Fascinating: The government is going to deal with those experiencing fear of loss of privacy & general disgust at the government's actions by granting itself more power, so it can invade the privacy of and engage in various ethnically-questionable / morally-casual actions towards those experiencing fear of loss of privacy & general disgust at the government's actions, so that it can manage their fear & disgust at its actions.
Gentlemen, I believe we have reached 'equilibrium.'
Catastrophic mechanical errors do fall under the jurisdiction of News for Nerds, as a fair number of site visitors have some understanding of mechanics (if not outright degrees in Mechanical Engineering), as do F-18 Hornets (which is more Aeronautical Engineering, but whatever).
And the politics thing has been a part of the site since 2000 or 2001.
Indeed. I thought it rather odd that a Hornet would drop from the sky. It's an older plane, so one would think any teething issues have long since been worked out. Still...both engines suddenly going out? Someone else forget one of those cleaning rags in the fuel line?
Shhhhh. Let them pass this bill -> it'll slowly cripple the technology industry by removing all cyber-threat vectors (programmers), while the number of bugs (for lack of eyes / minds to fix them) will gradually accumulate. After a little while, things the various Congress member take for granted will begin to be affected. Airplanes, with faulty firmware controlling their engines, will suddenly stall and drop from the sky. Trains will collide when switching signals develop minor wiring faults. Cars will have difficulty starting, as the chips that control fuel / air mixing display erratic behaviors. Land-line phone service will be sporatic, at best; television communication will slowly degrade. The Financial District will close.
People are always talking about the need for more community, and more back to nature lifestyles. Well, they'll get it. Nothing like an antibiotic shortage to really show you what nature looks like up close and personal.
Why? Because the power-brokers are aware that the military has some reservations about firing upon an unarmed populace, specifically their own people. The military is required to swear an oath of loyalty to uphold the US Constitution, and the protect the people. They lack, for the vast majority, the psychological profile needed; and they are taught all about the Nuremberg trials, and how "I was only following orders" is not a valid defense; they are required to reject illegal orders, even from the commander in chief.
Instead, LEOs will be used. LEOs have shown that when outfitted with surplus military hardware, and trained with military tactics, they can be every bit as deadly as the military, while having little to no reservations over shooting an unarmed populace, specifically their own people (they do it all the time as it is). It also neatly sidesteps the issue of declaring martial law, which would put everyone on guard against a possible dictatorship. If the US President were to declare martial law today, an invisible clock would start ticking; a clock which various power-brokers would sell their own grandmother to prevent ticking. It's the kind of clock which has the citizenry polishing their pitchforks and acquiring fuel for torches, the kind of clock that has the military trying to decide whether it has a "problem," the kind of clock that gets the crazies thinking of being a 'hero' by sacrificing themselves to take out the "Big Bad." Using LEOs means you can say you're just trying to restore 'order' (plausible deniability), while you maintain control through your 'not-an-army.'
Nonsense. The easiest way to overthrow the current batch of elected officials is to make the people enraged (not anger, which burns bright, then not at all; enraged, the sort of rage that glows like a lump of coal, and possesses a man to keep fighting even during bitter winters in places like Valley Forge). I have a book which purports that it's the printing of propaganda, timing, and anger that destroys entrenched governments.
In short, you personally do not do anything (violence, demonstrations, etc. only undermine your position, and draws the attention of power-brokers / rulers); you let the authorities fuck up, by shooting unarmed citizens or something equally unpalatable, then ensure that everyone knows they fucked up. Several incidents of a similar nature over a few years, supplied with the right condemnation, creates a firestorm that money & military cannot put out. Again, based off of this book's writings, it was the action of a certain founding father who helped turn the colonists against the crown (well, a little more than helped; more along the lines of ensuring that a military conflict would occur, and that the military would be loathed / despised / shunned by even the prostitutes).
And there's the problem: the 'grey' area, the in-between, that both sides will claim jurisdiction over.
"This law not only outlaws certain "trolling"" -> One side will argue that if the behavior isn't contained within, then it isn't trolling. "but also outlines exactly what would be considered acceptable." -> The other side will argue that if the behavior isn't contained within, then it is trolling.
'Tis only buying a little peace / time before both sides are finished rearming.
Legislating morality, with nice vague language; that'll end well.
But on a slightly more serious note, has anyone read the actual bill? I'd do it myself, but I'm currently experiencing some mild Benadryl withdrawal (topical cream, had some chapped lips, couldn't find anything else to put on them last night), and it's making my life slightly more challenging than usual.
