Again, I am not arguing with you, I merely point out that what you are talking about is on a different level than the problem that I was talking about. I was talking about the general theory of law-making, you are talking about a correct way to formulate a specific law (in this case dealing with killing).
Language is hopelessly ambiguous. Why? Because distilling the richness of our sensory experience to any sort of codification is by no means lossless compression.
Not at all. Colloquial language is perhaps so, but this problem is also present in science and the solutions to that have long since been found, as in for example in computer science. We simply select a very small, minimalistic sub-set of our every-day language and provide very concise and unambiguous definitions for this subset. Then use it to define the laws of the land.
The system we have settled on (which you describe as priests and cabals) is the compromise.
No, it is simply a con game. A blatant attempt to treat the law as somehow divinely arcane, "different" and "special" and not subject to systematic scientific criteria.
We have a division of power over the law. There are the legislators, the executive, the judges, the lawyers, and the jury. All of these people must agree, at some level of abstraction, that you deserve to be punished.
Most of juries have no clue if the decisions they have reached are actually just and remain conflicted long after the trial. That alone tells you about the quality of "justice" that is being served.
I prefer this system to one which forces a binary representation of a continuous world.
Well designed laws are no more "binary" then scientific formulae are. Unless by "binary" you mean the difference between clarity and muck.
You are talking specifics while I was discussing the general theory. The example I gave was definitely not the ultimate form, and neither is yours. The precise wording is the whole point of the art of law-making, and it would take a lot of effort to get it right, so it covers all cases and remains concise. An effort which is, of course, the very last thing the lawyers would be interested in making.
The problem is that the world is so complex nowadays, what with technology and global trade, that the amount of laws required seems to greatly surpass the memorization capabilities of any human (or
even lawyer) in any country. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if so many laws are passed daily that it is simply impossible to keep up. Not enough hours in the day.
That is what con-men would like you to think, but its not the truth. The truth is that most of our actions can be distilled to a simple set of universal rules, irrespective of what alterations in cosmetic appearances the technological and societal changes have brought on. "Do not kill, unless when under armed assault" for example does not change if the method of killing involved a rock, a baseball bat, or an orbital laser gun. Statements like "The Reichstag fire has changed everything", "9/11 has changed everything", "Internet has changed everything" etc are the very hallmarks of such con-artistry designed to fool the populace into eye-glazed stupor.
The false notion that you have to create ever more byzantine laws to "keep up" is the very basis for the parasitic relationship the lawyers have with society. The correct method is the exact opposite: to refine and clarify laws by artfully phrasing them that they are at their most clear, concise while at the same time covering all possible cases. It is of course a very difficult task but which determines the difference between a just society and one merely pretending to be so.
Naturally it comes as no surprise that the greatest enemy of such clarification and distillation of laws are lawyers. Clarity, simplicity and conciseness are the three great mortal foes of lawyers as that priesthood requirs not4sathe muck of confusion and complexity to swim in, where they can bottom feed in safety from scrutiny by those whose lives they control.
So, what is the solution? Is there a solution? I don't think so. We're pretty much stuck with the current system which relies on faith, trust, common sense and dumb luck. All of which fail at some point or another, making the whole lot of us into criminals. Thus the whole "ignorance of the law is not an excuse" argument is wrong and, in fact, can be evil.
Of course there is a solution. The problem has been in fact studied by mathematicians and algorithmic code theorists extensively, because the very same issues are present in issuing instructions to a computer. Instructions for building a society have great resemblance and operate on principally the same rules as computer software. And so not only whole sets of tools exist to achieve it, but there are whole volumes of scientific research already conducted to light the way.
The sense of helplessness that you were sold is not only based upon a lie, it is the result of one of the oldest con games in history: making you artificially dependant on a "service" that only the con-man can "provide". Do not wear these blinders willingly.
Which is simply another way of saying: "You live in a lawless society".
You see, the whole idea of "law" was supposed to be for a code to bind a society together by making every member capable of some action affecting others to follow a simple set of clear rules, which, again by definition, were to be simple enough to be memorized in entirety by everyone. That is why Hammurabi had the thing carved in stone and placed at public squares, so that "ignorance of the law" was not an excuse for breaking it.
The moment however when the "law" becomes so complicated and ambiguous that it requires someone to "interpret it" (i.e. twist it to whatever whim of the moment is fanciful) the whole concept breaks. In short a society which needs lawyers, is by definition lawless, as "law" has morphed from the universal code of conduct to a byzantine, convoluted, religious scripture which requires a career priesthood to worship, massage, "interpret" and twist to the needs of whatever power caste is running the place at the time. The average denizen then simply becomes hapless prey for this caste of parasites with no recourse but to prostate himself/herself before the high-priests of "law" who hold the strings of the citizen's life or death in their hands.
