What makes us think we can hear them? Have they developed the radio?
For that matter, do they even have the same senses that we do? They may have developed senses we lack, while being blind and deaf.
Radio is just a transmission medium. It doesn't matter if they are blind and deaf since it's not like we can see or hear radio directly anyway. I mean, we use radio to send digitally-encoded signals to satellites and back as well as to measure the movements of clouds and rain (doppler radar). Radio would still be useful as a long-range means of communicating any kind of data that penetrates well through most matter or as a scanning tool whether or not aliens have the same senses as us.
(Well, with the possible exception of the sensory ability to directly perceive radio, which would make it about as useful as using strobe lights to replace Wi-fi in a glass city. They'd need a *very* broad range of radio "vision" to make useless all of the frequencies we scan for, though.)
Ephemeral contact via visitation is completely besides the point and slightly illogical to consider. As far as we can tell, FTL is either impossible or utterly impractical. So why would aliens go through the trouble of sub-light speed exploration of our system without colonization? That's a huge waste of time and resources.
No, the argument being made is that any race interested in survival beyond the limited resources of a a single plant should have colonized every single habitable space in the galaxy by now. Once it becomes possible to colonize one foreign star, it should be repeatable -- even if it takes a century or a millenia or more for a colony to want to move outwards again, it should inevitably happen. Once an alien culture began the diaspora, it is unlikely that they'd vanish from every single colony in the galaxy since there aren't really any disasters we're aware of that could cleanse an entire galaxy of sentient life. We should, in theory, be awash in alien communications if they were ever out there. It doesn't matter how far along we were when they started the push outwards, they should still be there.
Of course, that presupposes that a thousands, millions, or billions of years old alien civilization still has a use for radio. Given things like doppler radar, it seems unlikely that high-energy radio signals should become completely obsolete, so the supposition isn't unreasonable.
Has the DMCA been proven in court? Has anyone been punished for circumventing CSS?
Several times.
Universal City Studios, Inc. v. Corley, 273 F.3d 429 (2nd Cir., 2001): Upheld a lower court's injunction against 2600 magazine for distributing and linking to DeCSS. See in particular pp. 438, fn. 5 and pp. 452-453 on the applicability of the DMCA to CSS and DeCSS. This case has been highly cited by other courts ruling on the DMCA within and without the 2nd Circuit.
321 Studios v. Metro Goldwyn Mayer Studios, Inc., 307 F.Supp.2d 1085 (N.D.Cal., 2004): Court ruled against a maker of DVD copying software. Court rules that CSS is an effective control measure, and the presence of CSS keys on the internet was irrelevant to its legal status.
Realnetworks, Inc. v. DVD Copy Control Ass'n, 641 F.Supp.2d 913 (N.D.Cal., 2009): Court ruled against another maker of DVD copying sofware. The court held that the fact the CSS has been hacked did not make it no longer an effective control measure. Alternative ways of getting at the content is irrelevant to whether or not CSS is effective in the ordinary course of its operation. pp. 938.
No courts outside of NY & the 2nd Circuit or California have addressed the DMCA, but it's highly unlikely given the language of the DMCA that another court is going to rule that breaking CSS is perfectly legal. Each of the courts that have addressed the constitutionality of the DMCA have upheld it on this matter, holding that code contains significant non-speech elements that can be regulated in a content-neutral fashion.
While these courts have focused on the DMCA with regards to the distribution of copy-protection circumventing software, it's worth rereading the DMCA:
No person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title. The prohibition contained in the preceding sentence shall take effect at the end of the 2-year period beginning on the date of the enactment of this chapter.
17 U.S.C. 1201(a)(1)(A)
While no individual users have been charged for violating the DMCA, and it's highly unlikely that any individuals ever will be charged any time soon, it's still illegal to circumvent CSS to copy your own DVDs -- mostly. Universal City Studios explicitly disavows fair use as an exception to the law. See pp. 443-444. On the other hand, Realnetworks recognizes a fair use exception, but holds that fair use doesn't encompass wholesale space-shifting (i.e. copying your entire DVD for later viewing).See pp. 940-944.
