Beautifully said. Except that we don't exactly live on our knees. We sleep on our knees and we dream whatever is fed to us through the tubes.
Also, let's not forget that relatively soon we will have hundreds of thousands well-trained killing machines / war veterans, many dependent on SSRIs, without jobs, available for hire for pennies, to the highest bidder. Given that the legislators already work for the highest bidder, this creates an interesting situation, no?
War happened, in Europe, and people who lived through it are still alive and a part of the mass consciousness. One of the reasons Europeans are less turned on by war than US-anians.
I think we'd all be better off trying to come up with legal systems that work better for everyone, rather than legal systems that shaft one party in various circumstances.
It's already here.
Where WE = the_superrich and EVERYONE = everyone_with_$1b+_litigation_budget.
Avoiding the experience of terrorism has nothing to do with the choice to terrorize your own people by leaving law enforcement to damaged, dangerous individuals with no accountability.
That is correct. The thing is, this behavior is encoded in a corporation's DNA. Corporations only understand money. They are organisms designed to extract money from their environment and give it to their owners. That's it.
Any expectation for a corporation to have a "moral code" comparable to human morals is unrealistic and naive.
Yes, by law, corporations are "persons."
Invincible, inhuman "persons," with no morals, no feelings, no compassion, programmed to extract money at any cost.
Sometimes I wonder if corporations can be viewed as parasitic life using humans to create suffering and transform it into an abstraction (the idea of value represented by the agreement of money).
The tendency to convert all natural resources, human lives and creativity into abstract numbers stored in computers leads humanity towards a future where we will have only money left on a toxic dead planet.
He swore to protect the constitution, "against all enemies, foreign and domestic," and obey the orders of the president as well as commanding officers.
I see his actions as protecting the constitution against domestic enemies.
Soldiers who go on a killing spree of civilians and get the Army's approval and support for it(i.e. no consequences), reveal issues with said officers and the army. I do see the need to protect the constitution in this case.
Serving the constitution, he outed some of our domestic enemies for war crimes. We either support war crimes or not. I don't.
Because in a court of law, the cop's word is more likely to win. Being recorded takes away the possibility of getting away with abuse by just saying it ain't so. That's *a lot* to lose (for the cops).
So now they are working on making it illegal to prove that they lied by recording their actions.
Just imagine what the police report would've looked like for the BART shootings if there was no video capturing the event. Or the countless beatings, using tazers to torture etc.
I think we look at war from different perspectives. Was WWII worth for the people of Germany? I agree with the fact that Europe and the U.S. had to react with battle to the insanity of the German leaders at the time.
And, what did the war improve and for how many people? Millions suffered and died because of it. Starting it (by the German leaders) was not worth it. They were either delusional or serving the very few who made profit from it.
I can see the cause of ending slavery as a war worth fighting...
I got your points and yes, it makes sense to use force when necessary.
When a state is being attacked, I can see resistance as "just." Same with violent criminals. Still, I can find very few examples of "just wars" in recent history. And, I see a lot of examples of police brutality and power abuse in the U.S. and abroad. This is not OK and is a sign of things going in a direction opposite of individual rights.
I think that killing hundreds of thousands of people as a part of calculated economical (wealth-related) decision is unjustified. This is my own bias, not implied by your statement. I also think that with contemporary weaponry and intelligence, wars can be replaced by small, high-precision operations.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, you may not have become an engineer... you may have become something else.
Using medication to shoehorn children into oppressive child-hostile environment (school) is not the best solution IMHO.
One of the things the jaulbreak developers did, was to close the exploit before apple did, on more devices than apple did.
So, to close the exploit, you'd use the exploit to jailbreak your phone, and then patch it.
... where music distributors will pre-sue all their clients.
And pre-fine them $60k for each song they purchase, just in case.
Beautifully said. Except that we don't exactly live on our knees. We sleep on our knees and we dream whatever is fed to us through the tubes.
Also, let's not forget that relatively soon we will have hundreds of thousands well-trained killing machines / war veterans, many dependent on SSRIs, without jobs, available for hire for pennies, to the highest bidder. Given that the legislators already work for the highest bidder, this creates an interesting situation, no?
War happened, in Europe, and people who lived through it are still alive and a part of the mass consciousness. One of the reasons Europeans are less turned on by war than US-anians.
Rapid brain growth causes headaches...
So, just when you start gaining on your IQ, it's "I have a headache honey" day!
