Girl> Could you take... You> Wait a second... are you talking to me? Girl> Ummm... You> Hey guys! There is a -girl- talking to me! Guys> Yeah right. You> No seriously! Girl> I don't get paid enough for this.
You said: "Most of these kids deserve a swift kick in the balls."
Now, I put to your attention that a significant number of the aforementioned annoying kids are female, making the "Kick in the balls" a more difficult proposition.
Heh. What an interesting idea. Of course, how many criminals actually shoot the gun in the course of their crime?
I mean, if I were being mugged at gun-point I wouldn't say "Hmmm... there is a one in 10 chance that the bullet he has in the chamber is a dud. I might as well try it". Involuntary Russian Roulette.
I understand that you're only using this as a clever counter-point, but don't say it too loud. Wrong person hears you and you'll see in law within a year.
"In other news, gun related fatalities are at an all time low. However, this has correlated to an increase in the amount of bear maulings, moose tramplings, and death by rabid hamster attack. Says hunter John Smith "The gun just wouldn't shoot!"
"...Like the wrappers on food, aluminum cans and plastic bottles from the carbonated beverages they consume,..."
Americans, after all, are the only humans who drink soda.
"...just look at the booming sales of new garish SUVs..."
Now, the question that comes to mind is: Which pollutes more, a brand new SUV, or a 20 year old bug that someone won't let die (But he -is- getting a whole lot of use out of it!)
"...lumber from Canada..." You're a kanook aren't you.
"...pray for our fragile Earth..." Methinks that Earth isn't quite as fragile as you might believe. It has been hit with worse things than SUVs before (Say, massive comets?)
You said: "You've been watching yoo much sci-fi TV if you think that genes and the protiens they code for can 'hard-wire' behavior. "
Um. No. What do you think instincts are? Why does a baby know to nurse? Why do animals on different continents, different situations, and different environments often exhibit the same behaviors? Cooincidence? No.
"All mammals - including rotents - have an emotional life identical with yours. Rodents in particular, being a highly social species, have notions of fairness and loyalty etc. much stronger than your own. "
You have a very low estimation of humankind don't you? Perhaps you've been spending a bit too much time with rats and AIs. The fact is that humans have a bad habit of putting human values onto things. You may be able to construe an event as fairness, or loyalty, but that doesn't necessarily make it so. Humans have a hard enough time understanding one another, and we can communicate with one another. Trying to figure out what another species is thinking (If they are thinking) is a much more difficult proposition.
"You forget that you are an animal not much different from other mammals."... that's true. I have many similarities to other mammals. However, there is one large difference. A mind capable of thinking in abstract. Capable of planning and imagination. And that, to say the least, is a -minor- difference.
"...that does not occur in nature, only inside a mammal's body" And a mammal is obviously an artificial creation, yes? A womb is natural. The state within it is natural. Mankind has not altered the state inside the womb (Well, in the majority of cases at least).
"...humans and animals are essentially the same with humans having slightly larger cranial capacities" I think you underestimate the difference that the "Slightly larger cranial capacity" has. For instance, I have never seen a posting from a rat on slashdot. (Not even from one of those genetically enhanced ones that were featured a few days ago).
"...sure, humans can survive without the enhancements. i could certainly go out and hunt if i needed to. a good rock/tree branch as a psuedo club is all you need." This is a generalization. I wasn't talking about humanity as a whole. I was talking about -you-. Humans can and have survived without the enhancement of technology. But could -you-. (Personally I would probably be one of the first to bite it... being a computer savvy geek doesn't help when trying to club a grizzly).
"... infants would survive (altho their mortality rate would be high) just like any normal adult." No, no they wouldn't. A child emerging from the womb is considered an infant. That child is absolutely defenseless, and cannot survive without milk. Even if you took a weaned child, the chances of its survival would be absolutely astronomical.
Therefore, if you we use your definition of "Human", you would have to be able to live without support at all. That makes the crippled, the blind, those born with mental defects... all non-human, and subject to "Removal" as you so elegantly put it. Frightening prospect really.
I'll assume you meant artificial. If so, how can you consider the womb artificial? The womb's environment is all natural.
