What is your snark free plan for dealing with the people displaced from the farms? Remember, the overwhelming majority of the labor force used to work on farms.
Today... about 2 to 4 percent of the population and we have a food surplus with those numbers.
Should we get rid of the tractors because people will be displaced from farm labor and go back to hand harvesting wheat?
Your position is naive.
First see to the wealth of the society... the jobs issue will take care of itself. It always does.
Beyond that, how is he going to target me in a city with a predator? How do you sort the insurgents from the civilians?
We had terrible trouble doing that in Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq. I mean... we could have just killed them all indiscriminately and won that way very easily. But for a lot of reasons you can't do that. Which means you need to sort them and that's very very hard to do.
Now imagine if on top of that the insurgents aren't foreigners that don't understand your culture, your organizational structure, or are able to "pass" for one of you. Lets say the insurgents are indistinguishable not only from civilians but from your own security forces?
Now you are truly screwed.
And we can already see the police being understandably afraid of the armed population. Look at how fast they jump into armored cars, wear full body armor, and then just sit outside the danger area and hope it stops before they have to go into it. And even then... they only go in because the people they're dealing with tend to NOT be armed.
Imagine a riot where a significant portion of the riot has guns and gas masks. The ratio of police to rioters had better be close to equal because the police are going to enjoy very few advantages when the metal meets the meat in that conflict.
You're talking about French Revolution scales of chaos.
One thing I am waiting for is for the technology to advance to a certain point where banning a machine from being owned becomes as comically pointless as banning drugs that can be grown in a closet with a grow lamp.
Those that say they're on the right side of history often as not don't understand what history is or how little it cares for their ideologies.
What prevails is game theory... personal and collective advantage.
You can't stop the tech.
And the CNC and 3d printers are just the start. I saw a dynamic refinery the other day. It used magnetic fields to control precise and tiny droplets of liquid. The liquid can be mixed, heated, cooled, subjected to pressures... and that means you have a dynamic refinery... a small scale chemical or even biological factory.
That means if you were so inclined you could produce explosives or neuro toxins.
The notion of controlling society by controlling access to the technology is rapidly becoming obsolete. This worked during the industrial revolution.
But what do you do when everyone owns a micro factory that can produce anything?
Keeping order by banning things is not going to work in the future.
Provide a citation for any US president saying the constitution or the bill of rights is just a piece of paper. It doesn't exist. You opened your post to me with an ignorant remark that simply labeled you as someone that listens to propaganda but actually don't know a lot about the issue. This is not a good place to start in a discussion because it now places you in an inferior position that you are unlikely to rise out of... for many reasons.
As to people rather than paper... then you don't have rule by law but rather rule by mob or something of that nature.
I feel much more comfortable living in a country where my rights are enshrined in law and not one the fickle whims of the cultural gestalt.
I can't trust what you're going to feel like tomorrow. I can trust that the law is going to be the law tomorrow.
You say I have rights today... okay... but maybe you feel different tomorrow and suddenly I have no rights. Great. Which means my actual garentee of rights must come from power leverages on you where in I can hurt you or someone else with the power to hurt you if you try to fuck me. This is a very ancient power system you think you just invented. The system you describe is actually the oldest political system we know of... and one that favors elites because they have the leverage to protect themselves whilst everyone else is pretty much fucked.
If you want to protect the rights of the people in general, you want rule by law. Which means pieces of paper.
That implies the target's position in space is predictable days or even months into the future with pin point accuracy.
A military target should make a point of either being hardened enough that it could take such a hit without serious damage or unpredictable enough that you simply couldn't be that sure.
Beyond that... the laser would be detectable. It would both make the "foil" detectable which would mean it could be intercepted by something else.
OR even worse, the source of the laser could be targeted.
This foil idea would obviously be an act of war if a state of war was not already in effect. It could thus be openly targeted the same way you can target missiles that are still in their boost phase.
Redistributing wealth arbitrarily is distinct from socialism/communism in what way?
