Many terrorists consider themselves "freedom fighters", but they really aren't. If you're fighting for "freedom" then you restrict yourself to legitimate military targets, and you don't kidnap and ransom people.
I don't think there's anything in the term "freedom fighter" which justifies these restrictions. You are simply trying to keep people you don't like from using a title with positive associations. People can be ruthless bastards and still desire freedom.
And the term "legitimate military target" raises another question: by whose's rules? A medieval knight would consider an enemy lord's serfs to be perfectly legitimate targets: after all, if you kill them, the enemy has a hard time keeping his army equipped. Is he a terrorist?
Well, yes, it really matters, since posters having a an identity the defining difference between an imageboard and a social network.
Let's be honest here, there are, in every walk of life, two kinds of people: Those that count and those that do not. You will quickly spot the ones that do, and you will also easily be able to discriminate a "real" message from them from a fake one. And who cares about the others?
And what happens when a griefer decides to change your friend list - which he easily can, since the server certainly can't tell you apart? Are you going to keep all it in your head? Then what does this "social network" offer that the chans don't? Or are you going to have the admins do it all manually at user's request - and thus overtax them and bring the whole service down?
High school schoolyard politics don't solve engineering problems.
If you're depending on inter-vehicle communication for safety, all it takes is an unequipped roadway participant, or a failed transceiver, to create a dangerous situation.
Yes; except that computer vision is finally reaching the point of usefulness - because the computer chips are finally reaching a significant fraction of the brainpower of a typical animal - so you can simply divide the world to objects that are responding and those that aren't, and use some basic avoidance ruleset for the latter - while telling everyone else you are, and that there is a potential danger here, and so on.
Well, to be secure, you'll want to hash your data with a standard hash algorithm, and then submit the hash to this "vash" thing. Who knows, it might actually be useful, once the actual hashing algorithm is separate from representation.
Probably somewhere between 300-500hp. It appears to be a Boeing T50/502. Although, I wouldn't imagine it's all that fast on the 1/4 mile. Turboshaft engines are designed to operate at a constant speed and are very inefficient when used like a piston engine.
That's just the matter of using the right transmission for the job. Or, failing that, a generator and an electric engine to actually turn the wheels.
Horsepowers = acceleration. If this equation does not hold, don't blame the engine.
Keep striving for mediocrity there dude! Spoken like a true PHB!
Spoken like someone who's seen a lot of people who's insistence that they're better than average turns what could be an okay end result into a farcical disaster. Just look our current economic mess as a very good example of what happens when people become obsessed with ever-increasing success.
If you can't be bothered to evaluate the person rather than jumping to conclusions based on extremely tenuous circumstantial evidence, your company would be stupid to have you reviewing any applicant.
There are so many applications for each job opening that it's impossible to evaluate them with anything but extremely tenuous circustantial evidence. Besides, does it really matter? Most people are average, and most positions can be filled just fine by the average practitioner in the field.
Probably because, in practice, communism has invariably been equated with totalitarianism. Show me one major world government that is a true communist state. China isn't. Russia isn't. Never have been and never will be.
So if China and Russia don't count as communist, where does the association with totalitarianism come from? Small-time dictatorships? Those exist as both left- and right-wing variations. Or propaganda? Could this association with totalitarianism be because it made a convenient excuse to protect American corporations foreign interests? You know, stop those eeevil commie bastards from nationalizing their own resources for the benefit of their people, rather than exporting them dirt cheap to the US?
it's microkernel architecture would make it slower than modern kernels.
Is this relevant anymore? It seems to me that the main source of slowdowns would be context switching, which would be greatly reduced on a multi-core machine - and even in the old days, my Pentium (1) managed hundreds of context switches without problems.
Besides, a Linux distro is already using a kind of microkernel structure: the X server is a separate process, despite providing a core function for most programs the user uses. And of course there's the window manager running on top of it, and every desktop environment insist on adding their own set of services too.
The fight between monolithic and microkernels is ultimately about where a line in the sand should be drawn, and just as silly as most other such fights.