Beautiful, you can legally use a piece of free software on your computer to create a portable, digital copy from the DVD, or pay more, tie up your internet connection for a while, jump through several annoying hoops and get a crappy DRM copy?? Talk about a tax on the ignorant.
*cough* Really, circumventing CSS encryption is legal? Could you point us to a case that has decided this?
Thank you, but it's just to be expected on Slashdot. There are just some issues that draw strong moderator support in favor of hard line positions. Some of these are balanced, like pro/anti libertarian philosophy debates. Others aren't as much. Atheism is more common in the IT crowd than the populace at whole, so it's not all that surprising that some of the more hardened supporters have a good presence here. (Geeks are after all nothing if not known for believing passionately in the superiority of their own reasoning.)
I'm not really all that bothered. My karma rating is pretty much iron-clad unless someone were to cyber-stalk me. Sometimes you just have to take the lumps to take a stand against bigotry.
I am not sure you have a correct understanding of Libertarians. Libertarians. . . believe in as little government as possible. . . [and that] an individual is responsible for him/her self and shouldn't count on government for anything.
I'm pretty sure he gets Libertarians completely. The problem is that people don't act responsibly for themselves much of the time, that people are in fact incapable of acting as perfectly-rational, well-informed economic actors in all markets, and that society crumbles without some form of check and balance on people placing their own interests above the expenses of others.
Much like communism, libertarianism relies on the notion that the world will be a utopia if everyone acts properly or that a large enough group of people acting according to the tenets of the philosophy will be able to mitigate or eliminate the negative effects of those actors who work against it. Both systems drastically underestimate the knack that unethical people have for pushing off the costs of their behavior on others in ways that are difficult to effectively police without a mix of strategies outside the province of "pure" systems.
I'm a part-time VCR enthusiast and a card-carrying member of the Classic Video Equipment Club of America, you insensitive clod!
Agreed. Everyone knows that analog produces a warmer, more beautiful picture free of the deleterious effects of the analog-to-digital conversion process. A properly configured analog video setup produces a superior experience to a digital setup. Anyone who disagrees just doesn't have sophisticated enough eyes.
You mean Murdoch's American politically-motivated news empire is reporting a story from one of his British politically-motivated rags? And with a story that portrays a doctor-driven decision as the ultimate example of destructive coddling of criminals by liberals?
There are a lot of people for whom death before their statistically-expected lifespan is a benefit to society.
Not everyone is a utilitarian who views the lives of others entirely in terms of their use to society, and it's not "brainless drivel" to place a different value on human life than the one you advocate, where relapsing into an addiction is worth a tacit death penalty.
The people who believe in superstition are not worthy of the respect of modern humans. Their drivel should not even be in the marketplace of ideas, deserves nothing but scorn and attack, and is a drag on human progress.
Then you have utterly closed your mind off from seeing if any of their ideas on society are worthwhile merely because they are "tainted" with the association of "superstition." You are throwing out the baby with the bathwater. If you wish to engage in genetic fallacy and call it logic, then feel free, but realize that most people consider this sort of strident hate-spewing towards people who are merely "wrong" in your book as a sign of poor credibility.
Well, except Ann Coulter fans, anyway.
The only people who want religion respected are superstitionists themselves.
While I'm sure the militant Dawkins fan club has your back, I somehow doubt that all atheists are quite so arrogant in their beliefs. You might as well ask a Fred Phelps supporter if "real" Christians respect atheism. Anyone who advocates religious tolerance must be No True Scotsman, eh?
Ardent belief in the absence of God is no more provable than ardent belief in the presence of God. It's a matter of Faith. You're just another religious zealot insisting that his interpretation of the unprovable mysteries of existence is the "holy truth" and that all the unbelievers need to be purged. And so, I close by saying, "Bah."
Why do they require this? Christian families (Such as my own) don't want our kids to learn this at school. It's my personal belief that kids should be taught this at home.
Does that mean that you actually intend to teach your kids about safe sex, or is it your intent to prevent them from learning in the first place in the hopes that this will somehow discourage them from partaking in sex despite peer pressure and possible misinformation from peers at an age when they are starting to become independent and place less weight on your words than that of those peers?