As to being a luddite... you're saying that the robots should not be permitted to automate industries IF "reasons"... Standing in the way of that at all for any reason is opposition to the most efficient means of producing something in the economy.
As to the notion that there will be a "workers revolution"... that is literally right out of Karl Marx.
So... you're almost certainly a marxist. Which is cute because the ideology is obsolete. It was applicable to the industrial revolution. The industrial revolution is being eaten alive by the information revolution just as the industrial revolution ate the agricultural revolution.
Your entire world view is getting consumed by the future. You're working on an outdated play book that lost reverence before you were even born.
Your position is as absurd as Don Quixote's dream of becoming a noble knight in an age long past such things.
Marxism lives only in the minds of bitter academics and anyone malleable enough to buy the concept without any real consideration. As a practical ideology with relevance in the world... its already dead. And the robots amongst other things killed it.
between 100 and 70 percent of the human population used to be concerned entirely with procuring enough food to survive.
As of about 150 years ago, about 70 percent of the US population was involved in agriculture. Today it between 2 and 4 percent.
Unless you're willing to go back into fields and harvest wheat by hand... I don't want to hear this luddite shit. Its ignorant bs largely spread by elites that are just pissed that the increasing upward mobility of what were peasants is threatening their class domination.
This notion that we all have to be the same or nothing can progress is just an argument for stopping progress. We're never going to be all equal. And as much as people bitch about billionares etc, its a lot better than it has EVER been.
The billionaires can't kill you on the street for offending them. The elites of old could do that.
The billionaires mostly aren't hereditary passing their wealth and power father to son. You can actually break into their class if you're smart and lucky. That's huge.
We have rights when previously we didn't.
And of course our standards of living improving generation over generation.
Into this we have the typical set of idiots that handwring and pearl clutch because the wealth isn't spread around equally? Sit down and shut up. Anything that increases the overall wealth of society benefits all of society. It just does. Equally? No. But does it help everyone? Yes. So don't stand in the way of ANYTHING that profits society in general. Nothing. That wealth gets to everyone. NOT equally but to some extent. And a poorer society effects everyone the same way. If the society gets poorer but more socialistic then at BEST you'll maintain your standard of living if you're poor. But if you're anything but poor your standard of living will go down. Rich or middle class get fucked by that.
And the poor ultimately tend to suffer as well because whatever you might intend to do, there are fewer resources to go around. You can't afford to be generous when the society is poor.
Who wants to live in Castro's Cuba?
I don't mind inequality so long as the society itself is prospering. Inequality becomes a problem ONLY when it damages the health of the society itself. Which can happen.
The old nobility and the aristocracies damaged the economies of the old kingdoms by so controlling wealth and power and rights that there was no incentive or even possibility to innovate or build anything new. The nobles had everything locked down and it was there way or they'd literally kill you.
I do see some of that happening today but it isn't an issue with a lack of subsidies so much as so many regulations that it is illegal in many cases to even try to innovate. Everything is so locked down and controlled that the elites can do what they want and you and I are legally forbidden to contribute or try to compete.
And THAT is the inequality that must be addressed. Not some increase to welfare payments. Welfare does not improve the economy. It dis-incentivizes economic activity.
What is critical is economic mobility. Not equality. That is... equal opportunity. NOT equal outcome.
I was talking about sub atomic particles. To be as efficient with mass as possible you want to eject matter out of the back of the craft at as near light speed as possible. Then when you're interested in burning something you turn the accelerator on target and very precisely target the beam on where the target will be when it intersects your beam.
The west is not in danger of over populating itself.
So when you refer to "society" you must be specific to which socities. There is no single human society.
The first world can sustain and expand its current population. We do not suffer famines etc.
As to your requirement that we become some sort of communistic society or else you say we have to destroy our tech.... well, you are precisely one of the Luddite peasants I was talking about that fucks everything up.
As to why you'd need a hybrid device... mass issues.
Look, if you're zooming all over the solar system then every acceleration is going to cost you fuel in proportion to your mass and the speed you wish to obtain. Assuming you want to arrive any place any time soon... you're going to need to either burn a lot of fuel... which is likely logistically unsustainable or you're going to need to economize your mass.
