Best is something that takes you out of commission for a while, but causes no permanent damage
From a law enforcement perspective I absolutely agree with you. From a military perspective, this is not true. You don't want to blind someone for 24 hours and have them back on the battlefield (as one example of obviously many).
I'm happy to share knowledge and ideas with you, but we should set terms and ensure that we are discussing the same subject. I posted this due to someone presenting a false military doctrine. If we attempt to merge military and law enforcement doctrines we end up with conflicting ideology in the same generalization because the goals are not compatible. Reading what you wrote above, it appears that you are trying to merge the two hence. I have concern in continuing dialogue.
Prior to typing next time, join the Military or ask a Veteran. The military taught us in boot camp why it was selected over a heavier round. Tumbling rounds are able to travel a farther distance than a hollow point round, and hold more energy at a longer distance. In two sentences you managed to fabricate two fairy tales. What an outstanding example of a moron you are, no wonder you post anonymously.
One of the primary reasons that the US Military went with a 5.56mm round instead of the standard 7.62mm is because it does not kill, it wounds people more often. Military Philosophy is that if you wound an enemy, it takes 3 soldiers out of commission and demoralizes them. The wounded soldier, a medic, and someone to carry the guy to the medic. Killing someone only takes 1 person out of commission, and will often make enrage their companions.
The convention against certain types of weapons had nothing to do with not wounding someone, it had to do with humane ways of wounding and killing people. This is why it's perfectly fine to stab someone with a smooth bayonet but you can not stab someone with a serrated bayonet, even though death from serrated bayonet was more likely. You can stitch up a wound from one pretty easily, the other is going to leave a big mess that probably won't be closable..
The type of behavior that a "tax" attempts to modify does not matter. Study history and economics. Taxes do not work, and have never worked in any history or economics system as an attempt to modify behavior. Those types of taxes only harm consumers (see slavery and force toll roads)
Or don't and continue to believe in some fantasy world that does not exist. You can believe in your fantasy, but that does not make it real and should not be expressed falsely as any reality.
A Pigovian tax is a subset of taxes claiming it will modify a specific behavior. You somehow believe that it will work, even though taxes have never changed any other subset of bad/immoral business behavior. In general terms, your pigovian tax is no different than a slavery tax and would bring the same result. No end of bad behavior, just higher cost to consumers and increased revenue for the people that own the companies behaving badly.
As stated, taxes are not enforced regulation. Historical attempts to use taxes as enforced regulations have all failed.
But you still took the opportunity to take a shot at Obama and talk about Agenda 21 and I don't see why were either of those were relevant.
Pt. 1. Al Gore started preaching exactly what Agenda 21 is. If you don't see the relevance then you are really not looking.
Pt. 2. Al Gore received a Nobel prize for his position on both Global Warming and Carbon Taxes. As with above, if you don't see the relevance you are not trying.
What you need to prove the claim I quoted and disapprove of. You claimed, and I'll add incorrectly, that VR corrects all of the other problems with media as an education platform. This would be easily proved if it was true, but the fact is that VR is going to add about as much as TV to education.
No, you can't move the goal post to technology that is not here. The TFA is not a concept based on future technology, it's about current technology and false claims.
What? So taxing slavery is what ended slavery? Taxing voting unbiased the voting system? Come on now, I'm not a lunatic that believes nobody should be taxed but your assertion is provably wrong.
I believe you are trying to equate "Enforced Regulation" with "Tax" where no equality can exist.
Why do I get the feeling your opinions are driven by partisanship instead of science and economics?
Probably because instead of asking for my opinion you provide your own. You can read my post history, I'm anything but partisan on just about every subject. False dilemmas don't really address problems, they merely cover them up.
Al Gore has made a fortune peddling "global warming", and even received the Nobel Peace prize for his peddling (not surprising, Obama won it for merely speaking an opinion).
