And finally, even if it weren't for the failures and abuses, the whole idea is immoral, because it seeks to punish thoughtcrimes — one is guilty, because one had (or is suspected of having had) certain illegal thoughts.
Can we just stop this nonsense? If Tata — or anyone — want to discriminate, let them...
The company that gets the first Moon base will have a captive workforce and no pesky government interference. It will be a libertarian's paradise.
Except, in the book it was a nightmare — both for Libertarians and others — exactly because the government, in the person of Warden, interfered with everything.
Granted, any monopoly — corporate or governmental — is likely to lead to a nightmare, but a prison-Warden backed by the armed prison-guards is among the worst systems imaginable.
And, no, there was no "captive workforce" in the book either — the residents (though not the prisoners) had a variety of job-opportunities. The book's author was very well-versed in Economics...
Would you like me to disabuse of any other misconceptions about Libertarianism or Heinlein? Just ask...
Even before that happens, Antarctica is much more habitable for humans than Mars.
move all the people from what used to be the worlds' coasts there.
If you want to talk about Global Warming, please, start by citing some successful predictions made by that "settled science" in the 20-30 years, that it has been talked about.
Or India (including "West Indies") in 15-16th centuries. People just went — profit-driven — without the luxury of even the radio communications (however high-latency) with homes and families.
And, on the subject of Antarctica, it just seems crazy to go through the trouble of settling Mars (or even Moon) without settling Antarctica first. It is so much closer, easier, and cheaper — and yet remains empty and unpopulated...
A few other areas (Siberia, Australian Outback, American Midwest, Sahara) also have a population density on the order of a decipinkie per hundred square miles — despite being vastly more habitable than Mars.
Yes. And I also find comfort in the fact, that the homosexual employee was neither bullied by nor discriminated against by his (presumably straight) colleagues. Some silver lining, heh?
A perfect coexistence story, actually, if it weren't for that disgusting anonymous squealer, who reported it. What a hater...
Well that's kind of my point. Do the better weapons mean they're more likely to be used?
Yes, I understood your question — and the answer is "No". The US is not demonstrably more/less eager to enter into a shooting war now, than it was during the 20th century, for example.
There's a lot less public scrutiny, then
The protests against Iraq-war were the largest ever — public "scrutiny" (or hysteria, rather) was immense. We went in anyway.
Killing Saddam seems like a no-brainer, but then you wind up with a power vacuum, and ISIS.
It was not the killing of Saddam, that caused the power vacuum, but the premature withdrawal of US troops — a nice-looking (at the time) gesture, that had little to do with weapons-quality...
When you could be drafted to go kill foreigners and maybe get killed yourself, moral outrage was high. Protests in the streets, the burning of draft cards, fleeing the country.
Except there was none of that during Koran War just a few years earlier, when weapons were worse, not during WW2 even earlier.
No, the protests you are alluding to were due simply to the enemy action and little else.
Your premise is wrong — the US, for better or worse, still fights plenty of wars. They are just far less devastating for both sides — because we have better weapons.
Every time there is a better weapon, someone will seek to ban it. It started at least as long ago as 12th century, when Pope Innocent II banned the use of crossbows (1139).
It is futile... And, with the particular example of precision weapons, it is also foolishly immoral — because precision helps reduce fatalities. If you no longer need to flatten the village to destroy an artillery battery, or a demolish a high-rise to get that sniper, you kill fewer by-standers and cause less mayhem...
I can see, how this may defeat (ab)users trolling for fun and not suspecting automated detection before it hits them (though, with only 80% accuracy, I dread the thought of the methods expanding out of the virtual realm).
But what about people "trolling" professionally — paid and/or otherwise compelled into it by a state or corporate actor pretending there to exist some kind of "grass-roots" movement? How would it deal with thousands of fake accounts mounting a coordinated assault, posting (while "liking" and "following" each other)?
Some times you may be able to catch accounts posting identical things at the same exact time (and ban them all in bulk), but Russians seem to have fixed that bug in their bots now...
This is turning into another battle like that, in which spammers have fought the best Information Technology minds into a standstill. I doubt, progress against forum-spammers will be much better than that — not when mere technology, however clever, is up against interests of a reasonably powerful state.
