Starting from such farcical first assumptions, its hard to believe this stupid idea is going to get funding, much less even conceivably work.
Look: every "sim" rationalizes inputs, creates a facade of activity that looks like real life, so as to produce reasonably realistic outputs. The point of modeling is to EXCLUDE as many variables as you can, to make what you're studying as simple as possible, to try to draw it down to its essentials.
To build a true sim, you have to start at the "lowest protocols" that input your system. Given that they want to sim the entire world, you're talking about starting with an engine that comprehensively models the physics and chemical processes that create the earth. (And that's assuming that you can safely take solar input as a given, and assume that your 'isolated' environment is the Earth, not entirely a safe assumption when you start considering the impact on solar variability to Earth weather, lunar gravity on tides, etc.) As I understand, we *don't* even have a good understanding of those very basic systems such as what actually is at the core of our planet, or the intricacies of plate tectonics, etc. (Note: once you can do this, I'm sure all those scientists already working their whole lives to model the 'simple' basics of planetary physics and volcanoes would love a copy of the sim to that point.) So we'd have to rationalize the up-feed in the sim from that lowest protocol - already, at the very basic levels, we're essentially guessing at inputs, not simming them. Whups.
'Above' geophysical processes, there's the physical processes of water, weather, etc. that produce the topology of the surface of the world (or do you think that geography, climate, weather, etc. don't play a part in individual or collective choices?); only once you have that simmed properly can you then even START to model the biosphere. Once you model the biosphere comprehensively, you can start to model people in it, and then you're faced with the comprehensive issues of psychology, free will, collective behaviors, human perversity. Finally, once you have this robust giant model, then you can finally start simming the meta systems atop human society - economics, social welfare, etc.
This is not Asimov, and this goofball is no Hari Seldon. He's talking about the 'critical importance' of simulating (and getting useful results from) the omega step in this project, when we can't even manage the alpha. That's farce. One might as well start a project analyzing the economics of interstellar trade, because the results are probably going to be useful long before this project produces anything of value. (But I'm pretty certain it'll be spending piles of $$ well before that, right?)
"Regardless of the challenges the project faces, the greater danger is not attempting to use the computer tools we have now - and will have in future - to improve our understanding of global socio-economic trends, says Dr Helbing."...Should read instead as "Regardless of the challenges the project faces, the greater danger is not attempting to use the computer tools we have now - and will have in future - to try to gather some funding for an open ended and unachievable research project," says Dr Helbing, "This nonsense could keep me in BMW's, first-class airline seats, and symposia in cool locations for the rest of my life."
Really, haven't we grown up past this sort of FUD article yet?
The fact that 32% of the internet users are Chinese (and that segment is growing the fastest) doesn't ipso facto mean they're using Chinese on the internet.
Why do editors even post this crap? I'd rather see Roland linking his blog every day again.
Let me first describe myself. I was 10 in 1977 & saw the first Star Wars more than 50 times, back when that stat meant something (ie in theaters, before anyone had a VCR). I first learned to use computers on an ancient MECC terminal, playing Oregon Trail and keeping the 20'+ roll of output paper to re-read all the cool stuff that happened. Would spend days at my friends' houses playing on their Ataris or Apple computers because their parents were cool (mine got me a Colecovision...sigh) I'd easily drop $20 (a *LOT* of cash in 1980) on an afternoon in an arcade, generate absolutely no Vitamin D, and consider it time and money very well-spent. I was the absolute perfect target for Tron in 1982.
I liked the movie, but even as a 15 year old I didn't think it was all THAT. Cool graphics (I liked the Recognizers, Bit, and the tank the best) but the plot even then was pretty stupid. I liked the lightcycles (that part of the video game being the best thing to come out of the film) but even that was only an incremental gameplay improvement on the Snake Byte video game which we were playing IIRC before the movie was released.