Ultimately, in a country of lawyers, by lawyers and for lawyers, the laws become such a sick caricature of the original idea that no one knows the "law" to its full extent, including all of its priests. One can test this simple supposition by simply asking any one of them to recite the "law" of the land from memory. In the USA, not only no lawyer, judge or politician could do it (even though the "law" is supposedly binding everyone and its ignorance is "no excuse") but they would not be able to tell you what the current definitive law is at all, even when given the ability to use books and databases to do it, as the code has become so byzantine that its successive layers upon layers of modifications and arcane religious language are so completely unmanageable that pretty much any "legal" decision needs an arbitrary "interpretation" by a cabal of priests.
And this is why the majority of people instinctively hates lawyers, as even if most people cannot vocalize it, an average person's intrinsic moral compass is able to detect that something is profoundly wrong with the very idea of a lawyer.
If you're right (and I've been hearing the "rapidly turning into a fascist state" thing for several decades now; can't be that rapid)
It is, on a historical scale.
then you're morally bound to ask yourself, "What am I doing about it".
Far, far more then you. Which is not very difficult, as even complaining in a bar would be far more then you do, as you apparently not only find the police state idea not bothersome in the slightest, you actively attempt to bring it to fruition by attacking all those who point out police-state activities with venomous zeal.
As far as I can see, you're waving your dick in the air
Not only you are an apologist for authoritarianism and a proponent of establishment of a police-state, you are also in dire need of some corrective eye-wear.
and screaming threats.
.... and clearly also in need of a hearing aid. Now, for more amusement, would you care to point out a single "threat" that I wrote on this thread...
People who want to eliminate freedoms and give the government unlimited police power love idiots like you. You're how they justify their doctrines.
Oh this is truly a great, daring leap of "logic". So the ultimate way to "oppose" something is, apparently, not only to shut up about it, but to actively deride those who do not!
Ah, but it suddenly makes sense why all those whining, snivelling, boot-lickers are so out in force every time some damning evidence of war crimes committed by US troops is about to surface! That is because they surely, honestly oppose war crimes! Why, they do so by making sure that no one ever gets prosecuted for committing them! And when "anything goes as long as it is profitable for USA" attitude finally prevails, presto: no more war crimes! Brilliant!
Which is also, obviously, your own very method of "opposing" police states! Why, when you deny that you live in one and relabel it as "The Shining Beacon of Freedom on the Hill" or some such, the problem magically goes away for you! The all-pervasive surveillance becomes "patriotic". The brutish thugs demanding your "papers" at every transportation juncture become "righteous defenders and protectors" who keep you "safe from terrorists". The marauding bands of mercenaries busy raping and pillaging abroad become "liberators" and "bringers of democracy". And on and on and on.
I congratulate you on achieving such frightening levels of cognitive dissonance. Its a waste that there is no prize to be won for it though. Otherwise you would have it in the bag, the "American Shit-head" award, you certainly would.
Do your have a point, or did you just take too much Ritalin?
The point is that the so-called Western Democracies, chief amongst them USA, are well on the way to becoming bona-fide police states, complete with pervasive automated surveillance and installation of police, paramilitary police and police-related mercenaries (who were the subject of this./ article) as superior echelons of society, with ever broadening extra-judiciary powers, up to the point of complete impunity. No, the transition into police states is not entirely complete yet, but the process is quite advanced and appears to be progressing with very little effective opposition.
So while you are welcome to play ostrich or practise your sheepish bleating about Ritalin, such activities will not obscure the rather obvious facts in the slightest.
Grow up already. If this really were a fascist state they'd just shoot obnoxious idiots like you.
Yea, yea! Because, as everyone knows, fascist states are like on/off switches. One day there is beautiful democracy, freedom reins, sky is blue, the sun is shining and white clouds in the sky... and then whammo! Darkness, night, wolves howling and everyone is huddled, shivering, in dungeons. No intermediate stages whatsoever are possible! Right?
I am sooo glad that you deemed it important enough to to stoop down here to remind us, plebes, about this incontrovertible fact of life, fm6.
Not to defend Officer Abed's overreaction (nor her probably violation of your civil rights) but when interacting a heavily armed lady who's authorized to use deadly force and deprive you of your
freedom, it's absolutely the wrong time to cop an attitude.
Yes, the proper thing is, of course, to immediately assume most submissive, debasing prostate position, as any proper slave should, and in properly respectful, humble voice, while making sure that you keep your eyes firmly on the tips of her shoes, mumble "I am sorry Your Grace. This slave shall not speak again without permission, Your Excellence. All Hail Our Ever-lasting, Eternal, Glorious 4th Reich! May Gods' light ever shine on our Rightful Police Protectors who repel All Most Improbable Bogeymen!".... no?
I mean that whole democracy, "rule of law" crap is sooo 20th century! "9/11 changed everything", surely! Now, finally, any mercenary ass-hole with a gun is the member of the middle strata of our new "society", who is granted all power over your life and death in the name of servicing the "right" people on the top of the social pyramid. Finally, the dirty plebs are being put back in their place! And you better know it, slave!
