Because he's a rich celebrity, that's why. Rich people are, apparently, so important that some people even read or listen to commentaries on whoever provided their suits and dresses at whatever parties they attended. If you want vapid and "unimportant", go watch the Oscars / Emmys / People's Choice / other awards ceremony de-jour -- hours and hours of self-congratulations for being "entertainers".
I reckon that more people recognize, say, the name of Robert Blake and what he's alleged to have done, versus, say, Hun Sen versus the UN on the subject of trials for the (surviving) Khmer Rouge leaders a few years ago. Hell, Torricelli seems to get far less coverage than Trafficant, while arguably the former's case is much more severe due to Torricelli's standing and influence among his peers and the Democratic Party -- it's just that Trafficant habitually plays the Village Idiot and thus provides sillier quotes.
Celebrity attracts coverage, because vapid, superficial viewers like that sort of thing, and there are an/awful/ lot of them around.
Fun is highly subjective -- maybe he/really/ likes this sort of deal, and probably isn't too averse to the media attention either.
In any event, he's spending it, which to some degree is better for other people than merely hoarding it (putting money back into the economy -- it's not like inflation is the biggest concern right now).
There's a significant difference in culpability, as well; blacks don't have a choice in being black, but file traders aren't exactly forced to remain file traders. Copyright infringement is practically always committed with full knowledge of the act and its illegality.
Do you complain that thugs don't get the same firepower, communications, and transportation support that police do?
Re:Story silly, attention good.
on
What, Me Worry?
·
· Score: 1
Hmmm. Are there any treaties on who would own an asteroid and its resources?
1- The opinions of any surviving witnesses on the ground may not matter, if sufficient damage is done to impair communications for a significant time. And, FWIW, it might take less time to target, fuel and launch an ICBM than to repair the comm network.
2- Don't worry/just/ about the US; worry about every power with WMDs, especially ones with aging systems and weak space programs.
3- Any warning would have to be distributed/well in advance/ and widely, to everybody that would possibly have retalliatory powers and might hear of such an incident. You wouldn't want to have a SSBN captain miss the word, suddenly lose contact with a major city or two, and jump to conclusions.
4- Not everybody might believe such a warning. Hopefully, everybody that matters would... but not necessarily. Imagine if, by bizarre coincidence (and, perhaps, some OT-style poetic justice/collective punishment...) a stellar object smacked into and obliterated much of Jerusalem (both Jewish and Muslim neighborhoods in it, that is). It wouldn't surprise me if a fair number of Palestinians might believe that it were an Israeli nuclear strike to destroy the Islamic holy shrines there, while radical Israelis might see it as a sign from God to do whatever the hell they were already thinking of doing, but just looking for an excuse to do.
It's a heck of a lot more efficient to visually scan e-mail than to listen to it. It's also much more efficient to write it -- editing during dictation surely can't be very fun for even a short memo, let alone a technical paper... Voice recog also wouldn't work too well as a primary input means for many games -- "Move that unit over to the bridge. No, THAT one. No.... arrrrrrrrrgh".
And I'm sure not going to dictate thousands of lines of Perl to a computer that lacks a keyboard.
MS Works was allegedly once supposedly a "lite" suite, but that may or may not have fallen by the wayside. *shrug*
A lot of colleges contract with Microsoft to offer educational pricing -- a full version of Microsoft products for little (or, in some cases, no) fee. The main catches are that
a) The student/staff/faculty member must uninstall the product once his relationship with the institution ends, and, I'd suspect, b) No commercial use.
If your campus doesn't have a deal like that, the next cheapest/easiest way would be to attend their recruiting events (products often given away), or to arrange for a "gift" from an intern (the Company Store has much lower prices for employees; again, no commercial use, and their are limits e.g. qty purchased, and only personal giving allowed, not resale).
Not de jure, but it practically is, de facto. Not picking up English at least as a second language would greatly hamper daily life in many parts of the country, as there isn't anything else that's nearly as universal here. Speaking only, say, Czech or Hungarian would probably hurt one's employment chances, for instance...