It's important for parents to have the right to pass their values on, but don't place too much reliance on your ability to get your kids to do what you want. After all, that's why kids taking "virginity pledges" are more likely to engage in oral & anal sex, are more likely to forgo protection, and end up with rates of pregnancy and STD infection on par with kids taught about safe sex.
So, please don't be naive with your kids, and please don't take the hardened stance that if they don't obey your wishes about when to start having sex, that they deserve any "consequences" such as an STD or an unwanted pregnancy.
Parents should be able to choose whether or not sex-ed is right for their own kid.
If they're actually involved enough to care. But why should the kids of parents who are negligent (or who just find the whole subject immensely awkward) have to suffer for having sucky parents? What about parents who actively lie about sex to try to scare their kids into not having it?
Do you want your kids possibly going out with other kids that have really poor education about sex? (Or do you plan to try to lock up your kids so they don't date? Maybe you plan to have "the talk" with their girlfriend/boyfriend?)
Teen pregnancy and STDs are a societal problem, and part of the major role of schools in society is to pick up after crappy parents. Maybe you're awesome. Maybe your kids are great. But do you seriously think we should just give everyone the benefit of the doubt and try to pick up the pieces later? Or is an ounce of prevention worth a pound of cure? I'm quite obviously in favor of the latter view.
Doesn't evolution contradict the Bible in many ways?
Only a very literal interpretation of Genesis. But that raises all kinds of problems in trying to reconcile the words of the Bible with what we know of the world we live in. Just trying to figure out how Noah managed to fit all the world's animals in such a boat (and how the plants survived on their own) is a massive headache if you take it literally.
A sizable minority of American Christians choose not to disregard science and to interpret Genesis as a parable rather than a historical account. The point of the Bible is how to live righteously and to build a relationship with God, and I'm not of the opinion that this requires me to disregard the things I can see with my eyes and test with my hands.
And if there is any justice in this world, God will smack him upside the head, call him an idiot, and send him back to Earth to be reborn to an unwed 14 year old mother.
I imagine the labor pains of giving birth to 14 year old who is herself already pregnant would be horrific.
Not cool, man. There's a line between making fun of someone for being stupid by calling them "retarded" and actually mocking the mentally retarded and mocking their families for the misfortune of something largely beyond their control.
Poking fun at her kid crosses the line from political satire to asshatery.
In the US, religionists hate sex that isn't rationed according to their superstition. Americans, by and large, are religious, willfully ignorant, and ruled by fear. Any pleasure not rationed by preacher or priest is evil.
What is a "religionist?" If you can't communicate your intent with common, neutral language and feel the need to coin special jargon to dehumanize your opponents (e.g. by lumping them all together in a sinister "-ism"), then that's generally a bad sign on whether you're coming from a point of view that's not particularly based on reason or open-mindedness.
Or to rephrase, you don't sound any better than the people you're decrying. Substitute "ignorant" for "evil," and you sound like any other fundamentalist.
It's a war, people die. If you don't want to die, don't hang out with people who carry around AK 47's and RPGs.
Didn't seem to work for those cameramen and their attempted rescuers. Got any better advice for not getting yourself killed when under the watch of jumpy, paranoid, armed soldiers?
Situations like these are why I'm sometimes scared of dealing with cops. It doesn't matter that I expect that 99%+ of the force are solid, level-headed professionals. There's always the chance that you've got the one jumpy guy that's liable to empty their clip into you for pulling your wallet out the wrong way because he thinks you're pulling a gun.
Iraqis have to deal with an armed force of young people who suspect each Iraqi to be a potential terrorist that could jump them at any moment. (This fear isn't unjustified, mind you.) Imagine living with that every day, from either POV. It's no wonder this happened, but the military's reaction to its fatal mistake is utterly unforgivable -- as is the actions of the soldiers who continued to fire past the point where confusion was reasonable, and as is their blaming the victims.
Yes I read the summary. The summary didn't say "this incident happened 3 years ago in Baghdad". Also, I meant why isn't the MSM covering the leak on wikilinks, not the incident itself. Or is that being covered up as well?
No, it just makes them look bad -- like the empty shells of the Fourth Estate that they are. Plus, investigative journalism that makes the military look bad is far too much effort with far too much backlash (from conservative viewers and the government both) to bother with in a modern, advertisement-driven instead of product-driven ethos. The news today is about "infotainment," not about delivering the hard facts.
