It saddens and sickens me what this country does in the name of preventing terrorism.
Possibly when you're done being emotional, you could put some actual thought into things. Weigh the pros and cons, maybe. Then you could decide this is a good idea or a bad idea based on an actual reason.
My position is that it's no big deal either way. But I'm a big fan of rational decision-making because it tends to lead to better decisions.
It seems to me that, since these events I need to "get around" for are in the future, there's time for them to change so they'll occur where I'll be at the time. Anything else is bad planning.
And since I've just pointed it out, it can't be bad planning on my part, can it? So whoever screws up the plan can figure out how to get me whereever. Why should I clean up someone else's mess?
Protestors get arrested. It's not a shocking new development. It's been happening for hundreds of years. How is it suddenly a "symptom" of something new we should all fear?
The word 'they' is used as shorthand because I refer to the government earlier on.
Ok, but the government is full of lots of individuals with lots of different goals. Which person is the scary one? Specifically what has that person individually done that we should fear?
I don't think they are nearly so scary if understood in a real context rather than as a mysterious unseen force.
It all depends on your definition of what government oppression is and what is your personal level of tolerance for it.
You want to see oppression, you should see my tax bill. What's one night in jail compared to the government taking all I've earned for 5 months of every year? And I wasn't protesting or anything, I was just minding my own business trying to help some people in exchange for a wage.
You're right. There are different definitions of oppression.
Just because one group of people say 2+2 =4 and another say 2+2=6 doesnt make 5 any less wrong for being the 'moderate' choice.
If this is an analogy to the terrorism vs. civil liberties discussion, then it's a very silly analogy.
We need to be effective against terrorism with minimal (and zero long-term) impact on civil-liberites. Both terrorism and loss of civil-liberties are threats. Slashdot doesn't seem much interested in terrorism though -- at least not in trying to avoid/defeat/prevent it.
Finally -- am I OK with arresting protestors? Sometimes. Realistically, sometimes protestors go over the line. Whatever else you want to say about protests, they're not the same thing as quietly minding your own business. Somewhere between quietly minding your own business and burning the city down is the point where protestors need to be arrested. It's rarely clear-cut.
What you appear to be doing is asking me to identify myself
No. But your story can't be an indication of much to me if I don't know your story. And I don't. So it doesn't indicate much.
Regarding external evidence: Follow some of the leads I've given you (like COINTELPRO), or consult any person who has taken postgraduate courses in history.
Anything recent though? I'm 31. Anything in the last 20 years or so?
History indicates the government can do bad things. But we've learned from history too. It's going to be harder for government antagonists to get away with it next time.
Vigilance is good. But there's less need to be hyper-vigilant when you know what to look for. Ordinary vigilance should be sufficient.
Also, terrorism is real too.
PS: Why only postgraduate history courses? Are there secret unknown facts that can only be revealed in postgraduate history courses? If so, I guess asking won't be enough.
How many dead in your story about Miami? How many wounded? How many put in concentration camps? How many sent to Orwellian 1984-style re-education? None?
Here is why I worry.
Worry is fine. It's part of being rational. Have you read the other posts in this topic? They're not rational. They're not saying: "it would be better to have a few safeguards to prevent the possibility of abuse in the future."
Acusing someone of being alarmist is a hollow argument - it the validity of the warning that should be addressed.
No it's not hollow. Trying to get people to do something that's not in their best interest by appealing to their fear is destructive and wrong.
What on earth makes you think they wouldnt abuse a system like the one described here? [bold added by me]
Why is there always a they? Who are they? Specifically what have they personally done that should make us all so frightened?
What is your factual basis for assuming the best in our goverment is the best course of action? When in our history (or in history in general) has blind trust ever been rewarded by honrable action by our government?
You mis-characterize my position as extreme. No blind trust here. No blind panic either.
There are two things to worry about. Government oppression is one. Terrorism is the other one. Government oppression can happen in the US. Terrorism has happened recently in the US.
There's a balance to deciding what to do. It's not all one side or the other.
I don't have all the answers to all the questions. But I'm pretty sure panicking about imaginary scenarios doesn't answer any of them.
Um, but what if we don't trust you? From your post, trusting you doesn't sound like a good idea even if you're telling the truth (maybe especially if you're telling the truth).
You get what the parent post is trying to say, right? But you're still trying to make the super-extreme case based on "trust me" and "rent a clue".
We wouldn't have to rent a clue if you'd provide some real indication that you were offering us one for free. Please provide us that indication. I, for one, would like to get it right.
Everyone should Really Scared of this. It's all a Consipracy! If this is what they're telling us, the Hidden Agenda must be 1000 times more Sinister.... George Orwell... Haliburton... Joe McCarthy... Nazis... etc. etc. etc.
[Add lots more fear-induced hyperbole here.]
