The Geneva Conventions cover the so called "rules of war". It is not the end-all of ethical discussion. What about civilians who are unable to recognize the warnings and understand the military uses of the hospital? Such as the elderly, mentally handicapped, children, and those in a vegetative state? Sure attacking such a hospital may seem "justified in war" but it doesn't seem right nor does the use of such civilians to shield military operations.
War is hell because we lax our morals in order to achieve a goal that in the end will hopefully improve the overall situation (cause more good then harm). Yet it rarely does and we should reserve conflict only when it is necessary. Even when it is in self-defense it should only be against the inital aggressors. There is a paradox is claiming the justification in killing innocent cilivans in order to protect the innocent.
Which is impossible when Hezbollah has popular support. For every one of them you kill you create another martyr who will only inspire another young disillusioned Arab to pursue violence against Israel. If you do not have popular support the only winning military solution is genocide. And I'm sure you did not imply that.
I'm sorry but when you try to justify the killing of innocent civilians you have already lost the argument. Surely war is war and civilians becoming victims of "collateral damage" can be explained. But it can never be justified. Once you claim that killing innocent lives is morally right you have lost all moral authority.
The Bush administration does not understand the Arab community. The Middle East has a long tradition of successful military campaigns. The culture in the Arab world demands military success and takes pride in that. When the Arab world was unable to defeat Israel on multiple occasions the collective Arab world was humiliated. They are unwilling to forgive Israel but also their own leaders for their military failures.
When a foreign nation like the USA takes down an Arab government like Iraq there is the same sense of humiliation. That the Arab world was itself unable to take down a brutal dictator but also in the post-war occupation they are unable to govern its people. However when a group like Hezbollah is able to stand up to Israel, even though Hezbollah is a Shiite group, the Arab street is overwhelming in favor of those who they perceive as standing up to foreign aggression. At the same time they criticize their leaders for not taking a similar stand.
The Arab world is desperate for some sort of success, be it military or political and are willing to cheer on even the most insidious of organizations. The longer this conflict goes on, the more civilians who die and the more Hezbollah holds out the more radicalized the Arab world will become.
I think the Bush administration is right in that we should invest in democracy, freedom and economic prosperity in the Middle East. This is the long term strategy that will provide peace in the region. However it can only come through political action. A military strategy will only be ferociously resisted by the Arab world.
But there is a presupposition to your argument, whatever your original intent may have been, that since there have been similar criticisms to somewhat similar circumstances there could still be a similar outcome. Which I think is false. The job of the press is to be critical of government. The only point you really make is that the press did its job in the past and is doing its job now.
I think it is easy for many of us to underestimate the psychological effects and potential trauma war has on its actors. In conflict, in order to survive you have to dehumanize your enemy and it some ways dehumanize your peers. On the battlefield you don't have the luxury to remove yourself from the combat environment.
War is the lowest stage of human interaction. The effects of war on the human condition are long-lasting and devastating. Even for those who escape physical harm, war can be a mind-crippling experience. That is why we must participate in conflict only when it is necessary. We must be a wary of those who seek war and glorify it. That perspective is only for those who will never have to fight in one.
1. Majority is unwilling. 2. Minority is not as powerful as the majority. 3. Minority must use different tactics than the majority.
A dedicated and motivated minority certainly has ability to cause change but such a minority will not be successful via methods like "voting with their feet". I never said a vocal minority will be ineffective I just said that using methods that only work for majorities will be ineffective.
It'd be preferable if we could get the majority onboard and rally against DRM-like technologies but I have my doubts. In any case if the majority does eventually join the minority against DRM, wouldn't GPLv3 already be in line with the majority opinion?
You mean the same way we supposed to vote with our feet when it comes to ISPs not backing net neutrality? All it takes if for the top 6 hardware manufactures to back DRM and it's over. You think the average person cares about free software? Hell the average person doesn't really even care about free speech. GPLv3 is an attempt to fight a war that can't be won traditionally, i.e. voting with our feet. We must resort to guerilla type methods.
There are, maybe 5 million Jew's in Israel and over 500 million gentiles around them that want them all dead. *THAT* is what they are defending themselves against.