I just don't understand the retro-worship this movie has apparently gained in hindsight. It wasn't that big a deal at the time generally, nor even across my narrow communities of gamers, computer user's groups (remember them?), or video game geeks. Yet all I hear today is about how awesome it was. To whom?
...to quote an article on DailyKos regarding what the "Right" thinks, aren't you the teensiest bit concerned that might be a strawman?
One doesn't have to be a glassy-eyed rightwinger to be suspicious of anything George Soros supports (does he support Net Neutrality? I didn't get my latest issue of "Vast Right Wing Conspiracy Weekly" to see what I'm supposed to think) as being somehow deeply partisan.
add 3) now that there's an opportunity cost to selling corn for food, food prices go up. 4) since ethanol isn't a food-grade product, there are far fewer (any?) restrictions on how many chemicals/pesticides can be used to grow corn for fuel, adding incredible amounts of polluted-runoff
I'm from a corn state (MN) and I've thought ethanol was a boondoggle from the beginning - just another method to deliver subsidy dollars from the taxpayer to the agribusiness.
Minecraft is one of those little homebrew projects that has taken on a life of its own. Really - it's simple without being simplistic, and allows people fantastic expression of their creativity.
It's totally worth paying for, and supporting this programmer.
The next obvious step would be a more robust permanent world capability, along with the ability to lock ones' creations from the deliberate vandalism and destruction of others.
...the fact that you have a degree gets you the job interview....how you comport yourself in the interview gets you the position....at that moment, "the school you went to" vanishes as as an important fact in your work life, forever.
Certainly, there will be some occupations and fields for which the name of your school will get you that interview. Going to work for the State Dept with Georgetown on your resume, as opposed to West Podunk, you're far more likely to get past the first "cut" and get an interview.
Further, to have the connections to hear about the new opening, or to get the 'inside recommendation', and ultimately getting promoted once employed, much of that is going to be based on who you know - again, advantage to the expensive schools where you're mingling with the spawn of the hoi oligoi.
THOSE are the advantages of the expensive schools. For anyone who thinks you're actually going to learn more or get a "better" degree at an expensive school? Well, that's just hilarious.
Ironically, in the end the military has become one of the places closest to a pure meritocracy where people of color can succeed with the least color barriers.
If you want windows to see out of, that's going to inherently compromise the security of your home (not to mention Windows(tm) hahah). You can put bars over the windows, but again, then you are reducing the functionality - some very important functionality - in order to be more secure.
To paraphrase the Zombie Survival Guide: there is no "safe", only safer. Everything is a compromise between utility and security.
If you have security concerns, you put doors between each of your rooms and a lock on each door with a different key. It sure makes it harder to move around in the house, how much is that worth riskwise?
The problem is either the shifting meanings based on context(if you're intellectually honest) or the disingenuous definitional bait'n'switch (if you're not so).
What does "liberal" refer to? In the American vernacular, Liberal means something totally different than Europe, and something different today than even 25 years ago, certainly 50.
Classical liberals were historically pro-middleclass, pro-business, while conservatives were pro-monarchy. Today's most ardent self-declared Liberals in Congress would probably assault you if you dared to suggest that they were pro-business.
To Republicans, Democrats seem liberal. To Democrats, Republicans seem conservative. To radical activists, the Democratic party is barely distinguishable from the Republican one. To radical libertarians, the GOP seems practically the same as the Democrats.
Better to not bother overanalyzing the semantics, but take the statement for the principle it represents.
Generally the survey shows that misinformation is happening BROADLY (not quite "Fox News is teh pUr3 Ev1lz!"), and there is a correlation with Fox News - "The effect was also not simply a function of partisan bias, as people who voted Democratic and watched Fox News were also more likely to have such misinformation than those who did not watch it--though by a lesser margin than those who voted Republican."
Of course you do. It's easy to bemoan the consequence of escalation in the theoretical manner you describe, but the fact is that each step involves a lag in which the defense beats the offense, which means that a) your guys aren't getting blown up for a while, and b) you have more opportunities to kill the guys building the bombs.
