Surely you've got an answer to these, very important questions:
1) you talk as if you've got 100% assurances that terrorists never hurt anyone. Explain how 9/11 fits in this view, without using the words "Bush did it". Then expand to the constant terror attacks experienced before and after 9/11
I never said that terrorists never hurt anyone. That's a straw man. However, how are the missiles supposed to judge who hurt someone and who didn't? What if the "terrorist" had his wife and kids with him? Do you subscribe to "guilt by association?"
This is what the process of justice is for. Bring in the suspects and *try* them on the evidence. A missile will kill you whether you are guilty or not. In which case, we are no better than those we call "terrorists".
Using terrorism to fight terrorism is rather self-defeating, no? Or did I miss something?
2) since you will obviously fail to answer 1) satisfactorily, you can still save your skin by explaining exactly how you'll prevent other people (whether that'd be terrorists, Iran, enemy countries like North Korea or others) from acquiring them and using them against American troops. If not, please explain to the troops why they have to risk their lives for you while you're refusing to give them the same weapons as the enemy you ("congress" ~= you, at least that's democratic theory, right ?) want them to fight
Wow, you make assumptions before I even answer! What does that make you?
Now to answer (2) -- look at the history of that region, going all the way back to the Cold War. Russia wanted to build a oil pipeline through Afghanistan; the US wanted to prevent the Russians from doing this. So, the US funded and supplied factions to act as "terrorists" against the Russians. Now those "terrorists", many years later, after US forgot them and tossed them over their shoulders like a used beer can, wants to give to the US a tiny taste of what the US did to them decades ago.
In that context, what do you do, now that the mess the US and Russia created was left behind to fester as that broken country went really wayward?
Heavy-duty diplomacy for starts. It's not going to be an overnight fix. But bombing them where innocents are killed will only serve to make them even more angry and cause more to join the ranks of the al-Qaeda and the Taliban. The more you bomb, the bigger the problem grows, and the more impossible it becomes to resolve, especially since they aren't limited to just staying around in Afghanistan.
And besides, how much real damage could they possibly do to the US, anyway? Bring those troops home already, and seek non-violent solutions. That's the *only* thing that will work.
Must we go through another Vietnam to relearn this basic lesson -- again? How many more innocents need to die on both sides before the message seeps in?
3) you're bigoted against technology. A stable, portentially 24/7 present platform, anywhere in the sky. Now I'm sure I don't really need to explain what advantages that has, other than "killing people", correct ? Mapmaking
I'm bigoted against technology????!!!! Surely you jest. Rather, I am a very big technology proponent!
But there are good ways to use technology, and then there are bonehead ways to use it too. Using technology to kill innocent people is something I will ALWAYS stand against. Using technology to enhance the quality of our lives and to make new discoveries and to travel into space, etc. is something I stand very strongly for.
Exactly, and I think we will see much more such too. China is improving its economy fast currently, with the USA's economy crisis and huge debts. They're getting their foot between the door, and I think both China and Russia will be starting to have a lot larger influence on global economy soon...
I saw this coming nearly 10 years ago. Well, it was obvious. The idiot US has been squandering its resources on its military machine, and its attention on "terrorism" from the Middle East.
In the 21st century, it's not military might that will matter, but economic might. And China is well-positioned. Russia and China shares a common enemy -- the US -- so it make sense they would combine resources and efforts to stand against the US and possibly Europe.
"Give them their battle ships and pea-shooters. We'll just buy them out and own it all." Pay close attention to foreign interest in US companies over this decade. Pay very close attention to who is really calling the shots in the global arena (and you can't rely on US media to get to the gist of this.)
Know and Understand and be Aghast. Welcome to my Nightmare.
Surely you jest. I'm against the use of UAVs, period. You seriously want some automated plane firing missiles at suspected "terrorists" in America? Or anywhere, for that matter? Where innocent people will be killed?
Let's hope UAVs remain at a standstill in this country. We've got enough problems with Homeland Insecurity going nuts with every "boo" the so-called "terrorists" do.
The Government should stay out of dictating to Google and the other search engines how they rank the searches. Period.
If Google screws around, there are always rival search engines that would give you the content you are looking for.
The real danger is that the Government might tell Google and other search engines to filter out what the Government considers to be "dangerous information", "State Secrets", or other nonsense.
