oh yes, good idea. let's go storm a ship and toss.net domain names overboard.
when you finally solve the metaphysics of it, let me know.
on the larger point, this isn't exactly taxation without representation - icann is providing a service of sorts, and this is a fee for the service provided. it is a monopoly, yes, but to call this "taxation without representation" is ridiculous.
the two systems are for different purposes - the airborne laser is meant primarily as a theater defense system, while the national missile defense speaks for itself. there's definitely some overlap (e.g., if the threat is from a single theater, e.g., a certain missile-testing region of north korea, and we're willing to orbit an abl or keep one on short standby in the region, then the abl might be a substitute), but they're largely meant for separate purposes.
to be entirely fair, however, just because it will always be easier to build an effective missile offense than an effective defense doesn't necessarily obviate the usefulness of the defense. as a hypothetical example, while it may cost ten times as much to build a missile defense than it does to build a missile fleet capable of breaching that befense, since our defense budget is more than ten times larger than that of north korea's, and them spending, say, $3 billion a year on nuclear weapons is a much greater drain on their economy than us spending $100 billion a yaer on nuclear weapons is on ours, a missile defense program would still be effective in the end.
of course, this means that it's something only the world's largest economy could possibly pull off, and only against a small rogue power. but then again, that's exactly the situation we face here.
No, the US is legally in the clear, as it has exercised its treaty rights under article something or other (i think 10?) of the anti-ballistic missile treaty, which allows any signatory to legally withdraw from the treaty provisions given 6 month's notice. (similar provisions exist on virtually all international treaties; e.g., the npt for example).
1) nukes have come a long way since hiroshima.
2) i'm quite certain the aggregate economic costs of a nuclear attack will be well in excess of $100 billion. moreover, this will effectively be deadweight loss - money down the drain, whereas much of the $100 billion spent on a missile defense program will return to the economy in some way.
nothing says we can reinforce in only one direction at a time. it's clear this missile defense program will be most effectively only in combination with an aggressive border defense, but that doesn't negate the usefulness of the national missile defense program itself.
"It tries to address a threat that is not there now and NEVER will be. At least some of the world is trying to abandon the path of large-scale war and high-tech weapons as a means of resolving disputes and protecting your interests."
while i agree with the general thrust of your post, when i was reading it i couldn't help thinking about "the spirit of locarno" and "peace in our time."
almost your exact sentiment was echoed in the 1930s, with the signing of the kellogg-briand pact that banned war itself. and we all know, hopefully, what happened before that decade was out.
in short - politicians make the defense decisions they do because of a very real fear, supported by history, that their country may be attacked on their watch, under their responsibility. while i disagree with this particular decision to go ahead with the national missile defense program, i understand why such a decision has been made, and i believe a discussion on its merits will be more productive when its critics really understand the reasons behind it.
actually, the dprk definitely has the capability to reach anchorage, alaska, and is further suspected of having the capability to reach the west coast of the united states.
most of your questions, of course, are rhetorical. paying for this and having the tax cuts made permanent, reducing the deficit, with the dollar at an all-time low against the euro, etc. isn't exactly a bankrupting problem.
(i'm not even sure what the connection between spending on a missile defense problem and a weak dollar have to do with anything, because nearly all of the contractors, i bet, are in the US and balance internal accounts through the dollar.)
the system is expensive compared to your checkbook, but compared to the entire government budget it's barely a blip. spending on social security and medicare, or even the iraq war, far outstrip how much is spent on the missile defense system (i believe it's about $10 billion a year, to answer your first question) - hence there's plenty of room to reduce the deficit by making cuts elsewhere in the bureaucracy.
so essentially, when you get down to it, the one actual question you raised is: is the national missile defense program worth it? i personally do not believe it is, but i also think discussions of such issues would work much better without all of this partisan rhetoric.