So the choices are just letting your guys get blown up continuously, or escalating which at least provides interruptions in the stream of deaths, meanwhile letting Darwin act inexorably on the bombmakers as their 'resources' for testing are far less (and far more dangerous personally) than the US's. Finally, it's just possible that you'll either reach a technological point that exceeds their capacity to respond or even raise the stakes high enough that you exceed the enthusiasm of the bomb-setters or -makers.
To suggest that you would even consider not escalating is absurd. Aside from simple human nature (Jim, looks like there's a bomb on the road up ahead? It's ok Jake, we're not going to follow that wire because it might cause the IED makers to develop better detonation methods! Jim, doesn't that mean we're going to get blown up? Yes Jake, it does.), it's illogical.
It sounds more like you're bitching about "short term donations" vs. "long-term ongoing donation strategies". And, if you have a few billion to invest, I'd expect its simply more conservative to invest them in US or European economies where the chance of your investment being pissed away, consumed by civil war, or nationalized out of your pocket is at least reasonably small.
Which is better, giving away fish or teaching people how to do it themselves"?
Given that our 'humanitarian' strategy seems to be to mitigate long-term overpopulation by feeding and medically assisting people - then a long-term investment strategy is the ONLY strategy, as we seem to be doing nothing to reduce our future humanitarian needs.
...Which itself is almost more of a meta comment on society than you intend.
I mean, yes, there are many, many ways one can 'fuck with a church'. Congratulations?
Let's see: a building that houses an organisation that you might indeed disagree with, but whose members find comfort, solace, and peace in their participation. An organization whose impact is overwhelmingly positive, and you want to 'fuck with it'.
You kick down little kids' snowmen too?
Why is the planet so overpopulated with assholes? Is it the narcissism inherent in the atomization of society?
Reading the original email, it says that if you're intending to work for the govt in a position that includes dealing with classified material, then you shouldn't post links or facebook about the cables because the material remains 'classified' (to the US if nobody else) and this may cast doubts on your ability to deal with classified material appropriately.
Of the articles I see on/.'s front page: Games: Tofu Activists Spoof Meat-Based Indie Game - 85 comments Science: Aussie Government Competition To Predict Commute Times - 41 comments Idle: British Aircraft Carrier For Sale On Auction Site - 131 comments Science: Dolly the Sheep Alive Again - 155 comments News: YouTube Launches Ads You Can Skip - 203 comments Science: The Starry Sky Just Got Starrier - 138 comments Science: Using Cinnamon In the Production of Nanoparticles - 111 comments Technology: IBM Discovery May Lead To Exascale Supercomputers - 122 comments Your Rights Online: Wikileaks DDoS Attacker Arrested, Equipment Seized - 363 comments Your Rights Online: FTC Proposes Do Not Track List For the Web - 166 comments Hardware: Attack of the Trojan Printers - 138 comments Your Rights Online: Torrent Users Fight Back - 210 comments News: Sarah Palin 'Target WikiLeaks Like Taliban' - 1298 comments
See if you can see why we keep talking about her. Because the media is a BUSINESS ahead of all other things.
Part of the problem with most 'broad' definitions of torture is that they don't take much extrapolation to see it in real life, and then you start to question the basic functions of everyday life.
The guy next door has Rick Astly blasting "on 11" 24/7, thus providing both sleep deprivation and loud music. Can I really prosecute him for TORTURE?
Medical students are often required to work bizarre-long hours to force them to get used to operating without lack of sleep or in conditions where their rest is impaired (I guess) - are their teachers guilty of Geneva-convention torture?
It seems to me obvious that electrodes to the testicles IS indeed torture. Having wooden splinters shoved up your fingernails = torture. To some other people waterboarding is no doubt equally "obviously" torture, though it isn't to me - making the subject really, really scared doesn't cross the line for me.
To imply that the US won't/doesn't try its soldiers is simply absurd.
