The opposite being just as true. Now, I love my family, but broadcasting that I'm home with the implication that I want to chat, well, I can imagine getting annoyed and unplugging that thing -- and then the police shows up later because my mom though something bad happened to me and got scared (and said 'You're movin' with your auntie and uncle in Bel Air")
denying them to certain individuals like convicted felons, utlawing automatic weapons, and not letting one person own enough of them to outfit an army.
Pretty sure the first two are already covered under existing law. The last one may not be strictly defined, but you can bet FBI/ATF takes notice.
Would you say it isn't anyone's job bring censorship to light, and that it's up to Americans individually to understand, and to obey or rebel as he/she sees fit? I'm quite certain in that case you'd disagree, and you'd likely counter-argue that the individual's attempt to enlighten him/herself without help is a futile act in the presence of a state which has so much control on media and information. If that could be true of the US, why would that not be even more so of China?
Let's be careful to not be over-enthusiastic here. People have a tendency to regard new challengers as the bringers of light against the establishment. But history tells us that true change is rare, and more often than not it is just another group of liars for another group of tyrants.
I hope we will regard them as critically as we regard any news outlet.
It's just another way of thinking about it. I'm not preaching gospel here -- just guessing. If the hypothesis holds, then I think this would probably fall into the "preventing mass hysteria" category since the building facility itself isn't as important as the fact that it was a popular event broadcast live through national television.
I don't think the TSA is used to catch terrorists (doesn't the FBI do that anyway?) as much as it is used to displace potential acts of terrorism to lower profile targets/less critical infrastructure, in order to mitigate 1. public hysteria and 2. economic fallout. The latter probably being the more important consideration. A terrorist could bomb an office building or super market right now and still kill a lot of people, but the economic impact wouldn't be as great as that experienced by the airline industry in first few months following 9/11.
And also, "milking" implies coaxing/persuading stuff out of people. This is just data theft (or "fraudulently gaining access to other's private information", if you're anal about that)
Knowledge isn't ethics; knowledge is power. I doubt he founded his AV company as a personal moral crusade, but did it like everybody else to make money in a niche in which he thought he could excel.
We seem to be looking at private gun ownership as a cure to dictators. What if look at it as preventive medicine whose very presence dissuades those with such aspirations?
But isn't that one of the arguments we hear from the pro-gun side -- that gun control only takes guns away from law-abiding citizens, and leaves criminals and an ever more authoritarian state untouched? Gun control would be a type of UNILATERAL disarmament, and NOT a mutual disarmament (which, when you think about it, is a utopian impossibility).
No wonder gun owners want to hold onto their guns.
Wouldn't the ACLU be a better cause, since they send legal observers to ALL controversial protests, no matter their politics? When is the last time these politically affiliated organizations did anything to protect the rights of those with whom they disagree?
You mean a group of scientists and engineers whose funding has been diverted from resources that could have been used to feed people has succeeded in its ambitions. How many tons of food aid did they have to sell on the black market to achieve this? It's not a victory for North Korea, its a victory for the rulers. On slashdot, we're critical of even democratic countries in their degree of representation, and of the disparities between the will of the people and the will of the government, yet I often see this willingness to present totalitarian rulers, their people, and the concept of nationhood as a singular indivisible entity (especially on the concept of "sovereignty", but that's for another thread...).
It's not so stark a contrast when you consider how cheap it is to travel by plane inside the US. My friends and relatives in China are surprised at how inexpensive a plane ticket is here.
Consider the reported lowest priced Economy class seats on the new Beijing-Guangzhou (around 2000km) high speed line is RMB 895, and that Beijing's and Guanzhou's average wages are around RMB 60k, that means the cost of a one-way trip is around 1.5% of yearly income. Now, the lowest cost of a similar one-way flight in the US, New York-New Orleans (2100km), is $250 on expedia, and factor in the US average wage of $42k, we get 0.6% of yearly income, or around 1/3 the relative cost vs traveling by high speed rail in China.
Looking at this from another angle, a typical "slow" train (100km-120km/hr) ticket from Beijing to Guanzhou is around RMB 250 (overnight, arriving 2nd day), and we see that this is the train equivalent of the Concorde -- meant for small business travelers and well-off tourists. Of course, I assume most businesses would likely just pay the RMB 1700 plane ticket to get to the meeting on time. When you consider all that, there's still a lot left to improve in the transportation infrastructure, and a long time to wait for prices to come down. Americans still have it better in terms of availability, inexpensiveness, and speed. One positive, though, no TSA pat downs in China.
Chemical and nuclear weapons are dangerous by themselves -- if containment is broken, they are in themselves hazardous without human intervention, which is why they are vigilantly secured. Guns are not hazardous without some sort of human intervention.
