If you really want to go down stupid unrealistic option routes then there's a better choice
It isn't unrealistic, It has already been done once under similar circumstances to great effect.
: You wont have to endure any longer at all if you nuke every major metropolis in America.
How would that change anything in the Middle East?
It also wouldn't cause you all of the additional problems of nuking the middle east.
What? It doesn't even address the problem at all.
What, you think American civilians should be protected but not those in Syria or Iraq? Really?
No-one is protected. You have the the choice of putting Middle Eastern civilians through decades more war, persecution and terrorism, or you can cut the cancer out in one fell swoop, and give the survivors a chance at a prosperous life. Just like it did in Japan.
Who is that?
The biggest military is the China, and they use metric.
The most powerful is debatable. If recent history is anything to go by, then it could be any number of goat herder tribes that continually embarrass much larger foe.
Next up, flying cars too!
And I think you've vastly overstated the capability of AI. It not impossible because I'm waving my hands, it's unlikely any time soon, because no-one has demonstrated anything even remotely close to useful in real world applications.
The difference with Iraq is we tired to impose 21st century democracy on people with the mental attitude of cavemen, and this is the end result. firstly we should've never gone into Iraq. It was quite clear that Saddam for all his ills was actually keeping the locals under control. Once the decision was made to go in, you have to commit to full time colonial occupation. No democracy, no voting, an enforced dictatorship to bring them up to 21st century values. This takes at least 3 generations to breed out the dissent.
This is the age of big data. Every combination of up to 10 letters and numbers is only 3 quadrillion records. I can't imagine that would be impossible for a motivated party. If you wanted to be a little more sensible, run those combinations through a dictionary and you easily knock a few orders of magnitude off the scale.
The problem is that either approach requires callous disregard for civilian deaths, and the international consequences of them. The US are joyfully not willing to do that.
This is where we need to get real. You get civilian deaths no matter what. Better that those lives aren't given in vain, and we to get an outcome that is favourable to us. It's been 40 years and the situation is still as bad if not worse than day one. How many more decades do we endure this?
I've have a pretty good understanding of the whole tribal divide thing. But again that's because they drew those lines when they gave it all back. If they didn't give it back it would still be an empire ruled by Europeans.
FWIW, the US, Canada, Australia and NZ all had tribal boundaries disrupted by British rule, but because they maintained governance, the net pain has been a whole lot lower.
Well unless they are intentionally allowing people to die in the streets just to keep a secret about a system they went to great lengths to acquire to reduce crime, then no.
Does this even work if the crime doesn't involve a gun? If someone steals my milk from the work fridge can I then go shoot the guy on the desk next to me and blame the thief?
Or, in a country of gun nuts, if a robber robs a bank I'm in, can I shoot everyone in there and get off the hook?
Or they'll find someone who will hire them based on their skills rather than their body art.
And then when they're 40, they'll be the ones doing the hiring.
That's fine if you intend on working in a cafe, bar or retail the rest of your life. Some people want more than that.
As long as you're not doing something intentionally controversial like tattooing a swastika on your forehead, employers and customers alike need to stop giving a damn about anything other than the ability of the employee to do their job. The cashier with black hair who does a good job today can do just as good a job tomorrow if she dyes it pink.
No but if you want a real job and earn some real money you might want to think about not limiting your opportunities
It's not a zero sum game, the bigger they grow, the faster they recruit.
My solution wouldn't be genocide, you first request immediate surrender of key leaders of the movement, then nuke their capital (this is a 'state' after all). When they refuse you hit the next town. You'll be surprised how much the dynamics change when facing a very real threat of nuclear strike. After half a dozen strikes it's hard to believe there'll be any real resistance left.
We've been in numerous types of this style of conflict in the last 70 years. Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan and not really won a single thing. Enough of namby pamby style of war, if we're serious about victory we've got to go old school annihilation and occupation.
Why not just register everything? Keep a cycle of registrations and cancellations going so you can fuck everyone over by owning everything all the time?
I agree with most of what you say, but there are cases like myself, also been driving since 14, and was also a motorcycle courier, but with a history of speeding tickets as long as your arm. In 30 years of driving/riding I've never had an at fault accident. I don't speed to be cool or show off, I just have a natural tendency to operate machines faster than others, hence drive a bit quicker than most. Some people talk faster than others, some walk faster than others, when will we be mature enough to accept that some people can operate machinery faster than others without being persecuted as child murderers?
Title says it all. This is a pilot program for the automotive insurance industry to offer "reduced rates".
And what's wrong with that? You are free to not use, they are free to ask for more money because of it. That is how a free market should work
Eventually, it becomes mandatory on new cars based on some government regulated standards.
They don't need to because the work is already done. When implemented properly you do not need regulations, because the general population are persuaded into better behaviour by the idea of saving money.
Well for me, science is more important. And the science says people under 25 are a lot more likely to die or kill on our roads. It has nothing to do with experience and more to do with human brain development which doesn't mature until the early 20's.
Slashdot Mirror
No, you are...
If you really want to go down stupid unrealistic option routes then there's a better choice
It isn't unrealistic, It has already been done once under similar circumstances to great effect.
: You wont have to endure any longer at all if you nuke every major metropolis in America.
How would that change anything in the Middle East?
It also wouldn't cause you all of the additional problems of nuking the middle east.
