"What Richard Egan did is very Japanese. He concluded that his life would be a burden on his family, his friends, and himself. So, he chose to die by his own sword. He died with honor."
Very reasonable response.
Contemplate, after you KNOW what it looks like, the slow, horrible deterioration of mind, body, or both that is normal with the infirmities and diseases of age. If you live long enough, you are vastly more likely than not to be crippled and mad (not the happy sort of "mad"). Hmmm, do I want to die in a piss-soaked diaper with my pain barely controlled by medication (because physicians are often overcautious about managing the pain of dying people)? Does dementia look like fun? Modern medical technology can extend life for long after any reason (other then the delectation of imaginary celestial friends) for living is gone.
Society should get comfortable with discussing suicide, even though it means admitting we don't live forever.
An immersive simulation environment will be quite useful when UAS sensors evolve sufficient to give an immersive operator environment.
One of the objections to UAS is that the "stovepipe" situational awareness is limiting. Increased operator situational awareness can improve safety as well as combat effectiveness. Instead of being a "scope dope", a UAS operator in an immersive environment could employ their system much more like a manned aircraft.
I don't do it at all and I ensure that those who wish to communicate with me use my preferred methods.
Asynchronous communication (email) is useful because it facilitates responding thoughtfully and at leisure. In an emergency, callers can let my phone ring until I respond.
Much communication is just babbling bitch-chatter that doesn't convey information and isn't necessary on the road. People who need that are not worthy of my time.
Corpses do nothing but decay. They ARE bio-waste, and in nature are recycled by other organisms. Decay is life recycling the dead. There is no reason to respect a corpse except primitive custom and death denial.
"If it was that easy, it would have been broken before now. "
What supports that asserted conclusion?
There wasn't much of a steam car enthusiast community after they went out of popular use. Hot rodding the simple petrol engines of the time was easy (carbs, manifolds, cams, compression, OHV conversions) and there were plenty of them. If you blew an engine, more were available cheap or free. Steam cars even at their height of popularity were a niche market.
The Model T Ford, the flathead Ford, the small block Chevrolet, and the Volkswagen flat four were widely raced because they were aeasily vailable, had (and still do, Model T included!) strong general aftermarket support, and had a big enough user base to support a wide variety of companies making speed parts.
The Stanley Steamer record is vastly more impressive. Tires, brakes, and suspension in 1906 were primitive, materials were not nearly as reliable, and design was done on a drawing board.
"That smashes the previous official record of 204 km/hr (127 mph) set in 1906 by Fred Marriott of the US in a modified version of the then-popular steam car known as the Stanley Steamer."
Sorry, but only going thirteen (13) miles an hour faster than a record more than a _century_ old is shit. He might have done better by using a replica Stanley engine made from modern materials (to allow heat increase without a boiler explosion) instead.
"the point was that there are always better ways of accomplishing goals than use of violence,"
Nice asserted conclusion, but there are not always better real-world options. Better theoretical "ways" don't mean shit if they won't work on the ground.
Example: It is 1945. Goal = unification of mainland China, expulsion of foreign powers, ending warlordism, and creating a stable Chinese state.
"Anonymity is almost a form of protection, however its *never* perfect protection."
Anonymity is literally "security by obscurity", and we know how well reliance on that works out.
Re:and if these companies made profit?
on
NASA May Outsource
·
· Score: 1
Apparently someone else doesn't!:)
When men and ships were completely expendable, they were used for terrestrial exploration. Now humans are so valued that casualties are not tolerated, and the systems used to send humans into space are forced into glacially slow development cycles (which is why we still use the Shuttle).
Humans are sent into space out of tradition more than any necessity. The only utility in sending humans into space is learning how to send more humans into space, but humans onsite aren't required to operate sensors or machinery. We are getting humans out of dull and dangerous tasks on Earth by using systems like UAVs for combat. The benefits are obvious. If we change our outlook from having humans perform physical tasks to having them make decisions, we can get humans out of areas where their presence imposes a burden. We don't need to take great risks with human life (or the incredibly expensive systems required for human support) in these early phases of space exploration. We'd extend our reach (Voyager, anyone?) by using machines that are products of our minds rather then sending inefficient humans in person.
We have millions of years to figure out how to send men cheaply and safely into space, there is zero urgency to send them into space, and we can explore MORE space without sending them in person.
Re:and if these companies made profit?
on
NASA May Outsource
·
· Score: 0, Troll
"With NASA, its science oriented. With business, its profit oriented."
If that were the case, NASA would have dropped the manned mission tourism/entertainment effort and made vastly more efficient use of their funds by fielding many unmanned systems. The resources used to transport and protect delicate human space tourists do nothing to expand our knowledge of space. We need robots on the earth, under its oceans, and in space because most human activity is "dull, dirty, and dangerous". Accelerated development of robots will help us learn about and exploit space. The glacially slow development cycle required to build manned space systems at our current GENERAL state of technology is a burden we can drop. Let commercial outfits do it for profit if it is so important, and use government resources to send machines instead of men.