I understand your stance, but to be fair, these bans don't extend past the end of the sentence - they are part of the sentence itself, and thus part of its duration. you interpret it otherwise, you'd have to oppose the idea of parole on those same grounds, which i don't think is your purpose.
similarly, saying internet bans restrict a large number of activities not related to the crime isn't a strong argument either, because the entire concept of prison sentences restrict people from an enormous number of activities not related to their crimes. if you're in prison for assault, you can't go shopping at wal-mart, for example. yet this is exactly the purpose of such restrictions - they are intended to punish people to deter other crimes (whether their own or, through example, the crimes of others').
Are you arguing against the idea of convict-specific punishment, or against the idea of criminal deterrence?
If you're against convict-specific punishment, as it appears you are from your post, then I suppose you also oppose such things as house arrests, prison sentences, and parole. Each of those bans convicts from doing things most normal people are allowed.
Or rely on deterrence.
There's more than one way to stop crime - just because shops don't all have armed security guards doesn't mean criminalizing robbery is futile.
This is why it's called a "punishment." The penalty is intentionally meant to deter. It's like taking away people's drivers licenses - having a car is necessary for many jobs too, but the public seems to agree it's a valid punishment in some circumstances.
it does open the door to arbitrariness, but lets face it - anything that involves the interpretation of law with regards to human society involves a large degree of flexibility (and thus arbitrariness) anyway. this is true for code and well as common law systems.
and actually, though IANAL, on first glance i doubt this is true - that code law systems don't have a misdemeanor analagous to "contempt of the court," even if those exact words might not be used. can anyone verify?
And it's his choice to do so - that's how competitive markets work. Just as different consumers have different judgements on how much a good is worth to them, different workers have different judgments on how much compensation they demand for a given task.
You, sir, are advocating a labor monopoly - and as with most monopolies, this will only end up hurting society in the end.
I don't know, but if "Bob" had somehow (god forbid) become synonymous, in the semi-intelligent software world, with Microsoft's creation, then they would have had the right to trademark it.
I'm not a lawyer, but IIRC trademarks do not cover words, but instead cover the specific usage of words, logos, or even (in a few rare cases). So the fact that "Word," "Office," or "Excel" are real words really don't have a bearing on the case, as long as Microsoft can demonstrate to the court's satisfaction that those terms in relation to computer software are generally associated with Microsoft's products (which, in my opinion, would be a true assertion).
Actually, no nation can satisfactorily handle terrorist attacks. After all, as you yourself have said, terrorists are extraordinarily patient.
And as I've already said, the question of priorities - where money is needed most - is one that must take into account both probability and impact. One can rationally disagree with the US' priorities, since both are merely (very rough) estimates in any case, but your argument thus far has completely failed to take into account impact.
Oh, I entirely agree. I believe they're patient enough to eventually circumvent any defense, if that defense remains static, but I don't see how that pertains to missile defense. Unless you're arguing that since terrorists are unstoppable, we shouldn't do anything to try and stop them.
You're right, but there's two different areas the government is focusing on; they're not focusing on one to the exclusion of the other. One is moderate-probability/moderate-impact incidents, such as, say, a nitrate bomb going off in a subway. The other is low-probability/high-impact incidents, such as a radiological or nuclear bomb going off in New York.
Arguing solely probabilities, as you've done, leaves out impact as a consideration. For example, it's very likely people might jaywalk down the streetevery day, but since this is of practically no impact in terms of national security, there's no counterterrorism funding being spent to stop it.
Moreover, on a side note, wreaking avoc on a target on the scale of Oklahoma requires a truckhold of fertilizer, and since that incident large-scale fertilizer purchases are now reported to law enforcement.
Actually, the ABL can hit both SRBMs and ICBMs, as long as they are in their boost phases. However, that doesn't mean we need to orbit a 747 around Pyongyang all the time in order to stop a nuclear launch. First of all, launching a nuclear ICBM isn't something that can be done spur-of-the-moment, especially considering the fact that North Korea is trying to keep secret where and how many nukes it actually has - we should have enough lead time to intervene, as long as ABL-equipped 747s are kept on station in (most likely) Japan. And second of all, the ABL has pretty good range, and it probably isn't that difficult to ramp up the range in production or future generational models.