They won't touch it until momentum builds up on the internet to the point where some feel that it makes them look worse not to cover it. The days when the media would stand up when the government did something wrong are long gone, to the point where they don't even stand up if one of their own is killed through negligence.
It's not so much an feeling of "ooh, that's so weird" as going from the point where you're impressed at how well-made and interesting looking it is to being unimpressed at the remaining flaws.
In this case, it has a well-made face, but the fact that it doesn't move much except in starts and sputters makes it look palsied. It's not exceptionally creepy. It's just mildly unpleasant to look at in ways that something totally unrealistic like C3PO isn't.
Freedom of Speech should be limited for no reason. Even screaming fire in a theater should be allowed. Of course that theater may choose to ban that patron, and that should also be a freedom that we the people possess.
So, freedom of speech should never be limited EVER... except when property rights are asserted? Seems pretty in tune with the notion of copyright! </tongue-in-cheek>
Would you like to see infra red light? Would you like to hear super sonic sounds?
On the former, heck yeah! On the latter, OH HELL NO. Just having the normal hearing of a teenager was annoying enough before I got old enough to no longer hear high-pitched electronic whining noises. Way too many machines are designed to be comfortable to people with normal hearing and would be maddening to people with a better range.
No, of course it is not immoral to cure a disease.
Is color-blindness a disease which should be cured whenever possible or a valuable human trait that gives enhanced abilities in certain situations (such as in low-light or against certain camouflaged targets)? If you don't assume that it's a disease, then is it acceptable to eliminate a trait from humanity simply because our society designs itself around the visual abilities of the majority?
And then where do you draw the line on what is a disease and should be eliminated at every turn and what is simply an acceptable different between people? Color-blindness seems to cause far more disadvantages than advantages, but what about certain mental / personality traits, like mild Aspergers or transsexualism? Who gets to decide what is a disease and what is a variation, and which way does society default when it's vague? Do you let parents get to decide what kind of abilities and personality their children will have, and will it be worth it if a child decides not to purse the career their parent engineered them for?
(Personally, I'm in favor of allowing a cure for colorblindness -- even before birth -- but I'm not so arrogant to decide that it's a crazy thing to even think about objecting to or that people are reactionary lunatics for being upset by it.)
Slashdot Mirror
What makes us think we can hear them? Have they developed the radio?
For that matter, do they even have the same senses that we do? They may have developed senses we lack, while being blind and deaf.
Radio is just a transmission medium. It doesn't matter if they are blind and deaf since it's not like we can see or hear radio directly anyway. I mean, we use radio to send digitally-encoded signals to satellites and back as well as to measure the movements of clouds and rain (doppler radar). Radio would still be useful as a long-range means of communicating any kind of data that penetrates well through most matter or as a scanning tool whether or not aliens have the same senses as us.
(Well, with the possible exception of the sensory ability to directly perceive radio, which would make it about as useful as using strobe lights to replace Wi-fi in a glass city. They'd need a *very* broad range of radio "vision" to make useless all of the frequencies we scan for, though.)
Ephemeral contact via visitation is completely besides the point and slightly illogical to consider. As far as we can tell, FTL is either impossible or utterly impractical. So why would aliens go through the trouble of sub-light speed exploration of our system without colonization? That's a huge waste of time and resources.
No, the argument being made is that any race interested in survival beyond the limited resources of a a single plant should have colonized every single habitable space in the galaxy by now. Once it becomes possible to colonize one foreign star, it should be repeatable -- even if it takes a century or a millenia or more for a colony to want to move outwards again, it should inevitably happen. Once an alien culture began the diaspora, it is unlikely that they'd vanish from every single colony in the galaxy since there aren't really any disasters we're aware of that could cleanse an entire galaxy of sentient life. We should, in theory, be awash in alien communications if they were ever out there. It doesn't matter how far along we were when they started the push outwards, they should still be there.
Of course, that presupposes that a thousands, millions, or billions of years old alien civilization still has a use for radio. Given things like doppler radar, it seems unlikely that high-energy radio signals should become completely obsolete, so the supposition isn't unreasonable.
