increase lethality by enhancing the ability to detect, decide and engage before the enemy
Yeah, yeah... Meanwhile, Ukraine's participants in the ongoing joint military exercises have just managed to capture the American participants' Headquarters and "kill" 32 personnel — "losing" only 2 of their own. Although the unit is, probably, among the best-equipped in Ukrainian army, they have none of the Americans' fancy stuff...
(RT's is the only piece I could find about this, that's in English — the Russians' comments under the RT's article are quite exhilarating.)
Forcing someone you pick your cousin is bad, forcing converting to pay for your safety is good.
Would you kindly do me the favor of not replying while under influence?
I think I understand your meaning, but I'm not sure... My own safety is my own responsibility — the country's continuing existence is what taxes can be ethically spent on assuring.
You claim only the government can do that, and that's the definitive factor.
That and it being essential to the country's continuing existence. This is an important requirement — only the government could get to the Moon in the 1960-ies, but it was not needed for the US to survive — at all — and therefore should not have been done, for example.
I've provided reasons why that doesn't follow which you simply ignored because they're inconvenient
You tried to. Those reasons are bogus and, perhaps more importantly, you do not use them yourself — never have. Your ongoing lamentations over the poor slobs "dying under bridges" appeal to the audience's compassion and charity, even shame and guilt. But you never said, we must all take care of such slobs to improve our military strength. So, trying to change tack now is rather disingenuous of you.
Unless your next post addresses your earlier-mentioned inconsistency, I'm unlikely to reply.
If your daughter comes home and says a 17 year-old boy
I don't know, what you are talking about — but I do know, it is neither about Codi Wilson, nor Julian Assange.
I take your attempt to change topic as an admission of losing the previous one. No, I'm not taking the bait — none of this has anything to do with Tesla... Remember to logout.
you would quite rightly pick up the baseball bat you keep by the door and go have a talk with him
So, not only are you willing to sheepishly believe anything a government would say about others, you also admit to being a thug. Though I am surprised of you admitting it, your being one has been obvious for a while.
My "claims" explain my worldview — and its self-consistency.
Your worldview remains inconsistent: forcing someone to pick your cotton is bad, forcing someone to pay for your healthcare is good. Get back to me, when you resolve this with yourself.
You are correct. Cody Wilson is a pedophile [...] and Julian Assange is a rapist
Wow, not even the "allegedly" fig leaf, much less the quaint concept of "innocent until proven guilty in a court of law". If the government accuses someone of rape, they must be rapist...
Whatever they are, I'm the opposite
Yes, you are — and always have been — an Authoritarian. Just as the Nazis you hate with such passion — must be an Uncanny Valley thing for you and yours...
In addition to the actual accusations being far from from what's normally associated with the terms used ("assault", "rape"), both men have another thing in common: their infamous crimes have surfaced shortly after they greatly inconvenienced the US government.
Had you really been a Liberal, you wouldn't have parroted these accusations... But you aren't... Maybe, it is the tenure track — rather than a gun — that "makes jack-offs into bigger jack-offs", uhm?
Stating an arbitrary thing more definitively does not make it less arbitrary.
I didn't just state it "more definitively" — I provided (repeated) the clear and easily applied test. It is not arbitrary at all.
But if the government can ensure there are enough by levying taxes
That's a giant "if", is not it? Not so clear cut at all — and, indeed, more than likely "No", than "Yes". Government can levy taxes to get a capable military. It can not levy them to make the country "nicer" — because that would be arbitrary (and also ineffective, but that's another thing).
To reiterate:
Taxation is inherently oppressive, but in some cases necessary.
Because it is this necessity that makes taxes ethically acceptable despite being oppressive, tax-collected monies can only be spent on things essential to the polity's very survival.
Questions of ethics settled, we have this document called Constitution. And, although your kind have "discovered" things in it, that the original authors would've been shocked to hear about, one thing we know is not there is charity:
"I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents."
— James Madison
If you really feel for someone unfortunate, help him — either directly or via an established charity of your choice. But you do not have — must not have — means to force others into the same compassion.
No, it is not. It is a very clear case. Taxes can be — ethically — spent on things crucial to the country's existence.
So why draw a line between borde protection and healthcare?
Because a) individual's healthcare is not essential to the polity's existence, b) he can take care of himself. Whereas maintaining a capable military is of grave importance to the polity's survival and can only be done by the government.
Imagine a town faced by a barbarian horde. However undesirable, it is acceptable — ethical — to confiscate the materiel and the funds necessary to arm and equip the defenders, to feed them while they train, and to build and maintain fortifications. Ethical, because, if these measures, however oppressive, aren't taken, the town will be sacked, its men killed, women and children — raped and/or sold into slavery.
