I know that you were being trollish, but I actually have to agree. I didn't spend my time in the dorms except to sleep. My study time was spent down at I-Hop, or in the library. I did find it mildly annoying when somebody was yelling down the hallway, but you can get used to it.
90% would follow those orders, and imprison the other 10%.
There is a reason enlisted people are usually transferred away from their home states and have very little ties to the community they live in.
If this is a joint military/police exercise, then it isn't the US Military, it's the National Guard. These are people from the local area.
20 years ago this sort of exercise would get top brass court marshaled. Today anything is possible in the name of homeland security.
Very true, sadly unless the mainstream media starts demanding answers as to why they are conducting drills with machine gun fire over populated areas, this will become the norm and vastly more dangerous to society as a whole.
Yup, just like the Military fell to hell after Kent State.
You sir, are a delusional fool, who refuses to learn from history.
Red Herring. The military wasn't asked to continue doing the same at more universities after the Kent State incident. As somebody mentioned earlier, the first incident that puts the military in a bad press will kill the common soldiers will to continue. It might even take more than one indecent, but I can guarantee that eventually moral in the military deteriorates with bad press.
If you really want to learn from history, take a look at what happened with the Berlin wall. The East German soldiers had orders to kill anybody trying to cross into the west. Yet because the soldiers moral was so low, they put down their rifles and let people cross, eventually the government conceded and changed the soldiers orders to accommodate the population's wishes.
Also, remember that the US military isn't the uneducated military of the past. Many enlisted have college degrees. All have at least a high school education. Upper leadership in today's military has to show how their orders benefit society. If those orders start to conflict with the mainstream press, it won't take long at all for the moral to disintegrate. With the most likely outcome being mass desertion.
A dog is way more effective than a gun for keeping the home secure.
A dog will almost always be deterred with a piece of steak. Better yet, a tazer. Having dogs is good as part of your crime deterrent package, but should not be solely relied upon.
. I'd rather have a hillbilly with a M-16 and the stars and bars hanging in a window living next to me than have The Man start confiscating guns "for our own good", that's for sure.
Guns have been in circulation since long before we were a nation.(I know US centric) We seem to have been doing quite well with them. In fact, according to the government, gun crime has been steadily dropping since the mid 90's while gun ownership has been increasing. No, enough guns in circulation isn't the underlying problem... Failure to address mental illness is.
Weren't guns supposed to decrease the likelihood of you being victimized by criminals?
No, they only level the playing field. While having a gun will deter the criminal that doesn't want confrontation, it doesn't deter the criminal that is looking to steal guns. It is a simple concept that seems to be lost to the anti gun types.
Tough guy? No, but old enough to have known a few people who committed suicide. People like to blame others as a means of coping. That is human nature. Emotion causes people to act in strange ways. Unfortunately, we now have a society that can't deal with death without blaming somebody or something. For example, take the recent school shootings in Connecticut. While we do give casual blame to Adam Lanza, society can't hold him accountable since he took his own life. So instead we blame the guns. In this case society can't hold Aaron Swartz to blame, so we blame MIT. BAH!
You alluded to untreated mental illness, and I agree that more can be done in this arena. But we need to stop blaming others for somebodies decision to commit suicide.
I won't make the same claim for children, but when an adult commits suicide, the only one responsible, is that individual. I don't care how much somebody verbally abuses you, the only person who can be blamed, if you commit suicide, is you. That doesn't mean that other people are not jerks, but you can not blame them for somebody else's decision to take their own life. Along those same lines, this idea that people should be able to spot the warning signs is also asinine. Unless they actually tell you that they are going to end their life, you probably won't recognized the difference between somebody planning to take their own life to one who is just introverted. In this case, MIT can look at their internal policies to appease the touchy feely types, but there is no reason they should have to do so.
The only people I will feel sorry for are the close friends and family who cared about Aaron Swartz.
I think Anonymous is missing the concept a bit here. You can protest a business with a sign and megaphone, but you are not allowed to stop people from patronising that business. Very rare is it that a DDoS doesn't affect somebodies business. Most often, it affects somebody not even related to who the attacker is intending. If you want to protest, there are non disruptive methods to use, DDoS shouldn't be one of them.
