Nice theory, but when I was growing up (late 60s/early'70s) in da 'burbs we did the SAME FUCKING THING except we watched TV. (It sucked, computers and video games are far more mentally stimulating. TV is still shit.)
The difference? Modern FOOD is mostly good for fattening livestock (hooray for corn byproducts!) and turns youngsters into hambeasts.
Want to fix (some of) this? PT, every school day, in gym class.
Sweet! Suicide should be facilitated for any anyone who wants it. No loss when a creep like that checks out, and no real loss except sentiment when any low-worth person ends their wastage of oxygen. I'd like to see voluntary suicide facilitated for all incarcerated persons who wish to take advantage of the opportunity.
"Society sure is quick to condemn the mother, even though there is nothing that we know of that would have alerted the mother to this man's danger until after the rape."
His criminal record should have been instant reason never to associate with him.
How is that a troll? "Not fucking up" means "not fucking up", not "fucking up sometimes"! Have strict rules that make sense, and obey them. It's better to read about shit happening to stupid people than volunteering by negligence to have it happen to you. Don't hang out with losers, don't trust without verification, and be good parent or don't breed. If those ideas hurt your tender feelings, pull your head out of your arse so you can see better.
"He didn't have a history of physical or sexual violence. It was some theft & some bad checks."
That still indicates he is a worthless untrustworthy piece of shit. "Not a big deal" in cracktown maybe, but I'd never tolerate anyone like that in my home.
Much of the public INSIST on being addressed in Newspeak. The social changes that now require obfuscation and euphemism can't be blamed on the politicians, they are a result of political correctness interfering with clear communication. Social ritual requires PC-speak.
Direct communication is more effective, and can be done with style.
General James Mattis:
"I come in peace. I didn't bring artillery. But I'm pleading with you, with tears in my eyes: If you fuck with me, I'll kill you all"-
and
"Actually it's quite fun to fight them, you know. It's a hell of a hoot," Mattis said, prompting laughter from some military members in the audience. "It's fun to shoot some people. I'll be right up there with you. I like brawling.
"I wonder what would happen if people at a protest suddenly come up with a large supply of sheet aluminum... you know, like stop signs etc... parabolic dish shapes might also be interesting."
Rubber bullets, beanbag rounds, and so forth can be shot at those carrying reflectors. Not everyone will have them.
One is trying to kill and injure/maim the enemy when shooting at them, or employing AP mines, or any number of other activities. Wounding an enemy is acceptable, provided the wound doesn't cause _unnecessary_ suffering. There is plenty of _necessary_ suffering inherent in combat.
An investment in intel won't necessarily stop riots, especially riots calculated to provoke violent retaliation without regard to own-side casualties. Less-lethal weapons won't produce bloody martyr cell phone footage.:) Smart opponents want martyrs, especially when the martyrs aren't their own operative and are just expendable locals they may not care for anyway or actively dislike.
Intel isn't something you can (always) buy. though that IS a good idea if done carefully.
NO. Using weapons to specifically blind the enemy is a crime. If you blind them with fragments or fire as a consequence of trying to kill and maim them, that's perfectly acceptable.
If you blind a tank crewman whose head is exposed by painting the tank with a laser designator in order to shoot the tank that's perfectly acceptable.
If you use a weapon whose specific purpose is to blind an enemy rather than blinding some of them as collateral damage, that's a crime.
Citation:
"Protocol on Blinding Laser Weapons (Protocol IV to the 1980 Convention), 13 October 1995
Article 1 It is prohibited to employ laser weapons specifically designed, as their sole combat function or as one of their combat functions, to cause permanent blindness to unenhanced vision, that is to the naked eye or to the eye with corrective eyesight devices. The High Contracting Parties shall not transfer such weapons to any State or non-State entity.
Article 2 In the employment of laser systems, the High Contracting Parties shall take all feasible precautions to avoid the incidence of permanent blindness to unenhanced vision. Such precautions shall include training of their armed forces and other practical measures.
Article 3 Blinding as an incidental or collateral effect of the legitimate military employment of laser systems, including laser systems used against optical equipment, is not covered by the prohibition of this Protocol.
Article 4 For the purpose of this protocol "permanent blindness" means irreversible and uncorrectable loss of vision which is seriously disabling with no prospect of recovery. Serious disability is equivalent to visual acuity of less than 20/200 Snellen measured using both eyes."
Your response to the transmission problem was the smart choice. Industry standard is to replace the part, since rebuilding requires special tools and often a supply of organ donor transmissions. You swapped the unit as it was designed to be swapped,
(I'm a mechanic, but if I need a rebuilt trans I buy one from a volume rebuilder except in the case of simple, ancient automatics.)