Not every Arab is a terrorist nor does every Arab want the destruction of Israel. Such a characterization is along the same lines as "Every Jew wants to steal Muslim land therefore we are defending ourselves against Israeli aggression".
The word DRM and the phrase Digital Restrictions Mangement no longer appear in the document. Instead they define a clause called "No Denying Users' Rights through Technical Measures" which is basically the new anti-DRM clause.
There is a difference between a collection of facts and a collective of facts. Wikipedia is a collection. Anyone who has read the discussion pages and reviewed history logs knows wikipedians often disagree with one another. This makes wikipedia more representative of human knowledge, which is fluid. A collective is more like a traditional encyclopedia which is a specific group of people who share the same ideas. A traditional encyclopedia is lifeless in the sense it removes discontent from its pages.
Provable is a universal or absolute quantifier as knowable is a relative quantifier. While provable is a function of a world(universe) or P(w). Knowledge is a function of world, observer and time or K(w,o,t). P(w) has a range that is a proper subset of w. K(w) has a range that is the subset of w. What is provable in w is part of w but not all of w. What is knowable in w can be a part of w or all of w. They overlap by which what is not provable can never be known to be true or false.
Given infinite time an observer can only know what is possible for the observer to know. Given infinite observers, time limits the amount that can be known. Given infinite observers and time, all of w can be known. Note o is not a number of observers but the equivalence class of the observer. So infinite observers means an infinite number of classes of observers.
Being an finite observer with finite time is it plausible to know provable statements but not know the proof for that statement(assign an universal truth-value to that statement). To answer your question, knowing a provable statement but not know the proof of that statment and believing that statement is a strict sense of faith. X is necessarily true or false and I believe X is true/false. However to believe in a statement that is not provable is a weak* sense of faith. X is necessarily not true of false but I believe X is true/false.
*I use weak to mean this kind of faith can be applied over a larger set of statements than the strict sense. However one can think of it as a stronger sense of faith in that one believes in things that can never be true or false.
I mean he tried to light his shoe on fire on a plane with a lighter.
No actually he forgot the lighter and tried to use matches. If he wasn't so stupid he would have brought a lighter and might have been successful. But I agree that even stupid people are dangerous. It's just a little unsettling that it seems all we catch are the stupid people. Where are the smart terrorists? That's what bothers me.
When the next terrorist attack comes you can almost predict the public's reaction.
1. Blame the press. 2. Demand bloodlust. 3. Ask for more government protection.
And all the while it does nothing to prevent terrorism and just gives the government more power over its citizens. That's how dictatorships start, people don't mind giving the government a little more power. And as time goes on more and more powers are given away. Sure this administration and the next may use that power for good but down the road we might elect some maniac(if elections are even in place by then) who will abuse that power. The Romans didn't have a problem with Augustus but they sure did have a problem with Caligula.
I'm glad to see that the US government is good at foiling plots from people who obviously are not professional terrorists. But I'm hoping they do just as good as job when the real deal shows up in town.
I don't drink coffee. But as far as candy bars go... I said in my adult life. Whatever candy I like now may be because of advertising when I was child.
Anyway you overlooked my point. I don't even know 99% of the time what the commercial is about because I don't pay attention.
I'm pretty sure in my entire adult life there has never been a commercial that compelled me to buy a product. Actually, like many others, I've trained myself to pretty much block the commercial from my consciousness. Sometimes it may take 20 viewings of the same commercial to finally realize what the commercial is about. Until then it all seems like colors and moving figures.
So can I sign-up to not have commericals? They aren't working on me it only seems fair. Or is there new technology coming out that will prevent me from blocking commercials internally? Maybe even something that releases endorphins during viewing.
Slashdot Mirror
The Geneva Conventions cover the so called "rules of war". It is not the end-all of ethical discussion. What about civilians who are unable to recognize the warnings and understand the military uses of the hospital? Such as the elderly, mentally handicapped, children, and those in a vegetative state? Sure attacking such a hospital may seem "justified in war" but it doesn't seem right nor does the use of such civilians to shield military operations.