Yes, we need to change how we interact with the Earth and there are some real problems. Pollution is a real problem, long term energy without fossil fuels is a problem, and I could co on. A "Carbon Tax" is not the way to solve the problems, and this is the solution that has been peddled by Al Gore and countless others trying to implement Agenda 21.
No, I introduced mercenaries specifically because they meet the same criteria of the sacrifice of putting their lives at risk for extended periods of time.
Which is a fallacy argument. The only way that argument could be valid is if Mercenary and Soldiers had everything in common, which they don't.
Followed immediately by yet another attempt at muddying waters.
I would suggest that you learn some basic rhetoric skills prior to debating me in the future. I refuse to make additional comments since you can neither hold a rational thought nor express an opinion rationally (take the hint, your position is indefensible, irrational, and illogical).
I can assure you that chat rooms, phones, even webcams and the like, do not cut it for human interaction. So much is lost in the subtle body language, the eyes, the stance, the arms folded. VR could change all that. If I can finally see you properly, look you in the eye, share a virtual whiteboard, then it will truly no longer matter if we are in the same office. Or classroom.
Prove it! Incredible claims require incredible evidence and all that. Further, you need to prove that it benefits general education in order to make a claim that it benefits general schools.
I spent 15 years building VR including motion detection. Not just helmets, but also CAVE and Powerwall systems from 10x8' to 12x10'. This included motion platforms for vehicle simulation. While there are surely beneficial applications for this technology, absolutely none of those benefits translate to general education.
To GPs point about High School Physics, what benefit is there to the average school? You have to learn the basics to learn something advanced, there is no exception to that rule. A good school that already has the basics can have some "cool" reinforcement viewing simulation, but everyone else would just be wasting time trying to simulate what they don't know. That aspect causes much more harm than good.
Public Education is supposed to be for the majority, not the minority. Nothing stops an advanced school from doing more than public education requires so that can't be the argument.
VR is not comparable in any way shape or form to the automobile. VR has very specific applications and benefits, none of which should have anything to do with education until very late into education. I have built VR CAVE and PowerWall systems and developed VR programs, and assure you that there is no benefit to standard education. If you have doubts, go out into the world and look at real word benefits. I do mean actual benefits, not just some "cool technology" factor. Hint: Human Factors Engineering surely can benefit from VR, as can very advanced kinematics. Neither of those two subjects are in standard classrooms, and both require advanced degrees and a tremendous amount of knowledge in specific software to build the models and simulations.
Further, none of the subjects that could benefit from VR should be taught in standard education. Not because any education is bad mind you. The reasoning is A) cost B) Time (you would have to give up a lot of other general education) and C) Not enough people would or could benefit.
If you wish to argue that it should be taught, ask yourself why other advanced degrees are not mandatory.
Bullshit, followed by more Bullshit. Your point is absolutely false and I have demonstrated that it is false numerous times. Try reading the thread again. You introduced the mercenary argument on your own because you are trying (incorrectly) to claim that the job is identical to a soldiers. There is no such equivalency in regards to a soldier losing their natural human rights and rights every other citizen is provided.
Your last sentence is an attempt to muddy the waters, nothing more.
You can not debate the points, you instead introduce fallacy after fallacy to maintain a delusion. I'm not impressed, but then again not surprised.
Wow, nothing like arguing intangibles. A mercenary is not a soldier. By definition, a mercenary is a hired thug who can choose which jobs to take and which to decline. Mercenaries don't have to live by social normals and have no public oversight or public pay.
Will you next try and bring up jobs from science fiction novels to argue with?
Well, the answer can't be to maintain the status quot or nothing changes. The answer also can't be "do nothing" or nothing changes. I have, and will recant the importance of people to get people they know and trust on ballots. It does not matter how "political" they are, just that they have a high level of ethics and morals.
Sure, the puppet masters fun more than just the D and R candidates, but they don't fund all of them. In fact they don't fund all of the D and R candidates either.