Why not just buy them in the US or in Canada and smuggle out? It is not like we have dogs trained to find them in luggage...
This is replay of the furor over strong encryption from the 1990ies — yes, it is good to know, Obama Administration recognizes there are some people out there, who may want to harm us, but the ban on sales seems as useless as prohibiting export of encryption. Any organization large enough to challenge the US, is large enough to be able to get it with little effort, ban or not.
Translation: I make bombastic claims out of the wrong orifice and weasel out, when asked for substantiation.
No one claims there aren't a lot of places where you can't just walk across the border
Well, when you ridiculed O'Keefe's claim, that it is possible, and called him a liar (without any evidence) you seemed to imply, that his claim was false, and it is not, in fact, possible to "just walk across the border". I mean, why would you call a claim "a lie", if you agree with it?
But you are already demonstrated to be a weasel, so I don't really care, what you still have to say. Hop along.
It's not Ad hominem to attack the integrity of your source
Except your attack was on me. You claimed, I base my world view on James O'Keefe.
James O'Keefe lies with his video, this has been shown repeatedly.
This was a fantastic opportunity for you to provide a link, where the allegation, that O'Keefe crossed the border dressed like bin Laden, is convincingly disputed.
Daily Caller? James O'Keefe? Not the most reliable sources.
Are you claiming, the cited facts are not, actually, facts?
That O'Keefe has not, in fact, crossed the Southern border dressed like Osama bin Laden? Because if you aren't disputing the facts themselves, your quibbling over sources is a pathetic grasping at straws.
Also: immigration fraud is different from sneaking across the border
Yes, it is different in the sense, that there are other ways to commit immigration fraud. But every single person, who sneaks across the border illegally is a fraudster.
So if soldiers drink water, so a waterworks is a legitimate target?
Very possibly yes, as a matter of fact. As are or may be: bridges, tunnels, railroads, airports, radio- and TV-antennas, and powerlines. The standard is vague: "no object may be attacked if damage to civilians and civilian objects would be excessive when compared to that advantage". So, one soldier taking a drink may not be enough, but a bigger unit taking advantage of availability of fresh water may be sufficient justification for destroying the supply.
If soldiers fall ill is a hospital a legitimate target?
An armed soldier walking into a hospital makes it a legitimate target, yes, absolutely. This is why US military are trained to leave their weapons at the door, when entering a hospital — even in the field. Likewise, simply storing weapons or military materiel in a hospital, school, or house of worship makes the structure a fair game too.
True, the primary purpose of the raid was not to kill civilians, it was to terrorise them.
My recollection is, the raid was meant to show the enemy's government, that humans can reach them — with impunity. Any terror among civilians was a byproduct.
No, it was not written in 1977. It was adopted in 1977.
Distinction without difference. It does not matter, when the idea was thought up — only when it became a law. The law, which you claim violated.
wanton destruction of cities, towns or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity
But there was military necessity! Without this raid, the attacked planet's government would've stayed in the fight on the side of Bugs.
Lastly, you've dodged this question twice already, but I'll try for the third time. Was Captain Steven Hiller — Will Smith's character in "Independence Day" — a war-criminal (thus automatically making the whole movie "bleak") in your opinion? He is shown kicking the captured prisoner and otherwise abusing him...
routine collection and analysis of fingerprints, iris scans, and facial images are helping to ferret out terrorists and immigration fraudsters [emphasis mine] all over the world
You don't say...
Gone are the days of entering a country with a false passport and wearing a wig and a mustache to hide your true identity.
Nonsense! James O'Keefe has crossed the border masquarading as Osama bin Laden. And thousands of serious "undocumented Americans" do that without even any attempts to disguise themselves — and do not encounter much molestation neither during nor after the act.
TFA tells us, the technology to fight it is there. Now we just need the will to use it — instead we currently have a will not to.
Rico participates on an attack on a Skinny city -- destroying civilian infrastructure and killing civilians with no military objective. This is a war crime.
Please, cite the relevant laws and/or conventions, that make this raid a war crime.
And, yes, as I suspected, Will Smith's character's abuse of the captured prisoner is a war crime in your opinion too...
Slashdot Mirror
What rights? There is no right to employment.
It does not work — despite decades of efforts, Blacks and womyn still earn less than others — for whatever reasons.