To be fair, the rabid fanatical commy hunters actually caught some commies. And, the terror warriors have actually bagged some terrorists. But, the cost? Just not worth it . ..
A communist is someone who believes that the means of production should be owned by the society. A terrorist is someone who kills people to scare the rest to get his way. Why do you group these two together?
Whatever works for you, dude. Now, care to reclaim your tribe from the corporate overlords? Or was doing their bidding the part you're proud of? Or perhaps it was driving the country bankrupt, or was it really triggering the worst international financial crisis since the Great Depression that did it for you?
Perhaps you should try choosing a party based on what they represent (hint: Republicans are bloody unlikely to close tax holes for corporations) rather than treating them like sports teams? And if you can't help yourself about that, at the very least don't come out and outright state that The Party has your support, no matter what it does, okay?
What's stopping me? I'm fine. It's my friends who are not. And large concentrations of people in other states.
Are your friends and these large concentrations of people in other states rich? If they're not, are they willing to unionize and vote in socialists? Because any attempt to solve any problem in capitalism is socialist, at least from capitalist perspective.
I'm drawing a conclusion based on history.
So am I. Frankly, human history is not very nice.
Fortunately we don't have automated turrets yet.
Yes, we do. And the video is that of a toy; guess what the military has?
And if we did, they would have points of failure. The end result is a Somalian situation. The rich there don't live in the same kind of luxury and safety that the rich here do.
Technology has marched on since Somalia collapsed, and besides, it still collapsed. Also, think about it: you're comparing us to Somalia. Is that not a sign that the situation is dire indeed?
I think I'll be very old or if lucky- dead- before it all comes to pass.
It's already coming to pass. You said yourself the current economic problems are related to this.
But I do speak and vote towards a better society with shorter working hours, reasonable tariffs on products made in countries which destroy the environment (we shouldn't be allowed to purchase from them to get around our pollution laws).
Well, with Germany abandoning nuclear power I think the War on Global Warming is lost - we've already pretty much cut all other kinds of pollution well below what nature can take. We'll just have to adapt to the changes in our environment. But hey, with luck the adaptability required for that will draw out the transition to a fully automated economy so much the masses will awaken and demand their rights before its too late.
All you have to do is find the most sociopathic people you have at hand, brief them in such a way as to encourage abusive behavior, and lock them in a facility together with no access to the external world.
Do you have evidence that the people who took part in Zimbardo's experiment were particularly sociopathic? And no, it's not about not having access to the external world; it's about not having external supervision. And frankly, that's hardly surprising; hasn't every last society on Earth proven pretty much the same, time and again? That if you give people power and don't make their actions reviewable by others they'll get corrupted as all Hell? Aren't our modern societies pretty much built on the same assumption, or at least its obvious fix (make positions of power transparent)?
"Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely, and petty power corrupts all out of proportion to the actual power."
This point is interesting in that a few very early philosophers have discussed this phenomena where some seek to be leaders while others seek to be led.
There is a difference between a "master" and a "leader", just as there is a difference between a "slave" and a "follower". The difference is, roughly speaking, that masters force their slaves into serving them, while leaders serve their followers. A master is simply a parasite, while a leader is just doing a job that needs doing, just like a plumber or a cable guy is.
I believe Archimedes argued that there is a natural paradigm for slave/master and Nietze that some men are just born better.
Naturalistic fallacy is called a fallacy for a reason: it confuses that which is natural with that which is good, and simultaneously ignores the (natural for humans) desire and capability to improve upon nature. It also often reveals several misconceptions on the part of those invocing it about just what nature is and how it operates; people trying to ban dihydrogen monoxide and those advocating social darwinism would be good examples of the former and latter, respectively.
Archimedes wore clothes and lived in a house, neither of which occur naturally. He didn't catch or gather his own food, and used symbols drawn on dirt to extend his working memory beyond its natural limits. And Nietzsche has even worse problems of consistency: he divided the world into masters and slaves, with "master-morality" and "slave-morality", then argued that the latter had won; by his own standards, this should make these slaves and their morality superior, yet he cried foul.
