I wouldn't be invoking "natural" law, since in nature it's more common for the strong to eat, kill, or shunt aside the weak. Humans may want their emotion-based preferences to be "natural" but Nature hasn't shown any interest.
"OK, OK, so the "recycler" will just ship it to China where it will be melted down in the open but that's another rant."
A common way to "recycle" monitors is to whack them with a sledge, grab the copper, and pitch the rest. I wouldn't expect anything out of "recycling" them other than feeling good about the faint possibility the parts were properly processed.
"From what I've read elsewhere the other day it seems though that drones have a 'hidden cost' attached to them, the people that control the drones get to see the result of their actions and they are having serious psychological issues as a result of that."
Do keep in mind that the Air Force culture outside the cockpit is _extremely_ corporate and pussified beyond belief. It's been so pussified for so long that many people don't know any different. (I did 26 years ending 2007, and know whereof I speak.)
No wonder a few sensitive whiners wig out.Solution is to move the whiners and give the job to people with combat perspective, and that means the Army and USMC. If we rotate people into UAV ops with ground controller experience, they will be better at understanding their jobs than if they spent their whole careers in pampered USAF conditions. (Apologies to the non-pampered USAF folks, but you know how the majority live.)
"I was talking with the other day said that if they were forced to do UAV flying, they'd have to find some way out of flying all together. For most of them, they signed up to be fighter pilots, so even flying a bomber would be a let down."
That's why the Army needs to take over the drone program. The AF has shed a stunning number of missions and aircraft (it didn't originally want the A-10) and wants to only do air dominance.
Fine, take away all other missions and give them to the folks who need them most. Have Army and USMC UAV operators do rotations on the ground as forward controllers, and they will surely be motivated to fly UAVs effectively.
The ANG have been getting better kit over the years so they can be more useful in wartime. The idea is that they mirror the Active force instead of working with leftovers.
Smart ANG folks want the newer systems because they will have a long service life and protect their bases from closure, and it makes sense to give them such systems because ANG careers can be much longer than Active careers and airman experience levels quite high. (The Air Guard and Reserve are desirable jobs, which is why there usually aren't many vacancies.)
"wtf are you talking about? korea has more fiber backbone than the US. Its government funded much so like land lines and telephone poles are here. I know a few korean gamers as well after playing gunz online a bit. Like the #1 fps I bet even more hacked/modded than quake."
You don't know the difference between North and South Korea. Are you an American?
"Instead of people sticking around and solving the problem in THEIR community, they run like a cowards."
Nice troll, Anonymous Coward.;)
DO explain why I should stick around to facilitate a harmonious community replacement at my own expense and risk with no prospect of any personal benefit whatever?
When it is sold to someone else, it ain't MY community. Riding it out like the last few old Jews did in Harlem (note to the young, Harlem wasn't always African American) isn't my idea of a smart move. Retiring in the country OTOH is proving to be quite nice.
The choice to stay in a deteriorating neighborhood is not logical, The choice to stay where the new inhabitants view you as prey is not logical. The choice to sell out and re-invest where ones money buys more property in a better area IS logical. If the new inhabitants are so wonderful, than Whitey rocketing out of town should not only make no difference, it should help matters. They can wallow in their wonderfulness without my company and prosper thereby. Let them demonstrate their virtue by example. Failure to do so proves Flight is Right.
"Improve your area, and "they" might improve their area."
I have no reason to rely on "might" when property may be bought and sold easily and I get more of everything else I want out of the deal.
"Improve your attitude towards "them", and they might improve their attitude towards you."
I've seen their attitude towards EACH OTHER and am not impressed. I'm quite socially skillful in person, but personal attitudes don't matter because crime isn't personal. I will never be higher on the totem pole than their own folks.
Since I obviously can't do anything to change the situation, it isn't my problem unless I stay on the sinking ship, and I'm free to locate where I wish, I leave the responsibility for each community to its members.
