"Acceleration levels, fuel usage levels, break levels, even tire pressure levels, and logs of many of these functions. It dramatically reduces the cost and time to check a car for problems and unusual behaviour when you have very small very simple computers monitoring all the essential systems on your car."
BS What it does is provide the manufacturer more data they can use to prove you voided you warranty.
They detail a special forces assassination squad which is murdering children and the repeated and routine murdering of innocent civilians and labeling them as 'insurgents'. At least during the time these reports were collected this was happening so much that the vast majority of casualties were innocent civilians mislabeled as 'insurgents'.
If that doesn't constitute a war crime I don't know what does. I find it very interesting that all pro war/military comments are being upmodded and everything else downmodded.
Its almost like someone is conducting an intelligence campaign here and now.
But even without the monopoly we have the same result. The service providers share a common interest in preventing net neutrality and as a consequence they collude (and no, they don't need to actually have a meeting in order for them all to realize this) and thus will all have variations of the same profit boosting anti-consumer policy.
Why should the ISP's cut their profits in an effort to compete if they can count on the competition not cutting into their own profits either? Much better if everyone competes on mythical boosted speeds they don't contractually have to deliver. Better for all ISPs that way.
That was my gut reaction as well but upon further reflection it DOES make sense to have spies. To not have spies puts us at a disadvantage to no gain. I just don't see where having spies means we have to finance foreign wars and set up puppet governments.
I would assume that people who works with and has interest in open information, information freedom, etc would be more likely to know about a project that is entirely based on that principle and built with OSS.
Most americans still don't know what wikileaks is. Hell, I work in a geek organization full of open source solutions and my co-workers still don't know what wikileaks is.
His statement was preposterous but his point was not.
Aside from the odd mentally ill exception to prove the rule I doubt there are any soldiers who want more war as a direct principle.
Soldiers must embrace a philosophy that includes war as a legitimate means to an end. The things done by and to soldiers in war require that they come to believe in what they are doing on some level. That means trying to win the war instead of trying to end it. Winning a war requires more war and escalation of war with the belief that there is peace to be found on the other side of the war or perhaps a more final peace than would be found by withdrawing.
It is an escalation. It starts with a basic belief that you have the right to violently defend if violently attacked or if those you love are attacked. The more frequently or aggressively you are actually attacked and forced to resist the more justified you are going to feel in progressively violent retaliation. You are going to be attacked often in war.
In war, you are in a sort of isolation, pulled out of the world you knew and thrust into a new. The people around you will be like your family in this new world. So now the attacks aren't just against you but also against your brothers and sisters. Now they are attacking not just you but also your family.
At this point it isn't difficult to understand why you feel it is justified to attack them before they attack you or to prevent them from being able to attack you. The more you incapacitate and stop them the less they can hurt you and those you care about.
Sometimes that means mistakes, you can't afford to chance your life and the lives of your family on waiting for 100% certainty. Sometimes you might even know you are inflicting collateral damage but you believe they are sheltering them or helping in some way. If you can kill 100 of the enemy but it means killing one unarmed woman its a tough choice but one that needs made. How many of your innocent brothers and sisters would those 100 kill? Is their life or your life worth less than hers? How likely is it that the one woman there isn't helping them in some way?
The problem is that there is no peace on the other side of the war. Even if this conflict ends there will be another and this conflict will only serve to make people think its okay.
The problem is that there is no them. There is only a boy. He joined this fight because he was alone and because the enemy murdered his two brothers and his mother when she brought them food. They joined because their home was invaded by men who came with guns and haven't stopped shooting. Soulless men who hated them because they believe in God.
For the boy, you are 'them'. Replace all the you's with him and substitute yourself for the them's and it all still applies.
How many of this boy will you talk yourself into murdering before you realize he is you in a different uniform? If the war stops you will leave this angry orphan behind. If you continue in hopes of killing them you will succeed in only creating even more angry orphans.
There is no peace that can be found on the other side of war. That is a myth. Violence begets only more violence and conflict begets more conflict.
Soldiers do not want more war, they want anything but. Soldiers are just the ones most inclined to be blinded to the fact that the solution to war isn't found on the other side of war but by putting down your weapons today and making amends the best you can.
"I predict that, if it does fail, he will pin that failure on his predecessor"
Define win in this context. Here is a hint, there is no reasonable winning criteria.
I predict that, if it didn't fail, you would pin the credit on his predecessor. Not only that, you'd pin all the costs on him.
Further, I suspect that it was individuals with the sort of blood thirst you are exhibiting that gave him no political choice but to make some sort of bloody effort in Afghanistan successful or otherwise. The only moral choice would have been to pull out of Iraq immediately and apologizing to the world for the actions of his predecessor.
