Oh, I was just speaking in general. I don't actually know enough about the factors involved in 9/11 to really have any concrete ideas about which specificbehaviors America might consider changing. I mean, it's undeniable that we have thrown our weight around internationally the last several decades; sometimes in ways that are downright shitty. Seems unavoidable that we would piss somebody off with that. Then again, it also seems pretty unavoidable that we would piss somebody off, no matter what we did. I personally think we could afford to be a little less douchey on the world scene, but some people would still hate us, no matter how nicely we played with others. It seems to be inevitable that success breeds resentment. But not the level of resentment that leads people to flying planes into buildings...
Of course, maybe the 9/11 attackers weren't provoked at all. Maybe they saw some benefit to themselves from the attacks, and were working towards their own benefit. In that case, Anti-Americanism was just a tool they used to recruit, well, tools. Either way, it seems that reducing the global resentment towards us would either reduce the motivation for such attacks, or make it harder to recruit tools for such attacks.
However, and here is where I can really only speculate, the flip side is "What benefit does America gain from the behaviors that build this resentment?". It might, practically speaking, be more beneficial to continue behaving in a manner that builds that resentment, if the rewards we gain outweigh the risks of further attacks. Personally, I think it unlikely that is a good risk:reward ratio; long term, the risk will probably escalate while the reward will likely diminish. However, presumably our leaders are pondering these questions, with access to much more data than I have. And obviously, somebody has decided these behaviors result in an attractive risk:reward ratio. Well, either that or our foreign policy is pretty much short-sighted flailing, which is depressingly possible. The other depressing possibility is that those making the decisions that lead to these behaviors are calculating personal risk:reward ratios, instead of national risk:reward ratios.
Maybe we are interpreting the question differently; me, I don't see how that question in any way condones the attack. It seems to me to be a very practical question: "Did I in any way provoke this attack?" Your practical considerations differ between a provoked and unprovoked attack. If you determine it was a provoked attack, you have to consider whether continuing the provoking behavior is likely to provoke future attacks. If yes, assuming you wish to dissuade future attacks, you have to consider whether it is more practical to modify the provoking behavior to (hopefully) cease provoking attacks, or to (hopefully) discourage future attacks by swatting this attacker very hard. Part of the consideration, of course, is the likely effectiveness of the chosen strategy. Probably a combination of the two would end up being most effective.
Note that a provoked attack is not at all the same as a deserved attack. Determining that your behavior contributed to your attacker's desire to hurt you does not in any way cede that your attacker had any right to attack you. It is merely identifying your attacker's motive as thoroughly as possible, which I think is a crucial step in determining the most effective response.
Your analogy is a bit off. The US' behavior abroad can hardly be considered as innocuous as "showing a little thigh and a hint of cleavage". Not that any sane person can condone the 9/11 attacks, but the situation was much more akin to you insulting someone's mother repeatedly and them kicking you in the nuts and running away b/c you are too big to fight fairly.
You really think people are willing to spend hundreds of millions of dollars just to get a 6-figure salary, a comped mansion and an impressive title for a couple of years?
You mean hundreds of millions of other people's dollars. There have been some notable exceptions, but most politicians don't campaign with their own money.
I was there at a reasonable hour (I forget, but like 6 pm or something) to collect some of my stuff that she refused to return. The 2 cops that showed up were pretty unsympathetic with her once I explained why I was there and proved it was my stuff. They told me to take my stuff and leave (and leave the key) and she would be unable to press any charges. Could be they were "bending" the law, I don't really know.
Even if someone gives you a key, that does not constitute permission to enter any time you wish.
Yes, it does. Now, if you enter and they ask you to leave, you are required to leave. But as long as you leave when asked, you have not committed any crime. Giving you the key gives implied consent that can only be countered by explicit declaration of non-consent.
At least, that's what the cops said when my ex tried to press trespassing charges against me several years ago...
