I would disagree that all attempts by one government to change another are designed to be social changes. There are many historical and contemporary examples of interference that is political in nature. Obviously not all (or even most) are attempted through terrorist means, but they certainly provide ample evidence that social change is by-and-large not the goal in many, many cases when governments interfere with other governments.
A major example is the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Japan was already known to be ready to surrender prior to these acts, as their radio codes had all been broken by that time. They were instead designed to get specific political concessions out of the Japanese government (namely the dissolution of the imperial power structure), not to stop the war in the Pacific Theatre.
If you really want to look at terrorist acts as a means for political change, look no further than Imperial Britain. The acts undertaken by the British Empire to secure control over colonies will probably stand the test of time as the most effective terrorist acts in history.
To say "terrorism" cannot be defined would be the same as claiming any given concept cannot be defined. Just because people use a term in ignorance of its meaning (or frequently knowing full well that their use of the term is incorrect) does not mean that the actual definition of the word is unclear. Terrorism can be clearly defined, despite those who use it in ignorance or for political purposes.
While people may describe attacks on military targets as terrorism, it simply means they do not understand the basic definition of the term. It's not a problem with the definition, it's a problem with the people who do not have a good grasp of their own native language.
There is a significant portion of the US population that is functionally illiterate when it comes to anything more than the most basic English.
Terrorists are people outside a formal government, so no it is not terrorism.
That's a very limited definition of terrorism.
A more reasonable definition of terrorism is any group attempting political change through an attack on a civilian target. That includes governments or quasi-governmental groups.
I'm so glad you brought this up. We should outlaw swimming pools post-haste. Think of all the children who have drowned in them! Won't somebody think of the children?!
I agree with pretty much everything here except the first sentence. In an era of earmarks and special interests, I think that probably only the most junior members of Congress are truly interested in doing "the right thing."
I'd say that most entrenched professional politicians probably lie to themselves that they are doing the right thing. Given the number of public scandals, the number that have not been uncovered is probably staggering. Like any other wrongdoing, the number uncaught tends to greatly exceed the number caught. The corrupt are out for their own interests. Making an appearance of "doing what's right" among those who are well aware they are in the wrong is just what's necessary so that they can continue to do wrong.
I quite agree. If there is no enemy, one will be invented. Like stereotypes, there's always some truth involved in making a particular group "the enemy," but that's just to make it plausible among the masses. No critical thought required to accept that some new group is Public Enemy #1.
I think the problem is assuming that Congresscritters are patriotic on the whole or that they have any thoughts outside of ensuring their own re-election.
All they have to do is shout "Think of the children" or "We need this to fight terrorism" and the majority who have no interest in delving into the consequences of any given action will line up behind them like good little citizens.
And yet you still haven't provided anything to back up any of your claims. Assumptions, gaps in logic, personal attacks, and opinions with nothing to substantiate them. Great way to convince people you're right. On the other hand, if you're not here to exchange ideas in a civil manner, I suppose that means you're actually just trolling.
I hope you get something out of that air of superiority, as it certainly won't earn you any respect. I truly pity you. I can't imagine living through whatever it is that makes you communicate in the manner that you do.
Condescension doesn't help your argument. It just reveals that you're an ass.
State DMV databases are not currently universally linked together (NCIC and III do not cover the functions required by REAL ID, in case that was what you meant), nor are drivers licenses standardized among the states (among other provisions that have also not been met by the states). Ergo, your assertion that "everything about REAL ID is already in existence" is patently false. There are some things that it mandates that were already in existence at the time of its passage, but that does not mitigate the fundamental flaws in your argument.
I'm a fan of fighting for what I believe is right rather than rolling over and taking anything anyone wants to dish out, even in the face of overwhelming odds.
Abuses can at least come to light when there are people who are willing to dig and to fight, and sometimes those abuses may even be punished. Letting bad things happen and saying or doing nothing only makes it easier for abuse to become a common institutionalized occurance.
You can cast aspersions at or hold in contempt the people who dare to oppose the status quo, but those are the very people who have historically made the most positive impacts on societies in general. I'd prefer to aspire to that with little chance of success than to live as an empty, meaningless cog who goes along with the status quo because of the belief that I am powerless to change it.