Even if they've never ever been in a car nor tried to get a license, even if they don't have their Social Security and Selective Service cards (admittedly non-photo, but that's/something/ with a name on it), they should at least be able to get a passport or other form of ID without much effort. Hell, US passports are valid for ten years...
It's hardly an excessive requirement, given the people's overwhelming interest in checking that people are who they say they are to make sure that they vote only once, and only where they're registered. Otherwise, they're simply walking, breathing props for election fraud.
Well, that and the instruments and equipment, but presumably those are mostly one-time costs instead of maintenance fees.
Here's one bit, 'tho -- how many good musicians have "real" jobs that they do, versus how many try to make it into a full-time job? The latter need either a completely separate source of financial support (rich sibling, for instance), if they can't rake it in. I suppose that the follow-up question would be -- how much time does a musician have to spend practicing in order to stay sharp? IOW, are part-time musicians viable from a consumer's point of view?
Mind you, I'm basically a bystander on this issue (I don't own a significant number of recordings, don't download music, and my radio mostly gets used as an alarm clock and for NPR news), so it's allt he same to me. *shrug* But if one asks artists not to expect mucho dinero and instead to restrict themselves to playing largely for pleasure, then there'll probably be some effect on the pool of artists, and it might be interesting to know what that effect would be.
Pure, unadulterated bullshit of the worst sterotypical kind. Having actually/been/ there, and being aware of their recruitment procedures and also of their penchant for hiring damn fine academics who know their stuff, I can tell you that if you are a clod who can't think on his feet and doesn't know what he's doing, you won't get in. And the people that were there were pretty damn motivated to do well -- one has to be, in order to work at a company that's all but compared to the Third Reich these days.
Compare that to the unclean drivel in the Linux kernel, laden with intelligent comments like "Sun fucking blows me", clearly broken VMs that get released despite all those allegedly useful eyes staring at the code and supposedly testing it, and the unprofessional spats between the dev community.
And if you think caring about something means that it's so obviously superior, I would suggest that you consider the fanatical behavior of assorted cults throughout history -- or, alternately, the idiots on "American Idol" who clearly/care/ about their art, but can't do it worth a damn. The people who did the art for "Craft" and for that Warcraft clone and for that FreeCiv (clone...) probably/care/ about their art too, but graphically... there's no comparison with that produced by the pros.
As for why I code, when I do -- it's a method. Algorithms aren't too interesting if never tested, and I'm sure as hell not doing large amounts of repetitive mathematics by hand. So for me, programming is merely an extremely efficient way of getting things done, and not an ends in of itself. When it comes to recreation, I find classic literature or photography much more interesting than implementing Nelder-Mead simplex routines for function minimization, or their ilk.
A minimalist view would be to merely assemble, say, a general-purpose operating system distribution based on anything free, and then make sure there's a suite of office software (e.g. StarOffice) on it with suitable import and export filters for compatibility with what's coming out from Redmond.
If they're concerned about the dominance of MS Office, then the above makes far more sense than the far more ambitious task of re-implementing Win9X to the point of software (application-level, not just data import/export) compatibility w/ the very product that's bothering them.
I think it might be possible to design technology which could only be used for, arguably, evil (pure good would probably be harder, if not impossible).
Suppose, say, it were possible to build a device that would induce a chain-reaction within the Earth's mantle and destroy the entire planet -- e.g. the "Little Doctor" or MD device from Orson Scott Card's "Ender" series. I don't see any/good/ uses for it; it might not even be useful as a deterrent (e.g. "Don't use nukes or I'll destroy the planet") because enemies might figure that either the owner wouldn't dare go THAT far, or simply not care ("Time to destroy the infidels. We'll go to Paradise, y'all to infinite torment. Deal?").
Completely autonomous bots aren't exactly likely anytime soon -- they need builders, suppliers, mechanics, programmers, drivers (for long distance transport)...
I think you might be underestimating the anger of the people, as well. Being a fairly jingoistic/nationalist people has its upsides and downsides, but one upside would be that maintaining a hostile occupation and actually getting people to/cooperate/ (e.g. work in the factories and farms, et al) would be very difficult, compared to a people that might consider themselves liberated (e.g. anti-Stalinist elements in the fringes of the Soviet empire during Barbarossa -- well, at least until the looting and massacress started.).