The weapon is going to need to be powerful enough to tag an enemy target and long range enough to strike a target before you're detected and intercepted.
So we're talking about a pretty nasty weapon here.
And if you're using a big nasty weapon then you're going to need to propel that thing through space to its target... and that will need a big propulsion system. Having TWO big systems on the craft when you could have just ONE is uneconomical. If the same system can do BOTH then you'd be foolish not to combine the two.
The most sensible weapon for space combat that I can think of is a particle accelerator. You can't really defend against it short of burying yourself in an asteroid or something. Ammunition is mostly power which can be harvested from solar radiation or generated by a fission reactor.
As to missiles... you seem to think you're going to get into proximity with your target.
Lets say it is likewise small, hard to detect, maneuverable, and able to engage your forces at long range using near light speed particle accelerators?
So you fire a missile at one of these things. Dozens or perhaps hundreds of undetected stealthed particle accelerator drones all open fire on your missile long before it even gets close to the target. The missile is slagged turning it into a ballistic hunk of whatever it is made out of... and then whatever you were shooting at just makes a small burn to get out of the way.
All the drones reposition on to new random trajectories and what exactly did firing that missile accomplish?
Now you might say "but you won't detect the missile"... sure... but what makes you think you're going to detect the target either.
I can see missiles like that being used against fixed bases... asteroid bases or something. But against the war drones? Useless.
As to there being no stealth in space... that may well be so. I would point out that no one has ever played hide and go seek up there either. It could be valid that there is no stealth... or it could be that there is a simple way to do it that escapes our description at this point because we've simply no experience with it yet. This is all speculative. I just don't believe that you can't hide...
This is more a tactical adaptation than it is a technological one. Stealthing is often a matter of how you move and when you move as much as what technology you use to move.
Thank you for that link by the way. That was very interesting.
Exactly. The stupid peasant Luddites in our society keep retarding our technological and industrial advancement through their asinine paranoid misunderstanding as to how ANYTHING works.
We should have impliented far more automation than we already have. People say "oh but labor costs in country X are low"... yeah but if you automate heavily it just doesn't matter because most of the production is a result of the damn infrustructure at that point.
And the US, contrary to what many think, has pretty good industrial infrastructure... also, all things being equal... where would a big US company rather have its hardware... country X or the US? Building your infrastructure somewhere else is a risk.
The primary reason any country doesn't get investment and development... and this even hold true within the US for given areas... is because the companies think the locals are going to fuck with the factory or production facility... or the costs don't work. But really, the costs will work in most places if you don't fuck with the facility.
Typical nanny state politician. Never miss an opportunity to fuck things up for someone else.
If the people working for uber either wanted or could get a better job they would. They either don't want them or can't get them. So fucking with their "gigs" just means you get nothing.
... just don't assume the people already trying are stupid. This is a legitimately difficult issue.
A big thing that this coding concept doesn't quite grasp is that the "hackers" are sitting there f'ing with your code AS you write it.
And you can't just fork the code if you have a disagreement with them.
The trick is to think ahead 10 moves and put something in the system that will seem meaningless initially but which at a later juncture will trigger and deal a savage blow to hackers.
Are you aware of either the Austrlian legal system or the US legal system?
Who are you to even have an opinion on the issue at all?
Did you like that question? If not... don't presume to ask it yourself. I am quite good at condescension and you want to play a game of who can stick their nose higher in the air and laugh at the insects below him... you'll I'm an expert. https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
The point of terrorism is to intimidate the population so they put political pressure on the politicians to effect the changes in the society that the terrorist desires.
Vigilantism is merely taking the law as you see it into your own hands.
They're not remotely similar.
An honor killing for example by an islamist of his own family members is not domestic terrorism.
That same islamist cutting off the head of someone in public and then talking about how people should convert to islam is domestic terrorism.
Do you see?
This is also different from insurgenceis and lots of other types of violence.