"... fetuses arent human or animal. theyre part of the birthing stage." Yes... the -human- birthing stage. By that logic you could say that infants aren't human because they are part of the "Growing stage"
"They cannot survive outside an articial environment of the womb and are therefore not relevant"... tell me, can you survive without all the "articial" enhancements that we have? Could you rampage through the wild and kill game with your bare hands? No? Well, then, obviously you are not relevant, making this conversation a moot point. And you (I'm assuming) are at least a mostly grown adult. An infant is not capable of surviving on its own in the world. Does this also make it non-human?
At least come up with a better argument for killing people than those. Perhaps mental instability.
Now you're carrying grudges across threads. Very well.
The fact is that; yes, wounding small children and killing women would be an effective military tactic, if you are viewing it entirely as a military move. However, no one but the most deranged madman would actually suggest using it in an actual field of battle for the following reasons.
A. First and foremost, it is wrong. I'm not going to qualify this response, but that is simply the case. B. Really bad for morale. It is hard to be fired up for a country that is winning battles solely through the crippling of a civilian population. C. Bad publicity. The country that did something like this would be carved up internationally. D. If they didn't completely wipe out the enemy population, they would create an enemy with a -very- strong reason to hate them.
Now that I've stated all of that, I want you to go back to my original post. I never once said that I thought this -should- be used in this way. I merely (in response to the statement that it is the militaries job to kill, not blind) stated that an injured person can be a greater drain on the resources of a state than a dead one. It may be a cruel truth, but it -is- the truth.
You said: "The US could wipe out the West Bank, but instead it provides Israel with the money, weapons, and diplomatic cover to do it slowly, instead of with a nuke."
Yes, because you know how fair the Middle East has been to Israel. For the first dozen years that it existed they refused to even acknowledge the fact that it was there. They swore to wipe it off the face of the planet. They failed. However, they are still sending in suicide bombers, killing civilians in the streets. You'd think that with your "Save the innocents" stand you'd at least take that into consideration.
Yep, the US has only nuked 2 cities. Yep, normally the US uses normal bombs. What's you point? The nukes were dropped on a country that attacked us when we were neutral. They ended a war that had cost hundreds of thousands of lives (And prevented an invasion that would have cost many, many more) And as for normal bombs, every army in the world (That can afford them) uses normal bombs.
The facts are that the world is a haze of gray. Take war and add in politics and you have a system that's a lot like trying to put a square peg into a round hole. They manage to do it, but they cut some corners in the process.
The US government isn't perfect. Anyone can see that. However, it is also not the bastion of evil that you seem to see it as. Live with it, or leave it. We'll see how long you last in China before someone blinds you with a handheld kW laser (*Snicker*)
I mean, they used to be able to say "I have -2000 karma" and all the other trolls would oooh and ahhh at the accomplishment.
Now they have to say "I have 'terrible' karma". In a troll community, what does that mean? Does it mean that the troll in question actually has good karma? (A negative karma being a status symbol). The confusion that the system change has caused is really quite disorienting. Poor trolls, they really don't have the mental facilites to deal with such things.
Of course, this message is quite off-topic. So um... how about those kW lasers!
Likewise. However, if the laser turns out to be cost-efficient, and weight-efficient, it would not be a bad addition to the armaments of a combat aircraft. (Smart bombs are damned expensive)
I don't believe that the laser will be used for anti-personnel activities though. Having a cool down period of 30 seconds pretty much religates it to a more anti-vehicular or air-to-air combat status.
However, if you happen to move in front of it at the wrong moment... well, the effect would be the same as the smart bomb that it is replacing anyway.
Sorry to dissapoint you, but nowadays that -2000 would translate to a less impressive "Bad" or "Poor"... or perhaps even, horror of horrors "Terrible".
This is a -weapon-. It is made to kill and destroy. If your greatest concern is wild life when this is being used then your priorities need some serious rearrangement.