And again, keep in mind, the belief that harm will occur is not harm
I'm sorry, but that is a completely useless statement. In practice, all we can go on is our belief. If I believe you have been harmed, then from my perspective, you have been harmed. For instance, you believe my taking your car harms you. I believe it liberates you from the evil of materialism. You can't prove anything without some sort of underlying assumptions (beliefs about reality) being present. Just b/c your assumptions seem rational and obvious to you, doesn't mean they are to everyone. How can you demonstrate that taking your car is harmful if I believe owning a car is harmful? How can you prove my belief is wrong?
If people demand fiber, they'll get it, if only the government would permit companies to lay it down as they please.
You keep saying this throughout this thread, but apparently don't see the irony. Companies have no right to use public property for private profit. They certainly have no right to lay their lines on my property. So you want the government to force me and my neighbors to allow 2, 6 or 10 companies to lay their lines across our property. If private companies want to compete, they absolutely can. They just have to buy all the property necessary to provide their service. Then, when I choose the one company I want, they can run their lines onto my property as part of the service agreement. I mean, we would hate for the government to get involved with providing services, just for the sake of convenience. That would be unprincipled...
Why should I, or any company, be allowed to stick fiber optic cable in the ground on property that isn't mine? You seem to be saying that communities, as represented (ideally) by their government, shouldn't be allowed to provide themselves broadband service, but rather are obligated to allow private companies to use the community's property to provide that service. That was the model in many places, and communities are discovering they aren't getting good value for the privileges they allowed these private companies.
Oh, that's right, companies aren't allowed to lay their own fiber - government restriction.
Huh? Why would the government prevent a company from laying their own fiber - on their own property? Or are you complaining that private companies aren't being allowed to use public right of ways?
Do I want the same Government that screwed up in New Orleans to tell my doctor what procedures he can and cannot do if he wants the Government to pay up?
Don't kid yourself; they already do (mostly). Medicaid/Medicare say which procedures they will pay for, and how much. This has a HUGE influence on what a hospital/physician will/will not do
One strong driving factor in evolution is who we choose to breed with - today, we have more options than ever in all possible ways.
Do we? Assuming the ratio of males to females is roughly the same as it always has been then it cancels out.
But today (for a broad definition of "today") we have much greater access to the global population. In the 1700s, it was far less likely that a Costa Rican would mate with a Japanese person, I would guess. I don't personally know any Costa Rican/Japanese people, but I'd wager there are more today than there were a couple hundred years ago. And that trend is only going to increase.
Damnit, your comment tickles my memory of a cyberpunk short story with a similar premise. In a (dystopian?) future, the "scene kids", which were called something else in the story, aspired to be popular enough to be coded into a virtual world. The story is about one pretty boy trying to decide if that is what he wants or if he is just buying into what society tells him he should want. Oh man, I hope your comment was an allusion to that story and you know the title or author, I haven't had any luck tracking it down.
And yes, I am an automation technician presently building an automated mouse trap in my basement.
Huh? I'm no expert, so maybe you are using jargon that simply resembles my layman's speech, but aren't ALL mousetraps automated (unless you want to call a cat a mousetrap)? I mean, when I think non-automated, I'm thinking a box propped up on a stick with a string tied to it...
I love America and all, but if you think we haven't as a nation committed genocide then you've not read back far enough in our history.
And you haven't read enough of the actual history, as opposed to the guilt-laden watered-down version taught in American schools. What happened to the Native Americans was tragic, and there was certainly a fair amount of maliciousness involved, but nothing near the scale institutionalized genocide would imply. The population decline of the Native Americans is far more attributable to: "virgin soil" phenomenon of disease transmission and culture clash - their society could not compete on an economic scale with Western society, which led to their inevitable decline. Their basic philosophy prevented a majority of them from being able to function in Western society, so with the destruction of their own society, they had no society in which they could live. And yes, wars and deliberate murder also happened.
Really, the greatest institutional crimes that can be lain squarely on America are those that still plague us: apathy and ignorance towards the affairs of anyone but ourselves. Many of our policies that were detrimental to the natives were not intended for that purpose; that was merely a side-effect of some other purpose. Often, it was a side-effect that was completely predictable if those at the time had bothered to even consider the natives. Then, when we actually started paying attention, and attempting to protect the natives from ourselves, we did so in an incredibly ignorant and arrogant manner that ultimately led to the rather dysfunctional dynamic we have today.