What is more, in this context we were talking about executions by the state which pre supposed a trial and conviction thus making the "killing" an "execution" which makes it legal within the frame work of the society and thus cannot be terrorism of any kind.
Learn to use words properly or you cannot communicate or think correctly. Its like writing out an equation and randomly confusing your addition with your multiplication signs. You're just going to fuck everything up. So please take care to use the correct words.
As to your notion that I do not live in a free country because I don't permit random people to trespass on my property....
Cite a country that lets you do this thing?
You did not answer that question. When you cite such a country... i will then look at exceptions to their rule to obtain the effective rule. Then I'll show how my own society effectively permits the same things thus rendering the entire complaint meaningless.
Your argument makes no sense. I suspect it is because of what you showed with your terrorism argument. I don't think you use language properly and so you don't think clearly. This leads you to make irrational comments and think irrational thoughts.
Certainly it is under threat. However, in Australia they don't even have it... there's nothing to assault. And those trying to defend their freedoms have no bulwarks to hide behind or use shut down oppressive legislation.
Hmmm... ever choked a man to death? It takes a good three to four minutes depending on how quickly you subdue him. He thrashes around at first. Then he goes quiet but... you have to keep choking him until his brain dies. It isn't quick.
I've never choked a man... that isn't my point. The point is that sometimes things take a certain amount of time to work. And you have to be patient.
It took a long time for the soviets to collapse. You have to be patient. The Iranian economy was in shambles. If we just kept holding them there was a good chance of them collapsing. What is more, the sanctions were cheap for us. We could sustain them indefinitely.
Iran getting a nuke... its going to cause problems and strategic changes beyond the dreams of most people.
""Although this zone is not literally "Constitution free"""
Okay so they're not actually constitution free zones.
What they are is a zone after the border where the border patrol tries to have some defense in depth and queries people to see if they were involved in smuggling or something.
I've also seen these questions being asked by the border patrol... and if you just cite your rights they tell you that you can go. So "constitution free" is a bullshit term for what is perhaps not the best way to do something but it isn't unreasonable for the border patrol to try and do something like that simply to do their jobs.
So you're saying that if a person is convicted of... personally torturing to death 100 people and then eating them... possibly wearing their skins as clothing... you know... all the fun stuff.
You're saying I'm violating his rights if I put him in the ground?
Don't be absurd.
You are afforded a trial. Due process. if convicted of a capital offense, then I'm not losing any sleep over your coming oblivion.
As to your right to roam... can you give me an example of any place that has this right? Because it sounds inherently unworkable.
First off, private property means I have a right to decide who walks on my land and who doesn't. I'm not letting any bozo just wander on to my land whenever he wants.
Second off, you have... airports... do you think you should just be able to wander around the run way? you have harbors... same basic concept.
Where in the US are you not allowed to "roam" that you think you should be able to roam?
This right you're referring to sounds like bullshit.
I looked into this and it seems in other countries it mostly applies to coasts and being able to walk around on the beach. In the US... most states with beaches have passed laws that effectively let you do that. The exceptions being harbors and military bases. If you're upset that you can't wander around on a military base whenever you feel like it... you've got to be trolling. That's so obviously stupid that even a stupid person would realize it.
Apparently it is possible to go super sonic without creating a boom. Boeing is working on it for example.
I do agree, unless they get that sorted out then they're not going to go super sonic. But if they do... it will probably become a thing. Los Angeles to London is a hell of a flight. going super sonic would be worth the money for a lot of people.
Slashdot Mirror
What is your snark free plan for dealing with the people displaced from the farms? Remember, the overwhelming majority of the labor force used to work on farms.
Today... about 2 to 4 percent of the population and we have a food surplus with those numbers.
Should we get rid of the tractors because people will be displaced from farm labor and go back to hand harvesting wheat?
Your position is naive.
First see to the wealth of the society... the jobs issue will take care of itself. It always does.
Beyond that, how is he going to target me in a city with a predator? How do you sort the insurgents from the civilians?