There are ample cases in US history - from current all the way back the Revolutionary War - of the US gov't trying US soldiers for all sorts of crimes.
Now, you might contend that the US is RELUCTANT to try its soldiers, and have a point. Even there, I'd argue that where the blame is clear, no, the US military has actually been fairly swift to try some soldiers.
Where the evidence is sketchy or brought forward by people whose personal agenda is clearly anti-US or anti-military, then I believe that they do investigate/explain/exonerate to a point that might be overcorrecting.
"...US has punished users of waterboarding..." I'd be curious to know of examples where the US prosecuted the waterboarders specifically for waterboarding. I'm not being sarcastic, I'd seriously like to know some examples where this precedent was set.
I *personally* don't believe waterboarding rises (sinks?) to the level of torture, no more so than sleep denial or loud music. But we're a nation whose legal system is based in precedent - if there is a precedent of the US gov't recognizing waterboarding as torture (and I could certainly see that, given our ability to be 'flexible' when pursuing our enemies) then it's no longer a matter of some pantywaist 'claiming' waterboarding is mean, it would be the US gov't breaking it's own rules as defined by itself.
You know, until recently I was an ardent free speecher. This sort of censorship would set me off on 'slippery slope' discussion and 'intellectual consistency' and all sorts of bs.
But you know what? There are some reasonable limits on free speech; if you don't like my particular list of what I don't like, then don't play my game or elect me emperor.
Slashdot Mirror
Starting from such farcical first assumptions, its hard to believe this stupid idea is going to get funding, much less even conceivably work.
Look: every "sim" rationalizes inputs, creates a facade of activity that looks like real life, so as to produce reasonably realistic outputs. The point of modeling is to EXCLUDE as many variables as you can, to make what you're studying as simple as possible, to try to draw it down to its essentials.
To build a true sim, you have to start at the "lowest protocols" that input your system. Given that they want to sim the entire world, you're talking about starting with an engine that comprehensively models the physics and chemical processes that create the earth. (And that's assuming that you can safely take solar input as a given, and assume that your 'isolated' environment is the Earth, not entirely a safe assumption when you start considering the impact on solar variability to Earth weather, lunar gravity on tides, etc.) As I understand, we *don't* even have a good understanding of those very basic systems such as what actually is at the core of our planet, or the intricacies of plate tectonics, etc. (Note: once you can do this, I'm sure all those scientists already working their whole lives to model the 'simple' basics of planetary physics and volcanoes would love a copy of the sim to that point.) So we'd have to rationalize the up-feed in the sim from that lowest protocol - already, at the very basic levels, we're essentially guessing at inputs, not simming them. Whups.
'Above' geophysical processes, there's the physical processes of water, weather, etc. that produce the topology of the surface of the world (or do you think that geography, climate, weather, etc. don't play a part in individual or collective choices?); only once you have that simmed properly can you then even START to model the biosphere. Once you model the biosphere comprehensively, you can start to model people in it, and then you're faced with the comprehensive issues of psychology, free will, collective behaviors, human perversity. Finally, once you have this robust giant model, then you can finally start simming the meta systems atop human society - economics, social welfare, etc.
This is not Asimov, and this goofball is no Hari Seldon. He's talking about the 'critical importance' of simulating (and getting useful results from) the omega step in this project, when we can't even manage the alpha. That's farce. One might as well start a project analyzing the economics of interstellar trade, because the results are probably going to be useful long before this project produces anything of value. (But I'm pretty certain it'll be spending piles of $$ well before that, right?)
"Regardless of the challenges the project faces, the greater danger is not attempting to use the computer tools we have now - and will have in future - to improve our understanding of global socio-economic trends, says Dr Helbing." ...Should read instead as "Regardless of the challenges the project faces, the greater danger is not attempting to use the computer tools we have now - and will have in future - to try to gather some funding for an open ended and unachievable research project," says Dr Helbing, "This nonsense could keep me in BMW's, first-class airline seats, and symposia in cool locations for the rest of my life."
