought. It ended when the enemy's ability to produce enough weapons and deploy them was destroyed. WW2 was not a war against ideology; it was a war against states. No one convinced the Germans to quit; they were forced to quit by military might.
Terrorism is people slinking in the night placing bombs or convincing others to commit suicide to kill the enemy. There are no front lines, little territory to occupy, and many places where terrorists can hide and plan attacks. How do you convince someone that their spiritual leaders are wrong? There is a reason they are called zealots because they do not question their teachings. Change has to come from inside the individual and not from outside.
How does one combat an ideology?
If US policy at their borders is to pull their guns on people who ONLY share a name with someone they're looking for, why would anyone believe that unaccountable figures in the US government, CIA and military should be allowed to be the world's judge, jury and executioners?
How are those two things connected at all? So they allow you to go through customs and then stop you while the complete profile of the person they are looking for comes up. To be safe they draw their guns. You have not been shot; just detained. That has nothing to do with direct military action against terrorists who have murdered American civilians? They are not being "the world's judge, jury and executioner". Military action authorized by Congress does not need judicial due process therefore no judge or jury is required. As for executioner that can be said for any soldier prosecuting a Congressional mandate.
The Predator strike is the Philippines is completely unsubstantiated. It is all speculation and there is no proof at all. I just love this quote from the article you referenced;
“The Philippine Air Force is not capable of this kind of pinpoint air strike. The strike was done at 2 a.m.,” said Reyes. “Imagine the visibility at that hour.”
I guess Mr Reyes has never heard of JDAMS. The Philippine Airforce has OV-10 Broncos which have the capability of dropping these bombs. The pilot does not need to see the target to drop the bomb all that is needed is a GPS location and it can be done from up to 12 miles away. He also refers to a barrage of missiles. A predator drone can carry two Hellfire missiles; two is not a barrage. It was more likely a conventional helicopter firing unguided rockets.
Then you completely miss my original statements. To stop the violence we need to change the motivations which are currently "your society attacked my society therefore I fell justified in killing anyone in your society". That is the whole point. It does not matter what the motivations and justifications are until they change the violence will continue.
I was merely explaining motivations of Muslims in Iraq and Afghanistan, not motivations of Americans; that's a whole different kettle of fish.
Explaining the motivations of one side is only half the story. Both sides have to agree to stop for violence to stop.
There's a very wide range of opinions on this subject, as well as what constitutes "civilian" precisely.
It is strange how you can allow a broad interpretation of "civilian" on the account of Muslims but do not give the same latitude to the US when they consider someone an "enemy combatant".
It wouldn't, because USA is dar al-amn, not dar al-Islam, and the attackers are themselves Muslim.
Have you read the US Oath of Allegiance ? The pertinent part being "that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic". So Muslims have fard al-ayn and the US has an oath. The combine to create an unending war.