Basically, we are talking Search Censorship.
EFF and others should lobby hard against *any* government interference into how online services conduct their service. We can decide for ourselves if the Search Engines are being fair, and if not, we can launch new search engines and watch the big ones loose market share.
I always thought that the US should consult with Isreal on how to "do it right", but the US is way too proud to do that. Israel must be laughing their fool heads off at us.
Considering some of the violence Border Patrol have done on these people crossing the border, I wouldn't want to be a part of that. This is truly dystopian.
Why bother with creating synthehol when legalizing marijuana would have the same effect -- plus, we know marijuana won't destroy your body. Who knows what this synthehol will do to you in 10 years?
They've already tried that, and it went down pretty much exactly as you predicted.
Figures. And from your link it would seem that the True Flower of Christianity definitely came out in their Left Behind game! Maybe they should keep trying. They will only educate everyone what Christianity is REALLY all about!
Funny how many rabid non believers attack Christianity but say nothing about the rampant Satanism in many games.
Why? Many of the non believers are Satanists (even if they never profess it) and have an agenda.
Or, they're just bitter trolls looking for anything Christian or Godly in the world and attempt to remove it to satisfy their own deprived and limited scope of satisfaction.
Do you have any proof for your claim that many of the non-believers are "satanists"?
Of course not, and since you posted anonymously, your statement carries even less weight.
Are we talking about any religion, or just Christianity in video games?
Christians will stop at nothing to ram their silly messages down our throats anyway they can. If we are talking Christian Propaganda being rammed down the throats of our kids in video games, then I am flatly against that.
If Christians want to write their own video games for themselves, more power to them. I think the mainstream does wisely to avoid stuffing Christian rhetoric in their productions. It will turn off many non-Christians and non-religious people. Why do it?
If you want your kids exposed to Christian Mythology, take them to church. Write your own video games, and clearly mark them as containing Christian Propaganda. And leave the rest of us alone.
Yes, there is a safe place. You vent to your friends and family, who will know you and know what you do and don't mean. If you walk up to me and say you're thinking of killing someone, what am I supposed to think? I don't know you, so I have to take your words at face value. If I walk into my office bathroom and see a statement like hers written on the wall, I'm sure as hell going to take it at face value. Facebook is no different, except that many more folks can potentially see those words.
There is a big difference in saying, "X makes me so mad I could just kill her!", and "I think I'm going to kill X." The former is venting; the latter is more like a threat or an intentional statement.
Would you phone the cops on the former? The latter? Both?
-In your residence
-In your car
-In email to your friends/family
-On the phone to your friends/family
-In person with your friends/family.
Venting on Facebook is more like going to Times Square and shouting out loud that you want to kill somebody. Don't be surprised when someone calls the police.
Lots has been written about people today failing to comprehend the line between public and private and the consequences thereof, so I don't need to add to it. I'll just say that Facebook is public, not private, and that public actions will have public consequences.
Facebook is both, actually. It can be public or private, depending on how you set your visibility and who your FB friends are.
The Public is paranoid to the max.Sometimes an innocent statement or action can be taken out of context or misinterpreted, resulting in all sorts of problems.
So what to do? Stay walled in and never venture out? People will sometimes dial 911 even if they *think* you're up to no good, or because they don't like the way you look, even if you haven't said a word! This happened to me 10 years ago, and I sued and won. But lots of damage was done, despite winning the lawsuit.
The Public must become educated as to when and when not to dial 911. And if someone dials 911 when it was unwarranted, that person should be made to face consequences. Period. Because false accusations can be devastating.
You should be concerned that anyone -- any stranger -- can dial 911 on you and complicate your life greatly. You can be completely innocent. You can be completely quiet and civil. You can have done nothing wrong whatsoever. It doesn't matter.
There are certain word combinations I am afraid to utter in public, even in jest. Someone, somewhere might misinterpret them and dial away, leaving me left holding the bag. This is NOT the type of society I want to live in, and yet we do.
The fact that this question has to even be asked, tells you a lot about how applications are developed.
The US has dedicated itself to a race to the bottom in quality and price. Testing is just one of those things companies throw out because it is an expense with no obvious benefits, to those who are not vested in the long term for their products.