We had terrible trouble doing that in Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq. I mean... we could have just killed them all indiscriminately and won that way very easily. But for a lot of reasons you can't do that. Which means you need to sort them and that's very very hard to do.
Now imagine if on top of that the insurgents aren't foreigners that don't understand your culture, your organizational structure, or are able to "pass" for one of you. Lets say the insurgents are indistinguishable not only from civilians but from your own security forces?
Now you are truly screwed.
And we can already see the police being understandably afraid of the armed population. Look at how fast they jump into armored cars, wear full body armor, and then just sit outside the danger area and hope it stops before they have to go into it. And even then... they only go in because the people they're dealing with tend to NOT be armed.
Imagine a riot where a significant portion of the riot has guns and gas masks. The ratio of police to rioters had better be close to equal because the police are going to enjoy very few advantages when the metal meets the meat in that conflict.
You're talking about French Revolution scales of chaos.
Unless you do this... then its totally legal:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
One thing I am waiting for is for the technology to advance to a certain point where banning a machine from being owned becomes as comically pointless as banning drugs that can be grown in a closet with a grow lamp.
Those that say they're on the right side of history often as not don't understand what history is or how little it cares for their ideologies.
What prevails is game theory... personal and collective advantage.
You can't stop the tech.
And the CNC and 3d printers are just the start. I saw a dynamic refinery the other day. It used magnetic fields to control precise and tiny droplets of liquid. The liquid can be mixed, heated, cooled, subjected to pressures... and that means you have a dynamic refinery... a small scale chemical or even biological factory.
That means if you were so inclined you could produce explosives or neuro toxins.
The notion of controlling society by controlling access to the technology is rapidly becoming obsolete. This worked during the industrial revolution.
But what do you do when everyone owns a micro factory that can produce anything?
Keeping order by banning things is not going to work in the future.
Provide a citation for any US president saying the constitution or the bill of rights is just a piece of paper. It doesn't exist. You opened your post to me with an ignorant remark that simply labeled you as someone that listens to propaganda but actually don't know a lot about the issue. This is not a good place to start in a discussion because it now places you in an inferior position that you are unlikely to rise out of... for many reasons.
As to people rather than paper... then you don't have rule by law but rather rule by mob or something of that nature.
I feel much more comfortable living in a country where my rights are enshrined in law and not one the fickle whims of the cultural gestalt.
I can't trust what you're going to feel like tomorrow. I can trust that the law is going to be the law tomorrow.
You say I have rights today... okay... but maybe you feel different tomorrow and suddenly I have no rights. Great. Which means my actual garentee of rights must come from power leverages on you where in I can hurt you or someone else with the power to hurt you if you try to fuck me. This is a very ancient power system you think you just invented. The system you describe is actually the oldest political system we know of... and one that favors elites because they have the leverage to protect themselves whilst everyone else is pretty much fucked.
If you want to protect the rights of the people in general, you want rule by law. Which means pieces of paper.
That implies the target's position in space is predictable days or even months into the future with pin point accuracy.
A military target should make a point of either being hardened enough that it could take such a hit without serious damage or unpredictable enough that you simply couldn't be that sure.
Beyond that... the laser would be detectable. It would both make the "foil" detectable which would mean it could be intercepted by something else.
OR even worse, the source of the laser could be targeted.
This foil idea would obviously be an act of war if a state of war was not already in effect. It could thus be openly targeted the same way you can target missiles that are still in their boost phase.
Redistributing wealth arbitrarily is distinct from socialism/communism in what way?
As to being a luddite... you're saying that the robots should not be permitted to automate industries IF "reasons"... Standing in the way of that at all for any reason is opposition to the most efficient means of producing something in the economy.
As to the notion that there will be a "workers revolution"... that is literally right out of Karl Marx.
So... you're almost certainly a marxist. Which is cute because the ideology is obsolete. It was applicable to the industrial revolution. The industrial revolution is being eaten alive by the information revolution just as the industrial revolution ate the agricultural revolution.
Your entire world view is getting consumed by the future. You're working on an outdated play book that lost reverence before you were even born.