Really, haven't we grown up past this sort of FUD article yet?
The fact that 32% of the internet users are Chinese (and that segment is growing the fastest) doesn't ipso facto mean they're using Chinese on the internet.
Why do editors even post this crap? I'd rather see Roland linking his blog every day again.
Let me first describe myself.
I was 10 in 1977 & saw the first Star Wars more than 50 times, back when that stat meant something (ie in theaters, before anyone had a VCR).
I first learned to use computers on an ancient MECC terminal, playing Oregon Trail and keeping the 20'+ roll of output paper to re-read all the cool stuff that happened. Would spend days at my friends' houses playing on their Ataris or Apple computers because their parents were cool (mine got me a Colecovision...sigh)
I'd easily drop $20 (a *LOT* of cash in 1980) on an afternoon in an arcade, generate absolutely no Vitamin D, and consider it time and money very well-spent.
I was the absolute perfect target for Tron in 1982.
I liked the movie, but even as a 15 year old I didn't think it was all THAT.
Cool graphics (I liked the Recognizers, Bit, and the tank the best) but the plot even then was pretty stupid. I liked the lightcycles (that part of the video game being the best thing to come out of the film) but even that was only an incremental gameplay improvement on the Snake Byte video game which we were playing IIRC before the movie was released.
I just don't understand the retro-worship this movie has apparently gained in hindsight. It wasn't that big a deal at the time generally, nor even across my narrow communities of gamers, computer user's groups (remember them?), or video game geeks. Yet all I hear today is about how awesome it was. To whom?
-Puzzled.
...to quote an article on DailyKos regarding what the "Right" thinks, aren't you the teensiest bit concerned that might be a strawman?
One doesn't have to be a glassy-eyed rightwinger to be suspicious of anything George Soros supports (does he support Net Neutrality? I didn't get my latest issue of "Vast Right Wing Conspiracy Weekly" to see what I'm supposed to think) as being somehow deeply partisan.
add
3) now that there's an opportunity cost to selling corn for food, food prices go up.
4) since ethanol isn't a food-grade product, there are far fewer (any?) restrictions on how many chemicals/pesticides can be used to grow corn for fuel, adding incredible amounts of polluted-runoff
I'm from a corn state (MN) and I've thought ethanol was a boondoggle from the beginning - just another method to deliver subsidy dollars from the taxpayer to the agribusiness.
Minecraft is one of those little homebrew projects that has taken on a life of its own.
Really - it's simple without being simplistic, and allows people fantastic expression of their creativity.
It's totally worth paying for, and supporting this programmer.
The next obvious step would be a more robust permanent world capability, along with the ability to lock ones' creations from the deliberate vandalism and destruction of others.
Wait, I thought Assange preferred women from countries with sustained political turmoil.
Sweden?
...the fact that you have a degree gets you the job interview. ...how you comport yourself in the interview gets you the position. ...at that moment, "the school you went to" vanishes as as an important fact in your work life, forever.
Certainly, there will be some occupations and fields for which the name of your school will get you that interview. Going to work for the State Dept with Georgetown on your resume, as opposed to West Podunk, you're far more likely to get past the first "cut" and get an interview.
Further, to have the connections to hear about the new opening, or to get the 'inside recommendation', and ultimately getting promoted once employed, much of that is going to be based on who you know - again, advantage to the expensive schools where you're mingling with the spawn of the hoi oligoi.
THOSE are the advantages of the expensive schools. For anyone who thinks you're actually going to learn more or get a "better" degree at an expensive school? Well, that's just hilarious.
Ironically, in the end the military has become one of the places closest to a pure meritocracy where people of color can succeed with the least color barriers.
I don't know if it's reached that for women yet.
So they've decided to indicate isotopic variation on the periodic table? Is that really big news?
It's a good analogy and continues further.