Has the DMCA been proven in court? Has anyone been punished for circumventing CSS?
Several times.
This case has been highly cited by other courts ruling on the DMCA within and without the 2nd Circuit.
No courts outside of NY & the 2nd Circuit or California have addressed the DMCA, but it's highly unlikely given the language of the DMCA that another court is going to rule that breaking CSS is perfectly legal. Each of the courts that have addressed the constitutionality of the DMCA have upheld it on this matter, holding that code contains significant non-speech elements that can be regulated in a content-neutral fashion.
While these courts have focused on the DMCA with regards to the distribution of copy-protection circumventing software, it's worth rereading the DMCA:
No person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title. The prohibition contained in the preceding sentence shall take effect at the end of the 2-year period beginning on the date of the enactment of this chapter.
17 U.S.C. 1201(a)(1)(A)
While no individual users have been charged for violating the DMCA, and it's highly unlikely that any individuals ever will be charged any time soon, it's still illegal to circumvent CSS to copy your own DVDs -- mostly. Universal City Studios explicitly disavows fair use as an exception to the law. See pp. 443-444. On the other hand, Realnetworks recognizes a fair use exception, but holds that fair use doesn't encompass wholesale space-shifting (i.e. copying your entire DVD for later viewing).See pp. 940-944.
%^$%^$%^$%^$%^ NO CARRIER
Just to clarify, does that actually do something in Perl?
Beautiful, you can legally use a piece of free software on your computer to create a portable, digital copy from the DVD, or pay more, tie up your internet connection for a while, jump through several annoying hoops and get a crappy DRM copy?? Talk about a tax on the ignorant.
*cough* Really, circumventing CSS encryption is legal? Could you point us to a case that has decided this?
Apparently money really can buy happiness?
Another way to spin it would be to say that preoccupation with money can lead one to overlook painful consequences.
Thank you, but it's just to be expected on Slashdot. There are just some issues that draw strong moderator support in favor of hard line positions. Some of these are balanced, like pro/anti libertarian philosophy debates. Others aren't as much. Atheism is more common in the IT crowd than the populace at whole, so it's not all that surprising that some of the more hardened supporters have a good presence here. (Geeks are after all nothing if not known for believing passionately in the superiority of their own reasoning.)
I'm not really all that bothered. My karma rating is pretty much iron-clad unless someone were to cyber-stalk me. Sometimes you just have to take the lumps to take a stand against bigotry.
I am not sure you have a correct understanding of Libertarians. Libertarians. . . believe in as little government as possible. . . [and that] an individual is responsible for him/her self and shouldn't count on government for anything.
I'm pretty sure he gets Libertarians completely. The problem is that people don't act responsibly for themselves much of the time, that people are in fact incapable of acting as perfectly-rational, well-informed economic actors in all markets, and that society crumbles without some form of check and balance on people placing their own interests above the expenses of others.
Much like communism, libertarianism relies on the notion that the world will be a utopia if everyone acts properly or that a large enough group of people acting according to the tenets of the philosophy will be able to mitigate or eliminate the negative effects of those actors who work against it. Both systems drastically underestimate the knack that unethical people have for pushing off the costs of their behavior on others in ways that are difficult to effectively police without a mix of strategies outside the province of "pure" systems.
I'm a part-time VCR enthusiast and a card-carrying member of the Classic Video Equipment Club of America, you insensitive clod!
Agreed. Everyone knows that analog produces a warmer, more beautiful picture free of the deleterious effects of the analog-to-digital conversion process. A properly configured analog video setup produces a superior experience to a digital setup. Anyone who disagrees just doesn't have sophisticated enough eyes.
I'm pretty sure that getting you to open your wallet was Comcast's goal in the first place.
You mean Murdoch's American politically-motivated news empire is reporting a story from one of his British politically-motivated rags? And with a story that portrays a doctor-driven decision as the ultimate example of destructive coddling of criminals by liberals?
Say it isn't so.
There are a lot of people for whom death before their statistically-expected lifespan is a benefit to society.
Not everyone is a utilitarian who views the lives of others entirely in terms of their use to society, and it's not "brainless drivel" to place a different value on human life than the one you advocate, where relapsing into an addiction is worth a tacit death penalty.
