Let's face it: The times when totalitarian regimes could be toppled by "the people" are over.
No, it just raises the threshold of rage required to do so. There's a point where people, including the police, stop giving a shit and turn out into the streets. Who will enforce the dictator's will if the police aren't even willing to and everything stops?
It happened in Romania in 1989 -- Ceausescu got an unexpected Christmas present of lead and the people got freedom for Christmas.
And I'm sure that any of us on Slashdot could list half a dozen countries off the top of our heads that have long standing policies of repressing its peoples and using violence to silence dissent.
The US tops this list going back to the strikes of the 1890s and 1920s and Red Scares, going through the Civil Rights era, the War on Drugs, free speech zones in political conventions, through journalists being faced with 50+ years in prison for covering anti-Trump protests today.
Fortunately, once you're in many of said countries, they're too corrupt to be terribly effective at policing. Customs might be somewhat effective, but once you're in, things are much looser than the US or China.
People have been harassed by American cops for "jaywalking" where the nearest crosswalk was 1/4 mile away and there was no traffic. Absolutely enforced rules are bad -- zero tolerance = zero brains.
Re: your McVeigh example, I'm not going to concede that terrorists are always wrong. Though McVeigh's cause was pretty irrational:
We can thank "terrorists" for: (1) an Ireland free of British control (2) the State of Israel (the Irgun) (3) slowing down Nazi atrocities in Europe (the resistance movements were branded as "terrorists") (4) the American Revolution, for better or worse
Ultimately, I'm against technology that makes it easier for governments to crush rebellion and civil unrest, because the two are sometimes good, proper, and necessary.
Yep, I'm insane and proud of it. Sometimes, people need to have the truth rubbed in their faces. If it causes you or anyone else a bit of inconvenience, too bad. Vote for people that will change the law so people won't have to block highways to make their point.
The US already wastes a lot of money locking up 4x-5x the amount of people per capita (about 1% of adults) compared to the rest of the world. This is by design -- it keeps the rest of the people scared of stepping outside the lines.
Possible sentences of 50+ years for being a journalist who filmed a protest but didn't damage property tend to do that to people. It also serves the purpose of selectively criminalizing certain ethnic groups and making it more difficult to find jobs (with criminal records) in future.
Just an extension of Jim Crow, made for 2017 instead of 1957.
(1) It doesn't work that way -- rather than firing cops or reducing numbers via retirement, their unions will just make sure that more things are criminalized to keep them relevant. (2) Windows 8, sure? IQ 80? Nah, they'd be more likely to be a danger to the public, like those yobs in Mesa who shot a man crawling in a corridor. (3) These laws exist to keep the low-information nanny staters, petty Puritans, and do-gooders happy. You can't entirely toss them, but you can make them harder to enforce.
I wonder if there's legal remedy. If Bob's camera points into MY backyard, and sends video of it to a third party (say: Google), could I sue Bob for violating my privacy? Could I legally blind the camera with an IR emitter if a high fence isn't allowed or practical?
Problem comes when you're able to automatically or semi-automatically ID anyone committing any sort of transgression (jaywalking, public smoking, etc) and send fines. Also, make a map of people's movements -- right now, someone who wants to stay anonymous simply leaves the phone at home.
BOLO is used for serious crimes. Being able to ID people committing minor offenses will lead to a boring, rigid society, as well as being a boon for rapacious governments.
Effectively, it is. We jail people for felonies for tactics (like blocking streets) that are run-of-the-mill in more civilized countries like France. It's not a protest unless it causes a bit of discomfort -- people confined to "free speech zones" don't count.
No, it didn't. It had a sodium-cooled (liquid metal) reactor, which must have been fun to operate, considering what happens when you combine sodium + water. (Hint: pssssssssssshBOOM!)
The problem is once the cops go after the liquor store robbers, they'll start going after protesters and jaywalkers. Making their jobs harder limits the amount of idle hands available to be Satan's playthings. Fire 50% of the cops because their jobs are redundant due to increased efficiency? Doesn't work that way for parasites with powerful public employee unions behind them -- they'll figure out a way to lobby for new laws just to keep them relevant.
The kind of suit required to stop neutrons and high-energy gammas will be impossible to work in.
Not to mention that neutrons have the interesting property of inducing radioactivity in shielding material.
Actually, I think hindering technology based on policy needs can be a VERY good idea -- sometimes society is not ready for a technology. Just because we CAN, doesn't mean we SHOULD. One of the driving forces towards criminal justice reform after 2009 was the cost of policing and incarceration. Change that equation, and reform stops.
Same with self-driving cars -- they have the potential to be a privacy and surveillance nightmare.
No: the US should be concentrating on reducing the number of crimes first. Traveling with cash, possessing politically incorrect plant products, having a beer in a park, or sex between consenting adults (for money or for free) should never be illegal. The US keeping 1% of its adults incarcerated is a disgrace. No need to make this job easier for the thugs that enforce the laws.
One reason for concern: It makes it easier for police to do their work.
Snap a picture of protesters. Run it through software, ID them, pick them up at home, or next time they go to a public place with facial recognition cameras.
Police work should be difficult -- it helps make sure that cops concentrate on serious crimes, not going after protesters, "vice", or jaywalkers.
A perfectly law-abiding, perfectly controlled society where everyone is shit-scared to go outside the norm will be extremely boring and sad.
Slashdot Mirror
Let's face it: The times when totalitarian regimes could be toppled by "the people" are over.
No, it just raises the threshold of rage required to do so. There's a point where people, including the police, stop giving a shit and turn out into the streets. Who will enforce the dictator's will if the police aren't even willing to and everything stops?
It happened in Romania in 1989 -- Ceausescu got an unexpected Christmas present of lead and the people got freedom for Christmas.
Yes. I don't think civilization is totalitarianism.