Your position is as absurd as Don Quixote's dream of becoming a noble knight in an age long past such things.
Marxism lives only in the minds of bitter academics and anyone malleable enough to buy the concept without any real consideration. As a practical ideology with relevance in the world... its already dead. And the robots amongst other things killed it.
between 100 and 70 percent of the human population used to be concerned entirely with procuring enough food to survive.
As of about 150 years ago, about 70 percent of the US population was involved in agriculture. Today it between 2 and 4 percent.
Unless you're willing to go back into fields and harvest wheat by hand... I don't want to hear this luddite shit. Its ignorant bs largely spread by elites that are just pissed that the increasing upward mobility of what were peasants is threatening their class domination.
This notion that we all have to be the same or nothing can progress is just an argument for stopping progress. We're never going to be all equal. And as much as people bitch about billionares etc, its a lot better than it has EVER been.
The billionaires can't kill you on the street for offending them. The elites of old could do that.
The billionaires mostly aren't hereditary passing their wealth and power father to son. You can actually break into their class if you're smart and lucky. That's huge.
We have rights when previously we didn't.
And of course our standards of living improving generation over generation.
Into this we have the typical set of idiots that handwring and pearl clutch because the wealth isn't spread around equally? Sit down and shut up. Anything that increases the overall wealth of society benefits all of society. It just does. Equally? No. But does it help everyone? Yes. So don't stand in the way of ANYTHING that profits society in general. Nothing. That wealth gets to everyone. NOT equally but to some extent. And a poorer society effects everyone the same way. If the society gets poorer but more socialistic then at BEST you'll maintain your standard of living if you're poor. But if you're anything but poor your standard of living will go down. Rich or middle class get fucked by that.
And the poor ultimately tend to suffer as well because whatever you might intend to do, there are fewer resources to go around. You can't afford to be generous when the society is poor.
Who wants to live in Castro's Cuba?
I don't mind inequality so long as the society itself is prospering. Inequality becomes a problem ONLY when it damages the health of the society itself. Which can happen.
The old nobility and the aristocracies damaged the economies of the old kingdoms by so controlling wealth and power and rights that there was no incentive or even possibility to innovate or build anything new. The nobles had everything locked down and it was there way or they'd literally kill you.
I do see some of that happening today but it isn't an issue with a lack of subsidies so much as so many regulations that it is illegal in many cases to even try to innovate. Everything is so locked down and controlled that the elites can do what they want and you and I are legally forbidden to contribute or try to compete.
And THAT is the inequality that must be addressed. Not some increase to welfare payments. Welfare does not improve the economy. It dis-incentivizes economic activity.
What is critical is economic mobility. Not equality. That is... equal opportunity. NOT equal outcome.
I was talking about sub atomic particles. To be as efficient with mass as possible you want to eject matter out of the back of the craft at as near light speed as possible. Then when you're interested in burning something you turn the accelerator on target and very precisely target the beam on where the target will be when it intersects your beam.
The west is not in danger of over populating itself.
So when you refer to "society" you must be specific to which socities. There is no single human society.
The first world can sustain and expand its current population. We do not suffer famines etc.
As to your requirement that we become some sort of communistic society or else you say we have to destroy our tech. ... well, you are precisely one of the Luddite peasants I was talking about that fucks everything up.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
As to why you'd need a hybrid device... mass issues.
Look, if you're zooming all over the solar system then every acceleration is going to cost you fuel in proportion to your mass and the speed you wish to obtain. Assuming you want to arrive any place any time soon... you're going to need to either burn a lot of fuel... which is likely logistically unsustainable or you're going to need to economize your mass.
The weapon is going to need to be powerful enough to tag an enemy target and long range enough to strike a target before you're detected and intercepted.
So we're talking about a pretty nasty weapon here.
And if you're using a big nasty weapon then you're going to need to propel that thing through space to its target... and that will need a big propulsion system. Having TWO big systems on the craft when you could have just ONE is uneconomical. If the same system can do BOTH then you'd be foolish not to combine the two.