Slashdot Mirror
oh yes, good idea. let's go storm a ship and toss .net domain names overboard.
when you finally solve the metaphysics of it, let me know.
on the larger point, this isn't exactly taxation without representation - icann is providing a service of sorts, and this is a fee for the service provided. it is a monopoly, yes, but to call this "taxation without representation" is ridiculous.
thanks for clarifying that for me :)
the two systems are for different purposes - the airborne laser is meant primarily as a theater defense system, while the national missile defense speaks for itself. there's definitely some overlap (e.g., if the threat is from a single theater, e.g., a certain missile-testing region of north korea, and we're willing to orbit an abl or keep one on short standby in the region, then the abl might be a substitute), but they're largely meant for separate purposes.
to be entirely fair, however, just because it will always be easier to build an effective missile offense than an effective defense doesn't necessarily obviate the usefulness of the defense. as a hypothetical example, while it may cost ten times as much to build a missile defense than it does to build a missile fleet capable of breaching that befense, since our defense budget is more than ten times larger than that of north korea's, and them spending, say, $3 billion a year on nuclear weapons is a much greater drain on their economy than us spending $100 billion a yaer on nuclear weapons is on ours, a missile defense program would still be effective in the end.
of course, this means that it's something only the world's largest economy could possibly pull off, and only against a small rogue power. but then again, that's exactly the situation we face here.
No, the US is legally in the clear, as it has exercised its treaty rights under article something or other (i think 10?) of the anti-ballistic missile treaty, which allows any signatory to legally withdraw from the treaty provisions given 6 month's notice. (similar provisions exist on virtually all international treaties; e.g., the npt for example).
1) nukes have come a long way since hiroshima. 2) i'm quite certain the aggregate economic costs of a nuclear attack will be well in excess of $100 billion. moreover, this will effectively be deadweight loss - money down the drain, whereas much of the $100 billion spent on a missile defense program will return to the economy in some way.
nothing says we can reinforce in only one direction at a time. it's clear this missile defense program will be most effectively only in combination with an aggressive border defense, but that doesn't negate the usefulness of the national missile defense program itself.
"It tries to address a threat that is not there now and NEVER will be. At least some of the world is trying to abandon the path of large-scale war and high-tech weapons as a means of resolving disputes and protecting your interests."
while i agree with the general thrust of your post, when i was reading it i couldn't help thinking about "the spirit of locarno" and "peace in our time."
almost your exact sentiment was echoed in the 1930s, with the signing of the kellogg-briand pact that banned war itself. and we all know, hopefully, what happened before that decade was out.
in short - politicians make the defense decisions they do because of a very real fear, supported by history, that their country may be attacked on their watch, under their responsibility. while i disagree with this particular decision to go ahead with the national missile defense program, i understand why such a decision has been made, and i believe a discussion on its merits will be more productive when its critics really understand the reasons behind it.
actually, the dprk definitely has the capability to reach anchorage, alaska, and is further suspected of having the capability to reach the west coast of the united states.
most of your questions, of course, are rhetorical. paying for this and having the tax cuts made permanent, reducing the deficit, with the dollar at an all-time low against the euro, etc. isn't exactly a bankrupting problem. (i'm not even sure what the connection between spending on a missile defense problem and a weak dollar have to do with anything, because nearly all of the contractors, i bet, are in the US and balance internal accounts through the dollar.) the system is expensive compared to your checkbook, but compared to the entire government budget it's barely a blip. spending on social security and medicare, or even the iraq war, far outstrip how much is spent on the missile defense system (i believe it's about $10 billion a year, to answer your first question) - hence there's plenty of room to reduce the deficit by making cuts elsewhere in the bureaucracy. so essentially, when you get down to it, the one actual question you raised is: is the national missile defense program worth it? i personally do not believe it is, but i also think discussions of such issues would work much better without all of this partisan rhetoric.
I understand your stance, but to be fair, these bans don't extend past the end of the sentence - they are part of the sentence itself, and thus part of its duration. you interpret it otherwise, you'd have to oppose the idea of parole on those same grounds, which i don't think is your purpose. similarly, saying internet bans restrict a large number of activities not related to the crime isn't a strong argument either, because the entire concept of prison sentences restrict people from an enormous number of activities not related to their crimes. if you're in prison for assault, you can't go shopping at wal-mart, for example. yet this is exactly the purpose of such restrictions - they are intended to punish people to deter other crimes (whether their own or, through example, the crimes of others').
