Depends what you mean by treating people as terrorists. Extra security precautions? Extra attention with monitoring?
Nobody really knows how terrorism is created, but the idea that monitoring innocent people encourages sympathy toward terrorism doesn't seem likely to me. It's like saying extra background checks for sex crimes for priests is encouraging pedophilia.
What you seem to me to be presupposing is that there is no problem in the Muslim community that even needs to be addressed.
I'm talking about profiling an entire people and treating them with suspicion and distrust because
As to "nobody really knows how terrorism is created", that's just foolish. Poverty, lack of opportunity, a politically oppressing force, and inequality of power necessitating a "terrorist" approach to changing those things.
There is a definite effort to make protest effectively impossible. You only have to go on a protest to see the unsmiling police trying to intimidate people by thrusting video cameras in their face to record them. It's just an intimidation tactic. And then there is the way police will "kettle" people, i.e. confine them to small areas and blockade them in. Again, it's a technique designed to discourage people from protesting by coercion. The clearest examples are the use of planted agents trying to actually cause illegal behaviour (sometimes by doing illegal things themselves). Such a tactic makes no sense if you are trying to prevent crime, but makes perfect sense if you have a priori decided that a certain group are the enemy and view their not committing crimes as an inconvenience that has to be found a way past.
All those face down helmets - they're not really for protection (or very rarely), they're about making the policemen in front of you an impersonal force and enforcing an "us and them" mentality between protestors and the police (just in case the police, who are mostly as decent human beings as anyone else, should be prone to peacefully interacting on a level, rather than as unquestionable authority).
So much of the behaviour only makes sense from this point of view and not from that of crime prevention.
To hire someone whose such an obvious enemy of much of the online community
The "online community" now consists of just about everybody other than your grandparents. And actually in my experience, includes large numbers of grandparents at that. Don't think you're speaking on behalf of "the online community" when you take a position pro-copyright infringement. At least I assume that is the position you are taking when you refer to him as an "enemy"?
And if there is a negative consequence to treating 174,999 people as terrorists, for example, creating alienation and encouraging sympathy toward terrorism, you just factor that out do you?
"Which group, in the last 50 years, has targeted and killed more people who they believe pose no threat to them."
Well at the national level, surely that has to be the USA. No country has had a more stark contrast between the likelihood of anyone invading them vs. the amount of wars they have engaged in.
For example, I could point to estimates for Saddam Hussein's ethnic cleansing in 1991, alone, of (estimated) 100,000 Kurds and 130,000 Shiites, to counter your single data point.
Saddam Hussein was hardly a strong example of being a muslim. Iraq was a secular state and Saddam was a secular leader of it who had no problem, for example, of putting Christians in positions of power. He was about as unislamic as you could find amongst the leaders of the Middle East. Using him as an example of Islamic massacres isn't a good argument.
You don't need to run around on horseback slaughtering people to reduce the population (or use guns). A fairly simple method was shown in the movies "I Am Legend", "28 Days Later", and "12 Monkeys".
I can give you a more humane and long-lasting method of population control: education, equal rights for women in society and effective birth control. Anyone who is worried about third world nations outbreeding the West, should be focused on fostering these things in those nations.
Well, I'm a male who has never lied to get laid, but maybe that explains why I rarely get laid.
But what lies could you tell that would help? That you're rich? That you don't actually have a girlfriend? The former is kind of a short-term tactic and hard to pull off unless you are willing to live way beyond your means. Cheating on your partner (a) has consequences and (b) is presumably unnecessary as you're already having sex with someone you want to be with. Really, lying to get sex is a pretty bad idea as well as being a pretty horrible thing to do.
sure, but if lying to get laid is a crime, you might as well lock up every male on the planet..
Not every male has to lie to get sex. In fact, I don't think many do. So maybe you actually are in a minority of reprehensible males who try to get sex by deceit.
You must have missed that incident where a bunch of London cops murdered a Brazilian electrician in the tube(subway).
Now technically that was still illegal. The court just said we weren't allowed to prosecute them. I really feel for the poor family of that man. They eventually managed to bring some charges under the Health and Safety act and got the police a light slap on the wrist as I recall. Making the UK a laughing stock to the rest of the world.
Most protesters don't try to harm people, just property.
Errr, actually most protest just protest with placards and marches. Those that smash things up are a minority, even in the cases of protests that blur into riots like those in France not so long ago.