This is not unheard of even today in agrarian societies that children work at younger ages.
I am sure that there was a just short step from swinging a rake around to captaining a ship at high seas!
Joining the navy at 10 as officer cadet was commonplace.
And so was joining a Jesuit convent to spend the rest of one's life flogging himself in "penitence". There were a lot of stupid things that were "commonplace" throughout history.
Oceanic navigation required a skill that your average seaman would not possess. Getting a ship safely to port would require the skill of the crew and the skill of the captain.
Which were not likely to be had by a 12 year-old mid-shipman either, never you mind that the required instruments, charts and navigation books were extremely expensive and kept under close scrutiny by the top officers, and certainly not used on most junior cadets as training props, thus putting them in danger of destruction, likely leading to the loss of the ship itself. And so he clearly had help of some more experienced navigator, most likely one of the real officers of the captured ship.
Crews have mutinied for far less than being under the command of a 12 year old. And how do you know that the crew simply didn't respect him and the captain. You don't know. All you have is your bias against the "nobility".
Oh, bullshit. The penalties for disobedience and mutiny were severe on ships, flogging to near-death of crewmen for any most minor offence against their "betters" was commonplace. The incidents of mutiny were very rare indeed, to the point that each and every case is individually recorded and famous.
However, I must have been looking around for that errant sour patch kid when someone teleported a warhead to a planet light years away. When did that scene occur?
It didn't in the movie, but that would be the obvious logical outcome of such changes in the Star Trek universe. If one can beam (by means that apparently cannot be stopped easily) to a ship in warp light years away, the reverse is also true, and thus any ship could attack any planet, or any other ship, by simply beaming a powerful warhead onto it by means essentially unstoppable (with the exception of total blanket "jamming" of everything in vicinity as was in the movie). This would have drastically altered the entire dynamics of the Star Trek universe, and it was the chief reason for which the teleporters were a short-range, finicky devices in all the previous instances of Star Trek.
A little yahooing shows that a single supernova threatening life in a good part of the galaxy is a plausible, if unlikely, scenario.
Err, no. Ignoring for the moment that the "magical" properties of the movie "supernova" had to do with the speed of the propagation of the shock-wave, its composition and the means of "stopping" it, no supernova could produce a burst powerful enough to wipe life in the entire galaxy. Milky Way is far too huge for that. Remember that the density of any shock-wave decreases exponentially with distance from its source, and while gamma radiation can reach lethal to life levels at distances of tens or even hundreds of light-years, our galaxy is over 100 thousand light-years in diameter. There is no star in our galaxy massive enough to produce a burst that powerful. In fact, astronomical objects of such power are visible only at the edges of our observable Universe, indicating them to be also the furthest back in time as the light of their explosions took billions of years to get to us. Such astronomical objects, being relics of the long past stages of the expansion of the Universe, are no longer anywhere near our galaxy.
Um,... what? Sorry, I don't remember that scene.
The Enterprise ejected Kirk, marooning him on a planet near Vulcan on which Scotty was also present. Then it immediately went to warp. It took Kirk hours (by which time the ship would have been hundreds of light years away - according to the new super-fast motion as presented in the movie where it took something like 20 minutes to get from Earth to Vulcan) and probably turning-around to get back to Earth, having overshot it many many times, at which point Scotty beamed Kirk and himself to it.
I am joking of course about the overshooting bit, but that is the only "logical" outcome if one takes the hilarious, gigantic time and distance inconsistencies in the movie.
When the average life expectancy is around 35, 12 seems a lot older.
Well, given the emotional stability and cognitive abilities of an average 12 year old, it would explain much of the utter, rabid cretinism that positively oozes out of all history books.
What you called "imbecilic, barking at the moon, rabid lunacy" was often times neccessary and practical..
You are missing the point, again. What was insane is the fact that 12 year olds were on a warship as "officers" to begin with. Also your rationalizations are rather hollow as it is virtually certain that the ship of which he was "in command" was brought to port not by him but the vastly more experienced sailors who were stuck with this "captain". Taking credit for success of others is also quite expected part of the "upper class" attitudes.
While we can't know what the sailor thought, we do know that they did not mutiny when placed under the command of a 12 year old so they must have not thought the idea as too "insane".
Probably the instant death penalties for disobeying their "betters", life-long brutal conditioning to obey the "nobility" no matter how insane their orders, and the sailors' desire to get to port and thus some kind of safety had far more to do with this then the leadership abilities of a squeeky-voiced, pimple-faced 12 year old.
Ahhh, so any culture different from yours is wrong: full of insane, drooling idiots. Not everyone has the same values, nor lives the same way. That doesn't make them stupid, or crazy, just different.
Yes, yes, the witch-hunts, executions of 4 year-olds by burning them on stake for "heresy", Spanish Inquisition, the Crusades and on and on and on were all just "cultural differences". Silly me.