There is so much pressure from the business side to rush to market that corners are inevitably cut, and the first place that usually gets cut is testing.
The realities of today's high-tech business world almost demands that you release crappy code NOW just to get your foot in the door of the market share. You can always release upgrades after the poor fools have bought into your software.
In an ideal world, everything should receive security audits before release. If you are Big Company releasing to Open Source, you may not want to spend the extra $$$$ on security audits unless you see a clear ROI for you. Besides, you should be able to trust your own developers, anyway. And if you can't, releasing your stuff to OSS or FOSS is the very least of your concerns!!!
As for encryption-specific security, that requires a special level of auditing, and your reputation is clearly on the line if others suffer due to a flaw in your encryption/protocol schemes. In that case, AUDIT LIKE HELL....
Is there ANY venue one can vent without coming under suspicion of violence? I've vented once or twice on Facebook myself, but I am always circumspect as to *how* I vent so no one can take it the wrong way.
Just because one may say, "I feel like killing someone!" does not in anyway mean said person will actually carry it through. It's just a vent. That's all!
And if we kill off places where people can vent safely, some may actually *do* the deed rather than just "scream" the deed.
Man, I feel like shoving all the idiots on our planet onto the "B" Ark. No, I'm not serious. Besides, in the case of Earth,that would have to be a very LARGE spaceship. And the billions will most likely not go willingly. Or maybe they would, being the idiots they are and all...
Really, trust in science eroded long ago in this country (the US), which goes along with the quality and level of science education that everyone gets here.
I wonder how many understand anything about or can state what the Scientific Method is? Or have a grasp on what a Null Hypothesis is?
Most lay people believe in "absolute truth" -- including and especially politicians. Science deals with what *may* be true or what must be rejected due to the data.
The two modes of thought are incompatible, for the most part. Most non-scientists want *certainty*, and that's the number one thing Science will *never* give you.
Now, bring that into the highly charged political arena concerning climate change. Policy makers want *certainty*, because political careers are on the line, let alone the financial and social implications that will be brought about by policy change.
If the science happens to be "correct", you are a hero. If it turns out to be "wrong", you are vilified.
From what little I read of the emails, I saw this conflict in full action. In some ways, I would say the outcome was inevitable.
The climate issue is not the only place science is compromised or misused. Vaccines are another hot-button area. There is no solid evidence that US vaccines work, and some evidence that would suggest they don't. Good luck trying to make any headway there. Politicians and bureaucrats will slam you down and shut you up quickly.
The real underlying issue in all of this is not so much a mistrust of science -- though that's definitely the symptom -- but that science is poorly understood. Which also gets into issues of epistemology and ontology with regards the lay public. Which touches (rather strongly) on education, religious beliefs, and so on. You can see where this gets you into deep waters rather quickly!
> "I think my world looks dystopian if you're a middle class white guy doing reasonably well in 1993..."
> How about if you are a middle class "black" guy doing reasonably well in 1993?
I think the white middle class joke comes from psychology. Most experiments that psychology professors did during the last few decades were done on undergraduate students who tended to be white middle class.
So, all the psychology papers would sort of say, results on white middle class only.
Well, even more specific -- "white middle class college students." Hardly a random sample in the least.
Well, I'll hold off on my spiel about what it is supposed to mean to be "white" or "black" -- to me, it all rather a bit silly, anyway!
"I think my world looks dystopian if you're a middle class white guy doing reasonably well in 1993..."
How about if you are a middle class "black" guy doing reasonably well in 1993?
Realistically, how many middle class black guys were wasting their time reading that crap?
That's not the point. And besides, I tried to read it, but the story didn't grab me, so I never finished the book.
I just get annoyed when some mention race when there is no need. I recall once when some commentator on NPR was doing a story about the beginning of the micro-computer revolution, and said, off-handedly, "white guys", when race had nothing to do with the early hackers -- of which I was one, and I am hardly a "white guy", so to speak. So I felt excluded by this commentator about being a part of one of the great turning points in history.
Slashdot Mirror
Surely you've got an answer to these, very important questions :
1) you talk as if you've got 100% assurances that terrorists never hurt anyone. Explain how 9/11 fits in this view, without using the words "Bush did it". Then expand to the constant terror attacks experienced before and after 9/11
I never said that terrorists never hurt anyone. That's a straw man. However, how are the missiles supposed to judge who hurt someone and who didn't? What if the "terrorist" had his wife and kids with him? Do you subscribe to "guilt by association?"