It's unpleasant to consider, but we do live with these dichotomies to one degree or another.
No, we don't; we live with assholes who dream themselves our masters, yet sometimes are lucky enough to get a leader instead.
I don't think you need a study to allow you to "denounce the immorality of society". I'm pretty sure most people feel comfortable denouncing immorality whenever they see it.
Most people feel comfortable denouncing immorality whether it's society they see, or their own shadow. That's why you need a study, unless the problem is really obvious - and even then it's possible that it's only obvious to you.
Unites States Marines go through thirteen weeks of that stuff. It doesn't even make sense for prison operation because their goal is to rehabilitate civilians and it's not really sustainable anyway. It's too expensive, you'd have to rotate guards often because they will get weak eventually, and would require tons of training. The "prisoners" will adjust eventually. You can't permanently break someone's will and still be anywhere near the realm of merely 'questionable' ethics.
The point of Stanford Prisoner Experiment is that Joe Average is perfectly willing to go beyond merely questionable actions into unquestionably evil ones. He just needs to think that's "normal" behaviour in that situation.
As for US Marines, and all other armies as well, the whole point of "boot camp" is to break the recruit's civilian identity, so a new military one can be built. It's a vital step in training soldiers, because you can't except people who have been trained not to kill to suddenly kill - or risk getting killed themselves - just because someone tells them to.
Boot camp and prison are both examples of rites of passage, which are used to imprint new values on people as they move from one position to the next. Sadly, while the boot camp works pretty well (but there's room for improvement, now that we have decided that killing everything that moves isn't acceptable behaviour for a soldier), prison doesn't: oh, it imprints a new identity all right, one of a career criminal - or rather, it reinforces an already existing career criminal identity. The problem with changing this, of course, is that it takes extreme circumstances to re-imprint someone's personality; boot camp can deliver them because it's voluntary (in countries where army is mandatory, it typically doesn't, at least not for lasting effect), but a prison can't, because that would be inhuman - but then again, so is essentially conditioning someone to act in ways destructive to himself and others for the rest of his life.
I think we should start paying serious attention to this problem. To put it bluntly, we should start researching brain-washing, specifically how, why and when humans alter their value systems. It has risks, but it also has potential benefits; the question is, which outweights which?
Hungry people tend to get violent and take desperate actions. You can't imprison 10% of your population.
What's stopping you? Aren't most dictatorships basically giant open-air prisons? And aren't unemployed already basically treated as criminals on probation?
The catch is, it's great if you have 20 employees doing the work of 1000. It falls apart when no one else hires those 980 people. Being productive doesn't help if there is no market for your product.
What happens is that the rich barter amongst themselves and live in even more luxury, the lucky 20 serfs get thrown enough scraps to survive (until their jobs are also automated), and the 980 get the choice between starving to death or taking on automated turrets. Or, if they're really lucky, they'll be allowed to farm land owned by the elite, for this which the latter will no doubt consider themselves as great humanitarians.
Automation in a capitalist society means more and more people are removed from the economy entirely. We either move to a new economical system, or accept that the future will be a nightmare for the vast majority of us.
But the thing is, people groping children is utterly senseless and, to many people, disgusting. There is no way to defend or condone it.
Well... If we assume you're an evil lunatic/holy warrior willing to blow up a plane which has children on board, therefore killing them all, why wouldn't you have a child carry the equipment?
If you do screening, you can't leave a category of people out of it, otherwise it's useless. It may or may not be useless anyway, but that's another question; if you decide it is, you either do it to all, or remove that potential usefulness. And at that point you have to weight the evil and probability of little kids dying amongst flaming wreckage vs the evil of someone seeing them naked in a scanner and/or pat-searching them.
The problem is, if $ONLINE_SELLER doesn't have a physical location in your state, then they are NOT your "neighbor". They have zero responsibility to pay taxes in your state, because they are not receiving any services from that state.