You said taxes were "oppressive". Now you say you *rely* on them.
They are oppressive and I rely on them — there is no inconsistency here. They are unavoidable evil, and that is why it is wrong to use them for anything, that's not essential to the very existence of the country.
And you're happy to coerce people into parting with money (i.e. taxes) to fund things I think are important (as are you).
I'm not happy to do it, that's one. I accept the necessity — with great reluctance — to fund the things, only government can do: a) protection from foreign enemies; b) protection from domestic criminals.
You on the other hand, really are happy — jeering even — to tax some in order to "help" others (and yourself).
You'd be aghast over someone forced to work another's fields, but are perfectly content to see people forced to pay for others' healthcare. The inconsistency is all yours. (Or, maybe, you are consistent, but simply don't have any fields of your own — but I'll give the benefit of the doubt.)
The only thing we disagree on is what, precisely is important.
We both agree, the a) and the b) are important. You just want this other vast list — that can, and therefore should, be done by non-government organizations — to be tax-funded too, and I don't. Because I view coercion as evil (if unavoidable at times), and you are inconsistent.
Yet almost every country that has high taxes is democratic and has enormous personal freedom
"Enormous", huh? How do you measure it? I'll await your evidence to support your claim, that high taxes advance personal freedom, while low taxes cause dictatorships..
Sweden is by all accounts a really, really, awesome place to live.
Well, if you really think so, why are you stil here? If demanding I move to Congo was fair, could you explain, why you haven't moved to Sweden yet?..
antisocial behavior is actively harming other people
Which the "tech-bros" aren't doing, so this is not what Kixwooder could've meant. Indeed, as I already pointed out, he didn't mention behavior at all... He wrote of being anti-social — and how that makes one an "asshole". A false statement...
Antisocial behavior is just a fancy name for being an asshole.
So, your contention is, "antisocial" is "asshole" by definition? Could you cite any such definition? All I can find is this — part 2, where "asocial" and "antisocial" are synonyms and the examples are criminal acts. Though I agree, that crime does make the perpetrator an asshole, the much-maligned "tech bros" aren't accused of anything criminal...
More importantly, the OP did not blame the "bros" for doing anything antisocial. Simply being a(nti)social is enough — in his opinion — to make one an "asshole". And that's a false statement, just as I said...
I'm a BSD bigot, the Linux camp's little squabbles do not affect me — though I do find them amusing at times.
But this is not (only) about Linus Torvalds himself — the free software's supposed "bro culture" is targeted. (The dateless nerds turning to computers while the jocks were out there getting busy, are shamed for "rejecting" women. Ha-ha...)
Having cleaned up Bill Gates' own image — declaring him a legend the campaign(s) have switched onto offensive. Not only is Microsoft's founder the nicest man you can meet, you see, his competitors are sexist bigots (and anti-social assholes) too!
So these countries are realizing the competition and have launched the PR campaign to shame the West into slowing down the AI adoption. It is "unethical", we are told, to use AI militarily. It is "unfair" to use it elsewhere.
The motivation for groups and countries unable to do something advantageous to talk those who can out of it is understandable. But why would Slashdot be part of that PR campaign? I'd hope, the company at least profits from this, rather than doing their "useful idiots" part for free...
Antisocial behaviour is considerably worse than just being unsociable.
Maybe — would depend on the actual behavior — but the OP used the words "being antisocial" — nothing about "antisocial behavior". Simply being anti-social, in his opinion, makes one an asshole, not doing anything...
Then why haven't you moved to a haven of non oppressiveness like the libertarian paradise of the Congo, then?
That's interesting... Usually, your kinds asks that question about Somalia... The same answer applies, though, I will not retype it here.
you rely on all those things that "oppressive" taxes
I rely on taxes paying for a) border protection; b) domestic law-enforcement. Not "charity" — whereby the omniscient and benevolent government bureaucrats confiscate money from Paul to pay Peter's healthcare (and food, and shelter, and education).
I lookforawrd to hear how they're doing lawlessness "wrong" and if only they did lawlessless right
I never said anything about "lawlessness" — your putting words into my fingertips is a sign of a desperation — your world-view is self-inconsistent and thus wrong. You concede (implicitly) that coercion is wrong, but still celebrate tax-funded handouts even after being shown — for the umpteenth time — that it is the same thing.
From the villain saddling the world with Windoz — and actively sabotaging compatibility with other people's software (DR-DOS, Samba), perception of Bill Gates has been gradually rising over the past 20 years — even on Slashdot, where the supposed "nerds" really ought to know better.
