Hmmmm... guess that is why Julian Assange is held up in an embassy in London scared shitless he will be deported to the USA and tried as a spy. Similarly your suggesting that what is happening to Bradley Manning doesn't have a cooling effect to anyone else in the military who thinks it might be a good idea to leak classified documents?
My impression of what the average joe american wants to do to Assange is not pretty at all. He is not seen as the information freedom advocate but rather cast as a traitor.
They successfully blocked their ability to get funds, and compromised the core of the operation by CIA inflitration. There also seems to be a coldness with regards to the Australian governments support of Assange.
I don't think it would ever get to bombing cities, I think the leaders of dissent would be quietly removed before they ever became a serious concern.
If I use your example with Susan Falls, and she had been driving an unregistered car to effect her self defence - are you claiming the unregistered vehicle should somehow be okay simply because she had to use to it protect herself? I am personally happy that there are few firearms in the community to contend with, and that those who have them should be registered. People with guns are far more efficient at killing people than without.
Having said all of that - I do hope that where needed a system of government could be changed by the dissent of the people. I just don't think that having a gun would make that more likely or effective. Education, information and the quality of querying of the official view of the world are the most important qualities of dissent.
So... having access to a few unlicensed semi-automatic weapons on the off chance that you might want to over throw your own government is a good thing then?
If you think guns are what a modern government would use to keep control over you, you might have missed the importance of the control of information.
Not sure if you are aware of this if you want to talk about Australia - but there are laws here empowering ASIO to bug my computer without my knowledge, take me away without my telling any one, including my family, and if a reporter reports on it the reporter can be thrown into jail.
The use of a modern army is all about the ability of a government to control the context in which their actions are evaluated. The USA went to war with Iraq, for instance, on the basis there was an imminent threat of weapons of mass destruction use. That that was not the case doesn't really seem to worry anybody. No one has been held to account about that. What do you think they would bring to bare if it was a local national issue and not some distant country?
If your government really thought you were likely to lead a rebellion, you would be put at such an informational disadvantage, the use of your weapons could only be seen as acts of terrorism. I would gather the FBI and alike would be watching you way before you considered actually using a gun. If you some how got to the point of using it, the army and all other resources would then be "permitted" to use any and all means at their disposal to put you down.
In the mean time, you are inclined to add an extra level of insurance by having a gun handy because everyone else out there has one - including the people who will break in. I was not suggesting that crime would disappear if the guns were wound back - far from it. However, as long as they are as available as they are - you are in a cycle of having to own them, where you would like to or not. Of the things I like about America - their gun laws are not to be emulated IMHO.
I live in Australia, and seeing all those dots, seeing the density of them, is astonishing to me.
I noticed the comments from people being upset that these represent a possible "shopping list" for people who wish to acquire a gun, however as is commonly pointed out in other contexts, security via obscurity is very minimal security indeed. If a newspaper can acquire this information, you can safely assume any other interested party can do so.
If my interpretation of the second amendment is along the right lines, it was to intended to make sure that a government could be overthrown by the people, I think you guys need to reevaluate how effective any gun you can own is in a modern age. You would be up against the largest military in history.
If you wish to have no tracking or boundary for gun types, you are effectively creating the environment where there is a constant battle between those who would do harm with guns and those who need to protect themselves. An environment of escalation. If on the other hand you take steps to reduce the overall availability of guns over time, you would at least be slowly calming the situation. Looking at these numbers I can't help feeling it would take decades however. It would have to be carefully done not to create the equivalent of your prohibition of alcohol, where guns become a black marketed item for the general populous.
I feel for you guys - it seems an unenviable situation, particularly when I look to the future of weapons and see them becoming even deadlier with each passing year.
What is going to be considered porn? If I write something sexy in an email - does it get blocked? Does this happen in every language? If someone sends a sexy photo to someone who hasn't opted-in are they breaking the law?
Who is responsible for that, the ISP/government/sender?