In the end, those who do nothing (or actively support the system) have nobody to blame but themselves when they are abused.
"WE'RE ALREADY ALMOST THERE! WE'RE ON AN USNTOPPABLE SLIPPERY SLOPE!"
Way to put words in someone's mouth. I never claimed we were almost to a dictatorship. Bravo for trying to subvert a completely legitimate concern by attempting to make it seem like I was making claims that I did not, in fact, make.
It has nothing to do with false alarmism. Abuse of the data WILL happen at some point in the future. There is nothing in governmental history that supports a claim to the contrary. The level of abuse is something that nobody can accurately predict, but there is always the potential for it to be massive. I'd love to hear a reasonable argument that any of the above is incorrect. Please make one if you have anything resembling evidence to the contrary.
I also didn't claim the initiative was founded on fear and hysteria, nor was my post written from a hysterical or fearful position. You really need to work on your argumentation skills.
The problem is the concentration of information in linked databases. That information will be abused if (when) a dictator comes to power, and the more centralized the information the easier it will be to abuse.
If the response is "We'll never have a dictator come to power," other democracies have fallen into dictatorships at one time or another.
Government-held information WILL be abused at some point. It has happened in every governmental system ever put into place in the US, so there is zero reason to expect this system will be different.
Or he is going to demand the same poor sheriff to find the thieves and restore his property, with so clear title he has to him?
Considering it's the sheriff's legal obligation to protect the rights (such as property) of the individuals in his county, the answer would obviously be "yes." This question really has no bearing on the assertions made in that link.
Having known others who have successfully done the same thing, the only thing that any of the people who do this have to endure is harassment. If it were really kooky, they'd lose their vehicles and end up in jail. However, neither of those things actually happen.
Just because you (and most others) may believe that the status quo is legitimate does not actually make it so. The fact that courts dismiss these cases is a bit more telling.
He doesn't really say it's a problem. He simply gets companies to donate to animal relief causes in order to have their documents pulled from his blog.
It's each company's fault if they send him confidential information. They have no business setting up From: addresses to a domain that they do not control.
You fail at reading comprehension. I don't think "some whackos" killed nearly a million people. It also said "in a day," not "in a year." Even then, the statement did not say "AIDS deaths in the US," but rather encompassed all AIDS deaths. That's a lot of errors to fit into a post that is basically one sentence. Bravo.
I didn't really see that comment as saying FDR was a shining example of liberal success. He was certainly, however, a mover and shaker who made a lasting impression. Even people who think he was scum should agree with the latter.
If that were the case, we wouldn't be trading with China either. It's about American political ego being used against a country where it doesn't hurt the US economy to do so. When it comes to trading with abusive countries with large economies or something else to offer, the US government conveniently looks the other way. We trade with other countries that are far more abusive than Cuba.
Try again later with the "doing what's right" herring.
Exactly. The police, on the other hand, get little to no punishment at all for breaking into the wrong house and shooting someone. However, if you were, say, in a bad part of town and are woken up to people breaking down your door and kill one of them, then you get life in prison.
It's funny that the posts saying that the police are frequently not comporting themselves professionally get modded down, while the obvious "donkey porn" troll does not. I really wish I had mod points today. Fact is, police teams rely on career criminal informants, and thanks to Tricky Dick and the Drug War, no-knock warrants are increasingly common. Police are happy to take shortcuts, since they're people just like everyone else. Problem is, that ends up with a greater number of innocent people being shafted.
"-1, Troll" is not a substitute for "I don't agree with you." Get over yourself.
If none of those countries spend on common defense it would mean if the next Hitler or Stalin comes from one of those countries he would have no military hardware to start another war.
Someone seeing immunization records is hardly the point. Someone seeing everything can be a lot more of an issue. Employers, insurers, advertisers, etc.
It's called looking at the big picture, not using a trivial example to attempt to trivialize the whole issue.
This entire argument completely misses the point. For what assembly language is used for, it is critical. Look at it this way: without assembler you would not be capable of running all that cool stuff.
Not everything needs assembly integrated into it. Almost everything depends on assembly at some level to run.