War is hell because we lax our morals in order to achieve a goal that in the end will hopefully improve the overall situation (cause more good then harm). Yet it rarely does and we should reserve conflict only when it is necessary. Even when it is in self-defense it should only be against the inital aggressors. There is a paradox is claiming the justification in killing innocent cilivans in order to protect the innocent.
The only way to disarm them is militarily
Which is impossible when Hezbollah has popular support. For every one of them you kill you create another martyr who will only inspire another young disillusioned Arab to pursue violence against Israel. If you do not have popular support the only winning military solution is genocide. And I'm sure you did not imply that.
I'm sorry but when you try to justify the killing of innocent civilians you have already lost the argument. Surely war is war and civilians becoming victims of "collateral damage" can be explained. But it can never be justified. Once you claim that killing innocent lives is morally right you have lost all moral authority.
The Bush administration does not understand the Arab community. The Middle East has a long tradition of successful military campaigns. The culture in the Arab world demands military success and takes pride in that. When the Arab world was unable to defeat Israel on multiple occasions the collective Arab world was humiliated. They are unwilling to forgive Israel but also their own leaders for their military failures.
When a foreign nation like the USA takes down an Arab government like Iraq there is the same sense of humiliation. That the Arab world was itself unable to take down a brutal dictator but also in the post-war occupation they are unable to govern its people. However when a group like Hezbollah is able to stand up to Israel, even though Hezbollah is a Shiite group, the Arab street is overwhelming in favor of those who they perceive as standing up to foreign aggression. At the same time they criticize their leaders for not taking a similar stand.
The Arab world is desperate for some sort of success, be it military or political and are willing to cheer on even the most insidious of organizations. The longer this conflict goes on, the more civilians who die and the more Hezbollah holds out the more radicalized the Arab world will become.
I think the Bush administration is right in that we should invest in democracy, freedom and economic prosperity in the Middle East. This is the long term strategy that will provide peace in the region. However it can only come through political action. A military strategy will only be ferociously resisted by the Arab world.
But there is a presupposition to your argument, whatever your original intent may have been, that since there have been similar criticisms to somewhat similar circumstances there could still be a similar outcome. Which I think is false. The job of the press is to be critical of government. The only point you really make is that the press did its job in the past and is doing its job now.
Apparently you forgot there was no armed insurgency in post-war Japan during American occupation
I think it is easy for many of us to underestimate the psychological effects and potential trauma war has on its actors. In conflict, in order to survive you have to dehumanize your enemy and it some ways dehumanize your peers. On the battlefield you don't have the luxury to remove yourself from the combat environment.
War is the lowest stage of human interaction. The effects of war on the human condition are long-lasting and devastating. Even for those who escape physical harm, war can be a mind-crippling experience. That is why we must participate in conflict only when it is necessary. We must be a wary of those who seek war and glorify it. That perspective is only for those who will never have to fight in one.
No.
1. Majority is unwilling.
2. Minority is not as powerful as the majority.
3. Minority must use different tactics than the majority.
A dedicated and motivated minority certainly has ability to cause change but such a minority will not be successful via methods like "voting with their feet". I never said a vocal minority will be ineffective I just said that using methods that only work for majorities will be ineffective.
It'd be preferable if we could get the majority onboard and rally against DRM-like technologies but I have my doubts. In any case if the majority does eventually join the minority against DRM, wouldn't GPLv3 already be in line with the majority opinion?
You mean the same way we supposed to vote with our feet when it comes to ISPs not backing net neutrality? All it takes if for the top 6 hardware manufactures to back DRM and it's over. You think the average person cares about free software? Hell the average person doesn't really even care about free speech. GPLv3 is an attempt to fight a war that can't be won traditionally, i.e. voting with our feet. We must resort to guerilla type methods.
There are, maybe 5 million Jew's in Israel and over 500 million gentiles around them that want them all dead. *THAT* is what they are defending themselves against.
Not every Arab is a terrorist nor does every Arab want the destruction of Israel. Such a characterization is along the same lines as "Every Jew wants to steal Muslim land therefore we are defending ourselves against Israeli aggression".