It causes ugly discrimination of other kinds — with government contracts officially favoring womyn-run businesses and colleges openly penalizing certain races.
It costs businesses billions to avoid such lawsuits, and millions more in damages and fees when the avoidance-efforts fail. And not just businesses — government agencies too pay (with our monies) to avoid being sued. Even worse, the prosecutions by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission are of the "guilty until proven innocent" variety, with most targets agreeing to settle because the Executive can run them out of business before Judiciary gets to even hear the accusations.
And finally, even if it weren't for the failures and abuses, the whole idea is immoral, because it seeks to punish thoughtcrimes — one is guilty, because one had (or is suspected of having had) certain illegal thoughts.
Can we just stop this nonsense? If Tata — or anyone — want to discriminate, let them...
Except, in the book it was a nightmare — both for Libertarians and others — exactly because the government, in the person of Warden, interfered with everything.
Granted, any monopoly — corporate or governmental — is likely to lead to a nightmare, but a prison-Warden backed by the armed prison-guards is among the worst systems imaginable.
And, no, there was no "captive workforce" in the book either — the residents (though not the prisoners) had a variety of job-opportunities. The book's author was very well-versed in Economics...
Would you like me to disabuse of any other misconceptions about Libertarianism or Heinlein? Just ask...
No idea, what you are talking about. Please cite the actual prediction (one link) and its materialization (second link).
And no, a single successful prediction, whatever it is, is not enough to validate a scientific theory — so be sure to have a few... Thank you.
Even before that happens, Antarctica is much more habitable for humans than Mars.
If you want to talk about Global Warming, please, start by citing some successful predictions made by that "settled science" in the 20-30 years, that it has been talked about.
Or India (including "West Indies") in 15-16th centuries. People just went — profit-driven — without the luxury of even the radio communications (however high-latency) with homes and families.
And, on the subject of Antarctica, it just seems crazy to go through the trouble of settling Mars (or even Moon) without settling Antarctica first. It is so much closer, easier, and cheaper — and yet remains empty and unpopulated...
A few other areas (Siberia, Australian Outback, American Midwest, Sahara) also have a population density on the order of a decipinkie per hundred square miles — despite being vastly more habitable than Mars.
Yes. And I also find comfort in the fact, that the homosexual employee was neither bullied by nor discriminated against by his (presumably straight) colleagues. Some silver lining, heh?
A perfect coexistence story, actually, if it weren't for that disgusting anonymous squealer, who reported it. What a hater...
Yes, I understood your question — and the answer is "No". The US is not demonstrably more/less eager to enter into a shooting war now, than it was during the 20th century, for example.
The protests against Iraq-war were the largest ever — public "scrutiny" (or hysteria, rather) was immense. We went in anyway.
It was not the killing of Saddam, that caused the power vacuum, but the premature withdrawal of US troops — a nice-looking (at the time) gesture, that had little to do with weapons-quality...
Citations, coward?
Except there was none of that during Koran War just a few years earlier, when weapons were worse, not during WW2 even earlier.
No, the protests you are alluding to were due simply to the enemy action and little else.
Your premise is wrong — the US, for better or worse, still fights plenty of wars. They are just far less devastating for both sides — because we have better weapons.
Every time there is a better weapon, someone will seek to ban it. It started at least as long ago as 12th century, when Pope Innocent II banned the use of crossbows (1139).
It is futile... And, with the particular example of precision weapons, it is also foolishly immoral — because precision helps reduce fatalities. If you no longer need to flatten the village to destroy an artillery battery, or a demolish a high-rise to get that sniper, you kill fewer by-standers and cause less mayhem...
I can see, how this may defeat (ab)users trolling for fun and not suspecting automated detection before it hits them (though, with only 80% accuracy, I dread the thought of the methods expanding out of the virtual realm).
But what about people "trolling" professionally — paid and/or otherwise compelled into it by a state or corporate actor pretending there to exist some kind of "grass-roots" movement? How would it deal with thousands of fake accounts mounting a coordinated assault, posting (while "liking" and "following" each other)?
Some times you may be able to catch accounts posting identical things at the same exact time (and ban them all in bulk), but Russians seem to have fixed that bug in their bots now...