Get a fucking grip. 12 year olds (on average) lack the cognitive ability and emotional stability to handle many a task, chief amongst them being service in combat. Thats developmental biology, not "culture". Not to mention the fun effects of PSTD on kids after watching people around them getting torn to bits in combat. Growing up to be a fucked-up, zealot religious nut as a desperate way to cope with these kind of experiences would probably be the "best" possible outcome one could hope for... which incidentally was what happened to pretty much all of these "officers".
"Just different" my ass. Why, Charles Manson then had just "different values" and was "mis-understood" too, I presume, no? He just wanted to "live not in the same way" as the rest of inflexible and oppressive us, poor thing. How is your campaign to let him out going, by the way?
Naval officer "cadets" joined the navy at around age 12 throughout the entire Wooden Walls period (2 centuries). So every officer at the battle of Trafalgar had been in the navy and at sea since before they were old enough to shave.
Which, as I already pointed out, has nothing whatsoever to do with sanity. In fact it is patently insane. History is full of drooling idiocies which were widely accepted as "normal" at the time.
Generally speaking those that came from more affluent families could get their sons into officer roles whereas some did not have the option. In Farragut's case, his biological father was a cavalry officer in Tennessee and fought in the American Revolution, and his adopted father was also a Captain.
Nepotism, superiority complexes of "upper classes", their raging sense of entitlement and general bigoted stupidity do explain a lot. But then again they did inherit their ideals from the feudal British, who were, amazingly, even more moronic.
Again, a hundred years ago, things were different as to who could join the Navy. Back then, it was not unheard of that a 12 year old boy would be left in charge of the family while the head of the household was away. Or that children as young as 5 worked in factories. Or a 12 year old would be put in charge of a sailing vessel.
None of which goes to "sanity". History is full of examples of utter, sheer, imbecilic, barking at the moon, rabid lunacy. 12 year old "officers" in charge of ships is one of them.
As a midshipman, Farragut was technically an officer and outranked seamen even if they had decades of experience.
Which is the very definition of "insanity" I spoke of. How the fuck does one enlist to become an "officer" at the age of 12 in any sane navy?! Specially when there are "seamen [that] had decades of experience" around to choose from, even if they were in this case, I assume, drafted against their will?! Doesn't one have to attend a Naval Academy to become a "commissioned" officer? Or is any 10 year old who jumps up with his hand held high and calls "Pick me! Pick me! I wanna be an officer!" good enough?!
I'm still amazed at people who think the original star trek movies made sense from a science perspective.
The original Star Trek was a comedy from the point of view of science too, but the grave errors were spread across multiple episodes and so not so glaring as when crammed into one short movie. But at least the original Star Trek "tried" (somewhat) to be at least within the same ballpark as the scientific theories and guesses of its time, whilst this movie does not even bother. In fact it feels as the director has active disdain for science and instead replaces it with "scientific sounding gobledey gook" as a cheap device to get the background for his "plot" going and set the stage for lots of explosions.
In fact, I'd go as far as to say of the star trek movies, *this* one made more sense scientifically.
I disagree. The "science" in this movie is far, far below the already pathetic level of the other Star Trek franchise "assets".
Also, I only saw the movie once, so I can't be sure, but couldn't this be the star that was acting as the sun for the romulan world?
No, it was some generic "galaxy destroying", "supernova", which apparently blew up and was able to get its shock-wave move so fast as to travel to Romulus faster then Spock could to the star itself, at which point Spock was to put his portable, just-add-water-and-presto black hole in it... which would be the classic "close the doors after the horses have gone" case. Never you mind how he got there bypassing the shock-wave, which by then was apparently already light-years in diameter. Even if the star was the very one around which Romulus orbited, the thing makes no sense whatsoever as the black hole would be far too late to stop it from "destroying the galaxy", given that the star has already blown up and consumed the planet, which of course would not merely "break in half" but be entirely absorbed by the expanding star at such a short (astronomically) distance. Spock arriving in his little ship would be the very definition of "pointless" at that stage of things, yet in the movie he clearly deploys his squirt-gun black hole, which then expands and stops the "explosion".
Nonsense. From the very beginning to the very end.
A "junior officer" at the age of 12? Commanding, I presume, a crew made up of more "junior" yet, what, 6 year olds? Or far less "junior" sailors? As I said, total fucking insanity, whichever way you cut it.
They treat black holes as portable, general-purpose plot-line fillers. You apparently can spawn them at will, and then use them to time-travel through them, except when planets get sucked into them (whichever is more convenient at the moment).
Then there is the "supernova", which, somehow by magic, is able to "threaten to destroy the galaxy", spews great globs of fire at multi light year distances that travel faster then light and split planets in halves. Never you mind the fact that any shock-waves form supernovas are mostly things like x-rays and gamma radiation and that they travel at the speed of light, which would make the "sudden disaster" unravel over the course of tens of years, if not more, just across the supposed Romulan space.