"Unfortunately for him, the cartel has tremendous firepower (smuggled from the United States)"
Much of the firepower is outright military equipment bought internationally or "leaked" from US aid to spectacularly corrupt Mexican law enforcement. The Mexican government should turn over ALL serial numbers of confiscated weapons to the US, but instead they scapegoat US arms dealers for their failure to control their country.
Mexico is nothing more than a failed narco-state, and considering the variety of ethnic groups (ignored by Yanquis who think "beaners is beaners") it is doubtful it should even be a single country. Like Iraq, Mexico is an artifact of colonial policy.
"How about we QUIT MAKING THEM CRIMINALS in the first place, by repealing BULLSHIT LAWS like the ones that send people to prison over growing/smoking/selling a FUCKING PLANT?"
How about we QUIT MAKING VICTIMLESS DRUG "CRIME" PAY in the first place, by repealing BULLSHIT LAWS like the ones that DIRECT POPULAR COMMERCE into the BLACK MARKET??
Prohibition didn't fucking work the first time. It was much worse than a failure, just as the War on Some Drugs is much worse than a failure.
Puritanical moralists and Bible Thumpers ensure that the current punitive drug laws will be kept on the books. They regard it as a moral obligation to implement punitive social control systems without regard to actual outcomes.
Any pleasure not got from grovelling before their imaginary celestial friend is sinful, and must be fought no matter the cost. (Externalizing the "costs" of being "righteous" is easy, ask the Taliban.) Damage mitigation isn't even on the table.
"It's arguable that in a sense, they "left" the United States back then"
Not really.
The US didn't particularly value Jews at the time, which was BEFORE the ___post____-WWII fascination with their extermination. Foreigners killing foreigners wasn't any more important at the time than it is now, which isn't much. There was no "Israel", Palestine was under British control, and the decision by the US to align with Israelis and against Arabs no matter what the cost had not yet been made.
Slashdot Mirror
"whereas an Alert for an incoming cruise missile to the Command and Control Systems might be considered slightly more high priority."
Those shouldn't even be on the same physical network.
"I'm fairly sure ducks have been making those calls for a long time."
Mine have. Ducks are quite vocal, and unlikely to stop even if told their speech is copyrighted.
"What Richard Egan did is very Japanese. He concluded that his life would be a burden on his family, his friends, and himself. So, he chose to die by his own sword. He died with honor."
Very reasonable response.
Contemplate, after you KNOW what it looks like, the slow, horrible deterioration of mind, body, or both that is normal with the infirmities and diseases of age. If you live long enough, you are vastly more likely than not to be crippled and mad (not the happy sort of "mad"). Hmmm, do I want to die in a piss-soaked diaper with my pain barely controlled by medication (because physicians are often overcautious about managing the pain of dying people)? Does dementia look like fun? Modern medical technology can extend life for long after any reason (other then the delectation of imaginary celestial friends) for living is gone.
Society should get comfortable with discussing suicide, even though it means admitting we don't live forever.
"...Because, of course, secession was evil and illegal when the South did it, but good and legal when the West Virginians did it."
Force can write and define any law it likes.
An immersive simulation environment will be quite useful when UAS sensors evolve sufficient to give an immersive operator environment.
One of the objections to UAS is that the "stovepipe" situational awareness is limiting. Increased operator situational awareness can improve safety as well as combat effectiveness. Instead of being a "scope dope", a UAS operator in an immersive environment could employ their system much more like a manned aircraft.
"It's a disgrace for to kernel hackers everywhere to have their knowledge and sweat used to run the machine of war.
War is just another profit-making venture for the rich.
Does that mean unquestionably defensive wars are unworthy of support and the only moral thing to do is surrender?
I don't do it at all and I ensure that those who wish to communicate with me use my preferred methods.
Asynchronous communication (email) is useful because it facilitates responding thoughtfully and at leisure. In an emergency, callers can let my phone ring until I respond.
Much communication is just babbling bitch-chatter that doesn't convey information and isn't necessary on the road. People who need that are not worthy of my time.
"Yes, i'd like to see them punish the dead! That is a marvellous idea!"
It's key to the social control exercised by religion.
Not "marvellous", but an effective deterrent myth.
If it's rough enough for traction, it'll get coated with crud and work less well.
"I'm imagining it, but it's really hard to get a good rhythm out of a dead fish."
How dare you speak of my wife like that!
Corpses do nothing but decay. They ARE bio-waste, and in nature are recycled by other organisms. Decay is life recycling the dead. There is no reason to respect a corpse except primitive custom and death denial.
"If it was that easy, it would have been broken before now. "
What supports that asserted conclusion?
There wasn't much of a steam car enthusiast community after they went out of popular use. Hot rodding the simple petrol engines of the time was easy (carbs, manifolds, cams, compression, OHV conversions) and there were plenty of them. If you blew an engine, more were available cheap or free. Steam cars even at their height of popularity were a niche market.
The Model T Ford, the flathead Ford, the small block Chevrolet, and the Volkswagen flat four were widely raced because they were aeasily vailable, had (and still do, Model T included!) strong general aftermarket support, and had a big enough user base to support a wide variety of companies making speed parts.
The Stanley Steamer record is vastly more impressive. Tires, brakes, and suspension in 1906 were primitive, materials were not nearly as reliable, and design was done on a drawing board.