Exactly, local cops in the US and the yokels that employ them are mostly money-grubbing filth.
Seawolf reactor used conventional solid fuel rods, not molten salt. Neither the coolant nor fuel were molten salt.
Molten salt involves a molten ionic compound (salt). Not a pure metal or alloy.
Back to Chem 101 wit'ch'ya.
Do you remember Space Quest ... the part with the slot machine with a laser that burned you to dust?
I think it said "YOU LOSE, HOMEBOY!"
And I'm sure that any of us on Slashdot could list half a dozen countries off the top of our heads that have long standing policies of repressing its peoples and using violence to silence dissent.
The US tops this list going back to the strikes of the 1890s and 1920s and Red Scares, going through the Civil Rights era, the War on Drugs, free speech zones in political conventions, through journalists being faced with 50+ years in prison for covering anti-Trump protests today.
Which side are you on?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Fortunately, once you're in many of said countries, they're too corrupt to be terribly effective at policing. Customs might be somewhat effective, but once you're in, things are much looser than the US or China.
People have been harassed by American cops for "jaywalking" where the nearest crosswalk was 1/4 mile away and there was no traffic. Absolutely enforced rules are bad -- zero tolerance = zero brains.
Re: your McVeigh example, I'm not going to concede that terrorists are always wrong. Though McVeigh's cause was pretty irrational:
We can thank "terrorists" for:
(1) an Ireland free of British control
(2) the State of Israel (the Irgun)
(3) slowing down Nazi atrocities in Europe (the resistance movements were branded as "terrorists")
(4) the American Revolution, for better or worse
Ultimately, I'm against technology that makes it easier for governments to crush rebellion and civil unrest, because the two are sometimes good, proper, and necessary.
Yep, I'm insane and proud of it. Sometimes, people need to have the truth rubbed in their faces. If it causes you or anyone else a bit of inconvenience, too bad. Vote for people that will change the law so people won't have to block highways to make their point.
The US already wastes a lot of money locking up 4x-5x the amount of people per capita (about 1% of adults) compared to the rest of the world. This is by design -- it keeps the rest of the people scared of stepping outside the lines.
Possible sentences of 50+ years for being a journalist who filmed a protest but didn't damage property tend to do that to people. It also serves the purpose of selectively criminalizing certain ethnic groups and making it more difficult to find jobs (with criminal records) in future.
Just an extension of Jim Crow, made for 2017 instead of 1957.
(1) It doesn't work that way -- rather than firing cops or reducing numbers via retirement, their unions will just make sure that more things are criminalized to keep them relevant.
(2) Windows 8, sure? IQ 80? Nah, they'd be more likely to be a danger to the public, like those yobs in Mesa who shot a man crawling in a corridor.
(3) These laws exist to keep the low-information nanny staters, petty Puritans, and do-gooders happy. You can't entirely toss them, but you can make them harder to enforce.
I wonder if there's legal remedy. If Bob's camera points into MY backyard, and sends video of it to a third party (say: Google), could I sue Bob for violating my privacy? Could I legally blind the camera with an IR emitter if a high fence isn't allowed or practical?
Problem comes when you're able to automatically or semi-automatically ID anyone committing any sort of transgression (jaywalking, public smoking, etc) and send fines. Also, make a map of people's movements -- right now, someone who wants to stay anonymous simply leaves the phone at home.
BOLO is used for serious crimes. Being able to ID people committing minor offenses will lead to a boring, rigid society, as well as being a boon for rapacious governments.
Effectively, it is. We jail people for felonies for tactics (like blocking streets) that are run-of-the-mill in more civilized countries like France. It's not a protest unless it causes a bit of discomfort -- people confined to "free speech zones" don't count.
In New York and Boston, maybe. In Atlanta and Phoenix, people have been literally run down and tackled for jaywalking by cop trash.
No, it didn't. It had a sodium-cooled (liquid metal) reactor, which must have been fun to operate, considering what happens when you combine sodium + water. (Hint: pssssssssssshBOOM!)
The problem is once the cops go after the liquor store robbers, they'll start going after protesters and jaywalkers. Making their jobs harder limits the amount of idle hands available to be Satan's playthings. Fire 50% of the cops because their jobs are redundant due to increased efficiency? Doesn't work that way for parasites with powerful public employee unions behind them -- they'll figure out a way to lobby for new laws just to keep them relevant.
The kind of suit required to stop neutrons and high-energy gammas will be impossible to work in. Not to mention that neutrons have the interesting property of inducing radioactivity in shielding material.
Actually, I think hindering technology based on policy needs can be a VERY good idea -- sometimes society is not ready for a technology. Just because we CAN, doesn't mean we SHOULD. One of the driving forces towards criminal justice reform after 2009 was the cost of policing and incarceration. Change that equation, and reform stops.
Same with self-driving cars -- they have the potential to be a privacy and surveillance nightmare.
That's essentially what the US Bill of Rights was intended to be -- a limit on police powers. The concept has a long history.
Sure they do, unless you want the ground crews and mechanics to die of radiation exposure.
No: the US should be concentrating on reducing the number of crimes first. Traveling with cash, possessing politically incorrect plant products, having a beer in a park, or sex between consenting adults (for money or for free) should never be illegal. The US keeping 1% of its adults incarcerated is a disgrace. No need to make this job easier for the thugs that enforce the laws.
One reason for concern:
It makes it easier for police to do their work.
Snap a picture of protesters. Run it through software, ID them, pick them up at home, or next time they go to a public place with facial recognition cameras.
Police work should be difficult -- it helps make sure that cops concentrate on serious crimes, not going after protesters, "vice", or jaywalkers.
A perfectly law-abiding, perfectly controlled society where everyone is shit-scared to go outside the norm will be extremely boring and sad.