The people who believe in superstition are not worthy of the respect of modern humans. Their drivel should not even be in the marketplace of ideas, deserves nothing but scorn and attack, and is a drag on human progress.
Then you have utterly closed your mind off from seeing if any of their ideas on society are worthwhile merely because they are "tainted" with the association of "superstition." You are throwing out the baby with the bathwater. If you wish to engage in genetic fallacy and call it logic, then feel free, but realize that most people consider this sort of strident hate-spewing towards people who are merely "wrong" in your book as a sign of poor credibility.
Well, except Ann Coulter fans, anyway.
The only people who want religion respected are superstitionists themselves.
While I'm sure the militant Dawkins fan club has your back, I somehow doubt that all atheists are quite so arrogant in their beliefs. You might as well ask a Fred Phelps supporter if "real" Christians respect atheism. Anyone who advocates religious tolerance must be No True Scotsman, eh?
Ardent belief in the absence of God is no more provable than ardent belief in the presence of God. It's a matter of Faith. You're just another religious zealot insisting that his interpretation of the unprovable mysteries of existence is the "holy truth" and that all the unbelievers need to be purged. And so, I close by saying, "Bah."
Why do they require this? Christian families (Such as my own) don't want our kids to learn this at school. It's my personal belief that kids should be taught this at home.
Does that mean that you actually intend to teach your kids about safe sex, or is it your intent to prevent them from learning in the first place in the hopes that this will somehow discourage them from partaking in sex despite peer pressure and possible misinformation from peers at an age when they are starting to become independent and place less weight on your words than that of those peers?
It's important for parents to have the right to pass their values on, but don't place too much reliance on your ability to get your kids to do what you want. After all, that's why kids taking "virginity pledges" are more likely to engage in oral & anal sex, are more likely to forgo protection, and end up with rates of pregnancy and STD infection on par with kids taught about safe sex.
So, please don't be naive with your kids, and please don't take the hardened stance that if they don't obey your wishes about when to start having sex, that they deserve any "consequences" such as an STD or an unwanted pregnancy.
Parents should be able to choose whether or not sex-ed is right for their own kid.
If they're actually involved enough to care. But why should the kids of parents who are negligent (or who just find the whole subject immensely awkward) have to suffer for having sucky parents? What about parents who actively lie about sex to try to scare their kids into not having it?
Do you want your kids possibly going out with other kids that have really poor education about sex? (Or do you plan to try to lock up your kids so they don't date? Maybe you plan to have "the talk" with their girlfriend/boyfriend?)
Teen pregnancy and STDs are a societal problem, and part of the major role of schools in society is to pick up after crappy parents. Maybe you're awesome. Maybe your kids are great. But do you seriously think we should just give everyone the benefit of the doubt and try to pick up the pieces later? Or is an ounce of prevention worth a pound of cure? I'm quite obviously in favor of the latter view.
Doesn't evolution contradict the Bible in many ways?
Only a very literal interpretation of Genesis. But that raises all kinds of problems in trying to reconcile the words of the Bible with what we know of the world we live in. Just trying to figure out how Noah managed to fit all the world's animals in such a boat (and how the plants survived on their own) is a massive headache if you take it literally.
A sizable minority of American Christians choose not to disregard science and to interpret Genesis as a parable rather than a historical account. The point of the Bible is how to live righteously and to build a relationship with God, and I'm not of the opinion that this requires me to disregard the things I can see with my eyes and test with my hands.
And if there is any justice in this world, God will smack him upside the head, call him an idiot, and send him back to Earth to be reborn to an unwed 14 year old mother.
I imagine the labor pains of giving birth to 14 year old who is herself already pregnant would be horrific.
Not cool, man. There's a line between making fun of someone for being stupid by calling them "retarded" and actually mocking the mentally retarded and mocking their families for the misfortune of something largely beyond their control.
Poking fun at her kid crosses the line from political satire to asshatery.
In the US, religionists hate sex that isn't rationed according to their superstition. Americans, by and large, are religious, willfully ignorant, and ruled by fear. Any pleasure not rationed by preacher or priest is evil.