This is what the process of justice is for. Bring in the suspects and *try* them on the evidence. A missile will kill you whether you are guilty or not. In which case, we are no better than those we call "terrorists".
Using terrorism to fight terrorism is rather self-defeating, no? Or did I miss something?
2) since you will obviously fail to answer 1) satisfactorily, you can still save your skin by explaining exactly how you'll prevent other people (whether that'd be terrorists, Iran, enemy countries like North Korea or others) from acquiring them and using them against American troops. If not, please explain to the troops why they have to risk their lives for you while you're refusing to give them the same weapons as the enemy you ("congress" ~= you, at least that's democratic theory, right ?) want them to fight
Wow, you make assumptions before I even answer! What does that make you?
Now to answer (2) -- look at the history of that region, going all the way back to the Cold War. Russia wanted to build a oil pipeline through Afghanistan; the US wanted to prevent the Russians from doing this. So, the US funded and supplied factions to act as "terrorists" against the Russians. Now those "terrorists", many years later, after US forgot them and tossed them over their shoulders like a used beer can, wants to give to the US a tiny taste of what the US did to them decades ago.
In that context, what do you do, now that the mess the US and Russia created was left behind to fester as that broken country went really wayward?
Heavy-duty diplomacy for starts. It's not going to be an overnight fix. But bombing them where innocents are killed will only serve to make them even more angry and cause more to join the ranks of the al-Qaeda and the Taliban. The more you bomb, the bigger the problem grows, and the more impossible it becomes to resolve, especially since they aren't limited to just staying around in Afghanistan.
And besides, how much real damage could they possibly do to the US, anyway? Bring those troops home already, and seek non-violent solutions. That's the *only* thing that will work.
Must we go through another Vietnam to relearn this basic lesson -- again? How many more innocents need to die on both sides before the message seeps in?
3) you're bigoted against technology. A stable, portentially 24/7 present platform, anywhere in the sky. Now I'm sure I don't really need to explain what advantages that has, other than "killing people", correct ? Mapmaking
I'm bigoted against technology????!!!! Surely you jest. Rather, I am a very big technology proponent!
But there are good ways to use technology, and then there are bonehead ways to use it too. Using technology to kill innocent people is something I will ALWAYS stand against. Using technology to enhance the quality of our lives and to make new discoveries and to travel into space, etc. is something I stand very strongly for.
Surely you jest! Where's your class? Nothing less than a microbrew or an import!!!!
Did they use the same man on both twins in that study?
Exactly, and I think we will see much more such too. China is improving its economy fast currently, with the USA's economy crisis and huge debts. They're getting their foot between the door, and I think both China and Russia will be starting to have a lot larger influence on global economy soon...
I saw this coming nearly 10 years ago. Well, it was obvious. The idiot US has been squandering its resources on its military machine, and its attention on "terrorism" from the Middle East.
In the 21st century, it's not military might that will matter, but economic might. And China is well-positioned. Russia and China shares a common enemy -- the US -- so it make sense they would combine resources and efforts to stand against the US and possibly Europe.
"Give them their battle ships and pea-shooters. We'll just buy them out and own it all." Pay close attention to foreign interest in US companies over this decade. Pay very close attention to who is really calling the shots in the global arena (and you can't rely on US media to get to the gist of this.)
Know and Understand and be Aghast. Welcome to my Nightmare.
Let's hope UAVs remain at a standstill in this country. We've got enough problems with Homeland Insecurity going nuts with every "boo" the so-called "terrorists" do.
For all we know, the terrorists have been building investment positions in defense and security companies since 9/11 and have been raking in millions.
You mean the "terrorist" was hired by someone on Wall Street? Ah, now it starts to make some sense!!!
If Google screws around, there are always rival search engines that would give you the content you are looking for.
The real danger is that the Government might tell Google and other search engines to filter out what the Government considers to be "dangerous information", "State Secrets", or other nonsense.
Basically, we are talking Search Censorship.
EFF and others should lobby hard against *any* government interference into how online services conduct their service. We can decide for ourselves if the Search Engines are being fair, and if not, we can launch new search engines and watch the big ones loose market share.