"That smashes the previous official record of 204 km/hr (127 mph) set in 1906 by Fred Marriott of the US in a modified version of the then-popular steam car known as the Stanley Steamer."
Sorry, but only going thirteen (13) miles an hour faster than a record more than a _century_ old is shit. He might have done better by using a replica Stanley engine made from modern materials (to allow heat increase without a boiler explosion) instead.
"the point was that there are always better ways of accomplishing goals than use of violence,"
Nice asserted conclusion, but there are not always better real-world options. Better theoretical "ways" don't mean shit if they won't work on the ground.
Example:
It is 1945.
Goal = unification of mainland China, expulsion of foreign powers, ending warlordism, and creating a stable Chinese state.
"Those who check to make sure they're not sitting on someone's piss never have to worry about this."
Frosty Piss is an avoidable hazard!
"Anonymity is almost a form of protection, however its *never* perfect protection."
Anonymity is literally "security by obscurity", and we know how well reliance on that works out.
Apparently someone else doesn't! :)
When men and ships were completely expendable, they were used for terrestrial exploration. Now humans are so valued that casualties are not tolerated, and the systems used to send humans into space are forced into glacially slow development cycles (which is why we still use the Shuttle).
Humans are sent into space out of tradition more than any necessity. The only utility in sending humans into space is learning how to send more humans into space, but humans onsite aren't required to operate sensors or machinery. We are getting humans out of dull and dangerous tasks on Earth by using systems like UAVs for combat. The benefits are obvious. If we change our outlook from having humans perform physical tasks to having them make decisions, we can get humans out of areas where their presence imposes a burden. We don't need to take great risks with human life (or the incredibly expensive systems required for human support) in these early phases of space exploration. We'd extend our reach (Voyager, anyone?) by using machines that are products of our minds rather then sending inefficient humans in person.
We have millions of years to figure out how to send men cheaply and safely into space, there is zero urgency to send them into space, and we can explore MORE space without sending them in person.
"With NASA, its science oriented. With business, its profit oriented."
If that were the case, NASA would have dropped the manned mission tourism/entertainment effort and made vastly more efficient use of their funds by fielding many unmanned systems. The resources used to transport and protect delicate human space tourists do nothing to expand our knowledge of space. We need robots on the earth, under its oceans, and in space because most human activity is "dull, dirty, and dangerous". Accelerated development of robots will help us learn about and exploit space. The glacially slow development cycle required to build manned space systems at our current GENERAL state of technology is a burden we can drop. Let commercial outfits do it for profit if it is so important, and use government resources to send machines instead of men.
"Unfortunately for him, the cartel has tremendous firepower (smuggled from the United States)"
Much of the firepower is outright military equipment bought internationally or "leaked" from US aid to spectacularly corrupt Mexican law enforcement. The Mexican government should turn over ALL serial numbers of confiscated weapons to the US, but instead they scapegoat US arms dealers for their failure to control their country.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-mexico-arms-race15-2009mar15,0,229992.story
Mexico is nothing more than a failed narco-state, and considering the variety of ethnic groups (ignored by Yanquis who think "beaners is beaners") it is doubtful it should even be a single country. Like Iraq, Mexico is an artifact of colonial policy.
"How about we QUIT MAKING THEM CRIMINALS in the first place, by repealing BULLSHIT LAWS like the ones that send people to prison over growing/smoking/selling a FUCKING PLANT?"
How about we QUIT MAKING VICTIMLESS DRUG "CRIME" PAY in the first place, by repealing BULLSHIT LAWS like the ones that DIRECT POPULAR COMMERCE into the BLACK MARKET??
Prohibition didn't fucking work the first time. It was much worse than a failure, just as the War on Some Drugs is much worse than a failure.
Puritanical moralists and Bible Thumpers ensure that the current punitive drug laws will be kept on the books. They regard it as a moral obligation to implement punitive social control systems without regard to actual outcomes.
Any pleasure not got from grovelling before their imaginary celestial friend is sinful, and must be fought no matter the cost. (Externalizing the "costs" of being "righteous" is easy, ask the Taliban.) Damage mitigation isn't even on the table.
"If the at-risk groups are the border towns and poverty-stricken, it makes sense to help them rather than try to cut off the flow of immigrants."
Fuck the immigrants. This is MY country, not theirs. Let them fix their own failed states south of the border.
"People are living squallor and poverty on an unprecedented scale in this country."
Bullshit. We are not near the poverty levels of the Great Depression, and the impact of poverty is greatly mitigated nowadays.
Our bitter refusal to control our borders ensures the human carriers of "Third World" diseases are free to circulate.
"It's arguable that in a sense, they "left" the United States back then"
Not really.
The US didn't particularly value Jews at the time, which was BEFORE the ___post____-WWII fascination with their extermination. Foreigners killing foreigners wasn't any more important at the time than it is now, which isn't much. There was no "Israel", Palestine was under British control, and the decision by the US to align with Israelis and against Arabs no matter what the cost had not yet been made.
"They use an amazing technology called a "ball."
Revise that to "trackball" and you'd be correct.