The most sensible weapon for space combat that I can think of is a particle accelerator. You can't really defend against it short of burying yourself in an asteroid or something. Ammunition is mostly power which can be harvested from solar radiation or generated by a fission reactor.
As to missiles... you seem to think you're going to get into proximity with your target.
Lets say it is likewise small, hard to detect, maneuverable, and able to engage your forces at long range using near light speed particle accelerators?
So you fire a missile at one of these things. Dozens or perhaps hundreds of undetected stealthed particle accelerator drones all open fire on your missile long before it even gets close to the target. The missile is slagged turning it into a ballistic hunk of whatever it is made out of... and then whatever you were shooting at just makes a small burn to get out of the way.
All the drones reposition on to new random trajectories and what exactly did firing that missile accomplish?
Now you might say "but you won't detect the missile"... sure... but what makes you think you're going to detect the target either.
I can see missiles like that being used against fixed bases... asteroid bases or something. But against the war drones? Useless.
As to there being no stealth in space... that may well be so. I would point out that no one has ever played hide and go seek up there either. It could be valid that there is no stealth... or it could be that there is a simple way to do it that escapes our description at this point because we've simply no experience with it yet. This is all speculative. I just don't believe that you can't hide...
This is more a tactical adaptation than it is a technological one. Stealthing is often a matter of how you move and when you move as much as what technology you use to move.
Thank you for that link by the way. That was very interesting.
Exactly. The stupid peasant Luddites in our society keep retarding our technological and industrial advancement through their asinine paranoid misunderstanding as to how ANYTHING works.
We should have impliented far more automation than we already have. People say "oh but labor costs in country X are low"... yeah but if you automate heavily it just doesn't matter because most of the production is a result of the damn infrustructure at that point.
And the US, contrary to what many think, has pretty good industrial infrastructure... also, all things being equal... where would a big US company rather have its hardware... country X or the US? Building your infrastructure somewhere else is a risk.
The primary reason any country doesn't get investment and development... and this even hold true within the US for given areas... is because the companies think the locals are going to fuck with the factory or production facility... or the costs don't work. But really, the costs will work in most places if you don't fuck with the facility.
Any way... viva la robots.
Typical nanny state politician. Never miss an opportunity to fuck things up for someone else.
If the people working for uber either wanted or could get a better job they would. They either don't want them or can't get them. So fucking with their "gigs" just means you get nothing.
... just don't assume the people already trying are stupid. This is a legitimately difficult issue.
A big thing that this coding concept doesn't quite grasp is that the "hackers" are sitting there f'ing with your code AS you write it.
And you can't just fork the code if you have a disagreement with them.
The trick is to think ahead 10 moves and put something in the system that will seem meaningless initially but which at a later juncture will trigger and deal a savage blow to hackers.
Yes. I am aware of it.
Are you aware of either the Austrlian legal system or the US legal system?
Who are you to even have an opinion on the issue at all?
Did you like that question? If not... don't presume to ask it yourself. I am quite good at condescension and you want to play a game of who can stick their nose higher in the air and laugh at the insects below him... you'll I'm an expert.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Vigilantism is not domestic terrorism.
The point of terrorism is to intimidate the population so they put political pressure on the politicians to effect the changes in the society that the terrorist desires.
Vigilantism is merely taking the law as you see it into your own hands.
They're not remotely similar.
An honor killing for example by an islamist of his own family members is not domestic terrorism.
That same islamist cutting off the head of someone in public and then talking about how people should convert to islam is domestic terrorism.
Do you see?
This is also different from insurgenceis and lots of other types of violence.
What is more, in this context we were talking about executions by the state which pre supposed a trial and conviction thus making the "killing" an "execution" which makes it legal within the frame work of the society and thus cannot be terrorism of any kind.
Learn to use words properly or you cannot communicate or think correctly. Its like writing out an equation and randomly confusing your addition with your multiplication signs. You're just going to fuck everything up. So please take care to use the correct words.
As to your notion that I do not live in a free country because I don't permit random people to trespass on my property....