People buy books they know little about, from authors they've never read. People go to see movies that they've never read reviews for. People preorder computer games (for much more than a music CD, generally) long before the games are complete and without ever seeing a demo...
Music and television are, perhaps, the two major entertainment segments where people can almost always easily and so completely(*) "try before they buy", and that's only possible because the content creators get paid for the broadcast already (in the form of royalties, ad revenue, et al).
(*) Compared to, say, demos, short test drives, a walking tour through a house... if you hear a song on a radio, you've heard the/complete/ song.
That's a big if, given that people who could/buy/ music off a data network could probably also find lots of/free/ music, legit or no, off another data network, which may or may not be just as good, but will in any event consume time "trying" that could have been spent "buying". Plus, some people might not want to buy if they get no "extras" like artwork, et al.
Somebody who kills/random/ people, and thus endangers an entire society, will get a lower sentence than somebody who kills only elderly African-American Zoroasterians (set cardinality probably VERY small). The "more dangerous" argument doesn't even step, let alone fly.
That didn't matter, because it's really just a political sop to favoured constituencies.
No; business is about winning, not competing. That, incidentally, is why we have anti-trust laws; businesses, being led by rational people (as irrationally run businesses might not be around that long) would logically form cartels if it were in their interests (such as several major players agreeing to divide up a market territory, fix prices, and keep out new players).
And competition is, pretty much, a race for self-improvement. Chasing after others is largely fruitless, and the obvious measures against them, such as predatory pricing, are frowned upon by the "referees". Violence as per the old railroad wars is even more of a no-no. Hence, well-run businesses try to increase efficiency, expand their product lines, and so forth, instead of, oh, property destruction and sabotage; today, that's the job of the unions as they strike.
(1) The US administration has stated that they would like to implement regime change, that is, get rid of Saddam. Last time around, the Iraqi military was probably aware of the idea that we wouldn't go too far beyond the UN's goal of liberating Kuwait. This time, they have little reason to think we'd stop before occupying Baghdad, Tikrit and other major cities so as to topple the government.
We might expect more resistance, as members of the military may have more at stake. Saddam certainly would.
He and his generals may be more willing to use his chemical weapons, if he still has some weaponized and if they're convinced that he's going to go down anyway. Some of his generals, and Saddam himself, are implicated in war crimes, and might not relish capture. It doesn't seem likely that the US could accept a compromise such as exile, either.
We would need to occupy much more land to be able to control it and impose a new system. Last time, we only cared about forcing 'em out of Kuwait and making them say 'uncle', basically. The US would probably have to stay there for a considerable amount of time as well, because there's no real country-wide resistance that could unite the country and form a successor government.
(2) Last time, they'd invaded a neighbor. That's pretty hard for their other neighbors to deny, made them a bit nervous, and thus helps explain why they were willing to allow overflights over their country or to permit our bases there to be used for staging attacks. Now, local support for another invasion isn't particularly high, at least officially -- the US doesn't come off looking too well on the Arab street when it claims to support democracy in Palestine, so long as the favored candidate can't run, for instance.
While they might have difficulty stopping the US from attacking via, say, bases in Saudi Arabia -- the Saudis probably wouldn't risk a war with the US by invading the base to stop it -- it wouldn't exactly be good diplomatically. It'd certainly piss off the host countries if we used bases there or flew attack aircraft over their lands without their consent, for instance. It'd make things even more difficult for the State Department than they already are. Not signing Kyoto would probably look like a mere pecadillo compared to invading one country (without, say, a UN mandate) that doesn't appear posed to invade anybody else and has certainly been suffering (the people, that is; not Saddam) while simultaneously violating the sovereignty of countries that host our forces.
1. In the United States, the military takes orders from civilians. If the president, draft-dodger or no, gets a declaration of war approved by the Congress, it goes. If there are no such orders, it doesn't. And, actually, the Pentagon is quite cautious these days -- it's the civilians who aren't.