Then there are the super-teleporters (the teleporter being a unicorns-in-space type of idea to begin with) which are capable of delivering unstoppable warheads to planets light years away... wait, no, err... explosives... no, err.... individuals to ships travelling faster then light, light years away....
One could go on....
But to sum it up, I find that the movie is likely to be very successful. That is because I observed a curious relationship between movie-going audiences and the so-called "Sci-Fi" movies: more intelligence insulting the movie gets, more popular it gets. Which is probably some message as to the levels of scientific education and the respect for science of the general public...
This actually is a long-developing trend in the whole genre, also in print version. The "Science" part of "Sci-Fi" has been shrinking and the "Fiction" part becoming "Fantasy" part more and more, to the point that calling this modern genre "Sci-Fi" is like calling a wart on an elephant: "A Wart with an Elephant Attached". It is of little wonder then that in many bookstores there is only one section: "Science Fiction and Fantasy". They probably should do away with the whole thing and just call it "Fantasy". It would be far more accurate.
the real wet-navy Farragut was given command of a prize ship at age 12, and attained a command of his own at age 22)
Err, these things do not happen sanity-based fleets. No Ensign jumps to Captain in 24 hours, bypassing all the senior officers with many more years of experience. As to the level of sanity in the war of 1812, just the fact that you could become a mid-shipman at the age of 12 (or younger) speaks volumes. This sort of thing happens today only in such centres of civilization as Darfur, Somalia and Afghanistan....
And even in such an insane fleet it took Farragut 10 years to make it to Captain.
Actually, when I was in Kuwait some years back, I discovered that the government of Kuwait does, in fact, issue free houses to citizens when they marry.
Ah, yes the oil sheikdoms. But then again a Kuwaiti "citizen" is likely a distant relation to the gigantic ruling family who owns everything of value in the country anyway, while something like 60% of population of Kuwait is foreign workers, some of them even with actual visas.
That place is going to be a real fine, world-class mess when the oil money runs out....
Slashdot Mirror
Again, I am not arguing with you, I merely point out that what you are talking about is on a different level than the problem that I was talking about. I was talking about the general theory of law-making, you are talking about a correct way to formulate a specific law (in this case dealing with killing).
Not at all. Colloquial language is perhaps so, but this problem is also present in science and the solutions to that have long since been found, as in for example in computer science. We simply select a very small, minimalistic sub-set of our every-day language and provide very concise and unambiguous definitions for this subset. Then use it to define the laws of the land.
No, it is simply a con game. A blatant attempt to treat the law as somehow divinely arcane, "different" and "special" and not subject to systematic scientific criteria.
Most of juries have no clue if the decisions they have reached are actually just and remain conflicted long after the trial. That alone tells you about the quality of "justice" that is being served.
Well designed laws are no more "binary" then scientific formulae are. Unless by "binary" you mean the difference between clarity and muck.
You are talking specifics while I was discussing the general theory. The example I gave was definitely not the ultimate form, and neither is yours. The precise wording is the whole point of the art of law-making, and it would take a lot of effort to get it right, so it covers all cases and remains concise. An effort which is, of course, the very last thing the lawyers would be interested in making.
That is what con-men would like you to think, but its not the truth. The truth is that most of our actions can be distilled to a simple set of universal rules, irrespective of what alterations in cosmetic appearances the technological and societal changes have brought on. "Do not kill, unless when under armed assault" for example does not change if the method of killing involved a rock, a baseball bat, or an orbital laser gun. Statements like "The Reichstag fire has changed everything", "9/11 has changed everything", "Internet has changed everything" etc are the very hallmarks of such con-artistry designed to fool the populace into eye-glazed stupor.
The false notion that you have to create ever more byzantine laws to "keep up" is the very basis for the parasitic relationship the lawyers have with society. The correct method is the exact opposite: to refine and clarify laws by artfully phrasing them that they are at their most clear, concise while at the same time covering all possible cases. It is of course a very difficult task but which determines the difference between a just society and one merely pretending to be so.
Naturally it comes as no surprise that the greatest enemy of such clarification and distillation of laws are lawyers. Clarity, simplicity and conciseness are the three great mortal foes of lawyers as that priesthood requirs not4sathe muck of confusion and complexity to swim in, where they can bottom feed in safety from scrutiny by those whose lives they control.
Of course there is a solution. The problem has been in fact studied by mathematicians and algorithmic code theorists extensively, because the very same issues are present in issuing instructions to a computer. Instructions for building a society have great resemblance and operate on principally the same rules as computer software. And so not only whole sets of tools exist to achieve it, but there are whole volumes of scientific research already conducted to light the way.
The sense of helplessness that you were sold is not only based upon a lie, it is the result of one of the oldest con games in history: making you artificially dependant on a "service" that only the con-man can "provide". Do not wear these blinders willingly.
Which is simply another way of saying: "You live in a lawless society".