I think "dumb" would be refusing to consider any new or challenging ideas. TFA points out that people are demanding action. Would you rather a compromise where your gun refused to shoot in certain places, or would you rather the gun control advocates get their way? It's a false dichotomy, but one that is being forced by the discussion. It's not impossible to come up with a third option that no one had really considered before, which would be an acceptable compromise.
So far, I have heard nothing but dumb ideas from the gun control folks. But in intrest of giving you the answer you request, here you go.
The Second Ammendment was written as a means to protect the population from tyrany. If all guns become programable to not allow them to fire at the government, you have effectively removed that protection the second ammenment provided.
Compromise on this issue is not what we need. There are plenty of gun laws on the books already. There is a mountain of evidence to show that more gun laws have a negative relationship to crime rates. Sadly, most of that evidence is ignored by the media, or at least they cherry pick stories. It is all about ratings you know.
However, if a solution to a preceived problem is what the population is asking for, then how about this: Educating the populace on proper gun safety (and god forbid terminology) would do more to protect against deaths from accedental discharge than any new regulation against guns. I offer as ancedotal evidence, the country of sweden. They require the general population to serve in the militia and train them. They even arm them with fully automatic weapons. Yet they have very little crime comparitively speaking. I possit that it isn't the number or even the type of gun that makes the difference, but the education level provided.
I would say that guns do have a peacefull purpose.
The very fact that a populace is armed means the government remains relatively peaceful torwads that population. It is when the populace is unarmed, that tyranical governments do their worst. That doesn't mean that it will always happen, but there is nothing to stop it if you are unarmed.
The things that really sticks out in this saga are 1) Manning had legal resources available to him to expose wrong doing in the classified world. He chose to ignore that route and used the media instead. 2) Lamo looked at the shear number of documents and had to make a choice to either do nothing with the possibility of many people being killed, or turn Manning in with the possibility of facing the death penalty. Damned if you do and damned if you don't.
This saga has parallels in history. Think back to the first atomic bombs dropped on Japan. There were those in the program that had to come to grips with the fact that the work they did led to 250,000+ dead. They had basically two choices. Accept the notion that dropping those bombs led the the end of the war and ultimately reduce the total number of dead, or go crazy thinking otherwise, since we can never know for sure.
Right or wrong, Lamo chose his path and I will not fault him for it. Manning on the other hand choose poorly.
I have blamed the mainstream media for this, but I suspect the public education system should get some credit for this as well. All you have stated above is not even half of the story. But it is the story that is most told the most often. There are many good books out there that explain the real issues behind the various crashes in the economy over the years. In every case, if the government had stayed out of the market, it would have corrected itself through price variations. Leave the risk to the businesses and out of the governments hands.
In every case, the government perceived a problem and tried to fix it, thereby making things worse in the long run. Blaming the S&L failures on deregulation, ignores the fact that they were forced into making risky loans by the government. All in the name of helping the poor. A good intention to be sure, but again the unintended consequence came back to haunt them.
The EPA is by and large the biggest hindrance to becoming a successful starting business. They have been responsible for far more legislation than any other government agency. You can give credit to the EPA for many good things, but the unintended consequences now outweigh the good.
Again, as I stated above, It's one thing to require businesses not to pollute beyond a given level. It is a completely different matter when they regulate how to accomplish that goal.
Ask yourself this. What EPA regulation will you break by opening a lemonade stand in your front yard? If you don't know, then you don't understand just how bad the over regulation has become.
Slashdot Mirror
I once heard it described as...
When jumping from a 100 foot building, the view is great for the first 99 feet.
I know that you were being trollish, but I actually have to agree. I didn't spend my time in the dorms except to sleep. My study time was spent down at I-Hop, or in the library. I did find it mildly annoying when somebody was yelling down the hallway, but you can get used to it.
Personally, I am waiting on Tau day; June 28, 3185
On a side note, does anybody know a good cryogenics lab?
90% would follow those orders, and imprison the other 10%.
There is a reason enlisted people are usually transferred away from their home states and have very little ties to the community they live in.
If this is a joint military/police exercise, then it isn't the US Military, it's the National Guard. These are people from the local area.
20 years ago this sort of exercise would get top brass court marshaled. Today anything is possible in the name of homeland security.