Cite a country that lets you do this thing?
You did not answer that question. When you cite such a country... i will then look at exceptions to their rule to obtain the effective rule. Then I'll show how my own society effectively permits the same things thus rendering the entire complaint meaningless.
Your argument makes no sense. I suspect it is because of what you showed with your terrorism argument. I don't think you use language properly and so you don't think clearly. This leads you to make irrational comments and think irrational thoughts.
Certainly it is under threat. However, in Australia they don't even have it... there's nothing to assault. And those trying to defend their freedoms have no bulwarks to hide behind or use shut down oppressive legislation.
https://youtu.be/-RwkYY7wb08?t...
Hmmm... ever choked a man to death? It takes a good three to four minutes depending on how quickly you subdue him. He thrashes around at first. Then he goes quiet but... you have to keep choking him until his brain dies. It isn't quick.
I've never choked a man... that isn't my point. The point is that sometimes things take a certain amount of time to work. And you have to be patient.
It took a long time for the soviets to collapse. You have to be patient. The Iranian economy was in shambles. If we just kept holding them there was a good chance of them collapsing. What is more, the sanctions were cheap for us. We could sustain them indefinitely.
Iran getting a nuke... its going to cause problems and strategic changes beyond the dreams of most people.
""Although this zone is not literally "Constitution free"""
Okay so they're not actually constitution free zones.
What they are is a zone after the border where the border patrol tries to have some defense in depth and queries people to see if they were involved in smuggling or something.
I've also seen these questions being asked by the border patrol... and if you just cite your rights they tell you that you can go. So "constitution free" is a bullshit term for what is perhaps not the best way to do something but it isn't unreasonable for the border patrol to try and do something like that simply to do their jobs.
So you're saying that if a person is convicted of... personally torturing to death 100 people and then eating them... possibly wearing their skins as clothing... you know... all the fun stuff.
You're saying I'm violating his rights if I put him in the ground?
Don't be absurd.
You are afforded a trial. Due process. if convicted of a capital offense, then I'm not losing any sleep over your coming oblivion.
As to your right to roam... can you give me an example of any place that has this right? Because it sounds inherently unworkable.
First off, private property means I have a right to decide who walks on my land and who doesn't. I'm not letting any bozo just wander on to my land whenever he wants.
Second off, you have... airports... do you think you should just be able to wander around the run way? you have harbors... same basic concept.
Where in the US are you not allowed to "roam" that you think you should be able to roam?
This right you're referring to sounds like bullshit.
I looked into this and it seems in other countries it mostly applies to coasts and being able to walk around on the beach. In the US... most states with beaches have passed laws that effectively let you do that. The exceptions being harbors and military bases. If you're upset that you can't wander around on a military base whenever you feel like it... you've got to be trolling. That's so obviously stupid that even a stupid person would realize it.
The Bill of Rights specifically is a list of NEGATIVE rights where in the government is FORBIDDEN to make any law concerning certain things.
As to the fact that many don't take the constitution seriously... Which segment of our political spectrum is doing that, sport?
I've been head hunted three times by Australian firms that offered me citizenship as part of the package. I don't want it.
If they nuke their own country then they don't have one. You're an idiot.
And as to drones... they don't work on urban insurgencies. Hit and run. Strike and vanish. its over before the drone is even on station.
Which is why they wouldn't do it. Every oppressor always starts with disarming the people.
I am not a peasant. You do not disarm me unless you want violence.
A citizen is something between a peasant and a noble. You do not disarm nobles. They'll kill you or die trying if you try to disarm them.
Peasants you can disarm. They don't fight back much. They do what they're told. They think the thoughts they're told to think.
I am neither a noble nor a peasant. I am a citizen. You do not disarm me unless you're prepared to come and take it.
Apparently it is possible to go super sonic without creating a boom. Boeing is working on it for example.
I do agree, unless they get that sorted out then they're not going to go super sonic. But if they do... it will probably become a thing. Los Angeles to London is a hell of a flight. going super sonic would be worth the money for a lot of people.