What about those of us that don't want to be "improved"? Will our choice basically be the same as the handful of honest baseball players that didn't take steroids? Watch ourselves fall further and further behind until we become a permanent underclass or open conflict ensues?
I'm not particularly religious but I get very nervous when people start to talk about "improving" the human race.
Post WWII, I'd say Adm. Rickover is the only one who really had any completely autonomous control of any part of the military. He had his little fiefdom in the Nuclear Navy
Eh, say what you will about Rickover but he built a pretty impressive nuclear training system and operational doctrine. The US Navy has over 5,000 "reactor-years" of operation without a single accident. I've often wondered what he could have done if he had been placed in charge of the civilian nuclear program. Three Mile Island never would have happened on his watch -- and who knows where we might be with nuclear power if not for the public rejection of it after TMI?
At which point Wikipedia will presumably be bought by the History Channel.
You mean the Hitler channel?;) That's what we used to call it. Go back about 5-6 years and all History ran was specials about WW2 -- most of which focused on the Western Front, cuz god knows there wasn't any other story to WW2 besides D-Day and the Allied drive across the Rhine. No Eastern Front, no Pacific War, no Winter War, no Italian campaign. It was all decided in France and Germany.... or at least that was the impression you got after watching some of those old shows for a few weeks.
Then again what do I care? I get all those things plus high speed internet access when I'm deployed in Iraq. Army, eat your heart out, I'll curl up in my queen size bed and take a nap.
I grew up as an Army-brat and never quite understood why the other services have no respect for the Air Force..... until now;)
I'd agree with that in the context of Obama's trip to Europe but I have no problem with taxpayer dollars going to send him (or McCain) to Iraq and/or Afghanistan.
Do you really see it as a waste of taxpayer dollars to give the candidates (or our other elected officials for that matter) a view of the war that they will have to contend with once in office?
I don't remember Congress getting upset when Homeland Security funds were being spent by cities and towns on such things as new garbage trucks and redecorating the mayors' offices.
Don't you see that if we are driving around in old garbage trucks that the terrorists have won?
We've already hit the point of comfort women [dailymail.com]. Nothing surprises me now.
Oh give me a fucking break. You are comparing three women who were raped by their co-workers to the Japanese comfort women of WW2? Were those women kidnapped by our military and forced into that role with the approval of our Government? No? Then it's a bullshit comparison and little better than a bad Nazi reference.
(Imaging riding for 8 hours in a C-17 sitting on a jump seat like a paratrooper instead.)
I'd rather do that than deal with the anal-probing TSA officers that we get to contend with when we fly civil aviation.
In fact, I'll bet that some of the people in congress who sought to deny the Air Force the permission to spend the funds that way are some of the very same people who have complained or berated Air Force crews about the accommodations.
That still doesn't justify the military ignoring a lawful mandate from Congress. Particularly when we are fighting two wars and running up massive deficits to do so. I don't know how much these things cost but I do find it pretty disgusting that the USAF is going to spend money on them when we are having problems getting enough equipment (body armor anyone?) to our troops on the ground.
These people who are saying no to the spending will be the same people using it next month.
And how exactly does that justify the military ignoring a mandate from Congress? I thought we were supposed to have civilian control of the military in this country?
GP's post seems to imply that he's so used to the problem that he doesn't even want to hear about it anymore. That's the equivalent of just giving up and letting politicians and government people do whatever they want
Actually I think his post implies that this isn't really on-topic for the typical/. story. How is this related to technology?
Now I don't have a problem with/. expanding the scope of what they cover but don't imply that the OP is so disillusioned that he "doesn't want to hear it anymore".
Promotion? How about a kick ass demotion to corporal (or the equivalent) followed by a dishonerable discharge?
Someone correct me if I'm wrong but my understanding is that officers receive a commission directly (well, in theory) from the President and couldn't be demoted to the enlisted ranks. They could have that commission revoked by POTUS but I'm not sure that Congress could do it -- though they could hold-up/refuse promotions over this as somebody already pointed out.
Yes it would, because the lowest in your nation is still much higher than the highest in mine [www.gc.ca]
And your point is?