If massive changes get made at the lower level it will start to change the upper levels, but obviously takes time. Educating neighbors, friends, and family is the strongest tool in the toolbox.
Most people joining the military do so to "defend the US", just like all the TV commercials claim their job will be. Just like most police officers join the force to defend the public. You also failed to read or chose to ignore the 2nd point in my post, which is that all US Military people give up their rights as a citizen as soon as they enlist. This is a very unique sacrifice, and yes it's a huge sacrifice.
Blaming a soldier that can not control their assignments instead of the politicians who give them their assignments is idiocy. A soldier can not control where they are deployed, only what their actions are while they are deployed.
And when the Construction worker joins their trade they give up all of their Constitutional rights? His foreman can come to his house without warning and inspect his house and go through all of his belongings when ever the foreman feels like it? The construction worker can be forced to work for several days at a time without any breaks to sleep? The same construction worker can go to jail for telling his boss he's not happy with working for several days at a time without a break? The construction worker quitting his job is a felony and he will go to jail if he walks out?
Substitute any other profession for construction worker above, with the obvious exception of a US Armed forces job, and the answers all remain the same. These are the facts every military person deals with every day while they serve. Your ad hominem is useless against facts.
It changed it because the 9/11 attacks targets the two pillars of American power: the banks and the government.
Absolutely false. Those two groups have benefited the most from the attacks, the banks and government were not targets of the attack.
Cui Bono becomes very interesting when finding out that numerous officials provided false information to the press and public about what we knew regarding the attacks. For example Bush flat out lied that we never considered such an attack, the FAA and military ran a simulation a year prior regarding the exact scenario of a plane being flown into WTC in an act of terrorism. The Secret Service also ran simulations about planes being flown into the White House prior to the attacks.
Yeah, sure. But most of the people in the military are hardly putting their lives on the line. They're working in warehouses, changing tires, sitting at a desk doing analysis.
I hate to break the news to you, but you are very ignorant.
Take your example of comparing a soldier to a guy working at Bell Tire or some Amazon shipping. Sure, not all soldiers are deployed to a combat theater, but all soldiers must be trained and capable of being deployed. This means training. Lots and lots of training, which is often quite dangerous. Have you ever seen a person fall 70 feet repelling as part of their duty at jiffy lube? How about a guy at Bell Tire get his face shredded by a weapon malfunction at a range training for combat? The guy at Amazon risks a tank not seeing him and killing him while he's working at Amazon? None of those things real or realistic
That's not to imply you should give military people sympathy, we still have an all voluntary military in the US. People going in know the risks, just like a police officer in a big city knows their risks. You should however respect that these men and women regularly risk life and limb so that they are ready to protect you from enemies at all times, even if they are not out directly engaging foreign armies/militants every day.
For every 1 hero there are 100 normal unremarkable people.
Yet another completely ignorant statement. Every military person gives up rights as a citizen for the duration of their military career. This is not optional, and there is no choice that is not criminal. If you defy the orders and regulation, you spend hard time in a penitentiary and are dishonorably discharged from the military. Go ahead and try to get a job with that on your application.
As a veteran, I speak from experience and first hand knowledge. I was not deployed to an active combat zone, but was on the ready line numerous times and saw people die from all of the examples I gave above. You don't recognize the sacrifice because you have never made the same sacrifice, and never bothered to consider what a person gives up to serve in the Military.
Oh no, it goes way beyond Reagan. He was an easy example for me since the I started to wake up to how corrupt things were under Reagan (I was in the military during his last term). The Gary Allen book was published in I believe 1972, and will open your eyes to corruption going back to at least the very early 1960s..
Slashdot Mirror
Your troll does not make sense. If ball ammo has longer range how the fuck can this possibly relate to close quarters combat? Fuck you are stupid.
The Geneva convention explicitly restricts the use of a serrated blades in combat. It has nothing to do with sticking in enemies, sorry.