*Watches in silence as Ignavus throws himself in the line of fire to save a family of mice*
I understand the fact that you were attempting to use irony. I also understand the fact that you should probably use real facts in the use of irony. (Or at least ones that can be vaguely construed as facts)
And yes. There are weapons far, far better at hurting child workers and the mass killing of civilians. They've been around for years. When we say "We bombed so-and-so city" people go "oh, that's nice". But when we say "We hit so-and-so military vehicle with a laser and a reflected beam took some poor bastard's eyesight" there is an outrage.
The fact is, the US -could- wipe out the west bank. The US -could- wipe out Iraq. The US -could- randomly start throwing nukes around the globe. But, once again, the fact is, it -hasn't-... so stop making it look like some kind of villain.
A single nuke can wipe out a town. A smart bomb can wipe out a building. A laser... can burn a hole in something and blind a few nearby people. You have your priorities wrong.
Alright. I've figured out what it is like to be blind.
Now, for my experiment. Close your eyes most of the way, stop breathing, and twist your limbs around is some grotesque and convulted way.
Stay that way. Forever.
Now you know what it is like to be dead.
You see, the vehicles that this thing would be aimed at would (With today's technology) generally be hit with a -BOMB-. This, while it does occasionally cause blindness, also has the more frequent and persistant occurance of -death-.
Which begs the question: Would you rather be blind or dead? (Using our clever "Pretend" system if you have to)
First of all, anything on that list would be easier to do with conventional weaponry. If we felt like invading Iraq and taking all their oil we wouldn't do it with a plane-mounted laser that can only fire twice without a cool-down period. We'd roll over them with tanks and machine guns. It's tradition after all.
Secondly, providing that the link that you provided wasn't a sham (Which it probably is), bombs would -still- be a more effective way to go about it. The lasers could certainly -blind- everyone in the convoy, but killing them would be more difficult. And holding one on a manaquin for long enough to get that particular toasty look from the photograph would be damn difficult indeed.
Continuing on. Depopulating the west bank with lasers. Funny thing really, the world has these things called "Nuclear armaments" they would do a far better job of clearing out an area than a mere beam of light (So far).
Your last statement is just hilarious. If some little Chinese girl were making Nikes slow, they certainly wouldn't blind her. What use is a blind worker? Perhaps they would beat her, but that is another story.
So... all in all... you made a series of poorly thought out, stupid comments. Then you tried to use emotionally charged subjects (Chinese labor, West bank territory, terrorism) to support these stupid comments, but you really didn't even do a good job of that.
From the article: "Laser-armed planes could pick their targets. "For example, instead of attacking the hood of the car, you might go after the tyres because the chances of a reflection hitting the driver are less," Burris told New Scientist."
Beforehand, we would drop a bomb on the truck, scattering the remains of the driver across 15 or 20 miles. That's O.k. But we wouldn't want to blind him. That would be cruel.
The world is a funny place. You just have to be really callous to realize it.
Do you really believe that rodents sit around thinking about the meaning of life?
Do they sit out in the night and gaze at the stars and wonder if they are alone in the galaxy?
No. And do you know why? That's right. Because they are -animals-. They have yet to figure out the intricacies of the mouse trap.
-You- may be able to take their point of view, but -they- cannot. They will never think about the migration of humans, let alone be offended about it. They might move to avoid us, but that is a pre-programmed response. It is hard-coded into their genes (They weren't made for easy upgrades).
Slashdot Mirror
You just can't go around shooting people!
Why?
You just can't!
Why?
Actually, it would go more like this.
Girl walks over to you
Girl> Could you take...
You> Wait a second... are you talking to me?
Girl> Ummm...
You> Hey guys! There is a -girl- talking to me!
Guys> Yeah right.
You> No seriously!
Girl> I don't get paid enough for this.
Girl walks out.
I've figured it out:
He's trying to commit suicide, but in a way that will get him noticed.
The balloon attempt failed when the original charted course over hostile SAM sites was foiled by adverse winds.
However, this time he's got some control.
And even if -this- fails, he's got plans to take a satellite with him.
I beg to differ.
You said:
"Most of these kids deserve a swift kick in the balls."
Now, I put to your attention that a significant number of the aforementioned annoying kids are female, making the "Kick in the balls" a more difficult proposition.
I propose we use "Boot to the head".
He who has too much time on his hands:
I beg your forgiveness.