Murder is not self defense, it is an offensive strategy
Please look up the definition of the word "murder" before using it in this context. Murder is defined as the unlawful killing of a human being by another human being. If I kill you while you are in the process of breaking into my house (or trying to kill me) that's not murder.
Why do you have to "blow someone away" to defend yourself?
Because if it comes down to him or me it's damn well not going to be me.
Are you talking about defending yourself with lethal force? Or defending your personal property with lethal force?
I would look at it as defending myself. If someone breaks into my house I'm not going to stop and ask them if they are here to murder me or just to steal my stuff. If I happened to come home while my house was in the process of being robbed I wouldn't come out of my car shooting -- I'd drive away and call the police. But if I'm home and I hear somebody breaking down my door or crawling through the window I'm going to assume that they have hostile intent towards my person and respond accordingly.
Actually we are among the lowest in the nation but I suspect that distinction would be lost on the GP or would just be ignored as not meshing with his predefined conceptions about the United States.
but any system that requires me to refrain from using force, even if it's the last possible resort, against someone threatening me in my own home is fucking broken
Amen. I think NYS sets a reasonable standard. You are allowed to use "deadly physical force" to halt the commission of a burglary or arson against your residence. There is no requirement that you try to retreat first. For other crimes committed against yourself or your property you are only allowed to use "physical force" unless confronted with the threat of deadly force.
I've never understood those that try to advance retreat clauses. Why the hell should you have to retreat from your own home before defending yourself? There is something particularly nasty about invading someones home -- other than rape or murder I'm hard pressed to think of a worse violation.
New York State is in the USA. The USA is a special case. It has among the highest crime rates in the world. It is not a good example to point to in defending the right to blow someone away
What exactly does the crime rate have to do with being able to defend yourself? Should you not be able to defend yourself if you live in an area with low crime?
or how effective capitol punishment is
Who brought up how effective or not capital punishment is?
It is an example to point to of a system that does not work.
Depends where you live I suppose, and on the circumstances. I would say blowing someone away goes well beyond what a reasonable person would consider self defense.
New York State (hardly a red conservative state) would say otherwise. You have the right to use "deadly force" to stop someone from committing burglary or arson. You are under no obligation to try and retreat from your own residence here. For other crimes you generally only have the right to use "reasonable force" to defend yourself or your property -- i.e: you can't blow someone for spray painting your property but if they break down your door and come into your house you can.
Depends where you live. Most civilized nations have banned capitol punishment.
You betray your biases when you imply that it's not civilized to have capital punishment. I'm not the biggest fan of it in the world but that's only out of concern that innocents might be executed.
The USA is the only Western democracy that murders its own citizens.
Ya know, I have an issue with the death penalty too -- mainly the concern that you can't really reverse a wrongful conviction after the sentence has been carried out -- but calling it 'murder' is absurd.
Murder is defined as "the unlawful killing of one human by another". If you try to break into my house and I blow you away it's not murder. If the state takes your life after a jury of your peers found you guilty and decided that the crime warrants the death penalty then it's not murder either.
And the SCOTUS ruling on this was just plain retarded. You can only use the death penalty for a crime that results in the death of the victim? Personally I think the death penalty should be an option for treason and/or espionage. Hell I'd rather see it used for those crimes then for your run of the mill murderers and rapists. Someone who sells out their country places all three hundred million of us at risk and the ultimate punishment should at least be an option for them (if for no other reason than to encourage them to talk and cut a deal).
Slashdot Mirror
'm quite in favor of improving humans
What about those of us that don't want to be "improved"? Will our choice basically be the same as the handful of honest baseball players that didn't take steroids? Watch ourselves fall further and further behind until we become a permanent underclass or open conflict ensues?
I'm not particularly religious but I get very nervous when people start to talk about "improving" the human race.
Some people might be feeling nostalgic and remember life in down-town Tokyo or New York or something, but just want to live in a new neighbourhood.
Or Beijing?
What is all-important is the composition of Venus' atmosphere, which is largely made up of C02 and other greenhouse forcing gases.