Very true, sadly unless the mainstream media starts demanding answers as to why they are conducting drills with machine gun fire over populated areas, this will become the norm and vastly more dangerous to society as a whole.
Yup, just like the Military fell to hell after Kent State.
You sir, are a delusional fool, who refuses to learn from history.
Red Herring. The military wasn't asked to continue doing the same at more universities after the Kent State incident. As somebody mentioned earlier, the first incident that puts the military in a bad press will kill the common soldiers will to continue. It might even take more than one indecent, but I can guarantee that eventually moral in the military deteriorates with bad press.
If you really want to learn from history, take a look at what happened with the Berlin wall. The East German soldiers had orders to kill anybody trying to cross into the west. Yet because the soldiers moral was so low, they put down their rifles and let people cross, eventually the government conceded and changed the soldiers orders to accommodate the population's wishes.
Also, remember that the US military isn't the uneducated military of the past. Many enlisted have college degrees. All have at least a high school education. Upper leadership in today's military has to show how their orders benefit society. If those orders start to conflict with the mainstream press, it won't take long at all for the moral to disintegrate. With the most likely outcome being mass desertion.
Ah, yes... the nuclear red haring...
Kind of stupid to use a nuke for self defense.
A dog is way more effective than a gun for keeping the home secure.
A dog will almost always be deterred with a piece of steak. Better yet, a tazer. Having dogs is good as part of your crime deterrent package, but should not be solely relied upon.
lol... no prosecutor would take any case ever again.
First, the second amendment doesn't protect you from unjust laws, it never has and it never will.
True, It is't the second amendment that protects us from unjust laws... it's the armed population that does.
The day this country is disarmed (barring exceptions like hunters) is the day the US is one step closer to a civilised country.
Let me fix this one for you...
The day this country is disarmed, is the day the US becomes ruled by a tyrannical government with the citizens unable to overthrow that government.
I seem to recall that the mother who owned the guns in the Sandy Hook shooting was held accountable... Long before the law got involved.
It's called a plug, not a clip, but yes. These are required in many states for shotguns that hold more rounds than allowed.
No, no they should not!
. I'd rather have a hillbilly with a M-16 and the stars and bars hanging in a window living next to me than have The Man start confiscating guns "for our own good", that's for sure.
This hillbilly approves of this message.
Limit the amount of people that you can kill
Last time I checked, there was already a legal limit on how many people you can kill... Unless you are in a situation of self defense, it's zero.
I know, I know... you are referring to limits on technology, in which case this law does nothing to limit the amount of people that you can kill.
Enough guns already in circulation is one thing.
Enough guns??? not sure what that means.
Guns have been in circulation since long before we were a nation.(I know US centric) We seem to have been doing quite well with them. In fact, according to the government, gun crime has been steadily dropping since the mid 90's while gun ownership has been increasing. No, enough guns in circulation isn't the underlying problem... Failure to address mental illness is.
No criminal will dare violate the law now.
Most rampage killers are common citizens until the day they do the unthinkable.
So now you want to treat the average citizen as a criminal as they "may" do something unthinkable?
Weren't guns supposed to decrease the likelihood of you being victimized by criminals?
No, they only level the playing field. While having a gun will deter the criminal that doesn't want confrontation, it doesn't deter the criminal that is looking to steal guns. It is a simple concept that seems to be lost to the anti gun types.
Tough guy? No, but old enough to have known a few people who committed suicide. People like to blame others as a means of coping. That is human nature. Emotion causes people to act in strange ways. Unfortunately, we now have a society that can't deal with death without blaming somebody or something. For example, take the recent school shootings in Connecticut. While we do give casual blame to Adam Lanza, society can't hold him accountable since he took his own life. So instead we blame the guns. In this case society can't hold Aaron Swartz to blame, so we blame MIT. BAH!
You alluded to untreated mental illness, and I agree that more can be done in this arena. But we need to stop blaming others for somebodies decision to commit suicide.