What? It doesn't even address the problem at all.
What, you think American civilians should be protected but not those in Syria or Iraq? Really?
No-one is protected. You have the the choice of putting Middle Eastern civilians through decades more war, persecution and terrorism, or you can cut the cancer out in one fell swoop, and give the survivors a chance at a prosperous life. Just like it did in Japan.
Who is that?
The biggest military is the China, and they use metric.
The most powerful is debatable. If recent history is anything to go by, then it could be any number of goat herder tribes that continually embarrass much larger foe.
Next up, flying cars too!
And I think you've vastly overstated the capability of AI. It not impossible because I'm waving my hands, it's unlikely any time soon, because no-one has demonstrated anything even remotely close to useful in real world applications.
The difference with Iraq is we tired to impose 21st century democracy on people with the mental attitude of cavemen, and this is the end result. firstly we should've never gone into Iraq. It was quite clear that Saddam for all his ills was actually keeping the locals under control. Once the decision was made to go in, you have to commit to full time colonial occupation. No democracy, no voting, an enforced dictatorship to bring them up to 21st century values. This takes at least 3 generations to breed out the dissent.
This is the age of big data. Every combination of up to 10 letters and numbers is only 3 quadrillion records. I can't imagine that would be impossible for a motivated party. If you wanted to be a little more sensible, run those combinations through a dictionary and you easily knock a few orders of magnitude off the scale.
The problem is that either approach requires callous disregard for civilian deaths, and the international consequences of them. The US are joyfully not willing to do that.
This is where we need to get real. You get civilian deaths no matter what. Better that those lives aren't given in vain, and we to get an outcome that is favourable to us. It's been 40 years and the situation is still as bad if not worse than day one. How many more decades do we endure this?
I should say "popular media". I come to Slashdot for the comments. I find them far more insightful than the articles.
Maybe in your country, but our legal system is a little less medieval.
I've have a pretty good understanding of the whole tribal divide thing. But again that's because they drew those lines when they gave it all back. If they didn't give it back it would still be an empire ruled by Europeans.
FWIW, the US, Canada, Australia and NZ all had tribal boundaries disrupted by British rule, but because they maintained governance, the net pain has been a whole lot lower.
Well unless they are intentionally allowing people to die in the streets just to keep a secret about a system they went to great lengths to acquire to reduce crime, then no.
Does this even work if the crime doesn't involve a gun? If someone steals my milk from the work fridge can I then go shoot the guy on the desk next to me and blame the thief?
Or, in a country of gun nuts, if a robber robs a bank I'm in, can I shoot everyone in there and get off the hook?
This rule seems a bit flawed.
Or they'll find someone who will hire them based on their skills rather than their body art.
And then when they're 40, they'll be the ones doing the hiring.
That's fine if you intend on working in a cafe, bar or retail the rest of your life. Some people want more than that.
As long as you're not doing something intentionally controversial like tattooing a swastika on your forehead, employers and customers alike need to stop giving a damn about anything other than the ability of the employee to do their job. The cashier with black hair who does a good job today can do just as good a job tomorrow if she dyes it pink.
No but if you want a real job and earn some real money you might want to think about not limiting your opportunities
It's not a zero sum game, the bigger they grow, the faster they recruit. My solution wouldn't be genocide, you first request immediate surrender of key leaders of the movement, then nuke their capital (this is a 'state' after all). When they refuse you hit the next town. You'll be surprised how much the dynamics change when facing a very real threat of nuclear strike. After half a dozen strikes it's hard to believe there'll be any real resistance left.
We've been in numerous types of this style of conflict in the last 70 years. Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan and not really won a single thing. Enough of namby pamby style of war, if we're serious about victory we've got to go old school annihilation and occupation.
Just because it's not headlining the mainstream media doesn't mean it isn't happening.
What if it's a vigilante trying to stop the felony that kills the teller?
Says nerd on Slashdot...
Why not just register everything? Keep a cycle of registrations and cancellations going so you can fuck everyone over by owning everything all the time?
I agree with most of what you say, but there are cases like myself, also been driving since 14, and was also a motorcycle courier, but with a history of speeding tickets as long as your arm. In 30 years of driving/riding I've never had an at fault accident. I don't speed to be cool or show off, I just have a natural tendency to operate machines faster than others, hence drive a bit quicker than most. Some people talk faster than others, some walk faster than others, when will we be mature enough to accept that some people can operate machinery faster than others without being persecuted as child murderers?
Title says it all. This is a pilot program for the automotive insurance industry to offer "reduced rates".
And what's wrong with that? You are free to not use, they are free to ask for more money because of it. That is how a free market should work
Eventually, it becomes mandatory on new cars based on some government regulated standards.
They don't need to because the work is already done. When implemented properly you do not need regulations, because the general population are persuaded into better behaviour by the idea of saving money.
Might be worth clarifying, an SUV in Australia is a Toyota RAV4, Nissan XTrail etc. In the US it's a truck.
If you trust teenage kids then you are stupid.
Well for me, science is more important. And the science says people under 25 are a lot more likely to die or kill on our roads. It has nothing to do with experience and more to do with human brain development which doesn't mature until the early 20's.
My kids, who just turned 8, are unlikely to even learn how to drive. They'll live in a world where all cars are self-driving,
And they'll have flying cars too! And invisibility and time machines!