There is currently no need for MANNED spacecraft, because supporting humans limits their ability to do "everything else" including actual exploration. The glacial development cycles mandated by the need to return meat tourists cost so dearly that useful "remote manned" missions won't be funded.
"Oh yeah, UAVs. Those are cool! Except when they crash."
It's early in the learning curve, and we should remember that UAVs are still in their infancy. When manned aircraft were young, they killed lots of operators. The technology was worth the casualties.
It's not time to let UAVs in CONUS airspace...yet.
"Prison inmates aren't kind to guys who go after kids."
Citation needed. It would be fine if rapists and pedos got the Father Geoghan treatment, (too bad it didn't last longer, but ++ to his killer for planning and execution!) but we'd hear a bit more about it if they did.
And there's no way caring lenders would finance people who endanger themselves by being high-risk, and there's no way they'd bundle toxic mortgages and sell them.
Corporations are as unethical as they can get away with being, and are merely sophisticated "organized crime". That doesn't exclude them being useful and necessary, but never respect them.
If we wanted RAPID technology development, we'd skip passengers for a few decades and perfect remote-manned systems first. We would not be trapped by the glacial pace dictated by protecting politically valuable astronauts.
Back in The Day, men and wooden ships were literally expendable. Now, humans are too valued to risk, and robots are required for practical space exploitation in any event. Humans don't "explore" anything, they are along for the ride. We can leave them on Earth and greatly speed development of exploratory machines instead.
Slashdot Mirror
"By all means, let us keep all our eggs in one basket and just wait patiently for some extinction event. "
In the event I become extinct, I might get motivated to do something about it.
"Will people ever learn that correlation does not imply causation?"
It's your fault for CARRYING the sacred LARTrock instead of using it to beat some sense into them.
"Food, drinks, health and hygiene stuff, what about getting sex "
Buy them in port like everyone else.
I haven't worried about that since the TSA began. I travel with one light carry-on, and ship anything else in advance so it will be waiting on me.
Nice theory, but when I was growing up (late 60s/early'70s) in da 'burbs we did the SAME FUCKING THING except we watched TV. (It sucked, computers and video games are far more mentally stimulating. TV is still shit.)
The difference? Modern FOOD is mostly good for fattening livestock (hooray for corn byproducts!) and turns youngsters into hambeasts.
Want to fix (some of) this? PT, every school day, in gym class.
Sweet!
Suicide should be facilitated for any anyone who wants it. No loss when a creep like that checks out, and no real loss except sentiment when any low-worth person ends their wastage of oxygen. I'd like to see voluntary suicide facilitated for all incarcerated persons who wish to take advantage of the opportunity.
"Society sure is quick to condemn the mother, even though there is nothing that we know of that would have alerted the mother to this man's danger until after the rape."
His criminal record should have been instant reason never to associate with him.
How is that a troll?
"Not fucking up" means "not fucking up", not "fucking up sometimes"!
Have strict rules that make sense, and obey them. It's better to read about shit happening to stupid people than volunteering by negligence to have it happen to you. Don't hang out with losers, don't trust without verification, and be good parent or don't breed. If those ideas hurt your tender feelings, pull your head out of your arse so you can see better.
"He didn't have a history of physical or sexual violence. It was some theft & some bad checks."
That still indicates he is a worthless untrustworthy piece of shit. "Not a big deal" in cracktown maybe, but I'd never tolerate anyone like that in my home.
"Lots of things can be used for torture, but the list of things that leave no evidence of torture behind is much shorter."
A wet washcloth is cheaper, portable, doesn't leave a mark, and commonly available. All sorts of things can be used for torture without leaving marks.
Much of the public INSIST on being addressed in Newspeak. The social changes that now require obfuscation and euphemism can't be blamed on the politicians, they are a result of political correctness interfering with clear communication. Social ritual requires PC-speak.
Direct communication is more effective, and can be done with style.
General James Mattis:
"I come in peace. I didn't bring artillery. But I'm pleading with you, with tears in my eyes: If you fuck with me, I'll kill you all"-
and
"Actually it's quite fun to fight them, you know. It's a hell of a hoot," Mattis said, prompting laughter from some military members in the audience. "It's fun to shoot some people. I'll be right up there with you. I like brawling.
http://obsidianwings.blogs.com/obsidian_wings/2006/08/lt_gen_james_ma.html
"but now use tasers when they would just have grabbed someone & handcuffed them"
Try to grab someone who doesn't want to be grabbed, then tell us why Tasers shouldn't be used. :)
"I wonder what would happen if people at a protest suddenly come up with a large supply of sheet aluminum... you know, like stop signs etc... parabolic dish shapes might also be interesting."