I was only trying to spread the joy that is Simpsons to this dark, cold place.
In my zeal, I was overly hasty and attempted to recreate the song from memory. I apologize profusely.
Thank you Sir! May I have another Sir!
Who controls the British crown?
Who keeps the Metric system down?
We do, We do.
Who keeps Atlantis off the maps?
Who keeps the Martians under wraps?
We do, we do.
Who holds back the electric car?
Who makes a star?
We do, we do.
Who robs kingfish of their sight?
Who rigs every Oscar Night?
We do, WE DO!
Heh. What an interesting idea. Of course, how many criminals actually shoot the gun in the course of their crime?
I mean, if I were being mugged at gun-point I wouldn't say "Hmmm... there is a one in 10 chance that the bullet he has in the chamber is a dud. I might as well try it". Involuntary Russian Roulette.
I understand that you're only using this as a clever counter-point, but don't say it too loud. Wrong person hears you and you'll see in law within a year.
"In other news, gun related fatalities are at an all time low. However, this has correlated to an increase in the amount of bear maulings, moose tramplings, and death by rabid hamster attack. Says hunter John Smith "The gun just wouldn't shoot!"
"...Like the wrappers on food, aluminum cans and plastic bottles from the carbonated beverages they consume,..."
Americans, after all, are the only humans who drink soda.
"...just look at the booming sales of new garish SUVs..."
Now, the question that comes to mind is:
Which pollutes more, a brand new SUV, or a 20 year old bug that someone won't let die (But he -is- getting a whole lot of use out of it!)
"...lumber from Canada..."
You're a kanook aren't you.
"...pray for our fragile Earth..."
Methinks that Earth isn't quite as fragile as you might believe. It has been hit with worse things than SUVs before (Say, massive comets?)
You said:
... that's true. I have many similarities to other mammals. However, there is one large difference. A mind capable of thinking in abstract. Capable of planning and imagination. And that, to say the least, is a -minor- difference.
"You've been watching yoo much sci-fi TV if you think that genes and the protiens they code for can 'hard-wire' behavior. "
Um. No. What do you think instincts are? Why does a baby know to nurse? Why do animals on different continents, different situations, and different environments often exhibit the same behaviors? Cooincidence? No.
"All mammals - including rotents - have an emotional life identical with yours. Rodents in particular, being a highly social species, have notions of fairness and loyalty etc. much stronger than your own. "
You have a very low estimation of humankind don't you? Perhaps you've been spending a bit too much time with rats and AIs. The fact is that humans have a bad habit of putting human values onto things. You may be able to construe an event as fairness, or loyalty, but that doesn't necessarily make it so. Humans have a hard enough time understanding one another, and we can communicate with one another. Trying to figure out what another species is thinking (If they are thinking) is a much more difficult proposition.
"You forget that you are an animal not much different from other mammals."
"...that does not occur in nature, only inside a mammal's body"
And a mammal is obviously an artificial creation, yes? A womb is natural. The state within it is natural. Mankind has not altered the state inside the womb (Well, in the majority of cases at least).
"...humans and animals are essentially the same with humans having slightly larger cranial capacities"
I think you underestimate the difference that the "Slightly larger cranial capacity" has. For instance, I have never seen a posting from a rat on slashdot. (Not even from one of those genetically enhanced ones that were featured a few days ago).
"...sure, humans can survive without the enhancements. i could certainly go out and hunt if i needed to. a good rock/tree branch as a psuedo club is all you need."
This is a generalization. I wasn't talking about humanity as a whole. I was talking about -you-. Humans can and have survived without the enhancement of technology. But could -you-. (Personally I would probably be one of the first to bite it... being a computer savvy geek doesn't help when trying to club a grizzly).
"... infants would survive (altho their mortality rate would be high) just like any normal adult."
No, no they wouldn't. A child emerging from the womb is considered an infant. That child is absolutely defenseless, and cannot survive without milk. Even if you took a weaned child, the chances of its survival would be absolutely astronomical.
Therefore, if you we use your definition of "Human", you would have to be able to live without support at all. That makes the crippled, the blind, those born with mental defects... all non-human, and subject to "Removal" as you so elegantly put it. Frightening prospect really.