If you "opt-in" who gets to see the list of people who have done so? How will this be audited and by whom?
Can this be the basis of a search warrant? If you bypass the filter are you breaking a law? If you help someone bypass a filter are you breaking the law? If you are a child and you bypass the filter are you breaking the law?
Will MP's have to own up to if they have opted-in? How will we know they are being truthful? What will happen if they are not? What happens if they visit friends houses where the friends have opted-in? Will this be true for all public figures and government employees?
If you "opt-in" and your children "see porn" does this mean you are accountable to the government in some way?
If your kids go visit their friends in a "opt-in" household does this mean their parents are responsible in defying the law some how?
If the ISP accidentally allows someone access to porn without their "opting-in" what does that mean? Can parents sue the government/ISP/auditors?
If your in a custody dispute with a spouse, will it be legitimate for them to discover if you have opted-in to internet.
What happens if the ISP blocks things that aren't porn? Who will know? What recourse will there be if they block a legitimate business site?
Who will make the list of porn sites?
If the government does it, and they start blocking "non-porn" sites - how will people know? How will it be fixed? How long will that take?
Will companies and institutions be able to opt-in en mass or will they need approval from every member of their staff?
Will libraries automatically "opt-in"? If the filter is not accurate and blocks items that are medical or sexual education - and you are a school/library/university etc will you have to opt-in just to be sure you get the information you need?
I would have thought the next best thing would be to simply lase the target so the big stuff can be delivered accurately on target - without having some poor grunt in the field having to put his head up. Not sure how big a laser you need to do the job - but can't imagine it's very much weight or power. Looks stable enough to keep a beam tracking on a target.
A lased target could be the focal point for various armaments, and would effectively allow the drone to be used to take out targets like tanks, armored personnel carriers, rocket launchers, - basically you name it. I guess it might even be able to tag hardened targets for big strikes.
I assume someone has put an gps in it so the general location is known.
Another, alternative might be to arm it with a florescent paint ball, to you can tag a target at night - so they can be tracked easier.
I thought faith was belief without or independent of evidence. Science is about discovering pattens consistent with evidence. The epistemology of science is philosophical.
You can have faith in the underlying 'truthfulness' of science, however there are also strong philosophical reasons to support it. Science doesn't require faith after that point.
I think what this post is saying is that although in principle everything that is known by science can be derived from testable and observable aspects of the world, the lay person is not in a position to undertake those tests directly, so it then becomes a different matter as to how they assign accuracy to "science" as a way of describing the world.
I think faith is an inappropriate phrase to use here, as there can be direct evidence that trusting a scientific description of the world is more consistent with the real world than any religion is.
Ultimately we are have a discussion about science when it's actually a discussion about philosophy and epistemology.
The issue is not whether a Christian can be logical or reasonable.
The question is can a Christian be logical and reasonable when the data conflicts with their beliefs.
Bear in mind there is the deep metaphor about the "end of days" that I assume Christians subscribe to as a direct by-product of believing the rest of the tenants of their faith.
On the face of it they look forward to the second coming of Christ which includes the destruction of the planet.
There are certainly extremists who are quiet happy to help bring this forward, by recreating the temple in Jerusalem for instance. Alternatively they expect to simply disappear when the rapture happens.
The biggest issue with Christianity and the environmental well being of the planet is that Christians believe they get to have a completely independent existence after they die, one in which this corrupt earth has no part.
Why should they worry in the least about this planet in that context?
I understand the US government wanting to protect itself from Wikileaks and send a message to any others that it will cost them.
What worries me is that from here (Australia) it appears that a large proportion of the american people think what Wikileaks is doing is unjustifiably bad.
Is that really the case or is it just media hype?
Some narrow minded subset of the whole getting to decide what we can think about even in fantasy?
And what the hell triggers this?? Did Amazon get a special request from the pope or something?
Perhaps they need to invent something that means only the owners can read stories in the privacy of their own homes....
