And by cheating the system, you mean paying a reasonable licensing fee instead of insane Australian licensing fees. Excuse me for not crying a river of tears that Australians are circumventing ridiculous practices that lead to insane prices.
Not sure about why, but some countries, including Japan and Australia, get extremely price gouged in regards to CDs (although they often have bonus tracks to dissuade imports), and I wouldn't be surprised if there was a similar situation for film and TV. Giving them something close to American prices would cut into their profits.
Loopholes in due process are inevitably abused, typically with techniques similar to foot in the door, and child porn and terrorism are two of the most common ways to get in (and it's nigh impossible to get them out). Due process exists for a very good reason.
Which is a fallacy argument. The only way that argument could be valid is if Mercenary and Soldiers had everything in common, which they don't.
They do, in regards to the specific point I am refuting here, which I have proven false.
You claim that "The **act** of volunteering to risk life and limb for others over an extended period of time is worthy of respect"
I point out that mercenaries on extended missions risk life and limb for others over an extended period of time. I also hold that mercenaries are not worthy of respect, and therefore soldiers are not inherently worthy of respect (which is itself an absolutely ridiculous claim). I make no claim for a relationship between mercenaries and soldiers here outside of that particular point.
The posts here aren't anti-government, they are pro-due process. Because we are pro-due process and the investigator violated due process, we do not allow this evidence to be used against him in court. It doesn't matter if we had a letter confessing that this guy murdered half the west coast, it wouldn't be admissible evidence if acquired illegally and he could walk free. That's the basis of the US legal system, and if you don't like, please leave. We've already got too many idiots that don't respect due process as it is.
Then we'd just throw a few patsies at political enemies who would gladly take on such 'patriotic' duties. No, the solution is for the government to follow the law.
No, he's just familiar with the history of abuse by the government that inspired our rules regarding due process and how they are absolutely necessary to combat tyranny. The government always starts overreach with something easy to be against and slowly turns up the heat. Due process lets murderers run the streets so that mass murderers don't sit on the seat of power.
No, I introduced mercenaries specifically because they meet the same criteria of the sacrifice of putting their lives at risk for extended periods of time. I made no claim that they waived their constitutional rights. Blackwater operatives are mercenaries, and many of them are actually ex-soldiers. Automatically giving respect to someone for becoming a soldier is a dangerous mindset because war should be considered at best a necessary evil, and when it is not necessary, it is just evil.
I will agree that there are countries with leaders with such attitudes, and they are a threat, which is why the solution is not completely nixing the military all at once. That's also why we would undermine their rule by empowering their citizens. There is a strong relationship between freedom of speech and authoritarianism, and introduction of genuine free speech can help turn it around. The general populations of the world, absent the indoctrination that occurs in many countries, has little use for war. It's not economically sound if you actually have to pay for it.
Here is a second bit of wisdom that the WW2 paratrooper taught me as a child: "Don't confuse the people who fight wars with the people who start wars. They are not the same people. Soldiers don't get to choose what wars they will fight, what Presidents they will trust."
I won't disagree, but that makes them parties that make sacrifices, not heroes.
One of the few privileges that a U.S. soldier has is to refuse to commit a horrific crime. Save the hyperbole for political rants.
No, they have the right to refuse to commit a subset of horrific crimes specified in the Geneva convention. War itself is horrific by its very nature and is at least a necessary evil. Even at a basic human level, healthy people have problems dealing with it, which is why strict deference to authority and dehumanization of opposing forces are such common tactics, often accompanied by some lofty claimed goal that likely masks the more banal reasons that a leader wants to throw bodies at an issue instead of negotiate.
Other mercenaries who probably also lack confidence in the mission and/or the leadership and after re-calculating the risk/reward see breaking the contract as the best outcome.
It would depend very much on the particular context. I would consider hitmen employed by the mafia to be mercenaries, but they can't easily turn their back on a contrct.
And none of that is relevant to the argument he was making. Soldiers are just people that end up making certain commitments and sacrifices. Whether making those commitments is a good thing or a bad thing depends on the conditions. I'm sure most people and soldiers don't see soldiers of the country they are fighting as heroes.
It's shorthand for 'the natural tendency of information is to proliferate absent continuous, ongoing efforts to stop the flow of information, with any failure effectively resulting in a state for which any flow downstream will be completely unrestricted.'' Information wants to be free is true enough for general purpose just like saying water wants to flow downhill is true enough.