Note that if you read TFAs, the police were using sex to infiltrate "anti-racist groups". Oh the humanity!
And as to trying to provoke illegal behaviour, everybody knows (or should know) that the Met (London Metropolitan Police Force) do this. A reporter from the Guardian a few years back actually caught a policeman undercover showing some protestors how to unhook the police barriers and trying to get others to charge the police. And a Member of Parliament last year states that he saw two undercover police officers trying to lead people into throwing bottles at the police link. These are just the ones that are in the mainstream news. You have to ask yourself how it is that in a protest of hundreds of thousands of people, sometimes over a million, where over the course of an entire day there are perhaps three or four notable incidents of vandalism, it is that a few press photographers are always in the right place and time to grab the pictures of a few balaclaved men kicking in the windows of a McDonalds or somesuch. The intelligence services in the UK even infiltrated the Green Party. Note to Americans, the Green Parties in Europe are not the equivalent of those in the US. The UK Greens have an MP elected and do reasonably well at the council level, and in Germany and others, they're respectable groups. But in the UK, legitimate parties are fair game for undercover infiltration / subversion.
If you want to see some despicable behaviour, witness the police dragging a disabled man out of his wheel chair at a recent protest. Really - it's worth watching the BBC interview with the victim. Note the police claim that he was rolling toward them threateningly. The guy can't even move his wheels on his own.
But that people in the UK have been paid to lie their way into sex with unsuspecting people, usually pretty young people at that, seems there's nothing the UK authorities wont sink to.
The impossibility of regulating the internet is what allows us the freedoms we at Slashdot love so much, but the price of this is that it's largely unpoliceable.
And I regard the price as acceptable so far. We take a few knocks and we keep on going. I'd rather that than lock ourselves in some little cell of monitored and controlled connections for the sake of supposed protection. A prison will protect you from a lot of the dangers of outside life, but you still don't want to make your life a prison.
Simple. It matters what's in front of you and not so much what's below you. In other words, its more important to see where you're going rather than where you've been.
I didn't say the cockpit should be behind, though, I said underneath. Isn't being able to see forward and down, better than being able to see forward and up?
So why on Earth are planes designed so that pilots sit above the nose and can't see down, instead of below the nose and can't see up? Is it some psychological hang-up of the species that thinks you can only be in control of something if you're riding on top of it, or that being high-up has to mean you have the best view? Is it a prestige thing? Pilots should be under the nose so they can see what's below them. It doesn't matter how high up you go, you're not going to crash into anything (like what, the ISS?) but you do want to be able to see the ground below because the ground is hard.
Anybody on here designing the next generation of passenger jets? The gate^H^H^H^H target is down, gentlemen.
Regarding the binning of all those home routers... You know it occurs to me that if you accept the following two statements, there's a disturbing conclusion:
Statement #1: IPv6 was too obscure to be a selling point for routers for the past decade.
Statement #2: Routers typically last for ages, so large-scale re-buying of routers in a mostly saturated market, is a rare event for the manufacturers that would make fortunes from it.
Conclusion: It has been in the router manufacturers' best financial interests to deploy IPv6 support at the last possible minute in order to maximise profits from selling replacement models.
What router do you use? The one that I have doesn't support it and the one I was looking to replace it with, when I emailed the company, didn't support it either. I had though it might because it was an expensive 1Gb/s one, but apparently it's still not standard.
If people's home routers don't support this, then we have more of a problem than just trying to get the ISPs to provide it. There are a lot of routers out there.
A fair point fairly put. I thought you were just being snarky for snark's sake, but I see there is a supportable rationale behind it. And actually I agree. Being someone who purchases a number of digital products, I can relate to what you're saying.
I think the context makes clear that he meant downloading from an agent other than one with the legal right to distribute that MP3. I also think you probably knew that.
I fully agree. But I consciously wrote "nation" because the poll was explicitly American. I find it hard to imagine George W. Bush placing second in France or Germany (or Iraq) for example. It was a poll for Americans, by Americans.
Slashdot Mirror
Depends what you mean by treating people as terrorists. Extra security precautions? Extra attention with monitoring?
Nobody really knows how terrorism is created, but the idea that monitoring innocent people encourages sympathy toward terrorism doesn't seem likely to me. It's like saying extra background checks for sex crimes for priests is encouraging pedophilia.