*shakes head in disgust*
I just read another article about this, NBN deal , which indicates:
* Telstra gets to be removed from universal service obligation
* and there will be yet another company setup to look after unprofitable telco services to rural and regional Australian - called USO Co - with only 50 million to do with with (at least to begin with)
As to filtering - I still think it is a part of a master plan to create a backbone which is filtered before it ever reaches ISPs. They won't/aren't concerned with filtering overhead and never will be. They only want to be able to control the flow of free information into Australia.
I don't think actions against the non-living are considered "violence". (Not to mention talking about a "zombie apocalypse" and living in "the real world" in the same paragraph being a little non-sequitur )
I think the non-production of zombies in the first place would be consistent with a competent solution in this case.
Allowing zombies to come into existence would certainly be on my "that wasn't such a good idea" list.
We already make assessments as to how much effective choice an individual has with regards to the actions they pursue.
Those with diminished capacities are not treated as 'evil' per say but needing of help.
It does not undermine our ability to have people with all their facilities being held to account for their actions. Nor does it stop us preventing people with dangerous behavior being taken out of the general society to protect us from them.
Accuracy is paramount in this regard because the choice between treatment and punishment is dependent on that assessment.
Treatment, if possible, is superior to punishment because I would hope it would be more likely to change the behaviors.
Agree wholeheartedly.. works very well - have it running on a W2003 server with Windows and Linux clients - using Spark, Pidgin and Pandion clients. (Linux Spark client not particularly stable but Pidgin works very well). Setup very simple.
Conversations are SSL encrypted.
Lots of server side addons, and server based stats and monitoring are available.
Slashdot Mirror
Hmmmm... guess that is why Julian Assange is held up in an embassy in London scared shitless he will be deported to the USA and tried as a spy. Similarly your suggesting that what is happening to Bradley Manning doesn't have a cooling effect to anyone else in the military who thinks it might be a good idea to leak classified documents?
My impression of what the average joe american wants to do to Assange is not pretty at all. He is not seen as the information freedom advocate but rather cast as a traitor.
They successfully blocked their ability to get funds, and compromised the core of the operation by CIA inflitration. There also seems to be a coldness with regards to the Australian governments support of Assange.
I don't think it would ever get to bombing cities, I think the leaders of dissent would be quietly removed before they ever became a serious concern.
If I use your example with Susan Falls, and she had been driving an unregistered car to effect her self defence - are you claiming the unregistered vehicle should somehow be okay simply because she had to use to it protect herself?
I am personally happy that there are few firearms in the community to contend with, and that those who have them should be registered. People with guns are far more efficient at killing people than without.
Having said all of that - I do hope that where needed a system of government could be changed by the dissent of the people. I just don't think that having a gun would make that more likely or effective. Education, information and the quality of querying of the official view of the world are the most important qualities of dissent.
So... having access to a few unlicensed semi-automatic weapons on the off chance that you might want to over throw your own government is a good thing then?
If you think guns are what a modern government would use to keep control over you, you might have missed the importance of the control of information.
Not sure if you are aware of this if you want to talk about Australia - but there are laws here empowering ASIO
to bug my computer without my knowledge, take me away without my telling any one, including my family, and if a reporter reports on it the reporter can be thrown into jail.
The use of a modern army is all about the ability of a government to control the context in which their actions are evaluated. The USA went to war with Iraq, for instance, on the basis there was an imminent threat of weapons of mass destruction use. That that was not the case doesn't really seem to worry anybody. No one has been held to account about that. What do you think they would bring to bare if it was a local national issue and not some distant country?
If your government really thought you were likely to lead a rebellion, you would be put at such an informational disadvantage, the use of your weapons could only be seen as acts of terrorism. I would gather the FBI and alike would be watching you way before you considered actually using a gun. If you some how got to the point of using it, the army and all other resources would then be "permitted" to use any and all means at their disposal to put you down.