The word DRM and the phrase Digital Restrictions Mangement no longer appear in the document. Instead they define a clause called "No Denying Users' Rights through Technical Measures" which is basically the new anti-DRM clause.
As much as I love GMail I think discovering evidence for the Big Bang is a tad more important.
Yeah you're right. I also forgot the Transistor. List of Bell Labs Nobel Prizes
Bell Labs
-Information Theory
-LEDs
-C/C++
-UNIX
-WLAN
-6 Nobel Prizes
Google Labs
-PageRank
-AJAX Mail Client
-Contextual Advertising
If we had true AI we would not need a "Semantic Web".
There is a difference between a collection of facts and a collective of facts. Wikipedia is a collection. Anyone who has read the discussion pages and reviewed history logs knows wikipedians often disagree with one another. This makes wikipedia more representative of human knowledge, which is fluid. A collective is more like a traditional encyclopedia which is a specific group of people who share the same ideas. A traditional encyclopedia is lifeless in the sense it removes discontent from its pages.
Provable is a universal or absolute quantifier as knowable is a relative quantifier. While provable is a function of a world(universe) or P(w). Knowledge is a function of world, observer and time or K(w,o,t). P(w) has a range that is a proper subset of w. K(w) has a range that is the subset of w. What is provable in w is part of w but not all of w. What is knowable in w can be a part of w or all of w. They overlap by which what is not provable can never be known to be true or false.
Given infinite time an observer can only know what is possible for the observer to know. Given infinite observers, time limits the amount that can be known. Given infinite observers and time, all of w can be known. Note o is not a number of observers but the equivalence class of the observer. So infinite observers means an infinite number of classes of observers.
Being an finite observer with finite time is it plausible to know provable statements but not know the proof for that statement(assign an universal truth-value to that statement). To answer your question, knowing a provable statement but not know the proof of that statment and believing that statement is a strict sense of faith. X is necessarily true or false and I believe X is true/false. However to believe in a statement that is not provable is a weak* sense of faith. X is necessarily not true of false but I believe X is true/false.
*I use weak to mean this kind of faith can be applied over a larger set of statements than the strict sense. However one can think of it as a stronger sense of faith in that one believes in things that can never be true or false.
Thanks Carly!
Yeah you do have to go to school. It's called Iraq, it was called Afghanistan. However I heard Pakistan has some good schools. You interested?
I mean he tried to light his shoe on fire on a plane with a lighter.
No actually he forgot the lighter and tried to use matches. If he wasn't so stupid he would have brought a lighter and might have been successful. But I agree that even stupid people are dangerous. It's just a little unsettling that it seems all we catch are the stupid people. Where are the smart terrorists? That's what bothers me.
oh sorry I just dazed off there for a moment, wait a minute... where did this 50 inch HDTV come from? And this new Ford Truck! Fuck they got me again!
When the next terrorist attack comes you can almost predict the public's reaction.
1. Blame the press.
2. Demand bloodlust.
3. Ask for more government protection.
And all the while it does nothing to prevent terrorism and just gives the government more power over its citizens. That's how dictatorships start, people don't mind giving the government a little more power. And as time goes on more and more powers are given away. Sure this administration and the next may use that power for good but down the road we might elect some maniac(if elections are even in place by then) who will abuse that power. The Romans didn't have a problem with Augustus but they sure did have a problem with Caligula.
I'm glad to see that the US government is good at foiling plots from people who obviously are not professional terrorists. But I'm hoping they do just as good as job when the real deal shows up in town.
I don't drink coffee. But as far as candy bars go... I said in my adult life. Whatever candy I like now may be because of advertising when I was child.
Anyway you overlooked my point. I don't even know 99% of the time what the commercial is about because I don't pay attention.
I'm pretty sure in my entire adult life there has never been a commercial that compelled me to buy a product. Actually, like many others, I've trained myself to pretty much block the commercial from my consciousness. Sometimes it may take 20 viewings of the same commercial to finally realize what the commercial is about. Until then it all seems like colors and moving figures.
So can I sign-up to not have commericals? They aren't working on me it only seems fair. Or is there new technology coming out that will prevent me from blocking commercials internally? Maybe even something that releases endorphins during viewing.