What does CO2 have to do with planetary warming? I thought that was still a theory? ;)
Batman shot first.
The U.S. Congress can't tell the military to do anything directly. Only the President can. This "lawful mandate" isn't.
No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law
Post WWII, I'd say Adm. Rickover is the only one who really had any completely autonomous control of any part of the military. He had his little fiefdom in the Nuclear Navy
Eh, say what you will about Rickover but he built a pretty impressive nuclear training system and operational doctrine. The US Navy has over 5,000 "reactor-years" of operation without a single accident. I've often wondered what he could have done if he had been placed in charge of the civilian nuclear program. Three Mile Island never would have happened on his watch -- and who knows where we might be with nuclear power if not for the public rejection of it after TMI?
At which point Wikipedia will presumably be bought by the History Channel.
You mean the Hitler channel? ;) That's what we used to call it. Go back about 5-6 years and all History ran was specials about WW2 -- most of which focused on the Western Front, cuz god knows there wasn't any other story to WW2 besides D-Day and the Allied drive across the Rhine. No Eastern Front, no Pacific War, no Winter War, no Italian campaign. It was all decided in France and Germany.... or at least that was the impression you got after watching some of those old shows for a few weeks.
Then again what do I care? I get all those things plus high speed internet access when I'm deployed in Iraq. Army, eat your heart out, I'll curl up in my queen size bed and take a nap.
I grew up as an Army-brat and never quite understood why the other services have no respect for the Air Force..... until now ;)
What about fluoride filters for the generals' water? Did you ever think of that?
Fluoride is still an issue for USAF Generals? I thought we defeated the Reds back in the early 90s? ;)
he costs should be borne by their campaigns.
I'd agree with that in the context of Obama's trip to Europe but I have no problem with taxpayer dollars going to send him (or McCain) to Iraq and/or Afghanistan.
Do you really see it as a waste of taxpayer dollars to give the candidates (or our other elected officials for that matter) a view of the war that they will have to contend with once in office?
I don't remember Congress getting upset when Homeland Security funds were being spent by cities and towns on such things as new garbage trucks and redecorating the mayors' offices.
Don't you see that if we are driving around in old garbage trucks that the terrorists have won?
Even if it is hypocrisy I'm hard pressed to see that as justification for the USAF to ignore a lawful Congressional mandate.
So why can't the USAF have something similar?
Because Congress told them no and in this country Congress has the power to regulate how taxpayer dollars are spent?
We've already hit the point of comfort women [dailymail.com]. Nothing surprises me now.
Oh give me a fucking break. You are comparing three women who were raped by their co-workers to the Japanese comfort women of WW2? Were those women kidnapped by our military and forced into that role with the approval of our Government? No? Then it's a bullshit comparison and little better than a bad Nazi reference.
(Imaging riding for 8 hours in a C-17 sitting on a jump seat like a paratrooper instead.)
I'd rather do that than deal with the anal-probing TSA officers that we get to contend with when we fly civil aviation.
In fact, I'll bet that some of the people in congress who sought to deny the Air Force the permission to spend the funds that way are some of the very same people who have complained or berated Air Force crews about the accommodations.
That still doesn't justify the military ignoring a lawful mandate from Congress. Particularly when we are fighting two wars and running up massive deficits to do so. I don't know how much these things cost but I do find it pretty disgusting that the USAF is going to spend money on them when we are having problems getting enough equipment (body armor anyone?) to our troops on the ground.
These people who are saying no to the spending will be the same people using it next month.
And how exactly does that justify the military ignoring a mandate from Congress? I thought we were supposed to have civilian control of the military in this country?
GP's post seems to imply that he's so used to the problem that he doesn't even want to hear about it anymore. That's the equivalent of just giving up and letting politicians and government people do whatever they want
Actually I think his post implies that this isn't really on-topic for the typical /. story. How is this related to technology?
Now I don't have a problem with /. expanding the scope of what they cover but don't imply that the OP is so disillusioned that he "doesn't want to hear it anymore".
Promotion? How about a kick ass demotion to corporal (or the equivalent) followed by a dishonerable discharge?