For the record I don't consider any product of the two party system or any member of the current and unconstitutional federal government to be a leader, failed or otherwise. I just felt the urge to waste my breath and slap you in the face with the blatant bias you exhibit. You'll deny, deflect, or simply ignore but wth; I've got time to kill.
Operating outside the US doesn't equate to projecting power outside the US. There is no reason the CIA can't be limited to actual intelligence gathering/propaganda operations.
presumably members of the military propaganda machine that is employing the intelligence tactics described in many leaked military documents.
Basically a combination of leaking false or carefully selected material, posting false or targeted content in comments on blogs and forums, and of course editing wikipedia as a means toward military interests.
What about the part where the reports reveal that not only are there shitloads
of casualties but almost all 'insurgent' deaths are actually just civilian deaths? Or how about the special forces assassin death squad that murdered 7 children on a single occasion?
I wonder how many people are actually looking at this stuff vs just assuming it confirms what they already think?
"to find a level of mechanics that would "overthrow" Einstein's relativity equations with something else (likely more complex still)."
I would contend that to properly 'overthrow' Einstein's relativity would require something much simpler. Einstein plus Newton is pretty accurate. To get more accurate you'd have to get closer to correct, Occam's Razor dictates that correct would need to be a simpler solution, not a more complex one.
There is nothing even close to simple or elegant about the current highly complex patchwork of theories that forms the larger theory of modern physics.
"The only planets Kepler can find up to this point are ones that orbit closely to their star. So most of these are not going to be in the habitable zone."
True. But the number it has found has promising suggestions.
20% of all smartphone users were interested in an android. 32% of those with a google branded phone (and only actual google phones because that is who they called) say they are going to buy another one.
Possibly because the other 68% know there isn't another one to buy.
Slashdot Mirror
"Acceleration levels, fuel usage levels, break levels, even tire pressure levels, and logs of many of these functions. It dramatically reduces the cost and time to check a car for problems and unusual behaviour when you have very small very simple computers monitoring all the essential systems on your car."
BS What it does is provide the manufacturer more data they can use to prove you voided you warranty.
The thing just came out and this happened pretty much the first time someone tested one. How much is often enough?
"Actually, what whistle is being blown here?"
Have you read these reports?
They detail a special forces assassination squad which is murdering children and the repeated and routine murdering of innocent civilians and labeling them as 'insurgents'. At least during the time these reports were collected this was happening so much that the vast majority of casualties were innocent civilians mislabeled as 'insurgents'.
If that doesn't constitute a war crime I don't know what does. I find it very interesting that all pro war/military comments are being upmodded and everything else downmodded.
Its almost like someone is conducting an intelligence campaign here and now.
You can have "Possibly."
OR "What's more, it already happened, 150 years ago."
Either it may have happened 150 years ago, which would be "Possibly" or did which would be "Yes."
The earliest known tool use was to carve up a tasty critter. Hopefully this puts an end to the myth that the natural diet for humans is vegetarian.
By all means make your personal choice for whatever reasons. Just don't pretend its the rest of us who are acting in a manner contrary to our nature.
But even without the monopoly we have the same result. The service providers share a common interest in preventing net neutrality and as a consequence they collude (and no, they don't need to actually have a meeting in order for them all to realize this) and thus will all have variations of the same profit boosting anti-consumer policy.
Why should the ISP's cut their profits in an effort to compete if they can count on the competition not cutting into their own profits either? Much better if everyone competes on mythical boosted speeds they don't contractually have to deliver. Better for all ISPs that way.
Yes but it is less likely when you realize that everyone else has spies as well.
That was my gut reaction as well but upon further reflection it DOES make sense to have spies. To not have spies puts us at a disadvantage to no gain. I just don't see where having spies means we have to finance foreign wars and set up puppet governments.
I would assume that people who works with and has interest in open information, information freedom, etc would be more likely to know about a project that is entirely based on that principle and built with OSS.
Well said.
Bingo. Mod parent up.
You are still buying into the myth that there is an 'other side'. They are the same side.
Other than that, see this post:
http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1745866&cid=33162828
Wikileaks asked the pentagon for assistance with identifying what redaction is needed. The pentagon refused.
This is NOT flamebait!
Most americans still don't know what wikileaks is. Hell, I work in a geek organization full of open source solutions and my co-workers still don't know what wikileaks is.
His statement was preposterous but his point was not.
Aside from the odd mentally ill exception to prove the rule I doubt there are any soldiers who want more war as a direct principle.