If you want windows to see out of, that's going to inherently compromise the security of your home (not to mention Windows(tm) hahah). You can put bars over the windows, but again, then you are reducing the functionality - some very important functionality - in order to be more secure.
To paraphrase the Zombie Survival Guide: there is no "safe", only safer. Everything is a compromise between utility and security.
If you have security concerns, you put doors between each of your rooms and a lock on each door with a different key. It sure makes it harder to move around in the house, how much is that worth riskwise?
The problem is either the shifting meanings based on context(if you're intellectually honest) or the disingenuous definitional bait'n'switch (if you're not so).
What does "liberal" refer to?
In the American vernacular, Liberal means something totally different than Europe, and something different today than even 25 years ago, certainly 50.
Classical liberals were historically pro-middleclass, pro-business, while conservatives were pro-monarchy.
Today's most ardent self-declared Liberals in Congress would probably assault you if you dared to suggest that they were pro-business.
To Republicans, Democrats seem liberal. To Democrats, Republicans seem conservative. To radical activists, the Democratic party is barely distinguishable from the Republican one. To radical libertarians, the GOP seems practically the same as the Democrats.
Better to not bother overanalyzing the semantics, but take the statement for the principle it represents.
link to the actual survey summary not alternet's screed review of same: http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/brunitedstatescanadara/671.php?nid=&id=&pnt=671&lb=
Generally the survey shows that misinformation is happening BROADLY (not quite "Fox News is teh pUr3 Ev1lz!"), and there is a correlation with Fox News - "The effect was also not simply a function of partisan bias, as people who voted Democratic and watched Fox News were also more likely to have such misinformation than those who did not watch it--though by a lesser margin than those who voted Republican."
I read the full report at http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/pdf/dec10/Misinformation_Dec10_rpt.pdf ...and I don't see that MSNBC comes off smelling any better (although the linked-alternet blog explicitly says so).
Of course you do.
It's easy to bemoan the consequence of escalation in the theoretical manner you describe, but the fact is that each step involves a lag in which the defense beats the offense, which means that a) your guys aren't getting blown up for a while, and b) you have more opportunities to kill the guys building the bombs.
So the choices are just letting your guys get blown up continuously, or escalating which at least provides interruptions in the stream of deaths, meanwhile letting Darwin act inexorably on the bombmakers as their 'resources' for testing are far less (and far more dangerous personally) than the US's. Finally, it's just possible that you'll either reach a technological point that exceeds their capacity to respond or even raise the stakes high enough that you exceed the enthusiasm of the bomb-setters or -makers.
To suggest that you would even consider not escalating is absurd. Aside from simple human nature (Jim, looks like there's a bomb on the road up ahead? It's ok Jake, we're not going to follow that wire because it might cause the IED makers to develop better detonation methods! Jim, doesn't that mean we're going to get blown up? Yes Jake, it does.), it's illogical.
It sounds more like you're bitching about "short term donations" vs. "long-term ongoing donation strategies". And, if you have a few billion to invest, I'd expect its simply more conservative to invest them in US or European economies where the chance of your investment being pissed away, consumed by civil war, or nationalized out of your pocket is at least reasonably small.
Which is better, giving away fish or teaching people how to do it themselves"?
Given that our 'humanitarian' strategy seems to be to mitigate long-term overpopulation by feeding and medically assisting people - then a long-term investment strategy is the ONLY strategy, as we seem to be doing nothing to reduce our future humanitarian needs.
...Which itself is almost more of a meta comment on society than you intend.
I mean, yes, there are many, many ways one can 'fuck with a church'. Congratulations?
Let's see: a building that houses an organisation that you might indeed disagree with, but whose members find comfort, solace, and peace in their participation. An organization whose impact is overwhelmingly positive, and you want to 'fuck with it'.
You kick down little kids' snowmen too?
Why is the planet so overpopulated with assholes? Is it the narcissism inherent in the atomization of society?
...On purpose, I suspect.