Sure they are: they can only sell to you, because your state has enough functional infrastructure for you to make the purhcase and them to deliver the goods. Additionally, since your states share a currency, they benefit from your state enforcing anti-counterfeiting laws - and speaking of that, Amazon probably wouldn't like to compete with a piratical bookseller, now would it?
Suppose you go on a web site, and buy a $widget from some guy in Russia. He sends it to you through snail-mail, and you get it a month later. All you paid was the price of the item, plus $3 shipping (or whatever). Do you think this Russian guy is obligated to send payment for sales tax in to your state's government? Why? Why should he have any obligation to make a payment to a foreign government over a law they have, which doesn't affect him since he's never set foot in your country, let alone your state?
What you describe is true enough, and a huge problem with free trade: since foreigners are out of your government's reach, they can dodge its taxes, giving them an unfair advantage. This, then, twists the market to the detriment of everyone - but the short-term benefits are such that people do it anyway.
That's why I oppose free trade, and instead propose a model where tolls are used to balance these problems, so that sellers compete on their actual merits, not on whether they can dodge taxes or not.
It's no different when you buy an item from someone in another state. If your state wants to charge taxes on things purchased out-of-state, that's what use taxes are for. If they can't effectively enforce use taxes, that's their problem. They can't force people in other states (or countries) to police their own citizens for them.
So I guess this leaves US member states with all the drawbacks (can't enforce laws in other states) and none of the benefits (can't use tolls) of being sovereign states. You do realize what the obvious solution to that is, right?
Slashdot Mirror
I don't think there's anything in the term "freedom fighter" which justifies these restrictions. You are simply trying to keep people you don't like from using a title with positive associations. People can be ruthless bastards and still desire freedom.
And the term "legitimate military target" raises another question: by whose's rules? A medieval knight would consider an enemy lord's serfs to be perfectly legitimate targets: after all, if you kill them, the enemy has a hard time keeping his army equipped. Is he a terrorist?
Well, yes, it really matters, since posters having a an identity the defining difference between an imageboard and a social network.
And what happens when a griefer decides to change your friend list - which he easily can, since the server certainly can't tell you apart? Are you going to keep all it in your head? Then what does this "social network" offer that the chans don't? Or are you going to have the admins do it all manually at user's request - and thus overtax them and bring the whole service down?
High school schoolyard politics don't solve engineering problems.
If you're depending on inter-vehicle communication for safety, all it takes is an unequipped roadway participant, or a failed transceiver, to create a dangerous situation.
Yes; except that computer vision is finally reaching the point of usefulness - because the computer chips are finally reaching a significant fraction of the brainpower of a typical animal - so you can simply divide the world to objects that are responding and those that aren't, and use some basic avoidance ruleset for the latter - while telling everyone else you are, and that there is a potential danger here, and so on.
Neither can the lawyers, which is why it'll never become. And it it does, well... it'll give a whole new meaning to the Blue Screen of Death!
Which, in turn, means that the lawyers were actually saving human lives. That kinda boggles the mind.
As long as I get to weld feet-long hardened steel spikes fitted with explosive heads on my rear bumber first, I'm all for it.
And, just for good measure, on the front bumber as well. Just in case some fucker going under the speed limit brakes needlesly.
Well, to be secure, you'll want to hash your data with a standard hash algorithm, and then submit the hash to this "vash" thing. Who knows, it might actually be useful, once the actual hashing algorithm is separate from representation.
That's just the matter of using the right transmission for the job. Or, failing that, a generator and an electric engine to actually turn the wheels.
Horsepowers = acceleration. If this equation does not hold, don't blame the engine.
All Slashdot stories are trolls, for they all bait for comments and pageviews.
Spoken like someone who's seen a lot of people who's insistence that they're better than average turns what could be an okay end result into a farcical disaster. Just look our current economic mess as a very good example of what happens when people become obsessed with ever-increasing success.