Soldiers must embrace a philosophy that includes war as a legitimate means to an end. The things done by and to soldiers in war require that they come to believe in what they are doing on some level. That means trying to win the war instead of trying to end it. Winning a war requires more war and escalation of war with the belief that there is peace to be found on the other side of the war or perhaps a more final peace than would be found by withdrawing.
It is an escalation. It starts with a basic belief that you have the right to violently defend if violently attacked or if those you love are attacked. The more frequently or aggressively you are actually attacked and forced to resist the more justified you are going to feel in progressively violent retaliation. You are going to be attacked often in war.
In war, you are in a sort of isolation, pulled out of the world you knew and thrust into a new. The people around you will be like your family in this new world. So now the attacks aren't just against you but also against your brothers and sisters. Now they are attacking not just you but also your family.
At this point it isn't difficult to understand why you feel it is justified to attack them before they attack you or to prevent them from being able to attack you. The more you incapacitate and stop them the less they can hurt you and those you care about.
Sometimes that means mistakes, you can't afford to chance your life and the lives of your family on waiting for 100% certainty. Sometimes you might even know you are inflicting collateral damage but you believe they are sheltering them or helping in some way. If you can kill 100 of the enemy but it means killing one unarmed woman its a tough choice but one that needs made. How many of your innocent brothers and sisters would those 100 kill? Is their life or your life worth less than hers? How likely is it that the one woman there isn't helping them in some way?
The problem is that there is no peace on the other side of the war. Even if this conflict ends there will be another and this conflict will only serve to make people think its okay.
The problem is that there is no them. There is only a boy. He joined this fight because he was alone and because the enemy murdered his two brothers and his mother when she brought them food. They joined because their home was invaded by men who came with guns and haven't stopped shooting. Soulless men who hated them because they believe in God.
For the boy, you are 'them'. Replace all the you's with him and substitute yourself for the them's and it all still applies.
How many of this boy will you talk yourself into murdering before you realize he is you in a different uniform? If the war stops you will leave this angry orphan behind. If you continue in hopes of killing them you will succeed in only creating even more angry orphans.
There is no peace that can be found on the other side of war. That is a myth. Violence begets only more violence and conflict begets more conflict.
Soldiers do not want more war, they want anything but. Soldiers are just the ones most inclined to be blinded to the fact that the solution to war isn't found on the other side of war but by putting down your weapons today and making amends the best you can.
Read the wikileaks reports. We don't pull punches either, we just refer to civilian casualties as insurgents.
"I predict that, if it does fail, he will pin that failure on his predecessor"
Define win in this context. Here is a hint, there is no reasonable winning criteria.
I predict that, if it didn't fail, you would pin the credit on his predecessor. Not only that, you'd pin all the costs on him.
Further, I suspect that it was individuals with the sort of blood thirst you are exhibiting that gave him no political choice but to make some sort of bloody effort in Afghanistan successful or otherwise. The only moral choice would have been to pull out of Iraq immediately and apologizing to the world for the actions of his predecessor.
For the record I don't consider any product of the two party system or any member of the current and unconstitutional federal government to be a leader, failed or otherwise. I just felt the urge to waste my breath and slap you in the face with the blatant bias you exhibit. You'll deny, deflect, or simply ignore but wth; I've got time to kill.
Operating outside the US doesn't equate to projecting power outside the US. There is no reason the CIA can't be limited to actual intelligence gathering/propaganda operations.
presumably members of the military propaganda machine that is employing the intelligence tactics described in many leaked military documents.
Basically a combination of leaking false or carefully selected material, posting false or targeted content in comments on blogs and forums, and of course editing wikipedia as a means toward military interests.
What about the part where the reports reveal that not only are there shitloads
of casualties but almost all 'insurgent' deaths are actually just civilian deaths? Or how about the special forces assassin death squad that murdered 7 children on a single occasion?
I wonder how many people are actually looking at this stuff vs just assuming it confirms what they already think?
"to find a level of mechanics that would "overthrow" Einstein's relativity equations with something else (likely more complex still)."
I would contend that to properly 'overthrow' Einstein's relativity would require something much simpler. Einstein plus Newton is pretty accurate. To get more accurate you'd have to get closer to correct, Occam's Razor dictates that correct would need to be a simpler solution, not a more complex one.
There is nothing even close to simple or elegant about the current highly complex patchwork of theories that forms the larger theory of modern physics.
"The only planets Kepler can find up to this point are ones that orbit closely to their star. So most of these are not going to be in the habitable zone."
True. But the number it has found has promising suggestions.
20% of all smartphone users were interested in an android. 32% of those with a google branded phone (and only actual google phones because that is who they called) say they are going to buy another one.
Possibly because the other 68% know there isn't another one to buy.
I suppose that would depend on whether you are security staff getting paid to do nothing else, ever.