2. Some of us actually pay attention to things beyond our own lives, and consider factors beyond "gee, is a family member risking his life" such as the economic and diplomatic ramifications, as well as whether or not a military action seems feasible. The US does/not/ invade places on a whim.
3. It is ethical to promote justice. This normally requires using force, because those who behave immorally (such as attempting the destruction of others merely for having different belief systems) tend not to cease doing so just when asked. The world will not become more just simply by wishing it; a large part is incapacitating those who persist in injustice.
The true sustainable solution is to eliminate all people, as that is the only way to stop conflict. Education is not particularly feasible on people who do not want to be educated; in fact, many people will label "hate speech" just about any criticism of other cultures, let alone any (doomed to failure...) attempts at mass indoctrination that do not involve invasion and annihilation of existing power structures (as would be required for true indoctrination; one has to totally dominate the communications systems to control input...). In the meantime, until genocide of the species has been achieved, I would recommend that states not lower their guard. Intolerant doctrines such as Wahabbism (does not tolerate anything but puritanical Islam) won't disappear anytime soon when institutions (such as the Saudi government) benefit so enormously from them.
Re:Skynet, here we come
on
Robot Wars
·
· Score: 2
Many AIs in SF movies are actually good -- it's just that they're not given major roles/because/ they're assumed to be operating as expected. For instance, consider the ship computers in Star Trek movies and their ilk; often, the command system is voice-driven, which requires some serious AI when it comes to understanding instructions.
The choice isn't between attacking a robot army or attacking civillian targets. After all, modern mechanized armies/cannot/ live off the land, Mongol style; they need vast quantities of fuel, ammunition, and other supplies, as well as dedicated support staff, repair facilities, and so forth. One can hit supply depots, command and control centers, communications installations, barracks, airfields... and because of extreme mobility via airborne transport, defending everywhere literally requires putting troops darn near everywhere, instead of just frontier defenses in depth. And if a foe want to destroy, rather than capture, then missiles complicate defense enormously...
Slashdot Mirror
Bravery != military brilliance. See Balaclava for an example, or the entire concept of infantry frontal assaults on trenches for another.
Because he's a rich celebrity, that's why. Rich people are, apparently, so important that some people even read or listen to commentaries on whoever provided their suits and dresses at whatever parties they attended. If you want vapid and "unimportant", go watch the Oscars / Emmys / People's Choice / other awards ceremony de-jour -- hours and hours of self-congratulations for being "entertainers".
/awful/ lot of them around.
I reckon that more people recognize, say, the name of Robert Blake and what he's alleged to have done, versus, say, Hun Sen versus the UN on the subject of trials for the (surviving) Khmer Rouge leaders a few years ago. Hell, Torricelli seems to get far less coverage than Trafficant, while arguably the former's case is much more severe due to Torricelli's standing and influence among his peers and the Democratic Party -- it's just that Trafficant habitually plays the Village Idiot and thus provides sillier quotes.
Celebrity attracts coverage, because vapid, superficial viewers like that sort of thing, and there are an
*shrug*
/really/ likes this sort of deal, and probably isn't too averse to the media attention either.
Fun is highly subjective -- maybe he
In any event, he's spending it, which to some degree is better for other people than merely hoarding it (putting money back into the economy -- it's not like inflation is the biggest concern right now).
Bullshit.
There's a significant difference in culpability, as well; blacks don't have a choice in being black, but file traders aren't exactly forced to remain file traders. Copyright infringement is practically always committed with full knowledge of the act and its illegality.
Do you complain that thugs don't get the same firepower, communications, and transportation support that police do?
Hmmm. Are there any treaties on who would own an asteroid and its resources?
1- The opinions of any surviving witnesses on the ground may not matter, if sufficient damage is done to impair communications for a significant time. And, FWIW, it might take less time to target, fuel and launch an ICBM than to repair the comm network.
/just/ about the US; worry about every power with WMDs, especially ones with aging systems and weak space programs.
/well in advance/ and widely, to everybody that would possibly have retalliatory powers and might hear of such an incident. You wouldn't want to have a SSBN captain miss the word, suddenly lose contact with a major city or two, and jump to conclusions.