Because thoughtful rational discussion (is beyond us) / (doesn't fit into our political agenda) / (doesn't get you on the news) / (doesn't get you modded up) / (isn't entertaining).
If you can get more privacy by spending money, then you obviously don't have the "right" to that amount of privacy unless you pay for it.
I have a right to walk down the street. That doesn't mean someone's obligated to buy me fancy shoes. That also doesn't mean my lack of fancy shoes indicates my rights have been recinded.
There's a real world. Sometimes it doesn't fit into perfect idealistic models. Trying to make it fit ends up hurting people. Better that it not fit than we hurt people.
This is not true. The US keeps a seperate statistic for "discouraged" workers. There are also estimates for the underemployed.
There's not some magic "hidden" factor that makes the actual unemployment number into the one you want it to be to support your argument. Saying there is without producing it is either self-delusion or dishonesty.
See, the problem is that there are lots of people around who think it's OK to cause harm to their neighbors in order to get what they want.
Envy is the new populism. Hate is the new civic-mindedness. Fear is the new pragmatism. Lust has replaced liberty and the truth is seen as quaint and restrictive.
There's definitely an "us" and a "them". The problem is that the new social government is really only useful to "them" because the rest of "us" grew up, discovered reality, and learned to take care of ourselves. We don't want to take our neighbors' earnings, and we'd really like more choice in what happens to our own.
When you have nothing in common with people, they really can't be "us", can they? Can people who'll gladly harm you for their own benefit really be "us"? I don't see how.
But since the "western world" appearently have lost much of its creativity
Maybe the western world's creativity is being weighed down by environmentalists, lawyers, and government funds recipients. What do these people actually produce anyway?
Why be creative when you can make more money complaining about what other people create? Why work hard to produce something when you can live just fine by taking from those who do?
Slashdot Mirror
After all, what do we really need their name and age for anyway? Didn't the Nazis ask people to reveal their name and age?
And now it's a photo and a fingerprint. Oh the humanity!
Possibly when you're done being emotional, you could put some actual thought into things. Weigh the pros and cons, maybe. Then you could decide this is a good idea or a bad idea based on an actual reason.
My position is that it's no big deal either way. But I'm a big fan of rational decision-making because it tends to lead to better decisions.
The article doesn't say that revenues are down. Only the headline.
He'd save the hour spent waiting for his connecting flight.
Drive to Charlotte?
I don't know the distance, but you'd be better off if it took you 3 hours or less.
It seems to me that, since these events I need to "get around" for are in the future, there's time for them to change so they'll occur where I'll be at the time. Anything else is bad planning.
And since I've just pointed it out, it can't be bad planning on my part, can it? So whoever screws up the plan can figure out how to get me whereever. Why should I clean up someone else's mess?
"We just collided with a satelite. We're venting oxygen. We have 2 minutes of air left."
"Oh no, it was a nuclear satelite! What about the radiation? Now we have 1 minute, 55 seconds of air left. I knew nuclear power was a bad idea."
This backup system is fire-proof, though it can be degraded by smoke and fog.
The word 'they' is used as shorthand because I refer to the government earlier on.
Ok, but the government is full of lots of individuals with lots of different goals. Which person is the scary one? Specifically what has that person individually done that we should fear?
I don't think they are nearly so scary if understood in a real context rather than as a mysterious unseen force.
It all depends on your definition of what government oppression is and what is your personal level of tolerance for it.
You want to see oppression, you should see my tax bill. What's one night in jail compared to the government taking all I've earned for 5 months of every year? And I wasn't protesting or anything, I was just minding my own business trying to help some people in exchange for a wage.
You're right. There are different definitions of oppression.
Just because one group of people say 2+2 =4 and another say 2+2=6 doesnt make 5 any less wrong for being the 'moderate' choice.
If this is an analogy to the terrorism vs. civil liberties discussion, then it's a very silly analogy.
We need to be effective against terrorism with minimal (and zero long-term) impact on civil-liberites. Both terrorism and loss of civil-liberties are threats. Slashdot doesn't seem much interested in terrorism though -- at least not in trying to avoid/defeat/prevent it.
Finally -- am I OK with arresting protestors? Sometimes. Realistically, sometimes protestors go over the line. Whatever else you want to say about protests, they're not the same thing as quietly minding your own business. Somewhere between quietly minding your own business and burning the city down is the point where protestors need to be arrested. It's rarely clear-cut.
No. But your story can't be an indication of much to me if I don't know your story. And I don't. So it doesn't indicate much.
Regarding external evidence: Follow some of the leads I've given you (like COINTELPRO), or consult any person who has taken postgraduate courses in history.
Anything recent though? I'm 31. Anything in the last 20 years or so?
History indicates the government can do bad things. But we've learned from history too. It's going to be harder for government antagonists to get away with it next time.