Poorly designed bridges and toys are dangerous because they are unpredictable when using/operating them, not because of what they are. A bridge collapsing under the weight of a normal person, or a pacifier disintegrating in an infant's mouth is comparable to a gun misfiring. Also, in the case of poor design. we hold the designer/manufacturer responsible rather than the truss, the glue, or the triggering mechanism,
Radioactive material and contagious airborne bio-weapons are passively harmful -- that is, if improperly contained they, by themselves alone, can cause harm. Guns are not passively harmful -- if improperly contained they would still require a person to operate them to cause harm.
If someone used voter registration rolls to publish a map of all registered black voters, would that be a 1st Amendment vs 14th Amendment issue, or would that be a 1st Amendment vs privacy issue?
If someone used voter registration rolls to publish a map of all registered black voters, would that be a conflict between the 1st Amendment and the 14th Amendment, or would that just be a conflict between the 1st Amendment and an expectation of privacy?
The answer in that case is obvious, so why do we have idiotic posts like yours?
He has a good point since GP committed the initial fallacy of saying that an inanimate object is a risk to others. Diseases are not a risk to others if the carrier follows quarantine procedures, in the same manner that guns are not a risk to others if owners keep their guns secured. However, if we are to make the assumption that gun owners in the aggregate cannot be trusted to be 100% vigilant in securing their guns and therefore pose a risk to others, then we must assume the same of disease carriers.
Donkey: 1 year to gestate, 4 more years to mature, thousands of dollars to train/feed/house during maturation. That's a huge birthing/training/growing operation to meet the demand of thousands of spec ops teams with most likely very high attrition. Even if you go IVF and do 2 babies per mother AND outsource the donkey suppliers, it still means a HUGE lag time with MANY times more unready donkeys in the supply chain for every donkey that's ready to ship out.
Robot: Hours to assemble with the right infrastructure, minutes to flash its memory, no maturation period so it can go from parts bin to battlefield within in 24 hours.
Also: Genetically modify a new donkey breed with stronger legs? Wait 5 years for the upgrade to grow up. Develop a higher strength leg component? Donkeybot Mk2 delivered in 48 hours.
Slashdot Mirror
Trouble is, an engineer's solution (works, and is versatile) doesn't sell as well as a marketeer's solution (cute and eye-catching)
The opposite being just as true.
Now, I love my family, but broadcasting that I'm home with the implication that I want to chat, well, I can imagine getting annoyed and unplugging that thing -- and then the police shows up later because my mom though something bad happened to me and got scared (and said 'You're movin' with your auntie and uncle in Bel Air")
denying them to certain individuals like convicted felons, utlawing automatic weapons, and not letting one person own enough of them to outfit an army.
Pretty sure the first two are already covered under existing law. The last one may not be strictly defined, but you can bet FBI/ATF takes notice.
Would you stop cyber-bullying and the resultant suicides by taking away computers?
Battleground: Election 2012 - Obama vs Romney
This was political in nature and solely targeted a real government. Wasn't banned.
Would you say it isn't anyone's job bring censorship to light, and that it's up to Americans individually to understand, and to obey or rebel as he/she sees fit? I'm quite certain in that case you'd disagree, and you'd likely counter-argue that the individual's attempt to enlighten him/herself without help is a futile act in the presence of a state which has so much control on media and information. If that could be true of the US, why would that not be even more so of China?
Check your non-American privilege bro.
Let's be careful to not be over-enthusiastic here. People have a tendency to regard new challengers as the bringers of light against the establishment. But history tells us that true change is rare, and more often than not it is just another group of liars for another group of tyrants.
I hope we will regard them as critically as we regard any news outlet.
It's just another way of thinking about it. I'm not preaching gospel here -- just guessing. If the hypothesis holds, then I think this would probably fall into the "preventing mass hysteria" category since the building facility itself isn't as important as the fact that it was a popular event broadcast live through national television.
Shoot down drone. Free money/drugs!
I don't think the TSA is used to catch terrorists (doesn't the FBI do that anyway?) as much as it is used to displace potential acts of terrorism to lower profile targets/less critical infrastructure, in order to mitigate 1. public hysteria and 2. economic fallout. The latter probably being the more important consideration. A terrorist could bomb an office building or super market right now and still kill a lot of people, but the economic impact wouldn't be as great as that experienced by the airline industry in first few months following 9/11.
And also, "milking" implies coaxing/persuading stuff out of people. This is just data theft (or "fraudulently gaining access to other's private information", if you're anal about that)
Knowledge isn't ethics; knowledge is power. I doubt he founded his AV company as a personal moral crusade, but did it like everybody else to make money in a niche in which he thought he could excel.