2- Don't worry
3- Any warning would have to be distributed
4- Not everybody might believe such a warning. Hopefully, everybody that matters would... but not necessarily. Imagine if, by bizarre coincidence (and, perhaps, some OT-style poetic justice/collective punishment...) a stellar object smacked into and obliterated much of Jerusalem (both Jewish and Muslim neighborhoods in it, that is). It wouldn't surprise me if a fair number of Palestinians might believe that it were an Israeli nuclear strike to destroy the Islamic holy shrines there, while radical Israelis might see it as a sign from God to do whatever the hell they were already thinking of doing, but just looking for an excuse to do.
He wakes up next to Cindy Crawford... and you'd expect him to spend his time posting to Slashdot?
It's a heck of a lot more efficient to visually scan e-mail than to listen to it. It's also much more efficient to write it -- editing during dictation surely can't be very fun for even a short memo, let alone a technical paper... Voice recog also wouldn't work too well as a primary input means for many games -- "Move that unit over to the bridge. No, THAT one. No.... arrrrrrrrrgh".
And I'm sure not going to dictate thousands of lines of Perl to a computer that lacks a keyboard.
MS Works was allegedly once supposedly a "lite" suite, but that may or may not have fallen by the wayside. *shrug*
A lot of colleges contract with Microsoft to offer educational pricing -- a full version of Microsoft products for little (or, in some cases, no) fee. The main catches are that
a) The student/staff/faculty member must uninstall the product once his relationship with the institution ends, and, I'd suspect,
b) No commercial use.
If your campus doesn't have a deal like that, the next cheapest/easiest way would be to attend their recruiting events (products often given away), or to arrange for a "gift" from an intern (the Company Store has much lower prices for employees; again, no commercial use, and their are limits e.g. qty purchased, and only personal giving allowed, not resale).
Not de jure, but it practically is, de facto. Not picking up English at least as a second language would greatly hamper daily life in many parts of the country, as there isn't anything else that's nearly as universal here. Speaking only, say, Czech or Hungarian would probably hurt one's employment chances, for instance...
Even if they've never ever been in a car nor tried to get a license, even if they don't have their Social Security and Selective Service cards (admittedly non-photo, but that's /something/ with a name on it), they should at least be able to get a passport or other form of ID without much effort. Hell, US passports are valid for ten years...
It's hardly an excessive requirement, given the people's overwhelming interest in checking that people are who they say they are to make sure that they vote only once, and only where they're registered. Otherwise, they're simply walking, breathing props for election fraud.
Well, that and the instruments and equipment, but presumably those are mostly one-time costs instead of maintenance fees.
Here's one bit, 'tho -- how many good musicians have "real" jobs that they do, versus how many try to make it into a full-time job? The latter need either a completely separate source of financial support (rich sibling, for instance), if they can't rake it in. I suppose that the follow-up question would be -- how much time does a musician have to spend practicing in order to stay sharp? IOW, are part-time musicians viable from a consumer's point of view?
Mind you, I'm basically a bystander on this issue (I don't own a significant number of recordings, don't download music, and my radio mostly gets used as an alarm clock and for NPR news), so it's allt he same to me. *shrug* But if one asks artists not to expect mucho dinero and instead to restrict themselves to playing largely for pleasure, then there'll probably be some effect on the pool of artists, and it might be interesting to know what that effect would be.
Pure, unadulterated bullshit of the worst sterotypical kind. Having actually /been/ there, and being aware of their recruitment procedures and also of their penchant for hiring damn fine academics who know their stuff, I can tell you that if you are a clod who can't think on his feet and doesn't know what he's doing, you won't get in. And the people that were there were pretty damn motivated to do well -- one has to be, in order to work at a company that's all but compared to the Third Reich these days.
/care/ about their art, but can't do it worth a damn. The people who did the art for "Craft" and for that Warcraft clone and for that FreeCiv (clone...) probably /care/ about their art too, but graphically... there's no comparison with that produced by the pros.
Compare that to the unclean drivel in the Linux kernel, laden with intelligent comments like "Sun fucking blows me", clearly broken VMs that get released despite all those allegedly useful eyes staring at the code and supposedly testing it, and the unprofessional spats between the dev community.