Slashdot Mirror
I would disagree that all attempts by one government to change another are designed to be social changes. There are many historical and contemporary examples of interference that is political in nature. Obviously not all (or even most) are attempted through terrorist means, but they certainly provide ample evidence that social change is by-and-large not the goal in many, many cases when governments interfere with other governments.
A major example is the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Japan was already known to be ready to surrender prior to these acts, as their radio codes had all been broken by that time. They were instead designed to get specific political concessions out of the Japanese government (namely the dissolution of the imperial power structure), not to stop the war in the Pacific Theatre.
If you really want to look at terrorist acts as a means for political change, look no further than Imperial Britain. The acts undertaken by the British Empire to secure control over colonies will probably stand the test of time as the most effective terrorist acts in history.
Two words: plasma cutter.
To say "terrorism" cannot be defined would be the same as claiming any given concept cannot be defined. Just because people use a term in ignorance of its meaning (or frequently knowing full well that their use of the term is incorrect) does not mean that the actual definition of the word is unclear. Terrorism can be clearly defined, despite those who use it in ignorance or for political purposes.
While people may describe attacks on military targets as terrorism, it simply means they do not understand the basic definition of the term. It's not a problem with the definition, it's a problem with the people who do not have a good grasp of their own native language.
There is a significant portion of the US population that is functionally illiterate when it comes to anything more than the most basic English.
Terrorists are people outside a formal government, so no it is not terrorism.
That's a very limited definition of terrorism.
A more reasonable definition of terrorism is any group attempting political change through an attack on a civilian target. That includes governments or quasi-governmental groups.
I'm so glad you brought this up. We should outlaw swimming pools post-haste. Think of all the children who have drowned in them! Won't somebody think of the children?!
I agree with pretty much everything here except the first sentence. In an era of earmarks and special interests, I think that probably only the most junior members of Congress are truly interested in doing "the right thing."
I'd say that most entrenched professional politicians probably lie to themselves that they are doing the right thing. Given the number of public scandals, the number that have not been uncovered is probably staggering. Like any other wrongdoing, the number uncaught tends to greatly exceed the number caught. The corrupt are out for their own interests. Making an appearance of "doing what's right" among those who are well aware they are in the wrong is just what's necessary so that they can continue to do wrong.
I quite agree. If there is no enemy, one will be invented. Like stereotypes, there's always some truth involved in making a particular group "the enemy," but that's just to make it plausible among the masses. No critical thought required to accept that some new group is Public Enemy #1.
I think the problem is assuming that Congresscritters are patriotic on the whole or that they have any thoughts outside of ensuring their own re-election.
All they have to do is shout "Think of the children" or "We need this to fight terrorism" and the majority who have no interest in delving into the consequences of any given action will line up behind them like good little citizens.
And yet you still haven't provided anything to back up any of your claims. Assumptions, gaps in logic, personal attacks, and opinions with nothing to substantiate them. Great way to convince people you're right. On the other hand, if you're not here to exchange ideas in a civil manner, I suppose that means you're actually just trolling.
I hope you get something out of that air of superiority, as it certainly won't earn you any respect. I truly pity you. I can't imagine living through whatever it is that makes you communicate in the manner that you do.
Condescension doesn't help your argument. It just reveals that you're an ass.
State DMV databases are not currently universally linked together (NCIC and III do not cover the functions required by REAL ID, in case that was what you meant), nor are drivers licenses standardized among the states (among other provisions that have also not been met by the states). Ergo, your assertion that "everything about REAL ID is already in existence" is patently false. There are some things that it mandates that were already in existence at the time of its passage, but that does not mitigate the fundamental flaws in your argument.
I'm a fan of fighting for what I believe is right rather than rolling over and taking anything anyone wants to dish out, even in the face of overwhelming odds.
Abuses can at least come to light when there are people who are willing to dig and to fight, and sometimes those abuses may even be punished. Letting bad things happen and saying or doing nothing only makes it easier for abuse to become a common institutionalized occurance.
You can cast aspersions at or hold in contempt the people who dare to oppose the status quo, but those are the very people who have historically made the most positive impacts on societies in general. I'd prefer to aspire to that with little chance of success than to live as an empty, meaningless cog who goes along with the status quo because of the belief that I am powerless to change it.
In the end, those who do nothing (or actively support the system) have nobody to blame but themselves when they are abused.