I just switch communities. There are plenty of folks like myself who are happy to have me and I them. We have no right to exclude others, but we have every right to move where we are most accepted and safe.
"I don't "hate black people". I'm just sick of watching this, and hearing about non-existent lynchings."
That's a permanent condition, so what I do is live in the country where among other advantages, there is ample personal space. We cannot change the African-American crime situation because we are White, but we can avoid them. White Flight works for me. I don't hate them either, but there is zero reason for me to locate in their neighborhoods. If I were rich and urban I'd live in an economically segregated community. Since I'm middle class and prefer rural spaces I choose them.
This will surely be unpopular on Slashdot, but I argue it is perfectly fine and good to locate away from humans one has no cause to embrace. Thanks to country custom (armed resistance to trespass) and the Second Amendment, in my area African-American crime is largely confined to areas where they live. Whites move away as problems increase, but there is plenty of land.
Nothing can or will be done about minority crime in the US, so the only options for the average person are mobility and self-defense, both of which are equally useful for dealing with non-minority crime.
"Effectively, so long as Russia states it is in the spirit of international law to assimilate South Ossetia and defend them against the Georgians with maximum impunity, there is no moral right, no moral argument, no moral defense that any Westerner can make."
The idea that law should regulate war when force trumps law is merely a way for victors to impose "justice" on the losers. Nice for propaganda but we shouldn't really respect that idea.
If you don't want too many inconvenient war outcomes, be ready to cut deals with those you cannot beat on the battlefield.
Why should all of us be outraged at goings on in the Russian Empire?
Such outrage would be predicated on our individual relationship to the region, if we had a dog in that fight, which side that dog was on, and how much we cared about that dog vs. others.
I, for example, consider that the Ossetia mess will do useful damage to Russia and might wake up a few Europeans to the reality that the Russian is still their historic enemy.
I'm not "outraged" because I figure the Georgian leadership rolled the dice and should have expected a possible negative outcome. (Next time, collapse the Roki tunnel!) I am interested.
By "legal", I of course mean under the treaties to which ones country is signatory. The rest don't matter as much, even if they are perceived to be "important" by others who want to promote them. Laws are technical obligations, and sorting out legality is why militaries employ Judge Advocates and the like. Treaties may be crafted to favor one side or the other, and that should be taken into account before agreeing to them. (Example: The US needs landmines to channelize any attack down the Korean peninsula. WE aren't scattering them all over the Third World, and mines such as anti-tank and command-detonated (Claymore, etc) are of great use in war. We don't need to limit ourselves in order to provide an "example" to sadistic nutters who strew mines everywhere and could care less what the US thinks of them! Any such niceties wouldn't have affected the folks using AP mines in FRY (by the way, I'm completely pro-Serb and consider the US intervention a disaster).
Fighting in a "legal" manner does not mean that death, pain and suffering will not be inflicted on noncombatants.
Destroying enemy infrastructure also endangers nearby civilians, but many infrastructure strikes are quite legal. Blowing a bridge with artillery or standoff weapons may require shooting at coordinates, and innocents may be or move into the area. There are endless examples.
That is part of war that can be minimized (note the difference between bombing techniques between WWII and present day) but not eliminated. It goes with the process of war, but because war is a necessary human activity (it trumps all other dispute resolution methods) it makes sense to minimize un-necessary suffering. Todays opponent may be tomorrows ally.
"conscience (as the supposed basis of all laws) is still the best guide to what course of action to take."
Conscience is so adjustable as to mean very little. The "bad guys" are acting on theirs, too! That's why we try to have legal standards as opposed to what anyone feels like on a given day.
"Also AFAIR the laws of war were: 1. Soldier killing civillian ist murder. 2. Civillian killing soldier is murder. 3. Soldier killing soldier is legal if war has been declared between the two countries that the soldiers belong to."
Legal reality is far more complex than that (and so is war).
Obedience to the appropriate laws of war and (for those subject to it) the Uniform Code of Military Justice is required.