You see, the whole idea of "law" was supposed to be for a code to bind a society together by making every member capable of some action affecting others to follow a simple set of clear rules, which, again by definition, were to be simple enough to be memorized in entirety by everyone. That is why Hammurabi had the thing carved in stone and placed at public squares, so that "ignorance of the law" was not an excuse for breaking it.
The moment however when the "law" becomes so complicated and ambiguous that it requires someone to "interpret it" (i.e. twist it to whatever whim of the moment is fanciful) the whole concept breaks. In short a society which needs lawyers, is by definition lawless, as "law" has morphed from the universal code of conduct to a byzantine, convoluted, religious scripture which requires a career priesthood to worship, massage, "interpret" and twist to the needs of whatever power caste is running the place at the time. The average denizen then simply becomes hapless prey for this caste of parasites with no recourse but to prostate himself/herself before the high-priests of "law" who hold the strings of the citizen's life or death in their hands.
Ultimately, in a country of lawyers, by lawyers and for lawyers, the laws become such a sick caricature of the original idea that no one knows the "law" to its full extent, including all of its priests. One can test this simple supposition by simply asking any one of them to recite the "law" of the land from memory. In the USA, not only no lawyer, judge or politician could do it (even though the "law" is supposedly binding everyone and its ignorance is "no excuse") but they would not be able to tell you what the current definitive law is at all, even when given the ability to use books and databases to do it, as the code has become so byzantine that its successive layers upon layers of modifications and arcane religious language are so completely unmanageable that pretty much any "legal" decision needs an arbitrary "interpretation" by a cabal of priests.
And this is why the majority of people instinctively hates lawyers, as even if most people cannot vocalize it, an average person's intrinsic moral compass is able to detect that something is profoundly wrong with the very idea of a lawyer.
It is, on a historical scale.
Far, far more then you. Which is not very difficult, as even complaining in a bar would be far more then you do, as you apparently not only find the police state idea not bothersome in the slightest, you actively attempt to bring it to fruition by attacking all those who point out police-state activities with venomous zeal.
Not only you are an apologist for authoritarianism and a proponent of establishment of a police-state, you are also in dire need of some corrective eye-wear.
Oh this is truly a great, daring leap of "logic". So the ultimate way to "oppose" something is, apparently, not only to shut up about it, but to actively deride those who do not!
Ah, but it suddenly makes sense why all those whining, snivelling, boot-lickers are so out in force every time some damning evidence of war crimes committed by US troops is about to surface! That is because they surely, honestly oppose war crimes! Why, they do so by making sure that no one ever gets prosecuted for committing them! And when "anything goes as long as it is profitable for USA" attitude finally prevails, presto: no more war crimes! Brilliant!
Which is also, obviously, your own very method of "opposing" police states! Why, when you deny that you live in one and relabel it as "The Shining Beacon of Freedom on the Hill" or some such, the problem magically goes away for you! The all-pervasive surveillance becomes "patriotic". The brutish thugs demanding your "papers" at every transportation juncture become "righteous defenders and protectors" who keep you "safe from terrorists". The marauding bands of mercenaries busy raping and pillaging abroad become "liberators" and "bringers of democracy". And on and on and on.
I congratulate you on achieving such frightening levels of cognitive dissonance. Its a waste that there is no prize to be won for it though. Otherwise you would have it in the bag, the "American Shit-head" award, you certainly would.
The point is that the so-called Western Democracies, chief amongst them USA, are well on the way to becoming bona-fide police states, complete with pervasive automated surveillance and installation of police, paramilitary police and police-related mercenaries (who were the subject of this ./ article) as superior echelons of society, with ever broadening extra-judiciary powers, up to the point of complete impunity. No, the transition into police states is not entirely complete yet, but the process is quite advanced and appears to be progressing with very little effective opposition.
So while you are welcome to play ostrich or practise your sheepish bleating about Ritalin, such activities will not obscure the rather obvious facts in the slightest.
Yea, yea! Because, as everyone knows, fascist states are like on/off switches. One day there is beautiful democracy, freedom reins, sky is blue, the sun is shining and white clouds in the sky ... and then whammo! Darkness, night, wolves howling and everyone is huddled, shivering, in dungeons. No intermediate stages whatsoever are possible! Right?
I am sooo glad that you deemed it important enough to to stoop down here to remind us, plebes, about this incontrovertible fact of life, fm6.
Yes, the proper thing is, of course, to immediately assume most submissive, debasing prostate position, as any proper slave should, and in properly respectful, humble voice, while making sure that you keep your eyes firmly on the tips of her shoes, mumble "I am sorry Your Grace. This slave shall not speak again without permission, Your Excellence. All Hail Our Ever-lasting, Eternal, Glorious 4th Reich! May Gods' light ever shine on our Rightful Police Protectors who repel All Most Improbable Bogeymen!" .... no?