Are you arguing against the idea of convict-specific punishment, or against the idea of criminal deterrence? If you're against convict-specific punishment, as it appears you are from your post, then I suppose you also oppose such things as house arrests, prison sentences, and parole. Each of those bans convicts from doing things most normal people are allowed.
Or rely on deterrence. There's more than one way to stop crime - just because shops don't all have armed security guards doesn't mean criminalizing robbery is futile.
This is why it's called a "punishment." The penalty is intentionally meant to deter. It's like taking away people's drivers licenses - having a car is necessary for many jobs too, but the public seems to agree it's a valid punishment in some circumstances.
it does open the door to arbitrariness, but lets face it - anything that involves the interpretation of law with regards to human society involves a large degree of flexibility (and thus arbitrariness) anyway. this is true for code and well as common law systems. and actually, though IANAL, on first glance i doubt this is true - that code law systems don't have a misdemeanor analagous to "contempt of the court," even if those exact words might not be used. can anyone verify?
Isn't that a good thing?
And it's his choice to do so - that's how competitive markets work. Just as different consumers have different judgements on how much a good is worth to them, different workers have different judgments on how much compensation they demand for a given task. You, sir, are advocating a labor monopoly - and as with most monopolies, this will only end up hurting society in the end.
no, the fbi can only investigate interstate crimes, but their investigatory options aren't restricted to interstate activity (if that makes sense).
I don't know, but if "Bob" had somehow (god forbid) become synonymous, in the semi-intelligent software world, with Microsoft's creation, then they would have had the right to trademark it.
But if someone tells you to type this up in Word, I'm sure you'd have a pretty good idea what they mean.
I'm not a lawyer, but IIRC trademarks do not cover words, but instead cover the specific usage of words, logos, or even (in a few rare cases). So the fact that "Word," "Office," or "Excel" are real words really don't have a bearing on the case, as long as Microsoft can demonstrate to the court's satisfaction that those terms in relation to computer software are generally associated with Microsoft's products (which, in my opinion, would be a true assertion).
Actually, no nation can satisfactorily handle terrorist attacks. After all, as you yourself have said, terrorists are extraordinarily patient.
And as I've already said, the question of priorities - where money is needed most - is one that must take into account both probability and impact. One can rationally disagree with the US' priorities, since both are merely (very rough) estimates in any case, but your argument thus far has completely failed to take into account impact.
Oh, I entirely agree. I believe they're patient enough to eventually circumvent any defense, if that defense remains static, but I don't see how that pertains to missile defense. Unless you're arguing that since terrorists are unstoppable, we shouldn't do anything to try and stop them.
You're right, but there's two different areas the government is focusing on; they're not focusing on one to the exclusion of the other. One is moderate-probability/moderate-impact incidents, such as, say, a nitrate bomb going off in a subway. The other is low-probability/high-impact incidents, such as a radiological or nuclear bomb going off in New York.
Arguing solely probabilities, as you've done, leaves out impact as a consideration. For example, it's very likely people might jaywalk down the streetevery day, but since this is of practically no impact in terms of national security, there's no counterterrorism funding being spent to stop it.
Moreover, on a side note, wreaking avoc on a target on the scale of Oklahoma requires a truckhold of fertilizer, and since that incident large-scale fertilizer purchases are now reported to law enforcement.
Actually, the ABL can hit both SRBMs and ICBMs, as long as they are in their boost phases. However, that doesn't mean we need to orbit a 747 around Pyongyang all the time in order to stop a nuclear launch. First of all, launching a nuclear ICBM isn't something that can be done spur-of-the-moment, especially considering the fact that North Korea is trying to keep secret where and how many nukes it actually has - we should have enough lead time to intervene, as long as ABL-equipped 747s are kept on station in (most likely) Japan. And second of all, the ABL has pretty good range, and it probably isn't that difficult to ramp up the range in production or future generational models.