And now a very personal attack on Linux and Linus (if you can even separate the two) — who, along with the BSDs and GNU have been providing the computing world with the alternatives.
If New Yorker is not partaking of the Gates' PR campaign, they are leaving money on the table...
Being anti-social and lacking empathy [...] makes you an asshole
No, that's a totally false statement. Neither of the traits — neither individually nor together — are a prerequisites to being an asshole, nor are sufficient to be one.
There are empathic assholes — using their perception of your emotions to their own ends. There are also nice introverts — you just have to communicate with them explicitly, rather than expect them to understand you via unspoken clues.
I work in medicine
... and formal logic was an optional course in your premed program, so you never took it, because the TA was a nerd... Maybe, you shouldn't be passing judgements on these (nonexistent) "tech-bros"? Especially, if your primary source of information about them is the New Yorker?
That makes us less free. More so than in some other places, but less than we should be.
Nope, just taxes not charity.
Taxes are — by their very nature — oppressive. Money (or whatever) confiscated against the owners' will under the threat of violence — explicit or implicit. If I don't want to do something — anything, from working your cotton fields to paying for your healthcare — forcing me to do it anyway violates my freedom.
Funny thing is actualy freedom, that is not being beholden to others
That surely must include not being "beholden" to the taxman, mustn't it?
Yep and you're free to die under a rbridge, bankrupt from a treatable health condition.
Totally — you got it. Just as the others can not force you to a) wear helmet; b) not smoke; c) not copulate with strangers; d) maintain health insurance; etcætera etcætera, you can not compel others to treat you in sickness, feed you in hunger, nor even entertain you in boredom.
You could ask for the other's charity but you must not be allowed to force anyone.
Did you know that using your definition of "fascism", the Trump presidency is also fascist?
No, it is not. But, even if it were, Mr. Brin and the rest of Silicon Valley's "elite" are still self-inconsistent hypocrites, because Chinese regime is undoubtedly and indisputably Fascist. It the one thing we seem to agree on now.
Citing the "Ron Paul Institute" is good for your credibility.
Ron Paul is a prominent Libertarian and a US Senator. The cited article explains in detail, why the US was sliding towards Fascism — until Trump.
It doesn't show "pessimism over the government's power"
But he is highly pessimistic of government's power — you are conflating his opinions on the assailability of the President with what he thinks the government can tell citizens to (not) do.
it shows absolute unwavering belief in a quasi-dictator
Which may, very well, have been just what some of the Founding Father wanted. Yes, I'm talking about Mr. Hamilton, who not only wanted President with king-like powers, he also wanted him appointed for life.
we had something to discuss
I'm afraid, we hadn't. It was not a discussion — you were lectured: on Google et al. being hypocrite, on why today's China are Fascist, etc.
We're done here.
One would've thought, being an adult and having dabbled in martial arts would teach you to surrender with some grace...
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, yeah... Meanwhile, Ukraine's participants in the ongoing joint military exercises have just managed to capture the American participants' Headquarters and "kill" 32 personnel — "losing" only 2 of their own. Although the unit is, probably, among the best-equipped in Ukrainian army, they have none of the Americans' fancy stuff...
(RT's is the only piece I could find about this, that's in English — the Russians' comments under the RT's article are quite exhilarating.)
Would you kindly do me the favor of not replying while under influence?
I think I understand your meaning, but I'm not sure... My own safety is my own responsibility — the country's continuing existence is what taxes can be ethically spent on assuring.
That and it being essential to the country's continuing existence. This is an important requirement — only the government could get to the Moon in the 1960-ies, but it was not needed for the US to survive — at all — and therefore should not have been done, for example.
You tried to. Those reasons are bogus and, perhaps more importantly, you do not use them yourself — never have. Your ongoing lamentations over the poor slobs "dying under bridges" appeal to the audience's compassion and charity, even shame and guilt. But you never said, we must all take care of such slobs to improve our military strength. So, trying to change tack now is rather disingenuous of you.
Unless your next post addresses your earlier-mentioned inconsistency, I'm unlikely to reply.
I don't know, what you are talking about — but I do know, it is neither about Codi Wilson, nor Julian Assange.
I take your attempt to change topic as an admission of losing the previous one. No, I'm not taking the bait — none of this has anything to do with Tesla... Remember to logout.
So, not only are you willing to sheepishly believe anything a government would say about others, you also admit to being a thug. Though I am surprised of you admitting it, your being one has been obvious for a while.
Professor, you are making even less sense than usual. Slashdot is not a court of law.