KEEP THE INTERNET FREE.
I always thought that the US should consult with Isreal on how to "do it right", but the US is way too proud to do that. Israel must be laughing their fool heads off at us.
Go "BOO" enough times and the US will spend itself into financial ruin. Wait -- that's happening NOW!
Considering some of the violence Border Patrol have done on these people crossing the border, I wouldn't want to be a part of that. This is truly dystopian.
Why bother with creating synthehol when legalizing marijuana would have the same effect -- plus, we know marijuana won't destroy your body. Who knows what this synthehol will do to you in 10 years?
They've already tried that, and it went down pretty much exactly as you predicted.
Figures. And from your link it would seem that the True Flower of Christianity definitely came out in their Left Behind game! Maybe they should keep trying. They will only educate everyone what Christianity is REALLY all about!
Funny how many rabid non believers attack Christianity but say nothing about the rampant Satanism in many games.
Why? Many of the non believers are Satanists (even if they never profess it) and have an agenda.
Or, they're just bitter trolls looking for anything Christian or Godly in the world and attempt to remove it to satisfy their own deprived and limited scope of satisfaction.
Do you have any proof for your claim that many of the non-believers are "satanists"?
Of course not, and since you posted anonymously, your statement carries even less weight.
Are we talking about any religion, or just Christianity in video games?
Christians will stop at nothing to ram their silly messages down our throats anyway they can. If we are talking Christian Propaganda being rammed down the throats of our kids in video games, then I am flatly against that.
If Christians want to write their own video games for themselves, more power to them. I think the mainstream does wisely to avoid stuffing Christian rhetoric in their productions. It will turn off many non-Christians and non-religious people. Why do it?
If you want your kids exposed to Christian Mythology, take them to church. Write your own video games, and clearly mark them as containing Christian Propaganda. And leave the rest of us alone.
Better to train yourself to not need venting. Obviously.
Tough call if people are continually slapping you in the face!
Yes, there is a safe place. You vent to your friends and family, who will know you and know what you do and don't mean. If you walk up to me and say you're thinking of killing someone, what am I supposed to think? I don't know you, so I have to take your words at face value. If I walk into my office bathroom and see a statement like hers written on the wall, I'm sure as hell going to take it at face value. Facebook is no different, except that many more folks can potentially see those words.
There is a big difference in saying, "X makes me so mad I could just kill her!", and "I think I'm going to kill X." The former is venting; the latter is more like a threat or an intentional statement.
Would you phone the cops on the former? The latter? Both?
Sure, there are lots of places.
-In your residence -In your car -In email to your friends/family -On the phone to your friends/family -In person with your friends/family.
Venting on Facebook is more like going to Times Square and shouting out loud that you want to kill somebody. Don't be surprised when someone calls the police.
Lots has been written about people today failing to comprehend the line between public and private and the consequences thereof, so I don't need to add to it. I'll just say that Facebook is public, not private, and that public actions will have public consequences.
Facebook is both, actually. It can be public or private, depending on how you set your visibility and who your FB friends are.
The Public is paranoid to the max.Sometimes an innocent statement or action can be taken out of context or misinterpreted, resulting in all sorts of problems.
So what to do? Stay walled in and never venture out? People will sometimes dial 911 even if they *think* you're up to no good, or because they don't like the way you look, even if you haven't said a word! This happened to me 10 years ago, and I sued and won. But lots of damage was done, despite winning the lawsuit.
The Public must become educated as to when and when not to dial 911. And if someone dials 911 when it was unwarranted, that person should be made to face consequences. Period. Because false accusations can be devastating.
You should be concerned that anyone -- any stranger -- can dial 911 on you and complicate your life greatly. You can be completely innocent. You can be completely quiet and civil. You can have done nothing wrong whatsoever. It doesn't matter.
There are certain word combinations I am afraid to utter in public, even in jest. Someone, somewhere might misinterpret them and dial away, leaving me left holding the bag. This is NOT the type of society I want to live in, and yet we do.
The fact that this question has to even be asked, tells you a lot about how applications are developed.
The US has dedicated itself to a race to the bottom in quality and price. Testing is just one of those things companies throw out because it is an expense with no obvious benefits, to those who are not vested in the long term for their products.