Yeah, but look what they have gotten away with thus far. No way they'll ever actually roll back that Commerce Clause interpretation. It's the equivalent of asking them if they want to be political scapegoats for the rest of their lives.
"Engineering standards for safety are a completely different domain from laws, so you're not making sense." -> How so? In either case, if you f*ck up, someone can die. Perhaps the problem you are faced with here: you don't take the codification of your laws seriously enough.
"Also, letting some guilty people go in lieu of innocents suffering is exactly what gp was talking about. The laws will catch people too stupid to bypass the laws. And yet people complain that there are ways around it and therefore it shouldn't even be a law. How can you not see that you are the contrast?" -> That's not how I read it. I read it as 'this is the way things are, learn to live with it.'
"And bailouts... now you're just bringing up random things you don't like and ignoring the context of the conversation." -> Hardly, I am providing a specific example that undermines his (possible) argument. That it's not to your flavoring, or you find it inconvenient, is not my problem.
"This is about one specific law, not laws in general. From the sound of your post, given the references to "framers" and the American Congress and bailouts, you're not even talking about Sweden or China."
Correct. The discussion, as I read it from the GP's comment, switched it to a more global scope, inviting others to consider how their own legal systems would react in such cases. To that degree, I am relying on the fact that/., while enjoying international visitors, is a US-centric site. As such, it is entirely acceptable to say 'Congress' when referring to the 'U.S. Congress,' with the general idea that readers understand that.
"Instead of moderating AC up, I chose instead to reply specifically to you, hoping that next time your comments will be more on topic, less knee jerk, and preferably internally consistent." -> The style of writing is called 'flow of consciousness.' It allows you to address multiple points, as they occur to you, without writing a term paper. Try it sometime, you might find it to your liking.
Slashdot Mirror
Fascinating: The government is going to deal with those experiencing fear of loss of privacy & general disgust at the government's actions by granting itself more power, so it can invade the privacy of and engage in various ethnically-questionable / morally-casual actions towards those experiencing fear of loss of privacy & general disgust at the government's actions, so that it can manage their fear & disgust at its actions.
Gentlemen, I believe we have reached 'equilibrium.'
Agreed. Still, metered internet connections? You trying to bit torrent with a cellphone connection?
Catastrophic mechanical errors do fall under the jurisdiction of News for Nerds, as a fair number of site visitors have some understanding of mechanics (if not outright degrees in Mechanical Engineering), as do F-18 Hornets (which is more Aeronautical Engineering, but whatever).
And the politics thing has been a part of the site since 2000 or 2001.
Indeed. I thought it rather odd that a Hornet would drop from the sky. It's an older plane, so one would think any teething issues have long since been worked out. Still...both engines suddenly going out? Someone else forget one of those cleaning rags in the fuel line?
Agreed. Most other nations are limited by expense from flying as much as American pilots.
Hmm. I was following it through other sources, which lacked details at the time of my post.
Anyone have an idea why this happened? Pilot error? Mechanical failure?
That can be arranged.
Shhhhh. Let them pass this bill -> it'll slowly cripple the technology industry by removing all cyber-threat vectors (programmers), while the number of bugs (for lack of eyes / minds to fix them) will gradually accumulate. After a little while, things the various Congress member take for granted will begin to be affected. Airplanes, with faulty firmware controlling their engines, will suddenly stall and drop from the sky. Trains will collide when switching signals develop minor wiring faults. Cars will have difficulty starting, as the chips that control fuel / air mixing display erratic behaviors. Land-line phone service will be sporatic, at best; television communication will slowly degrade. The Financial District will close.
People are always talking about the need for more community, and more back to nature lifestyles. Well, they'll get it. Nothing like an antibiotic shortage to really show you what nature looks like up close and personal.
I have a solution. Let's (all) stop looking for bugs and security issues in software; the problem will then quietly attend to itself.
Everyone does. Why? Because it's easier than learning that there are more than two ideologies in the room.
Nonsense. Capital L "liberals" = Progressives, small l "liberals" = the people who favor liberty.
Admittedly, it does make starting some sentences more difficult.
Nice.
The money must be that good.
Best guess? It won't be a problem.
Why? Because the power-brokers are aware that the military has some reservations about firing upon an unarmed populace, specifically their own people. The military is required to swear an oath of loyalty to uphold the US Constitution, and the protect the people. They lack, for the vast majority, the psychological profile needed; and they are taught all about the Nuremberg trials, and how "I was only following orders" is not a valid defense; they are required to reject illegal orders, even from the commander in chief.