The stated principle, however, that everyone is innocent until proven guilty is universal. Or ought to be...
My "claims" explain my worldview — and its self-consistency.
Your worldview remains inconsistent: forcing someone to pick your cotton is bad, forcing someone to pay for your healthcare is good. Get back to me, when you resolve this with yourself.
Wow, not even the "allegedly" fig leaf, much less the quaint concept of "innocent until proven guilty in a court of law". If the government accuses someone of rape, they must be rapist...
Yes, you are — and always have been — an Authoritarian. Just as the Nazis you hate with such passion — must be an Uncanny Valley thing for you and yours...
Cody Wilson — accused of having sex with a young prostitute who registered on SugarDaddySomething.com — is just as much a "pedophile", as Julian Assange — accused of deliberately ripping a condom in an otherwise consensual encounter — is a rapist.
In addition to the actual accusations being far from from what's normally associated with the terms used ("assault", "rape"), both men have another thing in common: their infamous crimes have surfaced shortly after they greatly inconvenienced the US government.
Had you really been a Liberal, you wouldn't have parroted these accusations... But you aren't... Maybe, it is the tenure track — rather than a gun — that "makes jack-offs into bigger jack-offs", uhm?
I didn't just state it "more definitively" — I provided (repeated) the clear and easily applied test. It is not arbitrary at all.
That's a giant "if", is not it? Not so clear cut at all — and, indeed, more than likely "No", than "Yes". Government can levy taxes to get a capable military. It can not levy them to make the country "nicer" — because that would be arbitrary (and also ineffective, but that's another thing).
To reiterate:
Questions of ethics settled, we have this document called Constitution. And, although your kind have "discovered" things in it, that the original authors would've been shocked to hear about, one thing we know is not there is charity:
If you really feel for someone unfortunate, help him — either directly or via an established charity of your choice. But you do not have — must not have — means to force others into the same compassion.
No, it is not. It is a very clear case. Taxes can be — ethically — spent on things crucial to the country's existence .
Because a) individual's healthcare is not essential to the polity's existence, b) he can take care of himself. Whereas maintaining a capable military is of grave importance to the polity's survival and can only be done by the government.
Imagine a town faced by a barbarian horde. However undesirable, it is acceptable — ethical — to confiscate the materiel and the funds necessary to arm and equip the defenders, to feed them while they train, and to build and maintain fortifications. Ethical, because, if these measures, however oppressive, aren't taken, the town will be sacked, its men killed, women and children — raped and/or sold into slavery.
Nothing of the kind justifies forcing people to pay for the others and yet this "benevolence" overwhelmingly trumps the military spending... Because of you and your kind.
They are oppressive and I rely on them — there is no inconsistency here. They are unavoidable evil, and that is why it is wrong to use them for anything, that's not essential to the very existence of the country.
I'm not happy to do it, that's one. I accept the necessity — with great reluctance — to fund the things, only government can do: a) protection from foreign enemies; b) protection from domestic criminals.
You on the other hand, really are happy — jeering even — to tax some in order to "help" others (and yourself).
You'd be aghast over someone forced to work another's fields, but are perfectly content to see people forced to pay for others' healthcare. The inconsistency is all yours. (Or, maybe, you are consistent, but simply don't have any fields of your own — but I'll give the benefit of the doubt.)
We both agree, the a) and the b) are important. You just want this other vast list — that can, and therefore should, be done by non-government organizations — to be tax-funded too, and I don't. Because I view coercion as evil (if unavoidable at times), and you are inconsistent.
"Enormous", huh? How do you measure it? I'll await your evidence to support your claim, that high taxes advance personal freedom, while low taxes cause dictatorships..
Well, if you really think so, why are you stil here? If demanding I move to Congo was fair, could you explain, why you haven't moved to Sweden yet?..
Which the "tech-bros" aren't doing, so this is not what Kixwooder could've meant. Indeed, as I already pointed out, he didn't mention behavior at all... He wrote of being anti-social — and how that makes one an "asshole". A false statement...
So, your contention is, "antisocial" is "asshole" by definition? Could you cite any such definition? All I can find is this — part 2, where "asocial" and "antisocial" are synonyms and the examples are criminal acts. Though I agree, that crime does make the perpetrator an asshole, the much-maligned "tech bros" aren't accused of anything criminal...
More importantly, the OP did not blame the "bros" for doing anything antisocial. Simply being a(nti)social is enough — in his opinion — to make one an "asshole". And that's a false statement, just as I said...
I'm a BSD bigot, the Linux camp's little squabbles do not affect me — though I do find them amusing at times.