I mean that whole democracy, "rule of law" crap is sooo 20th century! "9/11 changed everything", surely! Now, finally, any mercenary ass-hole with a gun is the member of the middle strata of our new "society", who is granted all power over your life and death in the name of servicing the "right" people on the top of the social pyramid. Finally, the dirty plebs are being put back in their place! And you better know it, slave!
I am sure that there was a just short step from swinging a rake around to captaining a ship at high seas!
And so was joining a Jesuit convent to spend the rest of one's life flogging himself in "penitence". There were a lot of stupid things that were "commonplace" throughout history.
Which were not likely to be had by a 12 year-old mid-shipman either, never you mind that the required instruments, charts and navigation books were extremely expensive and kept under close scrutiny by the top officers, and certainly not used on most junior cadets as training props, thus putting them in danger of destruction, likely leading to the loss of the ship itself. And so he clearly had help of some more experienced navigator, most likely one of the real officers of the captured ship.
Oh, bullshit. The penalties for disobedience and mutiny were severe on ships, flogging to near-death of crewmen for any most minor offence against their "betters" was commonplace. The incidents of mutiny were very rare indeed, to the point that each and every case is individually recorded and famous.
But it was what the movie claimed, amongst a whole lot of other nonsense.
It didn't in the movie, but that would be the obvious logical outcome of such changes in the Star Trek universe. If one can beam (by means that apparently cannot be stopped easily) to a ship in warp light years away, the reverse is also true, and thus any ship could attack any planet, or any other ship, by simply beaming a powerful warhead onto it by means essentially unstoppable (with the exception of total blanket "jamming" of everything in vicinity as was in the movie). This would have drastically altered the entire dynamics of the Star Trek universe, and it was the chief reason for which the teleporters were a short-range, finicky devices in all the previous instances of Star Trek.
Err, no. Ignoring for the moment that the "magical" properties of the movie "supernova" had to do with the speed of the propagation of the shock-wave, its composition and the means of "stopping" it, no supernova could produce a burst powerful enough to wipe life in the entire galaxy. Milky Way is far too huge for that. Remember that the density of any shock-wave decreases exponentially with distance from its source, and while gamma radiation can reach lethal to life levels at distances of tens or even hundreds of light-years, our galaxy is over 100 thousand light-years in diameter. There is no star in our galaxy massive enough to produce a burst that powerful. In fact, astronomical objects of such power are visible only at the edges of our observable Universe, indicating them to be also the furthest back in time as the light of their explosions took billions of years to get to us. Such astronomical objects, being relics of the long past stages of the expansion of the Universe, are no longer anywhere near our galaxy.
The Enterprise ejected Kirk, marooning him on a planet near Vulcan on which Scotty was also present. Then it immediately went to warp. It took Kirk hours (by which time the ship would have been hundreds of light years away - according to the new super-fast motion as presented in the movie where it took something like 20 minutes to get from Earth to Vulcan) and probably turning-around to get back to Earth, having overshot it many many times, at which point Scotty beamed Kirk and himself to it.
I am joking of course about the overshooting bit, but that is the only "logical" outcome if one takes the hilarious, gigantic time and distance inconsistencies in the movie.
Well, given the emotional stability and cognitive abilities of an average 12 year old, it would explain much of the utter, rabid cretinism that positively oozes out of all history books.
You are missing the point, again. What was insane is the fact that 12 year olds were on a warship as "officers" to begin with. Also your rationalizations are rather hollow as it is virtually certain that the ship of which he was "in command" was brought to port not by him but the vastly more experienced sailors who were stuck with this "captain". Taking credit for success of others is also quite expected part of the "upper class" attitudes.
Probably the instant death penalties for disobeying their "betters", life-long brutal conditioning to obey the "nobility" no matter how insane their orders, and the sailors' desire to get to port and thus some kind of safety had far more to do with this then the leadership abilities of a squeeky-voiced, pimple-faced 12 year old.
Yes, yes, the witch-hunts, executions of 4 year-olds by burning them on stake for "heresy", Spanish Inquisition, the Crusades and on and on and on were all just "cultural differences". Silly me.
Get a fucking grip. 12 year olds (on average) lack the cognitive ability and emotional stability to handle many a task, chief amongst them being service in combat. Thats developmental biology, not "culture". Not to mention the fun effects of PSTD on kids after watching people around them getting torn to bits in combat. Growing up to be a fucked-up, zealot religious nut as a desperate way to cope with these kind of experiences would probably be the "best" possible outcome one could hope for ... which incidentally was what happened to pretty much all of these "officers".
"Just different" my ass. Why, Charles Manson then had just "different values" and was "mis-understood" too, I presume, no? He just wanted to "live not in the same way" as the rest of inflexible and oppressive us, poor thing. How is your campaign to let him out going, by the way?
Which, as I already pointed out, has nothing whatsoever to do with sanity. In fact it is patently insane. History is full of drooling idiocies which were widely accepted as "normal" at the time.