Remorse is not. It is possible to be a professional and fight wars in a legal manner. That is the way to avoid guilt and therefore any need for "remorse". Don't do that which is remorse-worthy in the first place!
Where in the quote below is there any implication that violating the law is acceptable? "Training" BTW includes LOAC (Law of Armed Conflict) training which includes the duty not to commit war crimes or carry out unlawful orders. I'd had it myself many times.
"This does not mean they should be not be respectful of the lives they take, but they should not feel guilty. It was their assigned duty, and if they acted according to objectives and training, they should not feel personally responsible."
"But the decision to kill should be tough and difficult and fraught with guilt."
No, it should be a matter of disciplined action, and "guilt" isn't required to ensure discipline. The cultivation of "guilt" is guaranteed to ensure PTSD, and has nothing to do with precision performance.
Better yet, don't post pictures at all. That's why we have LINKS.
If we wanted pictures cluttering up Slashdot we'd ask for them, and the pic in question isn't informative or interesting. If we wanted some housecow and her brat we'd go to an appropriate site.
This is a techy audience, not a herd of hambeasts looking for human interest fappery in a supermarket tabloid.
My apologies to any hambeasts reading this, but I AM an insensitive clod.
Slashdot Mirror
"There is a thing called natural law"
I wouldn't be invoking "natural" law, since in nature it's more common for the strong to eat, kill, or shunt aside the weak. Humans may want their emotion-based preferences to be "natural" but Nature hasn't shown any interest.
"OK, OK, so the "recycler" will just ship it to China where it will be melted down in the open but that's another rant."
A common way to "recycle" monitors is to whack them with a sledge, grab the copper, and pitch the rest. I wouldn't expect anything out of "recycling" them other than feeling good about the faint possibility the parts were properly processed.
"From what I've read elsewhere the other day it seems though that drones have a 'hidden cost' attached to them, the people that control the drones get to see the result of their actions and they are having serious psychological issues as a result of that."
Do keep in mind that the Air Force culture outside the cockpit is _extremely_ corporate and pussified beyond belief. It's been so pussified for so long that many people don't know any different. (I did 26 years ending 2007, and know whereof I speak.)
No wonder a few sensitive whiners wig out.Solution is to move the whiners and give the job to people with combat perspective, and that means the Army and USMC. If we rotate people into UAV ops with ground controller experience, they will be better at understanding their jobs than if they spent their whole careers in pampered USAF conditions. (Apologies to the non-pampered USAF folks, but you know how the majority live.)
"I was talking with the other day said that if they were forced to do UAV flying, they'd have to find some way out of flying all together. For most of them, they signed up to be fighter pilots, so even flying a bomber would be a let down."
That's why the Army needs to take over the drone program. The AF has shed a stunning number of missions and aircraft (it didn't originally want the A-10) and wants to only do air dominance.
Fine, take away all other missions and give them to the folks who need them most. Have Army and USMC UAV operators do rotations on the ground as forward controllers, and they will surely be motivated to fly UAVs effectively.
The ANG have been getting better kit over the years so they can be more useful in wartime. The idea is that they mirror the Active force instead of working with leftovers.
Smart ANG folks want the newer systems because they will have a long service life and protect their bases from closure, and it makes sense to give them such systems because ANG careers can be much longer than Active careers and airman experience levels quite high. (The Air Guard and Reserve are desirable jobs, which is why there usually aren't many vacancies.)
"So listen to some New Age Mediation music and watch Fried Green Tomatoes."
A bullet would be quicker and far less painful.
The implication that whites should "stay" is racist and patronizing, because it presumes minorities cannot build good neighborhoods on their own.
"wtf are you talking about? korea has more fiber backbone than the US. Its government funded much so like land lines and telephone poles are here. I know a few korean gamers as well after playing gunz online a bit. Like the #1 fps I bet even more hacked/modded than quake."