And if you think caring about something means that it's so obviously superior, I would suggest that you consider the fanatical behavior of assorted cults throughout history -- or, alternately, the idiots on "American Idol" who clearly
As for why I code, when I do -- it's a method. Algorithms aren't too interesting if never tested, and I'm sure as hell not doing large amounts of repetitive mathematics by hand. So for me, programming is merely an extremely efficient way of getting things done, and not an ends in of itself. When it comes to recreation, I find classic literature or photography much more interesting than implementing Nelder-Mead simplex routines for function minimization, or their ilk.
"Equivalent functionality" --
A minimalist view would be to merely assemble, say, a general-purpose operating system distribution based on anything free, and then make sure there's a suite of office software (e.g. StarOffice) on it with suitable import and export filters for compatibility with what's coming out from Redmond.
If they're concerned about the dominance of MS Office, then the above makes far more sense than the far more ambitious task of re-implementing Win9X to the point of software (application-level, not just data import/export) compatibility w/ the very product that's bothering them.
I think it might be possible to design technology which could only be used for, arguably, evil (pure good would probably be harder, if not impossible).
/good/ uses for it; it might not even be useful as a deterrent (e.g. "Don't use nukes or I'll destroy the planet") because enemies might figure that either the owner wouldn't dare go THAT far, or simply not care ("Time to destroy the infidels. We'll go to Paradise, y'all to infinite torment. Deal?").
Suppose, say, it were possible to build a device that would induce a chain-reaction within the Earth's mantle and destroy the entire planet -- e.g. the "Little Doctor" or MD device from Orson Scott Card's "Ender" series. I don't see any
Completely autonomous bots aren't exactly likely anytime soon -- they need builders, suppliers, mechanics, programmers, drivers (for long distance transport)...
/cooperate/ (e.g. work in the factories and farms, et al) would be very difficult, compared to a people that might consider themselves liberated (e.g. anti-Stalinist elements in the fringes of the Soviet empire during Barbarossa -- well, at least until the looting and massacress started.).
I think you might be underestimating the anger of the people, as well. Being a fairly jingoistic/nationalist people has its upsides and downsides, but one upside would be that maintaining a hostile occupation and actually getting people to
People buy books they know little about, from authors they've never read. People go to see movies that they've never read reviews for. People preorder computer games (for much more than a music CD, generally) long before the games are complete and without ever seeing a demo...
/complete/ song.
Music and television are, perhaps, the two major entertainment segments where people can almost always easily and so completely(*) "try before they buy", and that's only possible because the content creators get paid for the broadcast already (in the form of royalties, ad revenue, et al).
(*) Compared to, say, demos, short test drives, a walking tour through a house... if you hear a song on a radio, you've heard the
That's a big if, given that people who could /buy/ music off a data network could probably also find lots of /free/ music, legit or no, off another data network, which may or may not be just as good, but will in any event consume time "trying" that could have been spent "buying". Plus, some people might not want to buy if they get no "extras" like artwork, et al.
Somebody who kills /random/ people, and thus endangers an entire society, will get a lower sentence than somebody who kills only elderly African-American Zoroasterians (set cardinality probably VERY small). The "more dangerous" argument doesn't even step, let alone fly.
That didn't matter, because it's really just a political sop to favoured constituencies.
His point is that network != station. Local stations aren't owned by the networks; instead, they're affiliates with separate ownership.
No; business is about winning, not competing. That, incidentally, is why we have anti-trust laws; businesses, being led by rational people (as irrationally run businesses might not be around that long) would logically form cartels if it were in their interests (such as several major players agreeing to divide up a market territory, fix prices, and keep out new players).
And competition is, pretty much, a race for self-improvement. Chasing after others is largely fruitless, and the obvious measures against them, such as predatory pricing, are frowned upon by the "referees". Violence as per the old railroad wars is even more of a no-no. Hence, well-run businesses try to increase efficiency, expand their product lines, and so forth, instead of, oh, property destruction and sabotage; today, that's the job of the unions as they strike.