You are forgetting that in order to justify invading a country, there has to be something worth invading for, and the perceived value of the invasion has to exceed the perceived cost. Factored into that are the effects of politics on the market, which generally doesn't respond positively towards war. So, while the solution is to not drop the military at once, we can make efforts to greatly reduce our military while calling out other powerful nations that don't in kind as imperialistic assholes stuck in a 19th century mindset or earlier in some cases (with providing the people in the countries you listed with the technology to communicate securely being a vital part of such a campaign). All we need to secure our safety is enough of a military to make us not worth invading, and with less and less of the world's GDP being resource centric, it's easier than ever to accomplish this.
"for others" in my original statement is a euphemism for one's fellow citizens. So no, the mercenary is not doing the same thing.
And truthfully, neither is the soldier. The military hasn't been acting for benefit the general public in a long time, if ever.
Plus the mercenary can break their contract and leave if they do not like the mission or lose faith in their leadership/mangagement
Ignoring for a second that you are saying soldiers are better because they can't turn back when they realize that they are actually committing horrific crimes, I'm not sure that a mercenary quitting would be a great idea for their well being, since whoever hired you would have access to other mercenaries.
No, by itself, merely volunteering to risk life and limb for others over an extended period of time is not worthy of respect. A mercenary with a contract of similar length could do the same thing, as could someone joining a terrorist organization. That you are making sacrifices does not make you a hero. What makes you a hero is what you make the sacrifices for.
I'm not saying that those in our military don't make sacrifices or that they are themselves always bad actors , I'm saying that making those sacrifices is not an act inherently deserving of praise as we tend to give them.
Except the military hasn't really protected us from enemies in a while. The role has been largely stirring up hornets' nests for short term political or financial gain. Putting your life on the line is not itself worthy of praise.
Why not control it via the nervous system? It's already wired for it. If we aren't there yet, it could adjust via something like oxygen levels in your blood, or whatever means pacemakers use for control.
Why not have the physical interface do the firmware upgrade? I prefer not to do a firmware upgrade on my router without a wired connection, I sure as hell wouldn't want to do that with my heart. In fact, I would prefer to have the firmware stored in two places in case an upgrade went badly.
No, it eliminates gridlock and if there are multiple lanes, allows for a more efficient flow of traffic, and reduces the number of accidents because drivers have more time to react. No, it doesn't magically allow for infinite throughput, but it drastically reduce the amount of real world congestion. Granted, it should ideally be coupled with offsetting working shifts to lower the strain during rush hour to maximize the benefits.
Probably better at noticing them since they don't have blind spots, but they may be significantly less capable at avoiding collisions with them since motorcycles http://tech.slashdot.org/story... a bit different in the ways that they can safely maneuver.
The worst issues of traffic jams outside of accidents can be handled mostly by adopting a proper following distance, so you'd be screwing over a lot of people for fairly minimal gain.
Slashdot Mirror
And by cheating the system, you mean paying a reasonable licensing fee instead of insane Australian licensing fees. Excuse me for not crying a river of tears that Australians are circumventing ridiculous practices that lead to insane prices.
Not sure about why, but some countries, including Japan and Australia, get extremely price gouged in regards to CDs (although they often have bonus tracks to dissuade imports), and I wouldn't be surprised if there was a similar situation for film and TV. Giving them something close to American prices would cut into their profits.
If that's the case, then perhaps you should stop them from breaking that trend and not let crap like this slide.
Loopholes in due process are inevitably abused, typically with techniques similar to foot in the door, and child porn and terrorism are two of the most common ways to get in (and it's nigh impossible to get them out). Due process exists for a very good reason.
They do, in regards to the specific point I am refuting here, which I have proven false.
You claim that "The **act** of volunteering to risk life and limb for others over an extended period of time is worthy of respect" I point out that mercenaries on extended missions risk life and limb for others over an extended period of time. I also hold that mercenaries are not worthy of respect, and therefore soldiers are not inherently worthy of respect (which is itself an absolutely ridiculous claim). I make no claim for a relationship between mercenaries and soldiers here outside of that particular point.
The posts here aren't anti-government, they are pro-due process. Because we are pro-due process and the investigator violated due process, we do not allow this evidence to be used against him in court. It doesn't matter if we had a letter confessing that this guy murdered half the west coast, it wouldn't be admissible evidence if acquired illegally and he could walk free. That's the basis of the US legal system, and if you don't like, please leave. We've already got too many idiots that don't respect due process as it is.
Then we'd just throw a few patsies at political enemies who would gladly take on such 'patriotic' duties. No, the solution is for the government to follow the law.
No, he's just familiar with the history of abuse by the government that inspired our rules regarding due process and how they are absolutely necessary to combat tyranny. The government always starts overreach with something easy to be against and slowly turns up the heat. Due process lets murderers run the streets so that mass murderers don't sit on the seat of power.