"WE'RE ALREADY ALMOST THERE! WE'RE ON AN USNTOPPABLE SLIPPERY SLOPE!"
Way to put words in someone's mouth. I never claimed we were almost to a dictatorship. Bravo for trying to subvert a completely legitimate concern by attempting to make it seem like I was making claims that I did not, in fact, make.
It has nothing to do with false alarmism. Abuse of the data WILL happen at some point in the future. There is nothing in governmental history that supports a claim to the contrary. The level of abuse is something that nobody can accurately predict, but there is always the potential for it to be massive. I'd love to hear a reasonable argument that any of the above is incorrect. Please make one if you have anything resembling evidence to the contrary.
I also didn't claim the initiative was founded on fear and hysteria, nor was my post written from a hysterical or fearful position. You really need to work on your argumentation skills.
The problem is the concentration of information in linked databases. That information will be abused if (when) a dictator comes to power, and the more centralized the information the easier it will be to abuse.
If the response is "We'll never have a dictator come to power," other democracies have fallen into dictatorships at one time or another.
Government-held information WILL be abused at some point. It has happened in every governmental system ever put into place in the US, so there is zero reason to expect this system will be different.
And that they are allowed to do this, my friend, is the fundamental flaw in the way government works today.
Or he is going to demand the same poor sheriff to find the thieves and restore his property, with so clear title he has to him?
Considering it's the sheriff's legal obligation to protect the rights (such as property) of the individuals in his county, the answer would obviously be "yes." This question really has no bearing on the assertions made in that link.
Having known others who have successfully done the same thing, the only thing that any of the people who do this have to endure is harassment. If it were really kooky, they'd lose their vehicles and end up in jail. However, neither of those things actually happen.
Just because you (and most others) may believe that the status quo is legitimate does not actually make it so. The fact that courts dismiss these cases is a bit more telling.
He doesn't really say it's a problem. He simply gets companies to donate to animal relief causes in order to have their documents pulled from his blog.
It's each company's fault if they send him confidential information. They have no business setting up From: addresses to a domain that they do not control.
You fail at reading comprehension. I don't think "some whackos" killed nearly a million people. It also said "in a day," not "in a year." Even then, the statement did not say "AIDS deaths in the US," but rather encompassed all AIDS deaths. That's a lot of errors to fit into a post that is basically one sentence. Bravo.
I didn't really see that comment as saying FDR was a shining example of liberal success. He was certainly, however, a mover and shaker who made a lasting impression. Even people who think he was scum should agree with the latter.
If that were the case, we wouldn't be trading with China either. It's about American political ego being used against a country where it doesn't hurt the US economy to do so. When it comes to trading with abusive countries with large economies or something else to offer, the US government conveniently looks the other way. We trade with other countries that are far more abusive than Cuba.
Try again later with the "doing what's right" herring.
Exactly. The police, on the other hand, get little to no punishment at all for breaking into the wrong house and shooting someone. However, if you were, say, in a bad part of town and are woken up to people breaking down your door and kill one of them, then you get life in prison.
It's funny that the posts saying that the police are frequently not comporting themselves professionally get modded down, while the obvious "donkey porn" troll does not. I really wish I had mod points today. Fact is, police teams rely on career criminal informants, and thanks to Tricky Dick and the Drug War, no-knock warrants are increasingly common. Police are happy to take shortcuts, since they're people just like everyone else. Problem is, that ends up with a greater number of innocent people being shafted.
"-1, Troll" is not a substitute for "I don't agree with you." Get over yourself.
If none of those countries spend on common defense it would mean if the next Hitler or Stalin comes from one of those countries he would have no military hardware to start another war.
Someone seeing immunization records is hardly the point. Someone seeing everything can be a lot more of an issue. Employers, insurers, advertisers, etc.
It's called looking at the big picture, not using a trivial example to attempt to trivialize the whole issue.
Not to mention knapping flint, building fires with friction or flint and steel, or casting lead bullets. :)
This entire argument completely misses the point. For what assembly language is used for, it is critical. Look at it this way: without assembler you would not be capable of running all that cool stuff.
Not everything needs assembly integrated into it. Almost everything depends on assembly at some level to run.