Best is something that takes you out of commission for a while, but causes no permanent damage
From a law enforcement perspective I absolutely agree with you. From a military perspective, this is not true. You don't want to blind someone for 24 hours and have them back on the battlefield (as one example of obviously many).
I'm happy to share knowledge and ideas with you, but we should set terms and ensure that we are discussing the same subject. I posted this due to someone presenting a false military doctrine. If we attempt to merge military and law enforcement doctrines we end up with conflicting ideology in the same generalization because the goals are not compatible. Reading what you wrote above, it appears that you are trying to merge the two hence. I have concern in continuing dialogue.
Prior to typing next time, join the Military or ask a Veteran. The military taught us in boot camp why it was selected over a heavier round. Tumbling rounds are able to travel a farther distance than a hollow point round, and hold more energy at a longer distance. In two sentences you managed to fabricate two fairy tales. What an outstanding example of a moron you are, no wonder you post anonymously.
One of the primary reasons that the US Military went with a 5.56mm round instead of the standard 7.62mm is because it does not kill, it wounds people more often. Military Philosophy is that if you wound an enemy, it takes 3 soldiers out of commission and demoralizes them. The wounded soldier, a medic, and someone to carry the guy to the medic. Killing someone only takes 1 person out of commission, and will often make enrage their companions.
The convention against certain types of weapons had nothing to do with not wounding someone, it had to do with humane ways of wounding and killing people. This is why it's perfectly fine to stab someone with a smooth bayonet but you can not stab someone with a serrated bayonet, even though death from serrated bayonet was more likely. You can stitch up a wound from one pretty easily, the other is going to leave a big mess that probably won't be closable..
The type of behavior that a "tax" attempts to modify does not matter. Study history and economics. Taxes do not work, and have never worked in any history or economics system as an attempt to modify behavior. Those types of taxes only harm consumers (see slavery and force toll roads)
Or don't and continue to believe in some fantasy world that does not exist. You can believe in your fantasy, but that does not make it real and should not be expressed falsely as any reality.
A Pigovian tax is a subset of taxes claiming it will modify a specific behavior. You somehow believe that it will work, even though taxes have never changed any other subset of bad/immoral business behavior. In general terms, your pigovian tax is no different than a slavery tax and would bring the same result. No end of bad behavior, just higher cost to consumers and increased revenue for the people that own the companies behaving badly.
As stated, taxes are not enforced regulation. Historical attempts to use taxes as enforced regulations have all failed.
But you still took the opportunity to take a shot at Obama and talk about Agenda 21 and I don't see why were either of those were relevant.
Pt. 1. Al Gore started preaching exactly what Agenda 21 is. If you don't see the relevance then you are really not looking.
Pt. 2. Al Gore received a Nobel prize for his position on both Global Warming and Carbon Taxes. As with above, if you don't see the relevance you are not trying.
What you need to prove the claim I quoted and disapprove of. You claimed, and I'll add incorrectly, that VR corrects all of the other problems with media as an education platform. This would be easily proved if it was true, but the fact is that VR is going to add about as much as TV to education.
No, you can't move the goal post to technology that is not here. The TFA is not a concept based on future technology, it's about current technology and false claims.
What? So taxing slavery is what ended slavery? Taxing voting unbiased the voting system? Come on now, I'm not a lunatic that believes nobody should be taxed but your assertion is provably wrong.
I believe you are trying to equate "Enforced Regulation" with "Tax" where no equality can exist.
That is one of the most idiotic replies I have ever received. You sir are trolling, and inventing statements never made to troll with.
I'm sorry. Tell me again how taxation (which is what cap-and-trade does) is a "Al Gore" idea.
Where did I ever say any of these things were an "Al Gore" idea or restrict carbon tax to the same? Hint: Never happened.
You bring up some interesting points, but those points don't change the facts I brought up about Al Gore.
Why do I get the feeling your opinions are driven by partisanship instead of science and economics?