What is a "religionist?" If you can't communicate your intent with common, neutral language and feel the need to coin special jargon to dehumanize your opponents (e.g. by lumping them all together in a sinister "-ism"), then that's generally a bad sign on whether you're coming from a point of view that's not particularly based on reason or open-mindedness.
Or to rephrase, you don't sound any better than the people you're decrying. Substitute "ignorant" for "evil," and you sound like any other fundamentalist.
It's a war, people die. If you don't want to die, don't hang out with people who carry around AK 47's and RPGs.
Didn't seem to work for those cameramen and their attempted rescuers. Got any better advice for not getting yourself killed when under the watch of jumpy, paranoid, armed soldiers?
Situations like these are why I'm sometimes scared of dealing with cops. It doesn't matter that I expect that 99%+ of the force are solid, level-headed professionals. There's always the chance that you've got the one jumpy guy that's liable to empty their clip into you for pulling your wallet out the wrong way because he thinks you're pulling a gun.
Iraqis have to deal with an armed force of young people who suspect each Iraqi to be a potential terrorist that could jump them at any moment. (This fear isn't unjustified, mind you.) Imagine living with that every day, from either POV. It's no wonder this happened, but the military's reaction to its fatal mistake is utterly unforgivable -- as is the actions of the soldiers who continued to fire past the point where confusion was reasonable, and as is their blaming the victims.
Yes I read the summary. The summary didn't say "this incident happened 3 years ago in Baghdad". Also, I meant why isn't the MSM covering the leak on wikilinks, not the incident itself. Or is that being covered up as well?
No, it just makes them look bad -- like the empty shells of the Fourth Estate that they are. Plus, investigative journalism that makes the military look bad is far too much effort with far too much backlash (from conservative viewers and the government both) to bother with in a modern, advertisement-driven instead of product-driven ethos. The news today is about "infotainment," not about delivering the hard facts.
They won't touch it until momentum builds up on the internet to the point where some feel that it makes them look worse not to cover it. The days when the media would stand up when the government did something wrong are long gone, to the point where they don't even stand up if one of their own is killed through negligence.
It's not so much an feeling of "ooh, that's so weird" as going from the point where you're impressed at how well-made and interesting looking it is to being unimpressed at the remaining flaws.
In this case, it has a well-made face, but the fact that it doesn't move much except in starts and sputters makes it look palsied. It's not exceptionally creepy. It's just mildly unpleasant to look at in ways that something totally unrealistic like C3PO isn't.
Freedom of Speech should be limited for no reason. Even screaming fire in a theater should be allowed. Of course that theater may choose to ban that patron, and that should also be a freedom that we the people possess.
So, freedom of speech should never be limited EVER... except when property rights are asserted?
Seems pretty in tune with the notion of copyright! </tongue-in-cheek>
Would you like to see infra red light?
Would you like to hear super sonic sounds?
On the former, heck yeah! On the latter, OH HELL NO. Just having the normal hearing of a teenager was annoying enough before I got old enough to no longer hear high-pitched electronic whining noises. Way too many machines are designed to be comfortable to people with normal hearing and would be maddening to people with a better range.
No, of course it is not immoral to cure a disease.
Is color-blindness a disease which should be cured whenever possible or a valuable human trait that gives enhanced abilities in certain situations (such as in low-light or against certain camouflaged targets)? If you don't assume that it's a disease, then is it acceptable to eliminate a trait from humanity simply because our society designs itself around the visual abilities of the majority?
And then where do you draw the line on what is a disease and should be eliminated at every turn and what is simply an acceptable different between people? Color-blindness seems to cause far more disadvantages than advantages, but what about certain mental / personality traits, like mild Aspergers or transsexualism? Who gets to decide what is a disease and what is a variation, and which way does society default when it's vague? Do you let parents get to decide what kind of abilities and personality their children will have, and will it be worth it if a child decides not to purse the career their parent engineered them for?
(Personally, I'm in favor of allowing a cure for colorblindness -- even before birth -- but I'm not so arrogant to decide that it's a crazy thing to even think about objecting to or that people are reactionary lunatics for being upset by it.)
I bought myself green glasses (my favorite color), which apparently turned out to be brown. I hate brown damn it!
I... but... how... *bzzt* ERROR: DOES NOT COMPUTE.