I looked up articial. I couldn't find it.
... tell me, can you survive without all the "articial" enhancements that we have? Could you rampage through the wild and kill game with your bare hands? No? Well, then, obviously you are not relevant, making this conversation a moot point. And you (I'm assuming) are at least a mostly grown adult. An infant is not capable of surviving on its own in the world. Does this also make it non-human?
I'll assume you meant artificial. If so, how can you consider the womb artificial? The womb's environment is all natural.
"... fetuses arent human or animal. theyre part of the birthing stage."
Yes... the -human- birthing stage. By that logic you could say that infants aren't human because they are part of the "Growing stage"
"They cannot survive outside an articial environment of the womb and are therefore not relevant"
At least come up with a better argument for killing people than those. Perhaps mental instability.
Now you're carrying grudges across threads. Very well.
The fact is that; yes, wounding small children and killing women would be an effective military tactic, if you are viewing it entirely as a military move. However, no one but the most deranged madman would actually suggest using it in an actual field of battle for the following reasons.
A. First and foremost, it is wrong. I'm not going to qualify this response, but that is simply the case.
B. Really bad for morale. It is hard to be fired up for a country that is winning battles solely through the crippling of a civilian population.
C. Bad publicity. The country that did something like this would be carved up internationally.
D. If they didn't completely wipe out the enemy population, they would create an enemy with a -very- strong reason to hate them.
Now that I've stated all of that, I want you to go back to my original post. I never once said that I thought this -should- be used in this way. I merely (in response to the statement that it is the militaries job to kill, not blind) stated that an injured person can be a greater drain on the resources of a state than a dead one. It may be a cruel truth, but it -is- the truth.
You said:
"The US could wipe out the West Bank, but instead it provides Israel with the money, weapons, and diplomatic cover to do it slowly, instead of with a nuke."
Yes, because you know how fair the Middle East has been to Israel. For the first dozen years that it existed they refused to even acknowledge the fact that it was there. They swore to wipe it off the face of the planet. They failed. However, they are still sending in suicide bombers, killing civilians in the streets. You'd think that with your "Save the innocents" stand you'd at least take that into consideration.
Yep, the US has only nuked 2 cities. Yep, normally the US uses normal bombs. What's you point? The nukes were dropped on a country that attacked us when we were neutral. They ended a war that had cost hundreds of thousands of lives (And prevented an invasion that would have cost many, many more) And as for normal bombs, every army in the world (That can afford them) uses normal bombs.
The facts are that the world is a haze of gray. Take war and add in politics and you have a system that's a lot like trying to put a square peg into a round hole. They manage to do it, but they cut some corners in the process.
The US government isn't perfect. Anyone can see that. However, it is also not the bastion of evil that you seem to see it as. Live with it, or leave it. We'll see how long you last in China before someone blinds you with a handheld kW laser (*Snicker*)
Yes, but what about the poor trolls?
I mean, they used to be able to say "I have -2000 karma" and all the other trolls would oooh and ahhh at the accomplishment.
Now they have to say "I have 'terrible' karma". In a troll community, what does that mean? Does it mean that the troll in question actually has good karma? (A negative karma being a status symbol). The confusion that the system change has caused is really quite disorienting. Poor trolls, they really don't have the mental facilites to deal with such things.
Of course, this message is quite off-topic. So um... how about those kW lasers!
Likewise. However, if the laser turns out to be cost-efficient, and weight-efficient, it would not be a bad addition to the armaments of a combat aircraft. (Smart bombs are damned expensive)
I don't believe that the laser will be used for anti-personnel activities though. Having a cool down period of 30 seconds pretty much religates it to a more anti-vehicular or air-to-air combat status.
However, if you happen to move in front of it at the wrong moment... well, the effect would be the same as the smart bomb that it is replacing anyway.
Sorry to dissapoint you, but nowadays that -2000 would translate to a less impressive "Bad" or "Poor"... or perhaps even, horror of horrors "Terrible".
It just isn't as impressive.
Are you brain dead?