Someone correct me if I'm wrong but my understanding is that officers receive a commission directly (well, in theory) from the President and couldn't be demoted to the enlisted ranks. They could have that commission revoked by POTUS but I'm not sure that Congress could do it -- though they could hold-up/refuse promotions over this as somebody already pointed out.
Yeah, I really hate it when the summary gets /.'ed. Thanks for mirroring that for us AC!
Yes it would, because the lowest in your nation is still much higher than the highest in mine [www.gc.ca]
And your point is?
Murder is not self defense, it is an offensive strategy
Please look up the definition of the word "murder" before using it in this context. Murder is defined as the unlawful killing of a human being by another human being. If I kill you while you are in the process of breaking into my house (or trying to kill me) that's not murder.
Why do you have to "blow someone away" to defend yourself?
Because if it comes down to him or me it's damn well not going to be me.
Are you talking about defending yourself with lethal force? Or defending your personal property with lethal force?
I would look at it as defending myself. If someone breaks into my house I'm not going to stop and ask them if they are here to murder me or just to steal my stuff. If I happened to come home while my house was in the process of being robbed I wouldn't come out of my car shooting -- I'd drive away and call the police. But if I'm home and I hear somebody breaking down my door or crawling through the window I'm going to assume that they have hostile intent towards my person and respond accordingly.
New York may have high crime rates
Actually we are among the lowest in the nation but I suspect that distinction would be lost on the GP or would just be ignored as not meshing with his predefined conceptions about the United States.
but any system that requires me to refrain from using force, even if it's the last possible resort, against someone threatening me in my own home is fucking broken
Amen. I think NYS sets a reasonable standard. You are allowed to use "deadly physical force" to halt the commission of a burglary or arson against your residence. There is no requirement that you try to retreat first. For other crimes committed against yourself or your property you are only allowed to use "physical force" unless confronted with the threat of deadly force.
I've never understood those that try to advance retreat clauses. Why the hell should you have to retreat from your own home before defending yourself? There is something particularly nasty about invading someones home -- other than rape or murder I'm hard pressed to think of a worse violation.
New York State is in the USA. The USA is a special case. It has among the highest crime rates in the world. It is not a good example to point to in defending the right to blow someone away
What exactly does the crime rate have to do with being able to defend yourself? Should you not be able to defend yourself if you live in an area with low crime?
or how effective capitol punishment is
Who brought up how effective or not capital punishment is?
It is an example to point to of a system that does not work.
From your perspective.
you can't blow someone for spray painting
Obviously the word "away" was supposed to be in there somewhere ;)
Depends where you live I suppose, and on the circumstances. I would say blowing someone away goes well beyond what a reasonable person would consider self defense.
New York State (hardly a red conservative state) would say otherwise. You have the right to use "deadly force" to stop someone from committing burglary or arson. You are under no obligation to try and retreat from your own residence here. For other crimes you generally only have the right to use "reasonable force" to defend yourself or your property -- i.e: you can't blow someone for spray painting your property but if they break down your door and come into your house you can.
Depends where you live. Most civilized nations have banned capitol punishment.
You betray your biases when you imply that it's not civilized to have capital punishment. I'm not the biggest fan of it in the world but that's only out of concern that innocents might be executed.
The USA is the only Western democracy that murders its own citizens.
Ya know, I have an issue with the death penalty too -- mainly the concern that you can't really reverse a wrongful conviction after the sentence has been carried out -- but calling it 'murder' is absurd.
Murder is defined as "the unlawful killing of one human by another". If you try to break into my house and I blow you away it's not murder. If the state takes your life after a jury of your peers found you guilty and decided that the crime warrants the death penalty then it's not murder either.
And the SCOTUS ruling on this was just plain retarded. You can only use the death penalty for a crime that results in the death of the victim? Personally I think the death penalty should be an option for treason and/or espionage. Hell I'd rather see it used for those crimes then for your run of the mill murderers and rapists. Someone who sells out their country places all three hundred million of us at risk and the ultimate punishment should at least be an option for them (if for no other reason than to encourage them to talk and cut a deal).