Nepotism, superiority complexes of "upper classes", their raging sense of entitlement and general bigoted stupidity do explain a lot. But then again they did inherit their ideals from the feudal British, who were, amazingly, even more moronic.
None of which goes to "sanity". History is full of examples of utter, sheer, imbecilic, barking at the moon, rabid lunacy. 12 year old "officers" in charge of ships is one of them.
Which is the very definition of "insanity" I spoke of. How the fuck does one enlist to become an "officer" at the age of 12 in any sane navy?! Specially when there are "seamen [that] had decades of experience" around to choose from, even if they were in this case, I assume, drafted against their will?! Doesn't one have to attend a Naval Academy to become a "commissioned" officer? Or is any 10 year old who jumps up with his hand held high and calls "Pick me! Pick me! I wanna be an officer!" good enough?!
Total lunacy.
The original Star Trek was a comedy from the point of view of science too, but the grave errors were spread across multiple episodes and so not so glaring as when crammed into one short movie. But at least the original Star Trek "tried" (somewhat) to be at least within the same ballpark as the scientific theories and guesses of its time, whilst this movie does not even bother. In fact it feels as the director has active disdain for science and instead replaces it with "scientific sounding gobledey gook" as a cheap device to get the background for his "plot" going and set the stage for lots of explosions.
I disagree. The "science" in this movie is far, far below the already pathetic level of the other Star Trek franchise "assets".
No, it was some generic "galaxy destroying", "supernova", which apparently blew up and was able to get its shock-wave move so fast as to travel to Romulus faster then Spock could to the star itself, at which point Spock was to put his portable, just-add-water-and-presto black hole in it ... which would be the classic "close the doors after the horses have gone" case. Never you mind how he got there bypassing the shock-wave, which by then was apparently already light-years in diameter. Even if the star was the very one around which Romulus orbited, the thing makes no sense whatsoever as the black hole would be far too late to stop it from "destroying the galaxy", given that the star has already blown up and consumed the planet, which of course would not merely "break in half" but be entirely absorbed by the expanding star at such a short (astronomically) distance. Spock arriving in his little ship would be the very definition of "pointless" at that stage of things, yet in the movie he clearly deploys his squirt-gun black hole, which then expands and stops the "explosion".
Nonsense. From the very beginning to the very end.
A "junior officer" at the age of 12? Commanding, I presume, a crew made up of more "junior" yet, what, 6 year olds? Or far less "junior" sailors? As I said, total fucking insanity, whichever way you cut it.
I concur.
Not only that, but the "science" was abysmal.
They treat black holes as portable, general-purpose plot-line fillers. You apparently can spawn them at will, and then use them to time-travel through them, except when planets get sucked into them (whichever is more convenient at the moment).
Then there is the "supernova", which, somehow by magic, is able to "threaten to destroy the galaxy", spews great globs of fire at multi light year distances that travel faster then light and split planets in halves. Never you mind the fact that any shock-waves form supernovas are mostly things like x-rays and gamma radiation and that they travel at the speed of light, which would make the "sudden disaster" unravel over the course of tens of years, if not more, just across the supposed Romulan space.
Then there are the super-teleporters (the teleporter being a unicorns-in-space type of idea to begin with) which are capable of delivering unstoppable warheads to planets light years away ... wait, no, err ... explosives ... no, err .... individuals to ships travelling faster then light, light years away ....
One could go on....
But to sum it up, I find that the movie is likely to be very successful. That is because I observed a curious relationship between movie-going audiences and the so-called "Sci-Fi" movies: more intelligence insulting the movie gets, more popular it gets. Which is probably some message as to the levels of scientific education and the respect for science of the general public ...
This actually is a long-developing trend in the whole genre, also in print version. The "Science" part of "Sci-Fi" has been shrinking and the "Fiction" part becoming "Fantasy" part more and more, to the point that calling this modern genre "Sci-Fi" is like calling a wart on an elephant: "A Wart with an Elephant Attached". It is of little wonder then that in many bookstores there is only one section: "Science Fiction and Fantasy". They probably should do away with the whole thing and just call it "Fantasy". It would be far more accurate.
Err, these things do not happen sanity-based fleets. No Ensign jumps to Captain in 24 hours, bypassing all the senior officers with many more years of experience. As to the level of sanity in the war of 1812, just the fact that you could become a mid-shipman at the age of 12 (or younger) speaks volumes. This sort of thing happens today only in such centres of civilization as Darfur, Somalia and Afghanistan....
And even in such an insane fleet it took Farragut 10 years to make it to Captain.
Ah, yes the oil sheikdoms. But then again a Kuwaiti "citizen" is likely a distant relation to the gigantic ruling family who owns everything of value in the country anyway, while something like 60% of population of Kuwait is foreign workers, some of them even with actual visas.
That place is going to be a real fine, world-class mess when the oil money runs out ....
I could never figure out why the main Slashdot site garbles all 2-byte character sets, since clearly the Slashcode itself can handle it.