Probably because instead of asking for my opinion you provide your own. You can read my post history, I'm anything but partisan on just about every subject. False dilemmas don't really address problems, they merely cover them up.
Al Gore has made a fortune peddling "global warming", and even received the Nobel Peace prize for his peddling (not surprising, Obama won it for merely speaking an opinion).
Yes, we need to change how we interact with the Earth and there are some real problems. Pollution is a real problem, long term energy without fossil fuels is a problem, and I could co on. A "Carbon Tax" is not the way to solve the problems, and this is the solution that has been peddled by Al Gore and countless others trying to implement Agenda 21.
No, I introduced mercenaries specifically because they meet the same criteria of the sacrifice of putting their lives at risk for extended periods of time.
Which is a fallacy argument. The only way that argument could be valid is if Mercenary and Soldiers had everything in common, which they don't.
Followed immediately by yet another attempt at muddying waters.
I would suggest that you learn some basic rhetoric skills prior to debating me in the future. I refuse to make additional comments since you can neither hold a rational thought nor express an opinion rationally (take the hint, your position is indefensible, irrational, and illogical).
I can assure you that chat rooms, phones, even webcams and the like, do not cut it for human interaction. So much is lost in the subtle body language, the eyes, the stance, the arms folded. VR could change all that. If I can finally see you properly, look you in the eye, share a virtual whiteboard, then it will truly no longer matter if we are in the same office. Or classroom.
Prove it! Incredible claims require incredible evidence and all that. Further, you need to prove that it benefits general education in order to make a claim that it benefits general schools.
I spent 15 years building VR including motion detection. Not just helmets, but also CAVE and Powerwall systems from 10x8' to 12x10'. This included motion platforms for vehicle simulation. While there are surely beneficial applications for this technology, absolutely none of those benefits translate to general education.
To GPs point about High School Physics, what benefit is there to the average school? You have to learn the basics to learn something advanced, there is no exception to that rule. A good school that already has the basics can have some "cool" reinforcement viewing simulation, but everyone else would just be wasting time trying to simulate what they don't know. That aspect causes much more harm than good.
Public Education is supposed to be for the majority, not the minority. Nothing stops an advanced school from doing more than public education requires so that can't be the argument.
VR is not comparable in any way shape or form to the automobile. VR has very specific applications and benefits, none of which should have anything to do with education until very late into education. I have built VR CAVE and PowerWall systems and developed VR programs, and assure you that there is no benefit to standard education. If you have doubts, go out into the world and look at real word benefits. I do mean actual benefits, not just some "cool technology" factor. Hint: Human Factors Engineering surely can benefit from VR, as can very advanced kinematics. Neither of those two subjects are in standard classrooms, and both require advanced degrees and a tremendous amount of knowledge in specific software to build the models and simulations.
Further, none of the subjects that could benefit from VR should be taught in standard education. Not because any education is bad mind you. The reasoning is A) cost B) Time (you would have to give up a lot of other general education) and C) Not enough people would or could benefit.
If you wish to argue that it should be taught, ask yourself why other advanced degrees are not mandatory.
Bullshit, followed by more Bullshit. Your point is absolutely false and I have demonstrated that it is false numerous times. Try reading the thread again. You introduced the mercenary argument on your own because you are trying (incorrectly) to claim that the job is identical to a soldiers. There is no such equivalency in regards to a soldier losing their natural human rights and rights every other citizen is provided.
Your last sentence is an attempt to muddy the waters, nothing more.
You can not debate the points, you instead introduce fallacy after fallacy to maintain a delusion. I'm not impressed, but then again not surprised.
Wow, nothing like arguing intangibles. A mercenary is not a soldier. By definition, a mercenary is a hired thug who can choose which jobs to take and which to decline. Mercenaries don't have to live by social normals and have no public oversight or public pay.
Will you next try and bring up jobs from science fiction novels to argue with?