There is so much pressure from the business side to rush to market that corners are inevitably cut, and the first place that usually gets cut is testing.
The realities of today's high-tech business world almost demands that you release crappy code NOW just to get your foot in the door of the market share. You can always release upgrades after the poor fools have bought into your software.
In an ideal world, everything should receive security audits before release. If you are Big Company releasing to Open Source, you may not want to spend the extra $$$$ on security audits unless you see a clear ROI for you. Besides, you should be able to trust your own developers, anyway. And if you can't, releasing your stuff to OSS or FOSS is the very least of your concerns!!!
As for encryption-specific security, that requires a special level of auditing, and your reputation is clearly on the line if others suffer due to a flaw in your encryption/protocol schemes. In that case, AUDIT LIKE HELL....
Just because one may say, "I feel like killing someone!" does not in anyway mean said person will actually carry it through. It's just a vent. That's all!
And if we kill off places where people can vent safely, some may actually *do* the deed rather than just "scream" the deed.
Man, I feel like shoving all the idiots on our planet onto the "B" Ark. No, I'm not serious. Besides, in the case of Earth,that would have to be a very LARGE spaceship. And the billions will most likely not go willingly. Or maybe they would, being the idiots they are and all...
Really, trust in science eroded long ago in this country (the US), which goes along with the quality and level of science education that everyone gets here.
I wonder how many understand anything about or can state what the Scientific Method is? Or have a grasp on what a Null Hypothesis is?
Most lay people believe in "absolute truth" -- including and especially politicians. Science deals with what *may* be true or what must be rejected due to the data.
The two modes of thought are incompatible, for the most part. Most non-scientists want *certainty*, and that's the number one thing Science will *never* give you.
Now, bring that into the highly charged political arena concerning climate change. Policy makers want *certainty*, because political careers are on the line, let alone the financial and social implications that will be brought about by policy change.
If the science happens to be "correct", you are a hero. If it turns out to be "wrong", you are vilified.
From what little I read of the emails, I saw this conflict in full action. In some ways, I would say the outcome was inevitable.
The climate issue is not the only place science is compromised or misused. Vaccines are another hot-button area. There is no solid evidence that US vaccines work, and some evidence that would suggest they don't. Good luck trying to make any headway there. Politicians and bureaucrats will slam you down and shut you up quickly.
The real underlying issue in all of this is not so much a mistrust of science -- though that's definitely the symptom -- but that science is poorly understood. Which also gets into issues of epistemology and ontology with regards the lay public. Which touches (rather strongly) on education, religious beliefs, and so on. You can see where this gets you into deep waters rather quickly!
Not to mention that every scandal is referred to as gate. "Filegate", "Climategate", "Bloodgate", "Billygate", "Hookergate", etc.
Maybe we can combine these silly hackneyed sound bite artifices, such as the "Mediagate Bubble"!
> "I think my world looks dystopian if you're a middle class white guy doing reasonably well in 1993..." > How about if you are a middle class "black" guy doing reasonably well in 1993?
I think the white middle class joke comes from psychology. Most experiments that psychology professors did during the last few decades were done on undergraduate students who tended to be white middle class.
So, all the psychology papers would sort of say, results on white middle class only.
Well, even more specific -- "white middle class college students." Hardly a random sample in the least.
Well, I'll hold off on my spiel about what it is supposed to mean to be "white" or "black" -- to me, it all rather a bit silly, anyway!
I thought the point was that Gibson *is* a middle-class white guy... he can't really speak about his experience as a black man, can he?
Why not? I can speak about my experience as a "white guy", even though I'm not!
"I think my world looks dystopian if you're a middle class white guy doing reasonably well in 1993..."
How about if you are a middle class "black" guy doing reasonably well in 1993?
Realistically, how many middle class black guys were wasting their time reading that crap?
That's not the point. And besides, I tried to read it, but the story didn't grab me, so I never finished the book.
I just get annoyed when some mention race when there is no need. I recall once when some commentator on NPR was doing a story about the beginning of the micro-computer revolution, and said, off-handedly, "white guys", when race had nothing to do with the early hackers -- of which I was one, and I am hardly a "white guy", so to speak. So I felt excluded by this commentator about being a part of one of the great turning points in history.
How about if you are a middle class "black" guy doing reasonably well in 1993?