In the mean time, you are inclined to add an extra level of insurance by having a gun handy because everyone else out there has one - including the people who will break in. I was not suggesting that crime would disappear if the guns were wound back - far from it. However, as long as they are as available as they are - you are in a cycle of having to own them, where you would like to or not. Of the things I like about America - their gun laws are not to be emulated IMHO.
I live in Australia, and seeing all those dots, seeing the density of them, is astonishing to me.
I noticed the comments from people being upset that these represent a possible "shopping list" for people who wish to acquire a gun, however as is commonly pointed out in other contexts, security via obscurity is very minimal security indeed. If a newspaper can acquire this information, you can safely assume any other interested party can do so.
If my interpretation of the second amendment is along the right lines, it was to intended to make sure that a government could be overthrown by the people, I think you guys need to reevaluate how effective any gun you can own is in a modern age. You would be up against the largest military in history.
If you wish to have no tracking or boundary for gun types, you are effectively creating the environment where there is a constant battle between those who would do harm with guns and those who need to protect themselves. An environment of escalation. If on the other hand you take steps to reduce the overall availability of guns over time, you would at least be slowly calming the situation. Looking at these numbers I can't help feeling it would take decades however. It would have to be carefully done not to create the equivalent of your prohibition of alcohol, where guns become a black marketed item for the general populous.
I feel for you guys - it seems an unenviable situation, particularly when I look to the future of weapons and see them becoming even deadlier with each passing year.
What is going to be considered porn? If I write something sexy in an email - does it get blocked? Does this happen in every language? If someone sends a sexy photo to someone who hasn't opted-in are they breaking the law?
Who is responsible for that, the ISP/government/sender?
If you "opt-in" who gets to see the list of people who have done so? How will this be audited and by whom?
Can this be the basis of a search warrant? If you bypass the filter are you breaking a law? If you help someone bypass a filter are you breaking the law? If you are a child and you bypass the filter are you breaking the law?
Will MP's have to own up to if they have opted-in? How will we know they are being truthful? What will happen if they are not? What happens if they visit friends houses where the friends have opted-in? Will this be true for all public figures and government employees?
If you "opt-in" and your children "see porn" does this mean you are accountable to the government in some way?
If your kids go visit their friends in a "opt-in" household does this mean their parents are responsible in defying the law some how?
If the ISP accidentally allows someone access to porn without their "opting-in" what does that mean? Can parents sue the government/ISP/auditors?
If your in a custody dispute with a spouse, will it be legitimate for them to discover if you have opted-in to internet.
What happens if the ISP blocks things that aren't porn? Who will know? What recourse will there be if they block a legitimate business site?
Who will make the list of porn sites?
If the government does it, and they start blocking "non-porn" sites - how will people know? How will it be fixed? How long will that take?
Will companies and institutions be able to opt-in en mass or will they need approval from every member of their staff?
Will libraries automatically "opt-in"? If the filter is not accurate and blocks items that are medical or sexual education - and you are a school/library/university etc will you have to opt-in just to be sure you get the information you need?
I am sure they are not thinking this through...
I live in the country and have no realistic choice but Bigpond. Not sure what the hell to do about it quite frankly.
*facepalm*
Is this just self promotion?
I would have thought the next best thing would be to simply lase the target so the big stuff can be delivered accurately on target - without having some poor grunt in the field having to put his head up. Not sure how big a laser you need to do the job - but can't imagine it's very much weight or power. Looks stable enough to keep a beam tracking on a target. A lased target could be the focal point for various armaments, and would effectively allow the drone to be used to take out targets like tanks, armored personnel carriers, rocket launchers, - basically you name it. I guess it might even be able to tag hardened targets for big strikes. I assume someone has put an gps in it so the general location is known. Another, alternative might be to arm it with a florescent paint ball, to you can tag a target at night - so they can be tracked easier.
I thought faith was belief without or independent of evidence. Science is about discovering pattens consistent with evidence. The epistemology of science is philosophical.