Well, the answer can't be to maintain the status quot or nothing changes. The answer also can't be "do nothing" or nothing changes. I have, and will recant the importance of people to get people they know and trust on ballots. It does not matter how "political" they are, just that they have a high level of ethics and morals.
Sure, the puppet masters fun more than just the D and R candidates, but they don't fund all of them. In fact they don't fund all of the D and R candidates either.
If massive changes get made at the lower level it will start to change the upper levels, but obviously takes time. Educating neighbors, friends, and family is the strongest tool in the toolbox.
Most people joining the military do so to "defend the US", just like all the TV commercials claim their job will be. Just like most police officers join the force to defend the public. You also failed to read or chose to ignore the 2nd point in my post, which is that all US Military people give up their rights as a citizen as soon as they enlist. This is a very unique sacrifice, and yes it's a huge sacrifice.
Blaming a soldier that can not control their assignments instead of the politicians who give them their assignments is idiocy. A soldier can not control where they are deployed, only what their actions are while they are deployed.
And when the Construction worker joins their trade they give up all of their Constitutional rights? His foreman can come to his house without warning and inspect his house and go through all of his belongings when ever the foreman feels like it? The construction worker can be forced to work for several days at a time without any breaks to sleep? The same construction worker can go to jail for telling his boss he's not happy with working for several days at a time without a break? The construction worker quitting his job is a felony and he will go to jail if he walks out?
Substitute any other profession for construction worker above, with the obvious exception of a US Armed forces job, and the answers all remain the same. These are the facts every military person deals with every day while they serve. Your ad hominem is useless against facts.
It changed it because the 9/11 attacks targets the two pillars of American power: the banks and the government.
Absolutely false. Those two groups have benefited the most from the attacks, the banks and government were not targets of the attack.
Cui Bono becomes very interesting when finding out that numerous officials provided false information to the press and public about what we knew regarding the attacks. For example Bush flat out lied that we never considered such an attack, the FAA and military ran a simulation a year prior regarding the exact scenario of a plane being flown into WTC in an act of terrorism. The Secret Service also ran simulations about planes being flown into the White House prior to the attacks.
Yeah, sure. But most of the people in the military are hardly putting their lives on the line. They're working in warehouses, changing tires, sitting at a desk doing analysis.
I hate to break the news to you, but you are very ignorant.
Take your example of comparing a soldier to a guy working at Bell Tire or some Amazon shipping. Sure, not all soldiers are deployed to a combat theater, but all soldiers must be trained and capable of being deployed. This means training. Lots and lots of training, which is often quite dangerous. Have you ever seen a person fall 70 feet repelling as part of their duty at jiffy lube? How about a guy at Bell Tire get his face shredded by a weapon malfunction at a range training for combat? The guy at Amazon risks a tank not seeing him and killing him while he's working at Amazon? None of those things real or realistic
That's not to imply you should give military people sympathy, we still have an all voluntary military in the US. People going in know the risks, just like a police officer in a big city knows their risks. You should however respect that these men and women regularly risk life and limb so that they are ready to protect you from enemies at all times, even if they are not out directly engaging foreign armies/militants every day.
For every 1 hero there are 100 normal unremarkable people.
Yet another completely ignorant statement. Every military person gives up rights as a citizen for the duration of their military career. This is not optional, and there is no choice that is not criminal. If you defy the orders and regulation, you spend hard time in a penitentiary and are dishonorably discharged from the military. Go ahead and try to get a job with that on your application.
As a veteran, I speak from experience and first hand knowledge. I was not deployed to an active combat zone, but was on the ready line numerous times and saw people die from all of the examples I gave above. You don't recognize the sacrifice because you have never made the same sacrifice, and never bothered to consider what a person gives up to serve in the Military.
Oh no, it goes way beyond Reagan. He was an easy example for me since the I started to wake up to how corrupt things were under Reagan (I was in the military during his last term). The Gary Allen book was published in I believe 1972, and will open your eyes to corruption going back to at least the very early 1960s..