You presuppose that scripted events can't be accidentally released and that the accidental release of the article proves that it's not deliberate falsehood. Your logic is built on a foundation of sand.
We have no way of knowing what they intended to do with this article upon a successful completion of the mission: release it as deceptive propaganda or use it as a prep piece. However, I would say that the phrase "accidental release" does in fact mean that it is not "deliberate falsehood". How can I accidentally do anything deliberately?
Or would you prefer some of the alternatives: a lawsuit costing the kid's parents money and possibly the kid's higher education or the kid throwing away his life in one fit of Internet douchebaggery down the line?
I agree that these were possible consequences, and that they are disproportionate to the offense. However, the real answer there is to fix these problems, not (possibly) create other problems via a hacked-on workaround that violates important protections. Given the weight precedence has in our legal system, it is always dangerous to make a ruling that is morally correct for the specific instance, but legally questionable as a general rule.
The fact of the matter is, you are free to say whatever you want, but not without consequences.
Barring things such as libel, slander, speech that causes harm, the ENTIRE POINT of "free speech" is freedom from government imposed consequences. No, my right to free speech doesn't protect me from the consequences society imposes, but if government is allowed to impose any consequences, it is government censorship. Doesn't matter that other legal avenues would probably have ended with harsher punishments, doesn't matter that the kid probably got off lighter than he deserved. If a government agency (which most schools are considered to be) can punish citizens for their speech w/o a trial during which a court of law determines that the speech strayed into territory that has been previously defined as illegal, that is the exact antithesis of free speech.
Slashdot Mirror
Oh, I was just speaking in general. I don't actually know enough about the factors involved in 9/11 to really have any concrete ideas about which specificbehaviors America might consider changing. I mean, it's undeniable that we have thrown our weight around internationally the last several decades; sometimes in ways that are downright shitty. Seems unavoidable that we would piss somebody off with that. Then again, it also seems pretty unavoidable that we would piss somebody off, no matter what we did. I personally think we could afford to be a little less douchey on the world scene, but some people would still hate us, no matter how nicely we played with others. It seems to be inevitable that success breeds resentment. But not the level of resentment that leads people to flying planes into buildings...
Of course, maybe the 9/11 attackers weren't provoked at all. Maybe they saw some benefit to themselves from the attacks, and were working towards their own benefit. In that case, Anti-Americanism was just a tool they used to recruit, well, tools. Either way, it seems that reducing the global resentment towards us would either reduce the motivation for such attacks, or make it harder to recruit tools for such attacks.
However, and here is where I can really only speculate, the flip side is "What benefit does America gain from the behaviors that build this resentment?". It might, practically speaking, be more beneficial to continue behaving in a manner that builds that resentment, if the rewards we gain outweigh the risks of further attacks. Personally, I think it unlikely that is a good risk:reward ratio; long term, the risk will probably escalate while the reward will likely diminish. However, presumably our leaders are pondering these questions, with access to much more data than I have. And obviously, somebody has decided these behaviors result in an attractive risk:reward ratio. Well, either that or our foreign policy is pretty much short-sighted flailing, which is depressingly possible. The other depressing possibility is that those making the decisions that lead to these behaviors are calculating personal risk:reward ratios, instead of national risk:reward ratios.
Maybe we are interpreting the question differently; me, I don't see how that question in any way condones the attack. It seems to me to be a very practical question: "Did I in any way provoke this attack?" Your practical considerations differ between a provoked and unprovoked attack. If you determine it was a provoked attack, you have to consider whether continuing the provoking behavior is likely to provoke future attacks. If yes, assuming you wish to dissuade future attacks, you have to consider whether it is more practical to modify the provoking behavior to (hopefully) cease provoking attacks, or to (hopefully) discourage future attacks by swatting this attacker very hard. Part of the consideration, of course, is the likely effectiveness of the chosen strategy. Probably a combination of the two would end up being most effective.