We seem to be looking at private gun ownership as a cure to dictators. What if look at it as preventive medicine whose very presence dissuades those with such aspirations?
But isn't that one of the arguments we hear from the pro-gun side -- that gun control only takes guns away from law-abiding citizens, and leaves criminals and an ever more authoritarian state untouched? Gun control would be a type of UNILATERAL disarmament, and NOT a mutual disarmament (which, when you think about it, is a utopian impossibility).
No wonder gun owners want to hold onto their guns.
make it like Wall-E. with expressive hands.
Wouldn't the ACLU be a better cause, since they send legal observers to ALL controversial protests, no matter their politics? When is the last time these politically affiliated organizations did anything to protect the rights of those with whom they disagree?
You mean a group of scientists and engineers whose funding has been diverted from resources that could have been used to feed people has succeeded in its ambitions. How many tons of food aid did they have to sell on the black market to achieve this? It's not a victory for North Korea, its a victory for the rulers. On slashdot, we're critical of even democratic countries in their degree of representation, and of the disparities between the will of the people and the will of the government, yet I often see this willingness to present totalitarian rulers, their people, and the concept of nationhood as a singular indivisible entity (especially on the concept of "sovereignty", but that's for another thread...).
It's not so stark a contrast when you consider how cheap it is to travel by plane inside the US. My friends and relatives in China are surprised at how inexpensive a plane ticket is here.
Consider the reported lowest priced Economy class seats on the new Beijing-Guangzhou (around 2000km) high speed line is RMB 895, and that Beijing's and Guanzhou's average wages are around RMB 60k, that means the cost of a one-way trip is around 1.5% of yearly income. Now, the lowest cost of a similar one-way flight in the US, New York-New Orleans (2100km), is $250 on expedia, and factor in the US average wage of $42k, we get 0.6% of yearly income, or around 1/3 the relative cost vs traveling by high speed rail in China.
Looking at this from another angle, a typical "slow" train (100km-120km/hr) ticket from Beijing to Guanzhou is around RMB 250 (overnight, arriving 2nd day), and we see that this is the train equivalent of the Concorde -- meant for small business travelers and well-off tourists. Of course, I assume most businesses would likely just pay the RMB 1700 plane ticket to get to the meeting on time. When you consider all that, there's still a lot left to improve in the transportation infrastructure, and a long time to wait for prices to come down. Americans still have it better in terms of availability, inexpensiveness, and speed. One positive, though, no TSA pat downs in China.
Chemical and nuclear weapons are dangerous by themselves -- if containment is broken, they are in themselves hazardous without human intervention, which is why they are vigilantly secured. Guns are not hazardous without some sort of human intervention.
Poorly designed bridges and toys are dangerous because they are unpredictable when using/operating them, not because of what they are. A bridge collapsing under the weight of a normal person, or a pacifier disintegrating in an infant's mouth is comparable to a gun misfiring. Also, in the case of poor design. we hold the designer/manufacturer responsible rather than the truss, the glue, or the triggering mechanism,
Radioactive material and contagious airborne bio-weapons are passively harmful -- that is, if improperly contained they, by themselves alone, can cause harm. Guns are not passively harmful -- if improperly contained they would still require a person to operate them to cause harm.
If someone used voter registration rolls to publish a map of all registered black voters, would that be a 1st Amendment vs 14th Amendment issue, or would that be a 1st Amendment vs privacy issue?
If someone used voter registration rolls to publish a map of all registered black voters, would that be a conflict between the 1st Amendment and the 14th Amendment, or would that just be a conflict between the 1st Amendment and an expectation of privacy?
The answer in that case is obvious, so why do we have idiotic posts like yours?
He has a good point since GP committed the initial fallacy of saying that an inanimate object is a risk to others. Diseases are not a risk to others if the carrier follows quarantine procedures, in the same manner that guns are not a risk to others if owners keep their guns secured. However, if we are to make the assumption that gun owners in the aggregate cannot be trusted to be 100% vigilant in securing their guns and therefore pose a risk to others, then we must assume the same of disease carriers.
Donkey: 1 year to gestate, 4 more years to mature, thousands of dollars to train/feed/house during maturation. That's a huge birthing/training/growing operation to meet the demand of thousands of spec ops teams with most likely very high attrition. Even if you go IVF and do 2 babies per mother AND outsource the donkey suppliers, it still means a HUGE lag time with MANY times more unready donkeys in the supply chain for every donkey that's ready to ship out.
Robot: Hours to assemble with the right infrastructure, minutes to flash its memory, no maturation period so it can go from parts bin to battlefield within in 24 hours.
Also:
Genetically modify a new donkey breed with stronger legs? Wait 5 years for the upgrade to grow up.
Develop a higher strength leg component? Donkeybot Mk2 delivered in 48 hours.