If that were the case AND rats were both playing the NBA and posting to /.
Rats != humans.
One of the reasons applying behavioralism truisms to human beings is fcukd up.
There is no evidence that the drivers who roll-stop on an empty intersection are the same drivers who don't stop for pedestrians/bikers.
Threatening someone with imaginary punishment in order to change their mind is a weak argument.
This implies a zero sum game with either T-bones or rear-endings.
What would be a solution that only *decreases* the accidents AND is profitable for the government (cause it may not get implemented otherwise)?
I think we'd all be better off trying to come up with legal systems that work better for everyone, rather than legal systems that shaft one party in various circumstances.
It's already here.
Where WE = the_superrich and EVERYONE = everyone_with_$1b+_litigation_budget.
As long as the Royalty group agrees to pay to ISPs every time someone sees an ad for music or buys music online.
It's only fair.
For the last 10 years, USFreedom--
Most of the rest of the world is not turning into a faschist state, so the contrast seems obvious.
The term used to be associated with "impoverished." Now it is more like "laws not yet fully rewritten by and for corporations."
can != may
Thank you for the excellent references.
It is clear that the school system is an oppressive institution, training children into obedience.
Avoiding the experience of terrorism has nothing to do with the choice to terrorize your own people by leaving law enforcement to damaged, dangerous individuals with no accountability.
That is correct. The thing is, this behavior is encoded in a corporation's DNA. Corporations only understand money. They are organisms designed to extract money from their environment and give it to their owners. That's it.
Any expectation for a corporation to have a "moral code" comparable to human morals is unrealistic and naive.
Yes, by law, corporations are "persons."
Invincible, inhuman "persons," with no morals, no feelings, no compassion, programmed to extract money at any cost.
Sometimes I wonder if corporations can be viewed as parasitic life using humans to create suffering and transform it into an abstraction (the idea of value represented by the agreement of money).
The tendency to convert all natural resources, human lives and creativity into abstract numbers stored in computers leads humanity towards a future where we will have only money left on a toxic dead planet.
400m pages!!! = big win for PR.
Altho you don't really want to see those photos.
He decided that he and he alone was the authority to make that call.
Exactly. The war crimes during WW2 were committed by respectable citizens following orders that they had "no authority" to override.
One man or woman's choice to act on their conscience, oath and integrity, in the right moment, is all it takes sometimes.
He swore to protect the constitution, "against all enemies, foreign and domestic," and obey the orders of the president as well as commanding officers.
I see his actions as protecting the constitution against domestic enemies.
Soldiers who go on a killing spree of civilians and get the Army's approval and support for it(i.e. no consequences), reveal issues with said officers and the army. I do see the need to protect the constitution in this case.
Serving the constitution, he outed some of our domestic enemies for war crimes. We either support war crimes or not. I don't.
How is that not positive?
What else should we do? All I see for it is to accept the risk an move on.
I agree with accepting the risk. We could also lower the risk by taking actions to go down the list of the most hated nations on the planet.
Because in a court of law, the cop's word is more likely to win. Being recorded takes away the possibility of getting away with abuse by just saying it ain't so. That's *a lot* to lose (for the cops).
So now they are working on making it illegal to prove that they lied by recording their actions.
Just imagine what the police report would've looked like for the BART shootings if there was no video capturing the event. Or the countless beatings, using tazers to torture etc.
Some police brutality on the tube for your viewing pleasure.
I think we look at war from different perspectives. Was WWII worth for the people of Germany? I agree with the fact that Europe and the U.S. had to react with battle to the insanity of the German leaders at the time.
And, what did the war improve and for how many people? Millions suffered and died because of it. Starting it (by the German leaders) was not worth it. They were either delusional or serving the very few who made profit from it.
I can see the cause of ending slavery as a war worth fighting...
I got your points and yes, it makes sense to use force when necessary.
When a state is being attacked, I can see resistance as "just." Same with violent criminals. Still, I can find very few examples of "just wars" in recent history. And, I see a lot of examples of police brutality and power abuse in the U.S. and abroad. This is not OK and is a sign of things going in a direction opposite of individual rights.
I think that killing hundreds of thousands of people as a part of calculated economical (wealth-related) decision is unjustified. This is my own bias, not implied by your statement. I also think that with contemporary weaponry and intelligence, wars can be replaced by small, high-precision operations.
Wow, 0 to Hitler in 30 seconds!
And, I agree with your point for ignorance not being an excuse.