What you seem to me to be presupposing is that there is no problem in the Muslim community that even needs to be addressed.
I'm talking about profiling an entire people and treating them with suspicion and distrust because
As to "nobody really knows how terrorism is created", that's just foolish. Poverty, lack of opportunity, a politically oppressing force, and inequality of power necessitating a "terrorist" approach to changing those things.
There is a definite effort to make protest effectively impossible. You only have to go on a protest to see the unsmiling police trying to intimidate people by thrusting video cameras in their face to record them. It's just an intimidation tactic. And then there is the way police will "kettle" people, i.e. confine them to small areas and blockade them in. Again, it's a technique designed to discourage people from protesting by coercion. The clearest examples are the use of planted agents trying to actually cause illegal behaviour (sometimes by doing illegal things themselves). Such a tactic makes no sense if you are trying to prevent crime, but makes perfect sense if you have a priori decided that a certain group are the enemy and view their not committing crimes as an inconvenience that has to be found a way past.
All those face down helmets - they're not really for protection (or very rarely), they're about making the policemen in front of you an impersonal force and enforcing an "us and them" mentality between protestors and the police (just in case the police, who are mostly as decent human beings as anyone else, should be prone to peacefully interacting on a level, rather than as unquestionable authority).
So much of the behaviour only makes sense from this point of view and not from that of crime prevention.
To hire someone whose such an obvious enemy of much of the online community
The "online community" now consists of just about everybody other than your grandparents. And actually in my experience, includes large numbers of grandparents at that. Don't think you're speaking on behalf of "the online community" when you take a position pro-copyright infringement. At least I assume that is the position you are taking when you refer to him as an "enemy"?
I prefer to believe that he's a good guy, overwhelmed with work and following some very bad advice.
Why?
And if there is a negative consequence to treating 174,999 people as terrorists, for example, creating alienation and encouraging sympathy toward terrorism, you just factor that out do you?
"Which group, in the last 50 years, has targeted and killed more people who they believe pose no threat to them."
Well at the national level, surely that has to be the USA. No country has had a more stark contrast between the likelihood of anyone invading them vs. the amount of wars they have engaged in.
For example, I could point to estimates for Saddam Hussein's ethnic cleansing in 1991, alone, of (estimated) 100,000 Kurds and 130,000 Shiites, to counter your single data point.
Saddam Hussein was hardly a strong example of being a muslim. Iraq was a secular state and Saddam was a secular leader of it who had no problem, for example, of putting Christians in positions of power. He was about as unislamic as you could find amongst the leaders of the Middle East. Using him as an example of Islamic massacres isn't a good argument.
You don't need to run around on horseback slaughtering people to reduce the population (or use guns). A fairly simple method was shown in the movies "I Am Legend", "28 Days Later", and "12 Monkeys".
I can give you a more humane and long-lasting method of population control: education, equal rights for women in society and effective birth control. Anyone who is worried about third world nations outbreeding the West, should be focused on fostering these things in those nations.
I see. I hadn't considered the aim of trying to sleep with someone you found uninteresting.
Well, I'm a male who has never lied to get laid, but maybe that explains why I rarely get laid.
But what lies could you tell that would help? That you're rich? That you don't actually have a girlfriend? The former is kind of a short-term tactic and hard to pull off unless you are willing to live way beyond your means. Cheating on your partner (a) has consequences and (b) is presumably unnecessary as you're already having sex with someone you want to be with. Really, lying to get sex is a pretty bad idea as well as being a pretty horrible thing to do.
sure, but if lying to get laid is a crime, you might as well lock up every male on the planet..
Not every male has to lie to get sex. In fact, I don't think many do. So maybe you actually are in a minority of reprehensible males who try to get sex by deceit.
Disclaimer: This describes the situation in Germany, and may not translate to other armies.
Sadly, I think that disclaimer is substantially more significant than you realise.
You must have missed that incident where a bunch of London cops murdered a Brazilian electrician in the tube(subway).
Now technically that was still illegal. The court just said we weren't allowed to prosecute them. I really feel for the poor family of that man. They eventually managed to bring some charges under the Health and Safety act and got the police a light slap on the wrist as I recall. Making the UK a laughing stock to the rest of the world.
Most protesters don't try to harm people, just property.