(1) The US administration has stated that they would like to implement regime change, that is, get rid of Saddam. Last time around, the Iraqi military was probably aware of the idea that we wouldn't go too far beyond the UN's goal of liberating Kuwait. This time, they have little reason to think we'd stop before occupying Baghdad, Tikrit and other major cities so as to topple the government.
We might expect more resistance, as members of the military may have more at stake. Saddam certainly would.
He and his generals may be more willing to use his chemical weapons, if he still has some weaponized and if they're convinced that he's going to go down anyway. Some of his generals, and Saddam himself, are implicated in war crimes, and might not relish capture. It doesn't seem likely that the US could accept a compromise such as exile, either.
We would need to occupy much more land to be able to control it and impose a new system. Last time, we only cared about forcing 'em out of Kuwait and making them say 'uncle', basically. The US would probably have to stay there for a considerable amount of time as well, because there's no real country-wide resistance that could unite the country and form a successor government.
(2) Last time, they'd invaded a neighbor. That's pretty hard for their other neighbors to deny, made them a bit nervous, and thus helps explain why they were willing to allow overflights over their country or to permit our bases there to be used for staging attacks. Now, local support for another invasion isn't particularly high, at least officially -- the US doesn't come off looking too well on the Arab street when it claims to support democracy in Palestine, so long as the favored candidate can't run, for instance.
While they might have difficulty stopping the US from attacking via, say, bases in Saudi Arabia -- the Saudis probably wouldn't risk a war with the US by invading the base to stop it -- it wouldn't exactly be good diplomatically. It'd certainly piss off the host countries if we used bases there or flew attack aircraft over their lands without their consent, for instance. It'd make things even more difficult for the State Department than they already are. Not signing Kyoto would probably look like a mere pecadillo compared to invading one country (without, say, a UN mandate) that doesn't appear posed to invade anybody else and has certainly been suffering (the people, that is; not Saddam) while simultaneously violating the sovereignty of countries that host our forces.
1. In the United States, the military takes orders from civilians. If the president, draft-dodger or no, gets a declaration of war approved by the Congress, it goes. If there are no such orders, it doesn't. And, actually, the Pentagon is quite cautious these days -- it's the civilians who aren't.
/not/ invade places on a whim.
2. Some of us actually pay attention to things beyond our own lives, and consider factors beyond "gee, is a family member risking his life" such as the economic and diplomatic ramifications, as well as whether or not a military action seems feasible. The US does
3. It is ethical to promote justice. This normally requires using force, because those who behave immorally (such as attempting the destruction of others merely for having different belief systems) tend not to cease doing so just when asked. The world will not become more just simply by wishing it; a large part is incapacitating those who persist in injustice.
The true sustainable solution is to eliminate all people, as that is the only way to stop conflict. Education is not particularly feasible on people who do not want to be educated; in fact, many people will label "hate speech" just about any criticism of other cultures, let alone any (doomed to failure...) attempts at mass indoctrination that do not involve invasion and annihilation of existing power structures (as would be required for true indoctrination; one has to totally dominate the communications systems to control input...). In the meantime, until genocide of the species has been achieved, I would recommend that states not lower their guard. Intolerant doctrines such as Wahabbism (does not tolerate anything but puritanical Islam) won't disappear anytime soon when institutions (such as the Saudi government) benefit so enormously from them.
Many AIs in SF movies are actually good -- it's just that they're not given major roles /because/ they're assumed to be operating as expected. For instance, consider the ship computers in Star Trek movies and their ilk; often, the command system is voice-driven, which requires some serious AI when it comes to understanding instructions.
The choice isn't between attacking a robot army or attacking civillian targets. After all, modern mechanized armies /cannot/ live off the land, Mongol style; they need vast quantities of fuel, ammunition, and other supplies, as well as dedicated support staff, repair facilities, and so forth. One can hit supply depots, command and control centers, communications installations, barracks, airfields... and because of extreme mobility via airborne transport, defending everywhere literally requires putting troops darn near everywhere, instead of just frontier defenses in depth. And if a foe want to destroy, rather than capture, then missiles complicate defense enormously...