Rubber bullets, beanbag rounds, and so forth can be shot at those carrying reflectors. Not everyone will have them.
"That's a myth, and lots of service members believe and perpetuate it."
Indeed. Part of LOAC (Law Of Armed Combat) training should be debunking these myths.
One is trying to kill and injure/maim the enemy when shooting at them, or employing AP mines, or any number of other activities. Wounding an enemy is acceptable, provided the wound doesn't cause _unnecessary_ suffering. There is plenty of _necessary_ suffering inherent in combat.
Fun read debunking popular bullet myths:
http://www.thegunzone.com/hague.html
"Where the U.S. did sign on, however, was with the Hague Convention IV of 1907, Article 23(e) of which Annex states:
"...it is especially forbidden -
To employ arms, projectiles, or material{sic} calculated to cause unnecessary suffering;"
It's not a binary choice.
An investment in intel won't necessarily stop riots, especially riots calculated to provoke violent retaliation without regard to own-side casualties. Less-lethal weapons won't produce bloody martyr cell phone footage. :) Smart opponents want martyrs, especially when the martyrs aren't their own operative and are just expendable locals they may not care for anyway or actively dislike.
Intel isn't something you can (always) buy. though that IS a good idea if done carefully.
"Blinding the enemy is definitely a war crime."
NO. Using weapons to specifically blind the enemy is a crime.
If you blind them with fragments or fire as a consequence of trying to kill and maim them, that's perfectly acceptable.
If you blind a tank crewman whose head is exposed by painting the tank with a laser designator in order to shoot the tank that's perfectly acceptable.
If you use a weapon whose specific purpose is to blind an enemy rather than blinding some of them as collateral damage, that's a crime.
Citation:
"Protocol on Blinding Laser Weapons (Protocol IV to the 1980 Convention), 13 October 1995
Article 1 It is prohibited to employ laser weapons specifically designed, as their sole combat function or as one of their combat functions, to cause permanent blindness to unenhanced vision, that is to the naked eye or to the eye with corrective eyesight devices. The High Contracting Parties shall not transfer such weapons to any State or non-State entity.
Article 2 In the employment of laser systems, the High Contracting Parties shall take all feasible precautions to avoid the incidence of permanent blindness to unenhanced vision. Such precautions shall include training of their armed forces and other practical measures.
Article 3 Blinding as an incidental or collateral effect of the legitimate military employment of laser systems, including laser systems used against optical equipment, is not covered by the prohibition of this Protocol.
Article 4 For the purpose of this protocol "permanent blindness" means irreversible and uncorrectable loss of vision which is seriously disabling with no prospect of recovery. Serious disability is equivalent to visual acuity of less than 20/200 Snellen measured using both eyes."
Your response to the transmission problem was the smart choice. Industry standard is to replace the part, since rebuilding requires special tools and often a supply of organ donor transmissions. You swapped the unit as it was designed to be swapped,
(I'm a mechanic, but if I need a rebuilt trans I buy one from a volume rebuilder except in the case of simple, ancient automatics.)
There is currently no need for MANNED spacecraft, because supporting humans limits their ability to do "everything else" including actual exploration.
The glacial development cycles mandated by the need to return meat tourists cost so dearly that useful "remote manned" missions won't be funded.
"Oh yeah, UAVs. Those are cool! Except when they crash."
It's early in the learning curve, and we should remember that UAVs are still in their infancy. When manned aircraft were young, they killed lots of operators. The technology was worth the casualties.
It's not time to let UAVs in CONUS airspace...yet.
"Prison inmates aren't kind to guys who go after kids."
Citation needed. It would be fine if rapists and pedos got the Father Geoghan treatment, (too bad it didn't last longer, but ++ to his killer for planning and execution!)
but we'd hear a bit more about it if they did.
That isn't relevant to the revenue model.
And there's no way caring lenders would finance people who endanger themselves by being high-risk, and there's no way they'd bundle toxic mortgages and sell them.
Corporations are as unethical as they can get away with being, and are merely sophisticated "organized crime". That doesn't exclude them being useful and necessary, but never respect them.
We have no need to put humans in space urgently, nor a need to use the ISS. Those are dispensable projects.
Hand off the space program to the military, and stick to remote-manned missions. There is plenty of time to send tourists in the future.
If we wanted RAPID technology development, we'd skip passengers for a few decades and perfect remote-manned systems first. We would not be trapped by the glacial pace dictated by protecting politically valuable astronauts.
Back in The Day, men and wooden ships were literally expendable. Now, humans are too valued to risk, and robots are required for practical space exploitation in any event. Humans don't "explore" anything, they are along for the ride. We can leave them on Earth and greatly speed development of exploratory machines instead.