You don't know the difference between North and South Korea.
Are you an American?
"Instead of people sticking around and solving the problem in THEIR community, they run like a cowards."
Nice troll, Anonymous Coward. ;)
DO explain why I should stick around to facilitate a harmonious community replacement at my own expense and risk with no prospect of any personal benefit whatever?
When it is sold to someone else, it ain't MY community. Riding it out like the last few old Jews did in Harlem (note to the young, Harlem wasn't always African American) isn't my idea of a smart move. Retiring in the country OTOH is proving to be quite nice.
The choice to stay in a deteriorating neighborhood is not logical,
The choice to stay where the new inhabitants view you as prey is not logical. The choice to sell out and re-invest where ones money buys more property in a better area IS logical. If the new inhabitants are so wonderful, than Whitey rocketing out of town should not only make no difference, it should help matters.
They can wallow in their wonderfulness without my company and prosper thereby. Let them demonstrate their virtue by example. Failure to do so proves Flight is Right.
"Improve your area, and "they" might improve their area."
I have no reason to rely on "might" when property may be bought and sold easily and I get more of everything else I want out of the deal.
"Improve your attitude towards "them", and they might improve their attitude towards you."
I've seen their attitude towards EACH OTHER and am not impressed.
I'm quite socially skillful in person, but personal attitudes don't matter because crime isn't personal.
I will never be higher on the totem pole than their own folks.
Since I obviously can't do anything to change the situation, it isn't my problem unless I stay on the sinking ship, and I'm free to locate where I wish, I leave the responsibility for each community to its members.
I just switch communities. There are plenty of folks like myself who are happy to have me and I them. We have no right to exclude others, but we have every right to move where we are most accepted and safe.
"That's the most pathetic complaint I've heard in a very long time. Go to North Korea, assholes, you can get your police state fix there."
That would be no fun without good connectivity. What good is a police state if I can't rant about it online?
It would be useful for countries with high demands and large watersheds to intercept water, and the motivation need not be malevolent.
In the choice between ones own people and others, it is logical to care for own-side first.
"I don't "hate black people". I'm just sick of watching this, and hearing about non-existent lynchings."
That's a permanent condition, so what I do is live in the country where among other advantages, there is ample personal space. We cannot change the African-American crime situation because we are White, but we can avoid them. White Flight works for me. I don't hate them either, but there is zero reason for me to locate in their neighborhoods. If I were rich and urban I'd live in an economically segregated community. Since I'm middle class and prefer rural spaces I choose them.
This will surely be unpopular on Slashdot, but I argue it is perfectly fine and good to locate away from humans one has no cause to embrace. Thanks to country custom (armed resistance to trespass) and the Second Amendment, in my area African-American crime is largely confined to areas where they live. Whites move away as problems increase, but there is plenty of land.
Nothing can or will be done about minority crime in the US, so the only options for the average person are mobility and self-defense, both of which are equally useful for dealing with non-minority crime.
"Effectively, so long as Russia states it is in the spirit of international law to assimilate South Ossetia and defend them against the Georgians with maximum impunity, there is no moral right, no moral argument, no moral defense that any Westerner can make."
The idea that law should regulate war when force trumps law is merely a way for victors to impose "justice" on the losers. Nice for propaganda but we shouldn't really respect that idea.
If you don't want too many inconvenient war outcomes, be ready to cut deals with those you cannot beat on the battlefield.
"How can I regain some control and back this all up?"
I suggest searching [Meth] for answers!
Why should all of us be outraged at goings on in the Russian Empire?
Such outrage would be predicated on our individual relationship to the region, if we had a dog in that fight, which side that dog was on, and how much we cared about that dog vs. others.
I, for example, consider that the Ossetia mess will do useful damage to Russia and might wake up a few Europeans to the reality that the Russian is still their historic enemy.
I'm not "outraged" because I figure the Georgian leadership rolled the dice and should have expected a possible negative outcome. (Next time, collapse the Roki tunnel!) I am interested.