Note that a provoked attack is not at all the same as a deserved attack. Determining that your behavior contributed to your attacker's desire to hurt you does not in any way cede that your attacker had any right to attack you. It is merely identifying your attacker's motive as thoroughly as possible, which I think is a crucial step in determining the most effective response.
Your analogy is a bit off. The US' behavior abroad can hardly be considered as innocuous as "showing a little thigh and a hint of cleavage". Not that any sane person can condone the 9/11 attacks, but the situation was much more akin to you insulting someone's mother repeatedly and them kicking you in the nuts and running away b/c you are too big to fight fairly.
You really think people are willing to spend hundreds of millions of dollars just to get a 6-figure salary, a comped mansion and an impressive title for a couple of years?
You mean hundreds of millions of other people's dollars. There have been some notable exceptions, but most politicians don't campaign with their own money.
I was there at a reasonable hour (I forget, but like 6 pm or something) to collect some of my stuff that she refused to return. The 2 cops that showed up were pretty unsympathetic with her once I explained why I was there and proved it was my stuff. They told me to take my stuff and leave (and leave the key) and she would be unable to press any charges. Could be they were "bending" the law, I don't really know.
Even if someone gives you a key, that does not constitute permission to enter any time you wish.
Yes, it does. Now, if you enter and they ask you to leave, you are required to leave. But as long as you leave when asked, you have not committed any crime. Giving you the key gives implied consent that can only be countered by explicit declaration of non-consent.
At least, that's what the cops said when my ex tried to press trespassing charges against me several years ago...
And again, keep in mind, the belief that harm will occur is not harm
I'm sorry, but that is a completely useless statement. In practice, all we can go on is our belief. If I believe you have been harmed, then from my perspective, you have been harmed. For instance, you believe my taking your car harms you. I believe it liberates you from the evil of materialism. You can't prove anything without some sort of underlying assumptions (beliefs about reality) being present. Just b/c your assumptions seem rational and obvious to you, doesn't mean they are to everyone. How can you demonstrate that taking your car is harmful if I believe owning a car is harmful? How can you prove my belief is wrong?
If people demand fiber, they'll get it, if only the government would permit companies to lay it down as they please.
You keep saying this throughout this thread, but apparently don't see the irony. Companies have no right to use public property for private profit. They certainly have no right to lay their lines on my property. So you want the government to force me and my neighbors to allow 2, 6 or 10 companies to lay their lines across our property. If private companies want to compete, they absolutely can. They just have to buy all the property necessary to provide their service. Then, when I choose the one company I want, they can run their lines onto my property as part of the service agreement. I mean, we would hate for the government to get involved with providing services, just for the sake of convenience. That would be unprincipled...
Why should I, or any company, be allowed to stick fiber optic cable in the ground on property that isn't mine? You seem to be saying that communities, as represented (ideally) by their government, shouldn't be allowed to provide themselves broadband service, but rather are obligated to allow private companies to use the community's property to provide that service. That was the model in many places, and communities are discovering they aren't getting good value for the privileges they allowed these private companies.
Oh, that's right, companies aren't allowed to lay their own fiber - government restriction.
Huh? Why would the government prevent a company from laying their own fiber - on their own property? Or are you complaining that private companies aren't being allowed to use public right of ways?
Do I want the same Government that screwed up in New Orleans to tell my doctor what procedures he can and cannot do if he wants the Government to pay up?
Don't kid yourself; they already do (mostly). Medicaid/Medicare say which procedures they will pay for, and how much. This has a HUGE influence on what a hospital/physician will/will not do
Do you seriously believe their government health "insurance" (if it's govt. it's not an insurance at all) will lower costs ?
It seems to everywhere else...
Do we? Assuming the ratio of males to females is roughly the same as it always has been then it cancels out.
But today (for a broad definition of "today") we have much greater access to the global population. In the 1700s, it was far less likely that a Costa Rican would mate with a Japanese person, I would guess. I don't personally know any Costa Rican/Japanese people, but I'd wager there are more today than there were a couple hundred years ago. And that trend is only going to increase.