Instead, LEOs will be used. LEOs have shown that when outfitted with surplus military hardware, and trained with military tactics, they can be every bit as deadly as the military, while having little to no reservations over shooting an unarmed populace, specifically their own people (they do it all the time as it is). It also neatly sidesteps the issue of declaring martial law, which would put everyone on guard against a possible dictatorship. If the US President were to declare martial law today, an invisible clock would start ticking; a clock which various power-brokers would sell their own grandmother to prevent ticking. It's the kind of clock which has the citizenry polishing their pitchforks and acquiring fuel for torches, the kind of clock that has the military trying to decide whether it has a "problem," the kind of clock that gets the crazies thinking of being a 'hero' by sacrificing themselves to take out the "Big Bad." Using LEOs means you can say you're just trying to restore 'order' (plausible deniability), while you maintain control through your 'not-an-army.'
Nonsense. The easiest way to overthrow the current batch of elected officials is to make the people enraged (not anger, which burns bright, then not at all; enraged, the sort of rage that glows like a lump of coal, and possesses a man to keep fighting even during bitter winters in places like Valley Forge). I have a book which purports that it's the printing of propaganda, timing, and anger that destroys entrenched governments.
In short, you personally do not do anything (violence, demonstrations, etc. only undermine your position, and draws the attention of power-brokers / rulers); you let the authorities fuck up, by shooting unarmed citizens or something equally unpalatable, then ensure that everyone knows they fucked up. Several incidents of a similar nature over a few years, supplied with the right condemnation, creates a firestorm that money & military cannot put out. Again, based off of this book's writings, it was the action of a certain founding father who helped turn the colonists against the crown (well, a little more than helped; more along the lines of ensuring that a military conflict would occur, and that the military would be loathed / despised / shunned by even the prostitutes).
Perhaps not, but apparently fiefdoms can be granted for life, and inherited.
"And that is how we found a shockingly high prevalence for misanthropy among the Psychology students." -> Dr. Bob
And there's the problem: the 'grey' area, the in-between, that both sides will claim jurisdiction over.
"This law not only outlaws certain "trolling"" -> One side will argue that if the behavior isn't contained within, then it isn't trolling.
"but also outlines exactly what would be considered acceptable." -> The other side will argue that if the behavior isn't contained within, then it is trolling.
'Tis only buying a little peace / time before both sides are finished rearming.
Legislating morality, with nice vague language; that'll end well.
But on a slightly more serious note, has anyone read the actual bill? I'd do it myself, but I'm currently experiencing some mild Benadryl withdrawal (topical cream, had some chapped lips, couldn't find anything else to put on them last night), and it's making my life slightly more challenging than usual.
Yeah, but look what they have gotten away with thus far. No way they'll ever actually roll back that Commerce Clause interpretation. It's the equivalent of asking them if they want to be political scapegoats for the rest of their lives.
Hmm. How about an option-> fire 2 Justices, or add 1 of your own.
Should make it entertaining.
Who needs explosives? Just wander onto an airplane with a beaker filled with mercury.
Hmm. Me thinks the TSA is getting desperate to justify their existence.
"Engineering standards for safety are a completely different domain from laws, so you're not making sense." -> How so? In either case, if you f*ck up, someone can die. Perhaps the problem you are faced with here: you don't take the codification of your laws seriously enough.
"Also, letting some guilty people go in lieu of innocents suffering is exactly what gp was talking about. The laws will catch people too stupid to bypass the laws. And yet people complain that there are ways around it and therefore it shouldn't even be a law. How can you not see that you are the contrast?" -> That's not how I read it. I read it as 'this is the way things are, learn to live with it.'
"And bailouts... now you're just bringing up random things you don't like and ignoring the context of the conversation." -> Hardly, I am providing a specific example that undermines his (possible) argument. That it's not to your flavoring, or you find it inconvenient, is not my problem.
"This is about one specific law, not laws in general. From the sound of your post, given the references to "framers" and the American Congress and bailouts, you're not even talking about Sweden or China."
Correct. The discussion, as I read it from the GP's comment, switched it to a more global scope, inviting others to consider how their own legal systems would react in such cases. To that degree, I am relying on the fact that /., while enjoying international visitors, is a US-centric site. As such, it is entirely acceptable to say 'Congress' when referring to the 'U.S. Congress,' with the general idea that readers understand that.
"Instead of moderating AC up, I chose instead to reply specifically to you, hoping that next time your comments will be more on topic, less knee jerk, and preferably internally consistent." -> The style of writing is called 'flow of consciousness.' It allows you to address multiple points, as they occur to you, without writing a term paper. Try it sometime, you might find it to your liking.