According to Google, that's 1.537 euros/litre. Here in Finland, it's 1.58-1.60 and rising. So no, you're not the worst in Europe, Finland is.
There are so many applications for each job opening that it's impossible to evaluate them with anything but extremely tenuous circustantial evidence. Besides, does it really matter? Most people are average, and most positions can be filled just fine by the average practitioner in the field.
So if China and Russia don't count as communist, where does the association with totalitarianism come from? Small-time dictatorships? Those exist as both left- and right-wing variations. Or propaganda? Could this association with totalitarianism be because it made a convenient excuse to protect American corporations foreign interests? You know, stop those eeevil commie bastards from nationalizing their own resources for the benefit of their people, rather than exporting them dirt cheap to the US?
Is this relevant anymore? It seems to me that the main source of slowdowns would be context switching, which would be greatly reduced on a multi-core machine - and even in the old days, my Pentium (1) managed hundreds of context switches without problems.
Besides, a Linux distro is already using a kind of microkernel structure: the X server is a separate process, despite providing a core function for most programs the user uses. And of course there's the window manager running on top of it, and every desktop environment insist on adding their own set of services too.
The fight between monolithic and microkernels is ultimately about where a line in the sand should be drawn, and just as silly as most other such fights.
A communist is someone who believes that the means of production should be owned by the society. A terrorist is someone who kills people to scare the rest to get his way. Why do you group these two together?
Whatever works for you, dude. Now, care to reclaim your tribe from the corporate overlords? Or was doing their bidding the part you're proud of? Or perhaps it was driving the country bankrupt, or was it really triggering the worst international financial crisis since the Great Depression that did it for you?
Perhaps you should try choosing a party based on what they represent (hint: Republicans are bloody unlikely to close tax holes for corporations) rather than treating them like sports teams? And if you can't help yourself about that, at the very least don't come out and outright state that The Party has your support, no matter what it does, okay?
Are your friends and these large concentrations of people in other states rich? If they're not, are they willing to unionize and vote in socialists? Because any attempt to solve any problem in capitalism is socialist, at least from capitalist perspective.
So am I. Frankly, human history is not very nice.
Yes, we do. And the video is that of a toy; guess what the military has?
Technology has marched on since Somalia collapsed, and besides, it still collapsed. Also, think about it: you're comparing us to Somalia. Is that not a sign that the situation is dire indeed?
It's already coming to pass. You said yourself the current economic problems are related to this.
Well, with Germany abandoning nuclear power I think the War on Global Warming is lost - we've already pretty much cut all other kinds of pollution well below what nature can take. We'll just have to adapt to the changes in our environment. But hey, with luck the adaptability required for that will draw out the transition to a fully automated economy so much the masses will awaken and demand their rights before its too late.
One can hope, at least.
Do you have evidence that the people who took part in Zimbardo's experiment were particularly sociopathic? And no, it's not about not having access to the external world; it's about not having external supervision. And frankly, that's hardly surprising; hasn't every last society on Earth proven pretty much the same, time and again? That if you give people power and don't make their actions reviewable by others they'll get corrupted as all Hell? Aren't our modern societies pretty much built on the same assumption, or at least its obvious fix (make positions of power transparent)?
"Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely, and petty power corrupts all out of proportion to the actual power."
There is a difference between a "master" and a "leader", just as there is a difference between a "slave" and a "follower". The difference is, roughly speaking, that masters force their slaves into serving them, while leaders serve their followers. A master is simply a parasite, while a leader is just doing a job that needs doing, just like a plumber or a cable guy is.
Naturalistic fallacy is called a fallacy for a reason: it confuses that which is natural with that which is good, and simultaneously ignores the (natural for humans) desire and capability to improve upon nature. It also often reveals several misconceptions on the part of those invocing it about just what nature is and how it operates; people trying to ban dihydrogen monoxide and those advocating social darwinism would be good examples of the former and latter, respectively.