By "legal", I of course mean under the treaties to which ones country is signatory. The rest don't matter as much, even if they are perceived to be "important" by others who want to promote them. Laws are technical obligations, and sorting out legality is why militaries employ Judge Advocates and the like. Treaties may be crafted to favor one side or the other, and that should be taken into account before agreeing to them.
(Example: The US needs landmines to channelize any attack down the Korean peninsula. WE aren't scattering them all over the Third World, and mines such as anti-tank and command-detonated (Claymore, etc) are of great use in war. We don't need to limit ourselves in order to provide an "example" to sadistic nutters who strew mines everywhere and could care less what the US thinks of them! Any such niceties wouldn't have affected the folks using AP mines in FRY (by the way, I'm completely pro-Serb and consider the US intervention a disaster).
Fighting in a "legal" manner does not mean that death, pain and suffering will not be inflicted on noncombatants.
Destroying enemy infrastructure also endangers nearby civilians, but many infrastructure strikes are quite legal. Blowing a bridge with artillery or standoff weapons may require shooting at coordinates, and innocents may be or move into the area. There are endless examples.
That is part of war that can be minimized (note the difference between bombing techniques between WWII and present day) but not eliminated. It goes with the process of war, but because war is a necessary human activity (it trumps all other dispute resolution methods) it makes sense to minimize un-necessary suffering. Todays opponent may be tomorrows ally.
"conscience (as the supposed basis of all laws) is still the best guide to what course of action to take."
Conscience is so adjustable as to mean very little. The "bad guys" are acting on theirs, too!
That's why we try to have legal standards as opposed to what anyone feels like on a given day.
"Also AFAIR the laws of war were: 1. Soldier killing civillian ist murder. 2. Civillian killing soldier is murder. 3. Soldier killing soldier is legal if war has been declared between the two countries that the soldiers belong to."
Legal reality is far more complex than that (and so is war).
Simplified LOAC:
http://usmilitary.about.com/cs/wars/a/loac.htm
Obedience to the appropriate laws of war and (for those subject to it) the Uniform Code of Military Justice is required.
Remorse is not. It is possible to be a professional and fight wars in a legal manner. That is the way to avoid guilt and therefore any need for "remorse". Don't do that which is remorse-worthy in the first place!
Where in the quote below is there any implication that violating the law is acceptable? "Training" BTW includes LOAC (Law of Armed Conflict) training which includes the duty not to commit war crimes or carry out unlawful orders. I'd had it myself many times.
"This does not mean they should be not be respectful of the lives they take, but they should not feel guilty. It was their assigned duty, and if they acted according to objectives and training, they should not feel personally responsible."
Fuck the grits (well, after they cool down), but whatever happened to Craig McPherson?
If one "pilot" is pulling that sort of mission time, then they need a two-person crew. Overlapping shifts would ensure situational familiarity.
"But the decision to kill should be tough and difficult and fraught with guilt."
No, it should be a matter of disciplined action, and "guilt" isn't required to ensure discipline. The cultivation of "guilt" is guaranteed to ensure PTSD, and has nothing to do with precision performance.
"I bet your family would rather you be helped than executed."
Family ties are stronger than logic. Jeff Dahmer's father, for example, was quite supportive.
"Lesson. Whenever taking your machine into those places, write down the serial numbers. "
Take and print digital photos of the whole unit including the service tag. :)
"Anyway, I'm getting ready for the Pimplympics."
Popping zits for distance?
Rant mode on:
Better yet, don't post pictures at all. That's why we have LINKS.
If we wanted pictures cluttering up Slashdot we'd ask for them, and the pic in question isn't informative or interesting. If we wanted some housecow and her brat we'd go to an appropriate site.
This is a techy audience, not a herd of hambeasts looking for human interest fappery in a supermarket tabloid.
My apologies to any hambeasts reading this, but I AM an insensitive clod.