Not what I was thinking of, but it looks interesting. Thanks!
Damnit, your comment tickles my memory of a cyberpunk short story with a similar premise. In a (dystopian?) future, the "scene kids", which were called something else in the story, aspired to be popular enough to be coded into a virtual world. The story is about one pretty boy trying to decide if that is what he wants or if he is just buying into what society tells him he should want. Oh man, I hope your comment was an allusion to that story and you know the title or author, I haven't had any luck tracking it down.
And yes, I am an automation technician presently building an automated mouse trap in my basement.
Huh? I'm no expert, so maybe you are using jargon that simply resembles my layman's speech, but aren't ALL mousetraps automated (unless you want to call a cat a mousetrap)? I mean, when I think non-automated, I'm thinking a box propped up on a stick with a string tied to it...
He said raising kids, not rearing kids.
I love America and all, but if you think we haven't as a nation committed genocide then you've not read back far enough in our history.
And you haven't read enough of the actual history, as opposed to the guilt-laden watered-down version taught in American schools. What happened to the Native Americans was tragic, and there was certainly a fair amount of maliciousness involved, but nothing near the scale institutionalized genocide would imply. The population decline of the Native Americans is far more attributable to: "virgin soil" phenomenon of disease transmission and culture clash - their society could not compete on an economic scale with Western society, which led to their inevitable decline. Their basic philosophy prevented a majority of them from being able to function in Western society, so with the destruction of their own society, they had no society in which they could live. And yes, wars and deliberate murder also happened.
Really, the greatest institutional crimes that can be lain squarely on America are those that still plague us: apathy and ignorance towards the affairs of anyone but ourselves. Many of our policies that were detrimental to the natives were not intended for that purpose; that was merely a side-effect of some other purpose. Often, it was a side-effect that was completely predictable if those at the time had bothered to even consider the natives. Then, when we actually started paying attention, and attempting to protect the natives from ourselves, we did so in an incredibly ignorant and arrogant manner that ultimately led to the rather dysfunctional dynamic we have today.
You presuppose that scripted events can't be accidentally released and that the accidental release of the article proves that it's not deliberate falsehood. Your logic is built on a foundation of sand.
We have no way of knowing what they intended to do with this article upon a successful completion of the mission: release it as deceptive propaganda or use it as a prep piece. However, I would say that the phrase "accidental release" does in fact mean that it is not "deliberate falsehood". How can I accidentally do anything deliberately?
The video in your .sig is awesome. Thanks!
Well fuck me for not finishing the thread before posting. cayenne8 posted the same damn URL, even.
Leeches were used for ages too, and they not only don't work, they do harm.
It's funny how everything always comes back around...
Or would you prefer some of the alternatives: a lawsuit costing the kid's parents money and possibly the kid's higher education or the kid throwing away his life in one fit of Internet douchebaggery down the line?
I agree that these were possible consequences, and that they are disproportionate to the offense. However, the real answer there is to fix these problems, not (possibly) create other problems via a hacked-on workaround that violates important protections. Given the weight precedence has in our legal system, it is always dangerous to make a ruling that is morally correct for the specific instance, but legally questionable as a general rule.
Principles, teachers, and members of school boards are not government employees
They are in my county. They're considered county employees, which are in turn considered state employees.
The fact of the matter is, you are free to say whatever you want, but not without consequences.
Barring things such as libel, slander, speech that causes harm, the ENTIRE POINT of "free speech" is freedom from government imposed consequences. No, my right to free speech doesn't protect me from the consequences society imposes, but if government is allowed to impose any consequences, it is government censorship. Doesn't matter that other legal avenues would probably have ended with harsher punishments, doesn't matter that the kid probably got off lighter than he deserved. If a government agency (which most schools are considered to be) can punish citizens for their speech w/o a trial during which a court of law determines that the speech strayed into territory that has been previously defined as illegal, that is the exact antithesis of free speech.