Errr, actually most protest just protest with placards and marches. Those that smash things up are a minority, even in the cases of protests that blur into riots like those in France not so long ago.
Note that if you read TFAs, the police were using sex to infiltrate "anti-racist groups". Oh the humanity!
And as to trying to provoke illegal behaviour, everybody knows (or should know) that the Met (London Metropolitan Police Force) do this. A reporter from the Guardian a few years back actually caught a policeman undercover showing some protestors how to unhook the police barriers and trying to get others to charge the police. And a Member of Parliament last year states that he saw two undercover police officers trying to lead people into throwing bottles at the police link. These are just the ones that are in the mainstream news. You have to ask yourself how it is that in a protest of hundreds of thousands of people, sometimes over a million, where over the course of an entire day there are perhaps three or four notable incidents of vandalism, it is that a few press photographers are always in the right place and time to grab the pictures of a few balaclaved men kicking in the windows of a McDonalds or somesuch. The intelligence services in the UK even infiltrated the Green Party. Note to Americans, the Green Parties in Europe are not the equivalent of those in the US. The UK Greens have an MP elected and do reasonably well at the council level, and in Germany and others, they're respectable groups. But in the UK, legitimate parties are fair game for undercover infiltration / subversion.
If you want to see some despicable behaviour, witness the police dragging a disabled man out of his wheel chair at a recent protest. Really - it's worth watching the BBC interview with the victim. Note the police claim that he was rolling toward them threateningly. The guy can't even move his wheels on his own.
But that people in the UK have been paid to lie their way into sex with unsuspecting people, usually pretty young people at that, seems there's nothing the UK authorities wont sink to.
The impossibility of regulating the internet is what allows us the freedoms we at Slashdot love so much, but the price of this is that it's largely unpoliceable.
And I regard the price as acceptable so far. We take a few knocks and we keep on going. I'd rather that than lock ourselves in some little cell of monitored and controlled connections for the sake of supposed protection. A prison will protect you from a lot of the dangers of outside life, but you still don't want to make your life a prison.
Simple. It matters what's in front of you and not so much what's below you. In other words, its more important to see where you're going rather than where you've been.
I didn't say the cockpit should be behind, though, I said underneath. Isn't being able to see forward and down, better than being able to see forward and up?
So why on Earth are planes designed so that pilots sit above the nose and can't see down, instead of below the nose and can't see up? Is it some psychological hang-up of the species that thinks you can only be in control of something if you're riding on top of it, or that being high-up has to mean you have the best view? Is it a prestige thing? Pilots should be under the nose so they can see what's below them. It doesn't matter how high up you go, you're not going to crash into anything (like what, the ISS?) but you do want to be able to see the ground below because the ground is hard.
Anybody on here designing the next generation of passenger jets? The gate^H^H^H^H target is down, gentlemen.
Regarding the binning of all those home routers... You know it occurs to me that if you accept the following two statements, there's a disturbing conclusion:
Statement #1: IPv6 was too obscure to be a selling point for routers for the past decade.
Statement #2: Routers typically last for ages, so large-scale re-buying of routers in a mostly saturated market, is a rare event for the manufacturers that would make fortunes from it.
Conclusion: It has been in the router manufacturers' best financial interests to deploy IPv6 support at the last possible minute in order to maximise profits from selling replacement models.
What router do you use? The one that I have doesn't support it and the one I was looking to replace it with, when I emailed the company, didn't support it either. I had though it might because it was an expensive 1Gb/s one, but apparently it's still not standard.
If people's home routers don't support this, then we have more of a problem than just trying to get the ISPs to provide it. There are a lot of routers out there.
The catholic church has been an institution of learning and knowledge during all^H^H^H most of it's existence.
Fixedeth that for you,
yrs
Messrs. Martin Luther & Galileo Galilei
A fair point fairly put. I thought you were just being snarky for snark's sake, but I see there is a supportable rationale behind it. And actually I agree. Being someone who purchases a number of digital products, I can relate to what you're saying.
I think the context makes clear that he meant downloading from an agent other than one with the legal right to distribute that MP3. I also think you probably knew that.
Well that's great for you if you have nothing to hide. But for everyone else, advice like this is useful.
I fully agree. But I consciously wrote "nation" because the poll was explicitly American. I find it hard to imagine George W. Bush placing second in France or Germany (or Iraq) for example. It was a poll for Americans, by Americans.