But this is not (only) about Linus Torvalds himself — the free software's supposed "bro culture" is targeted. (The dateless nerds turning to computers while the jocks were out there getting busy, are shamed for "rejecting" women. Ha-ha...)
Having cleaned up Bill Gates' own image — declaring him a legend the campaign(s) have switched onto offensive. Not only is Microsoft's founder the nicest man you can meet, you see, his competitors are sexist bigots (and anti-social assholes) too!
So these countries are realizing the competition and have launched the PR campaign to shame the West into slowing down the AI adoption. It is "unethical", we are told, to use AI militarily. It is "unfair" to use it elsewhere.
The motivation for groups and countries unable to do something advantageous to talk those who can out of it is understandable. But why would Slashdot be part of that PR campaign? I'd hope, the company at least profits from this, rather than doing their "useful idiots" part for free...
Maybe — would depend on the actual behavior — but the OP used the words "being antisocial" — nothing about "antisocial behavior". Simply being anti-social, in his opinion, makes one an asshole, not doing anything...
That's interesting... Usually, your kinds asks that question about Somalia... The same answer applies, though, I will not retype it here.
I rely on taxes paying for a) border protection; b) domestic law-enforcement. Not "charity" — whereby the omniscient and benevolent government bureaucrats confiscate money from Paul to pay Peter's healthcare (and food, and shelter, and education).
I never said anything about "lawlessness" — your putting words into my fingertips is a sign of a desperation — your world-view is self-inconsistent and thus wrong. You concede (implicitly) that coercion is wrong, but still celebrate tax-funded handouts even after being shown — for the umpteenth time — that it is the same thing.
Remember to logout.
From the villain saddling the world with Windoz — and actively sabotaging compatibility with other people's software (DR-DOS, Samba), perception of Bill Gates has been gradually rising over the past 20 years — even on Slashdot, where the supposed "nerds" really ought to know better.
And now a very personal attack on Linux and Linus (if you can even separate the two) — who, along with the BSDs and GNU have been providing the computing world with the alternatives.
If New Yorker is not partaking of the Gates' PR campaign, they are leaving money on the table...
No, that's a totally false statement. Neither of the traits — neither individually nor together — are a prerequisites to being an asshole, nor are sufficient to be one.
There are empathic assholes — using their perception of your emotions to their own ends. There are also nice introverts — you just have to communicate with them explicitly, rather than expect them to understand you via unspoken clues.
... and formal logic was an optional course in your premed program, so you never took it, because the TA was a nerd... Maybe, you shouldn't be passing judgements on these (nonexistent) "tech-bros"? Especially, if your primary source of information about them is the New Yorker?
That makes us less free. More so than in some other places, but less than we should be.
Taxes are — by their very nature — oppressive. Money (or whatever) confiscated against the owners' will under the threat of violence — explicit or implicit. If I don't want to do something — anything, from working your cotton fields to paying for your healthcare — forcing me to do it anyway violates my freedom.
That surely must include not being "beholden" to the taxman, mustn't it?
The usual advice is to not let the merchant store your credit card credentials — so they would not be stolen when the company's DB is.
This time, however, the people keeping their cards "on file" with Newegg were safe, whereas those, who entered the credentials anew, weren't...
Totally — you got it. Just as the others can not force you to a) wear helmet; b) not smoke; c) not copulate with strangers; d) maintain health insurance; etcætera etcætera, you can not compel others to treat you in sickness, feed you in hunger, nor even entertain you in boredom.
You could ask for the other's charity but you must not be allowed to force anyone.
Freedom, raw.
In this free country of ours, no law requires people to stay after 3pm. Companies are free to take the good professor's advice — or ignore it.
Ew, such rude crudeness — a sure sign of argument lost.
One way to check, whether you are really "done here" :-)
No, it is not. But, even if it were, Mr. Brin and the rest of Silicon Valley's "elite" are still self-inconsistent hypocrites, because Chinese regime is undoubtedly and indisputably Fascist. It the one thing we seem to agree on now.
Ron Paul is a prominent Libertarian and a US Senator. The cited article explains in detail, why the US was sliding towards Fascism — until Trump.
But he is highly pessimistic of government's power — you are conflating his opinions on the assailability of the President with what he thinks the government can tell citizens to (not) do.
Which may, very well, have been just what some of the Founding Father wanted. Yes, I'm talking about Mr. Hamilton, who not only wanted President with king-like powers, he also wanted him appointed for life.
I'm afraid, we hadn't. It was not a discussion — you were lectured: on Google et al. being hypocrite, on why today's China are Fascist, etc.
One would've thought, being an adult and having dabbled in martial arts would teach you to surrender with some grace...