No, I introduced mercenaries specifically because they meet the same criteria of the sacrifice of putting their lives at risk for extended periods of time. I made no claim that they waived their constitutional rights. Blackwater operatives are mercenaries, and many of them are actually ex-soldiers. Automatically giving respect to someone for becoming a soldier is a dangerous mindset because war should be considered at best a necessary evil, and when it is not necessary, it is just evil.
I will agree that there are countries with leaders with such attitudes, and they are a threat, which is why the solution is not completely nixing the military all at once. That's also why we would undermine their rule by empowering their citizens. There is a strong relationship between freedom of speech and authoritarianism, and introduction of genuine free speech can help turn it around. The general populations of the world, absent the indoctrination that occurs in many countries, has little use for war. It's not economically sound if you actually have to pay for it.
I won't disagree, but that makes them parties that make sacrifices, not heroes.
No, they have the right to refuse to commit a subset of horrific crimes specified in the Geneva convention. War itself is horrific by its very nature and is at least a necessary evil. Even at a basic human level, healthy people have problems dealing with it, which is why strict deference to authority and dehumanization of opposing forces are such common tactics, often accompanied by some lofty claimed goal that likely masks the more banal reasons that a leader wants to throw bodies at an issue instead of negotiate.
It would depend very much on the particular context. I would consider hitmen employed by the mafia to be mercenaries, but they can't easily turn their back on a contrct.
And none of that is relevant to the argument he was making. Soldiers are just people that end up making certain commitments and sacrifices. Whether making those commitments is a good thing or a bad thing depends on the conditions. I'm sure most people and soldiers don't see soldiers of the country they are fighting as heroes.
It's shorthand for 'the natural tendency of information is to proliferate absent continuous, ongoing efforts to stop the flow of information, with any failure effectively resulting in a state for which any flow downstream will be completely unrestricted.'' Information wants to be free is true enough for general purpose just like saying water wants to flow downhill is true enough.
No, it doesn't, and one case where it doesn't is electrolysis, because distilled water won't conduct electricity.
You are forgetting that in order to justify invading a country, there has to be something worth invading for, and the perceived value of the invasion has to exceed the perceived cost. Factored into that are the effects of politics on the market, which generally doesn't respond positively towards war. So, while the solution is to not drop the military at once, we can make efforts to greatly reduce our military while calling out other powerful nations that don't in kind as imperialistic assholes stuck in a 19th century mindset or earlier in some cases (with providing the people in the countries you listed with the technology to communicate securely being a vital part of such a campaign). All we need to secure our safety is enough of a military to make us not worth invading, and with less and less of the world's GDP being resource centric, it's easier than ever to accomplish this.
And truthfully, neither is the soldier. The military hasn't been acting for benefit the general public in a long time, if ever.
Ignoring for a second that you are saying soldiers are better because they can't turn back when they realize that they are actually committing horrific crimes, I'm not sure that a mercenary quitting would be a great idea for their well being, since whoever hired you would have access to other mercenaries.
No, by itself, merely volunteering to risk life and limb for others over an extended period of time is not worthy of respect. A mercenary with a contract of similar length could do the same thing, as could someone joining a terrorist organization. That you are making sacrifices does not make you a hero. What makes you a hero is what you make the sacrifices for.
I'm not saying that those in our military don't make sacrifices or that they are themselves always bad actors , I'm saying that making those sacrifices is not an act inherently deserving of praise as we tend to give them.
Except the military hasn't really protected us from enemies in a while. The role has been largely stirring up hornets' nests for short term political or financial gain. Putting your life on the line is not itself worthy of praise.
Why not control it via the nervous system? It's already wired for it. If we aren't there yet, it could adjust via something like oxygen levels in your blood, or whatever means pacemakers use for control.
Why not have the physical interface do the firmware upgrade? I prefer not to do a firmware upgrade on my router without a wired connection, I sure as hell wouldn't want to do that with my heart. In fact, I would prefer to have the firmware stored in two places in case an upgrade went badly.
No, it eliminates gridlock and if there are multiple lanes, allows for a more efficient flow of traffic, and reduces the number of accidents because drivers have more time to react. No, it doesn't magically allow for infinite throughput, but it drastically reduce the amount of real world congestion. Granted, it should ideally be coupled with offsetting working shifts to lower the strain during rush hour to maximize the benefits.
If nobody is in the car, how is it a joyride?
Probably better at noticing them since they don't have blind spots, but they may be significantly less capable at avoiding collisions with them since motorcycles http://tech.slashdot.org/story... a bit different in the ways that they can safely maneuver.
The worst issues of traffic jams outside of accidents can be handled mostly by adopting a proper following distance, so you'd be screwing over a lot of people for fairly minimal gain.