Reading the original email, it says that if you're intending to work for the govt in a position that includes dealing with classified material, then you shouldn't post links or facebook about the cables because the material remains 'classified' (to the US if nobody else) and this may cast doubts on your ability to deal with classified material appropriately.
It says NOTHING about not reading the cables.
...but it seems that even if the volume level didn't actually change, commercials were clearly 'pitched' higher, giving them a louder apparent volume?
"...Why do we keep talking about her?..."
Of the articles I see on /.'s front page:
Games: Tofu Activists Spoof Meat-Based Indie Game - 85 comments
Science: Aussie Government Competition To Predict Commute Times - 41 comments
Idle: British Aircraft Carrier For Sale On Auction Site - 131 comments
Science: Dolly the Sheep Alive Again - 155 comments
News: YouTube Launches Ads You Can Skip - 203 comments
Science: The Starry Sky Just Got Starrier - 138 comments
Science: Using Cinnamon In the Production of Nanoparticles - 111 comments
Technology: IBM Discovery May Lead To Exascale Supercomputers - 122 comments
Your Rights Online: Wikileaks DDoS Attacker Arrested, Equipment Seized - 363 comments
Your Rights Online: FTC Proposes Do Not Track List For the Web - 166 comments
Hardware: Attack of the Trojan Printers - 138 comments
Your Rights Online: Torrent Users Fight Back - 210 comments
News: Sarah Palin 'Target WikiLeaks Like Taliban' - 1298 comments
See if you can see why we keep talking about her.
Because the media is a BUSINESS ahead of all other things.
Hardly interesting, you pretty clearly already have convinced yourself of the answer before you even say the question.
IANAL but I'd guess not.
Part of the problem with most 'broad' definitions of torture is that they don't take much extrapolation to see it in real life, and then you start to question the basic functions of everyday life.
The guy next door has Rick Astly blasting "on 11" 24/7, thus providing both sleep deprivation and loud music.
Can I really prosecute him for TORTURE?
Medical students are often required to work bizarre-long hours to force them to get used to operating without lack of sleep or in conditions where their rest is impaired (I guess) - are their teachers guilty of Geneva-convention torture?
It seems to me obvious that electrodes to the testicles IS indeed torture. Having wooden splinters shoved up your fingernails = torture. To some other people waterboarding is no doubt equally "obviously" torture, though it isn't to me - making the subject really, really scared doesn't cross the line for me.
To imply that the US won't/doesn't try its soldiers is simply absurd.
There are ample cases in US history - from current all the way back the Revolutionary War - of the US gov't trying US soldiers for all sorts of crimes.
Now, you might contend that the US is RELUCTANT to try its soldiers, and have a point.
Even there, I'd argue that where the blame is clear, no, the US military has actually been fairly swift to try some soldiers.
Where the evidence is sketchy or brought forward by people whose personal agenda is clearly anti-US or anti-military, then I believe that they do investigate/explain/exonerate to a point that might be overcorrecting.
"...US has punished users of waterboarding..."
I'd be curious to know of examples where the US prosecuted the waterboarders specifically for waterboarding.
I'm not being sarcastic, I'd seriously like to know some examples where this precedent was set.
I *personally* don't believe waterboarding rises (sinks?) to the level of torture, no more so than sleep denial or loud music. But we're a nation whose legal system is based in precedent - if there is a precedent of the US gov't recognizing waterboarding as torture (and I could certainly see that, given our ability to be 'flexible' when pursuing our enemies) then it's no longer a matter of some pantywaist 'claiming' waterboarding is mean, it would be the US gov't breaking it's own rules as defined by itself.
I'm not sure we live in the same universe.
Where are you that electric cars were "common" decades ago?
You know, until recently I was an ardent free speecher.
This sort of censorship would set me off on 'slippery slope' discussion and 'intellectual consistency' and all sorts of bs.
But you know what? There are some reasonable limits on free speech; if you don't like my particular list of what I don't like, then don't play my game or elect me emperor.