Archimedes wore clothes and lived in a house, neither of which occur naturally. He didn't catch or gather his own food, and used symbols drawn on dirt to extend his working memory beyond its natural limits. And Nietzsche has even worse problems of consistency: he divided the world into masters and slaves, with "master-morality" and "slave-morality", then argued that the latter had won; by his own standards, this should make these slaves and their morality superior, yet he cried foul.
No, we don't; we live with assholes who dream themselves our masters, yet sometimes are lucky enough to get a leader instead.
Most people feel comfortable denouncing immorality whether it's society they see, or their own shadow. That's why you need a study, unless the problem is really obvious - and even then it's possible that it's only obvious to you.
The point of Stanford Prisoner Experiment is that Joe Average is perfectly willing to go beyond merely questionable actions into unquestionably evil ones. He just needs to think that's "normal" behaviour in that situation.
As for US Marines, and all other armies as well, the whole point of "boot camp" is to break the recruit's civilian identity, so a new military one can be built. It's a vital step in training soldiers, because you can't except people who have been trained not to kill to suddenly kill - or risk getting killed themselves - just because someone tells them to.
Boot camp and prison are both examples of rites of passage, which are used to imprint new values on people as they move from one position to the next. Sadly, while the boot camp works pretty well (but there's room for improvement, now that we have decided that killing everything that moves isn't acceptable behaviour for a soldier), prison doesn't: oh, it imprints a new identity all right, one of a career criminal - or rather, it reinforces an already existing career criminal identity. The problem with changing this, of course, is that it takes extreme circumstances to re-imprint someone's personality; boot camp can deliver them because it's voluntary (in countries where army is mandatory, it typically doesn't, at least not for lasting effect), but a prison can't, because that would be inhuman - but then again, so is essentially conditioning someone to act in ways destructive to himself and others for the rest of his life.
I think we should start paying serious attention to this problem. To put it bluntly, we should start researching brain-washing, specifically how, why and when humans alter their value systems. It has risks, but it also has potential benefits; the question is, which outweights which?
What's stopping you? Aren't most dictatorships basically giant open-air prisons? And aren't unemployed already basically treated as criminals on probation?
What happens is that the rich barter amongst themselves and live in even more luxury, the lucky 20 serfs get thrown enough scraps to survive (until their jobs are also automated), and the 980 get the choice between starving to death or taking on automated turrets. Or, if they're really lucky, they'll be allowed to farm land owned by the elite, for this which the latter will no doubt consider themselves as great humanitarians.
Automation in a capitalist society means more and more people are removed from the economy entirely. We either move to a new economical system, or accept that the future will be a nightmare for the vast majority of us.
I dunno, would you abort a certain-death suicide mission because you might be caught and thrown to prison?
They did.
Well... If we assume you're an evil lunatic/holy warrior willing to blow up a plane which has children on board, therefore killing them all, why wouldn't you have a child carry the equipment?
If you do screening, you can't leave a category of people out of it, otherwise it's useless. It may or may not be useless anyway, but that's another question; if you decide it is, you either do it to all, or remove that potential usefulness. And at that point you have to weight the evil and probability of little kids dying amongst flaming wreckage vs the evil of someone seeing them naked in a scanner and/or pat-searching them.
Sure they are: they can only sell to you, because your state has enough functional infrastructure for you to make the purhcase and them to deliver the goods. Additionally, since your states share a currency, they benefit from your state enforcing anti-counterfeiting laws - and speaking of that, Amazon probably wouldn't like to compete with a piratical bookseller, now would it?
What you describe is true enough, and a huge problem with free trade: since foreigners are out of your government's reach, they can dodge its taxes, giving them an unfair advantage. This, then, twists the market to the detriment of everyone - but the short-term benefits are such that people do it anyway.
That's why I oppose free trade, and instead propose a model where tolls are used to balance these problems, so that sellers compete on their actual merits, not on whether they can dodge taxes or not.
So I guess this leaves US member states with all the drawbacks (can't enforce laws in other states) and none of the benefits (can't use tolls) of being sovereign states. You do realize what the obvious solution to that is, right?