This is turning into another battle like that, in which spammers have fought the best Information Technology minds into a standstill. I doubt, progress against forum-spammers will be much better than that — not when mere technology, however clever, is up against interests of a reasonably powerful state.
Why not just buy them in the US or in Canada and smuggle out? It is not like we have dogs trained to find them in luggage...
This is replay of the furor over strong encryption from the 1990ies — yes, it is good to know, Obama Administration recognizes there are some people out there, who may want to harm us, but the ban on sales seems as useless as prohibiting export of encryption. Any organization large enough to challenge the US, is large enough to be able to get it with little effort, ban or not.
Yes, it may make sense to audit and review the algorithms used by public agencies. But private ones (including banks) should not be so molested...
Translation: I make bombastic claims out of the wrong orifice and weasel out, when asked for substantiation.
Well, when you ridiculed O'Keefe's claim, that it is possible, and called him a liar (without any evidence) you seemed to imply, that his claim was false, and it is not, in fact, possible to "just walk across the border". I mean, why would you call a claim "a lie", if you agree with it?
But you are already demonstrated to be a weasel, so I don't really care, what you still have to say. Hop along.
Except your attack was on me. You claimed, I base my world view on James O'Keefe.
This was a fantastic opportunity for you to provide a link, where the allegation, that O'Keefe crossed the border dressed like bin Laden, is convincingly disputed.
In other words, citations needed.
This is not about my (deeply flawed) person. Ad hominem much?
What's wrong with that? Police detectives deceive people all the time too, for just one example — it is part of their job.
Same goes for intelligence and counter-intelligence agencies. Deceiving your enemy is a good thing...
Are you claiming, the cited facts are not, actually, facts?
That O'Keefe has not, in fact, crossed the Southern border dressed like Osama bin Laden? Because if you aren't disputing the facts themselves, your quibbling over sources is a pathetic grasping at straws.
Yes, it is different in the sense, that there are other ways to commit immigration fraud. But every single person, who sneaks across the border illegally is a fraudster.
Please, don't hate.
Very possibly yes, as a matter of fact. As are or may be: bridges, tunnels, railroads, airports, radio- and TV-antennas, and powerlines. The standard is vague: "no object may be attacked if damage to civilians and civilian objects would be excessive when compared to that advantage". So, one soldier taking a drink may not be enough, but a bigger unit taking advantage of availability of fresh water may be sufficient justification for destroying the supply.
An armed soldier walking into a hospital makes it a legitimate target, yes, absolutely. This is why US military are trained to leave their weapons at the door, when entering a hospital — even in the field. Likewise, simply storing weapons or military materiel in a hospital, school, or house of worship makes the structure a fair game too.
My recollection is, the raid was meant to show the enemy's government, that humans can reach them — with impunity. Any terror among civilians was a byproduct.
Distinction without difference. It does not matter, when the idea was thought up — only when it became a law. The law, which you claim violated.
But there was military necessity! Without this raid, the attacked planet's government would've stayed in the fight on the side of Bugs.
Lastly, you've dodged this question twice already, but I'll try for the third time. Was Captain Steven Hiller — Will Smith's character in "Independence Day" — a war-criminal (thus automatically making the whole movie "bleak") in your opinion? He is shown kicking the captured prisoner and otherwise abusing him...
You don't say...
Nonsense! James O'Keefe has crossed the border masquarading as Osama bin Laden. And thousands of serious "undocumented Americans" do that without even any attempts to disguise themselves — and do not encounter much molestation neither during nor after the act.
TFA tells us, the technology to fight it is there. Now we just need the will to use it — instead we currently have a will not to.
That — whether NSA's eavesdropping makes USA a "police state" or not — is the only thing discussed in this little thread of ours.
Yes, I agree. But that's a different topic.
Move away, NSA and other Big Brothers — real and wannabes. The Little Brother can watch too now.
No need for time-travel. "Happy goldfish bowl to you, to me, to everyone"
Please, cite the relevant laws and/or conventions, that make this raid a war crime.
And, yes, as I suspected, Will Smith's character's abuse of the captured prisoner is a war crime in your opinion too...
That's exactly the practice, that I referred to as: "forwards to police but only to prosecute actual crimes [emphasis added]".
No, I don't believe, this alone qualifies for "Police State".