This is a -weapon-. It is made to kill and destroy. If your greatest concern is wild life when this is being used then your priorities need some serious rearrangement.
*Watches in silence as Ignavus throws himself in the line of fire to save a family of mice*
I understand the fact that you were attempting to use irony. I also understand the fact that you should probably use real facts in the use of irony. (Or at least ones that can be vaguely construed as facts)
And yes. There are weapons far, far better at hurting child workers and the mass killing of civilians. They've been around for years. When we say "We bombed so-and-so city" people go "oh, that's nice". But when we say "We hit so-and-so military vehicle with a laser and a reflected beam took some poor bastard's eyesight" there is an outrage.
The fact is, the US -could- wipe out the west bank. The US -could- wipe out Iraq. The US -could- randomly start throwing nukes around the globe. But, once again, the fact is, it -hasn't-... so stop making it look like some kind of villain.
A single nuke can wipe out a town. A smart bomb can wipe out a building. A laser... can burn a hole in something and blind a few nearby people. You have your priorities wrong.
Alright. I've figured out what it is like to be blind.
Now, for my experiment. Close your eyes most of the way, stop breathing, and twist your limbs around is some grotesque and convulted way.
Stay that way. Forever.
Now you know what it is like to be dead.
You see, the vehicles that this thing would be aimed at would (With today's technology) generally be hit with a -BOMB-. This, while it does occasionally cause blindness, also has the more frequent and persistant occurance of -death-.
Which begs the question: Would you rather be blind or dead? (Using our clever "Pretend" system if you have to)
Well... not to sound cruel or anything...
But the enemy would still have to feed a blind person. A dead person is no longer a drain on their resources.
Of course, using this same thought pattern would lead to using all sorts of hobbling devices, which isn't a pleasant thought.
But there -is- some reasoning behind merely blinding (Not to mention that the laser is probably cheap to reuse)
The ever jaded and cynical:
My, my... quite the little tirade you had there.
First of all, anything on that list would be easier to do with conventional weaponry. If we felt like invading Iraq and taking all their oil we wouldn't do it with a plane-mounted laser that can only fire twice without a cool-down period. We'd roll over them with tanks and machine guns. It's tradition after all.
Secondly, providing that the link that you provided wasn't a sham (Which it probably is), bombs would -still- be a more effective way to go about it. The lasers could certainly -blind- everyone in the convoy, but killing them would be more difficult. And holding one on a manaquin for long enough to get that particular toasty look from the photograph would be damn difficult indeed.
Continuing on. Depopulating the west bank with lasers. Funny thing really, the world has these things called "Nuclear armaments" they would do a far better job of clearing out an area than a mere beam of light (So far).
Your last statement is just hilarious. If some little Chinese girl were making Nikes slow, they certainly wouldn't blind her. What use is a blind worker? Perhaps they would beat her, but that is another story.
So... all in all... you made a series of poorly thought out, stupid comments. Then you tried to use emotionally charged subjects (Chinese labor, West bank territory, terrorism) to support these stupid comments, but you really didn't even do a good job of that.
Come back when you have developed a brain.
From the article:
"Laser-armed planes could pick their targets. "For example, instead of attacking the hood of the car, you might go after the tyres because the chances of a reflection hitting the driver are less," Burris told New Scientist."
Beforehand, we would drop a bomb on the truck, scattering the remains of the driver across 15 or 20 miles. That's O.k. But we wouldn't want to blind him. That would be cruel.
The world is a funny place. You just have to be really callous to realize it.
Do you really believe that rodents sit around thinking about the meaning of life?
Do they sit out in the night and gaze at the stars and wonder if they are alone in the galaxy?
No. And do you know why? That's right. Because they are -animals-. They have yet to figure out the intricacies of the mouse trap.
-You- may be able to take their point of view, but -they- cannot. They will never think about the migration of humans, let alone be offended about it. They might move to avoid us, but that is a pre-programmed response. It is hard-coded into their genes (They weren't made for easy upgrades).
Um... yeah... let's "put our minds in our cute little animal buddies position"
/. posts like you.
Very well:
Eat.
Sleep.
Breed.
There you have it.
Though at least they don't come up with stupid