Vigilance is good. But there's less need to be hyper-vigilant when you know what to look for. Ordinary vigilance should be sufficient.
Also, terrorism is real too.
PS: Why only postgraduate history courses? Are there secret unknown facts that can only be revealed in postgraduate history courses? If so, I guess asking won't be enough.
Here is why I worry.
Worry is fine. It's part of being rational. Have you read the other posts in this topic? They're not rational. They're not saying: "it would be better to have a few safeguards to prevent the possibility of abuse in the future."
Acusing someone of being alarmist is a hollow argument - it the validity of the warning that should be addressed.
No it's not hollow. Trying to get people to do something that's not in their best interest by appealing to their fear is destructive and wrong.
What on earth makes you think they wouldnt abuse a system like the one described here? [bold added by me]
Why is there always a they? Who are they? Specifically what have they personally done that should make us all so frightened?
What is your factual basis for assuming the best in our goverment is the best course of action? When in our history (or in history in general) has blind trust ever been rewarded by honrable action by our government?
You mis-characterize my position as extreme. No blind trust here. No blind panic either.
There are two things to worry about. Government oppression is one. Terrorism is the other one. Government oppression can happen in the US. Terrorism has happened recently in the US.
There's a balance to deciding what to do. It's not all one side or the other.
I don't have all the answers to all the questions. But I'm pretty sure panicking about imaginary scenarios doesn't answer any of them.
Um, but what if we don't trust you? From your post, trusting you doesn't sound like a good idea even if you're telling the truth (maybe especially if you're telling the truth).
You get what the parent post is trying to say, right? But you're still trying to make the super-extreme case based on "trust me" and "rent a clue".
We wouldn't have to rent a clue if you'd provide some real indication that you were offering us one for free. Please provide us that indication. I, for one, would like to get it right.
They seem to eventually evolve to near-panic as hints of rationality get applied.
Why can't they start out rational and lead to a well supported factual basis to make a decision?
Is is a slashdot problem or is everyone incapable of cool-headed, reality-based decision making?
Do you disagree?
Everyone should Really Scared of this. It's all a Consipracy! If this is what they're telling us, the Hidden Agenda must be 1000 times more Sinister. ... George Orwell ... Haliburton ... Joe McCarthy ... Nazis ... etc. etc. etc.
[Add lots more fear-induced hyperbole here.]
Because thoughtful rational discussion (is beyond us) / (doesn't fit into our political agenda) / (doesn't get you on the news) / (doesn't get you modded up) / (isn't entertaining).
Sometimes Slashdot makes me sad.
Everything leads to problems. Problems happen.
Did you have an alternate policy that was guarenteed to be effective and problem-free forever?
If you can get more privacy by spending money, then you obviously don't have the "right" to that amount of privacy unless you pay for it.
I have a right to walk down the street. That doesn't mean someone's obligated to buy me fancy shoes. That also doesn't mean my lack of fancy shoes indicates my rights have been recinded.
There's a real world. Sometimes it doesn't fit into perfect idealistic models. Trying to make it fit ends up hurting people. Better that it not fit than we hurt people.
I think you've discovered something.
The more money you have, the more you can afford. You can choose more expensive options when you can afford to pay for them.
Obvious?
This is not true. The US keeps a seperate statistic for "discouraged" workers. There are also estimates for the underemployed.
There's not some magic "hidden" factor that makes the actual unemployment number into the one you want it to be to support your argument. Saying there is without producing it is either self-delusion or dishonesty.
Shut up. They'll take back the porn!
Except no one "gave" any money to anyone. Letting people keep their own money isn't a "gift".
What was the rest of your point? Oh, I guess it doesn't matter....
See, the problem is that there are lots of people around who think it's OK to cause harm to their neighbors in order to get what they want.
Envy is the new populism. Hate is the new civic-mindedness. Fear is the new pragmatism. Lust has replaced liberty and the truth is seen as quaint and restrictive.
There's definitely an "us" and a "them". The problem is that the new social government is really only useful to "them" because the rest of "us" grew up, discovered reality, and learned to take care of ourselves. We don't want to take our neighbors' earnings, and we'd really like more choice in what happens to our own.
When you have nothing in common with people, they really can't be "us", can they? Can people who'll gladly harm you for their own benefit really be "us"? I don't see how.
C'mon. Everybody's doing it. Give it a try.
So the plan is to make everything much more expensive worldwide, and then artificially increase wages to cover it.
100% of economists will tell you that this will lead to a surplus of labor -- unemployment.
Maybe the western world's creativity is being weighed down by environmentalists, lawyers, and government funds recipients. What do these people actually produce anyway?
Why be creative when you can make more money complaining about what other people create? Why work hard to produce something when you can live just fine by taking from those who do?