I won't make the same claim for children, but when an adult commits suicide, the only one responsible, is that individual. I don't care how much somebody verbally abuses you, the only person who can be blamed, if you commit suicide, is you. That doesn't mean that other people are not jerks, but you can not blame them for somebody else's decision to take their own life. Along those same lines, this idea that people should be able to spot the warning signs is also asinine. Unless they actually tell you that they are going to end their life, you probably won't recognized the difference between somebody planning to take their own life to one who is just introverted. In this case, MIT can look at their internal policies to appease the touchy feely types, but there is no reason they should have to do so.
The only people I will feel sorry for are the close friends and family who cared about Aaron Swartz.
I think Anonymous is missing the concept a bit here. You can protest a business with a sign and megaphone, but you are not allowed to stop people from patronising that business. Very rare is it that a DDoS doesn't affect somebodies business. Most often, it affects somebody not even related to who the attacker is intending. If you want to protest, there are non disruptive methods to use, DDoS shouldn't be one of them.
I think "dumb" would be refusing to consider any new or challenging ideas. TFA points out that people are demanding action. Would you rather a compromise where your gun refused to shoot in certain places, or would you rather the gun control advocates get their way? It's a false dichotomy, but one that is being forced by the discussion. It's not impossible to come up with a third option that no one had really considered before, which would be an acceptable compromise.
So far, I have heard nothing but dumb ideas from the gun control folks. But in intrest of giving you the answer you request, here you go.
The Second Ammendment was written as a means to protect the population from tyrany. If all guns become programable to not allow them to fire at the government, you have effectively removed that protection the second ammenment provided.
Compromise on this issue is not what we need. There are plenty of gun laws on the books already. There is a mountain of evidence to show that more gun laws have a negative relationship to crime rates. Sadly, most of that evidence is ignored by the media, or at least they cherry pick stories. It is all about ratings you know.
However, if a solution to a preceived problem is what the population is asking for, then how about this: Educating the populace on proper gun safety (and god forbid terminology) would do more to protect against deaths from accedental discharge than any new regulation against guns. I offer as ancedotal evidence, the country of sweden. They require the general population to serve in the militia and train them. They even arm them with fully automatic weapons. Yet they have very little crime comparitively speaking. I possit that it isn't the number or even the type of gun that makes the difference, but the education level provided.
I would say that guns do have a peacefull purpose.
The very fact that a populace is armed means the government remains relatively peaceful torwads that population. It is when the populace is unarmed, that tyranical governments do their worst. That doesn't mean that it will always happen, but there is nothing to stop it if you are unarmed.
One has to pick their path.
The things that really sticks out in this saga are 1) Manning had legal resources available to him to expose wrong doing in the classified world. He chose to ignore that route and used the media instead. 2) Lamo looked at the shear number of documents and had to make a choice to either do nothing with the possibility of many people being killed, or turn Manning in with the possibility of facing the death penalty. Damned if you do and damned if you don't.
This saga has parallels in history. Think back to the first atomic bombs dropped on Japan. There were those in the program that had to come to grips with the fact that the work they did led to 250,000+ dead. They had basically two choices. Accept the notion that dropping those bombs led the the end of the war and ultimately reduce the total number of dead, or go crazy thinking otherwise, since we can never know for sure.
Right or wrong, Lamo chose his path and I will not fault him for it. Manning on the other hand choose poorly.
I have blamed the mainstream media for this, but I suspect the public education system should get some credit for this as well. All you have stated above is not even half of the story. But it is the story that is most told the most often. There are many good books out there that explain the real issues behind the various crashes in the economy over the years. In every case, if the government had stayed out of the market, it would have corrected itself through price variations. Leave the risk to the businesses and out of the governments hands.
In every case, the government perceived a problem and tried to fix it, thereby making things worse in the long run. Blaming the S&L failures on deregulation, ignores the fact that they were forced into making risky loans by the government. All in the name of helping the poor. A good intention to be sure, but again the unintended consequence came back to haunt them.
The EPA is by and large the biggest hindrance to becoming a successful starting business. They have been responsible for far more legislation than any other government agency. You can give credit to the EPA for many good things, but the unintended consequences now outweigh the good.
Again, as I stated above, It's one thing to require businesses not to pollute beyond a given level. It is a completely different matter when they regulate how to accomplish that goal.
Ask yourself this. What EPA regulation will you break by opening a lemonade stand in your front yard? If you don't know, then you don't understand just how bad the over regulation has become.