You can have faith in the underlying 'truthfulness' of science, however there are also strong philosophical reasons to support it. Science doesn't require faith after that point.
I think what this post is saying is that although in principle everything that is known by science can be derived from testable and observable aspects of the world, the lay person is not in a position to undertake those tests directly, so it then becomes a different matter as to how they assign accuracy to "science" as a way of describing the world.
I think faith is an inappropriate phrase to use here, as there can be direct evidence that trusting a scientific description of the world is more consistent with the real world than any religion is. Ultimately we are have a discussion about science when it's actually a discussion about philosophy and epistemology.
So any 'cock' references w.r.t.(cock male chicken) of possible ('cock' and 'hen') chicken states, might land me in hot, if not exotic water?
The issue is not whether a Christian can be logical or reasonable.
The question is can a Christian be logical and reasonable when the data conflicts with their beliefs.
Bear in mind there is the deep metaphor about the "end of days" that I assume Christians subscribe to as a direct by-product of believing the rest of the tenants of their faith.
On the face of it they look forward to the second coming of Christ which includes the destruction of the planet.
There are certainly extremists who are quiet happy to help bring this forward, by recreating the temple in Jerusalem for instance. Alternatively they expect to simply disappear when the rapture happens.
The biggest issue with Christianity and the environmental well being of the planet is that Christians believe they get to have a completely independent existence after they die, one in which this corrupt earth has no part.
Why should they worry in the least about this planet in that context?
I understand the US government wanting to protect itself from Wikileaks and send a message to any others that it will cost them. What worries me is that from here (Australia) it appears that a large proportion of the american people think what Wikileaks is doing is unjustifiably bad. Is that really the case or is it just media hype?
Some narrow minded subset of the whole getting to decide what we can think about even in fantasy? And what the hell triggers this?? Did Amazon get a special request from the pope or something? Perhaps they need to invent something that means only the owners can read stories in the privacy of their own homes.... *shakes head in disgust*
Oh bugger they know who I am now...
I just read another article about this, NBN deal , which indicates:
* Telstra gets to be removed from universal service obligation
* and there will be yet another company setup to look after unprofitable telco services to rural and regional Australian - called USO Co - with only 50 million to do with with (at least to begin with)
As to filtering - I still think it is a part of a master plan to create a backbone which is filtered before it ever reaches ISPs. They won't/aren't concerned with filtering overhead and never will be. They only want to be able to control the flow of free information into Australia.
I thought in general god was supposed to provide.... (apparently only if it's tax free ;-))
I don't think actions against the non-living are considered "violence". (Not to mention talking about a "zombie apocalypse" and living in "the real world" in the same paragraph being a little non-sequitur ) I think the non-production of zombies in the first place would be consistent with a competent solution in this case. Allowing zombies to come into existence would certainly be on my "that wasn't such a good idea" list.
Think you are referring to a property of the reticular activating system ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reticular_activating_system , http://www.make-your-goals-happen.com/reticular-activating-system.html )
We already make assessments as to how much effective choice an individual has with regards to the actions they pursue. Those with diminished capacities are not treated as 'evil' per say but needing of help. It does not undermine our ability to have people with all their facilities being held to account for their actions. Nor does it stop us preventing people with dangerous behavior being taken out of the general society to protect us from them. Accuracy is paramount in this regard because the choice between treatment and punishment is dependent on that assessment. Treatment, if possible, is superior to punishment because I would hope it would be more likely to change the behaviors.
Get in before the close it down! Last chance.
Faster than the speed of thought - obviously
Sorry forgot to mention it is Active Directory integrated. :-)
Agree wholeheartedly.. works very well - have it running on a W2003 server with Windows and Linux clients - using Spark, Pidgin and Pandion clients. (Linux Spark client not particularly stable but Pidgin works very well). Setup very simple. Conversations are SSL encrypted. Lots of server side addons, and server based stats and monitoring are available.
I think Google are still having problems attaching the lasers to the sharks heads....