Right. The US caused the communists to invade Vietnam and South Korea. The US caused Saddam to invade Kuwait.
Yes, dealing with people who start wars frequently involves the use of violence in order to stop them. Let me guess, you're planning to accompany that folk singer who says he's traveling to visit ISIS and sing them into changing their ways, right?
There would have been no negotiations if not for the current administration. Or they would have fallen apart early on. And like North Korea, nothing would slow down Iran from getting nukes.
Why do you care if there was or was not negotiation? Iran will continue to develop their nukes, continue to export support for terrorists as they've been doing for decades, and will continue to pursue hegemony throughout the middle east... and now they'll have access to billions of dollars to make it easier for them. The negotiations were worthless. They didn't happen previously because everyone else recognized that the Iranians aren't honorable negotiating partners. Obama knows this too, but he was willing to go through the motions for entirely domestic political purposes - it's all about what he can say he's done (never mind whether anything positive actually occurred).
So what is it that you think has been actually accomplished, other than the Iranians getting everything they wanted, including a huge financial windfall and no obligation to change their ways, at all?
And yes, there were ways to prevent the North Koreans from getting nukes. Those opportunities were blown. They couldn't have done it without help from Pakistan, and allowing it to happen was an intelligence and policy failure.
It's insane that a tiny client state, that's not even in the G20, can have this sort of influence.
No, it's insane that some people still don't understand that it's the entire middle east, as a region, that is influential because of its geography (which includes key shipping routes) and its oil deposits. The fact that Israel is the closest thing to a rational actor in the entire region is what makes supporting its existence appropriate. Would we support Denmark in a similar fashion if every country around it was wallowing in medieval theocracy, swearing to destroy it, lobbing missiles at it every day for sport, and some of them taking turns chanting "Death To America!" to open their phony parliamentary sessions? Yes, we would. For the same reasons. Just like we put so much into supporting that little group of islands off the coast of France and Scandinavia when lunatic regimes were stomping all around Europe.
Yes. Like Chomsky. Who has invariably followed his own ego, egged on by witless, low-information emoto-college students wallowing in liberal guilt. Definitely the wrong path.
If the government has this type of surveillance power, you may joke about the word "bomb" in your post triggering the FBI's monitoring software, but the chilling effect it has on free speech is the same whether the search was carried out by software or by an authoritarian government trying to control the populace.
Except in the thought experiment being discussed here, it's not the presence of a key word in your files or communication on a private system like Google's... it's the presence of a file that would be an exact match for one found in connection to a mass murder (like Paris) in the hands of the murderers, detailing specifics related to that terrorist attack. This isn't you saying "bomb" in an email, this is you sharing a specific document with someone who just slaughtered a bunch of people in a Parisian concert hall.
The sole reason for democracy's existence is as a bulwark against authoritarian government control.
It's not democracy that is the bulwark (in fact, democracy is often how tyrants get their power - through mob rule). It's constitutional republicanism that braces itself against such things. Straight democracy is almost always a very bad idea, and the people who chartered our country knew that (whew!).
Lets deal with threats like ISIS at their source rather than playing wack-a-mole with our liberties here at home.
The problem is that the source of ISIS is a medieval-minded culture comprised of billions of people, hundreds of millions of which at the least happily applaud ISIS-like and Taliban-esque behavior. What did you have in mind in terms of solving that problem? Were you proposing to go into those countries and change how they mal-educate their citizens? Just conduct a little cultural imperialism to fix how they think? Hint: that's exactly what they're complaining about: the fundamentalists among them (who comprise and finance groups like ISIS) are using violence to establish a geographical zone that they hope will be completely impervious to such western taint. And then they want to spread that zone everywhere, to get rid of the taint. Please be more specific about your "deal with" plan.
Uh, if we used THAT standard, Arabs would have to leave all countries - Syria, Egypt, Iraq, Sudan, Libya, et al and move back to the Arabian peninsula. Turks would have to leave Turkey and move back to Turkmenistan.
Yup, and "Native" Americans would have to walk back to Asia where they came from. Or not. The entire history of the world involves cultures sloshing around from one place to another.
What? CNN and Fox were both airing on-air interviews with people on the ground in Paris before police had entered the concert venue. You might dislike both of those networks, and really have liked AJAM... but what do you gain by lying in a way that's so easily debunked? Really, what's the point?
You ought to at least attempt to learn a thing or two about allocated spectrum, directional radiators, and tune able power levels before showing you ignorance to the masses.
Really? You're lecturing me about learning something as I respond to a completely witless post about "just jam drones" being the simple solution?
No, learning more about directional radiators and tunable power levels won't teach me more that I need to know about how "jamming a drone" that's on a combination of inertial, magnetic, and GPS guidance while moving on a pre-programmed waypoint path at, say, 75mph just above tree-top level as it approaches from a mile away. Though it sounds like YOU could learn a few things.
So you have a plan for how you're going to jam GPS across a miles-wide area, but without impacting all of the other users who need it? And, you have a pretty good sense of how all "drones" use RF? Meaning, you're going to jam all of the same frequencies that mobile phones and WiFi devices use in the entire area? Please be specific.
Eternal vigilance is the price of freedom from incorrect apostrophe use. We shall meet again, probably over something having to do with quoting Steven Hawking, or something.
Isn't law meant to say what you "can not" do, rather than what you "can" do ?
Right. This law says that obsessive SJW neighbors and social workers can't ruin your family's life for allowing your children to walk a few blocks to school.
Jesus FUCK! As a European, I find living 30 miles from the school your kids go to be totally batshit crazy.
Then you have no idea how millions of people in rural areas live. Huge portions of the US are a lot less crammed-in and densely populated than the European patchwork. Are you suggesting that kids shouldn't be allowed to live in rural areas? Or that we build thousands of new schools so that each facility and its staff can tend to the needs of half a dozen kids in a given grade?
Thirty miles isn't a big distance when you're used to living in wide-open spaces. Thirty miles is how far you go for groceries.
I invite you to travel to the US, and actually drive across the great midwest. See the prairies. Understand the scale of things before you call everyone who, for example, produces food for a living "batshit crazy."
It's inferred. If the person has some sort of mental difficulty that doesn't manifest itself in any way that another person could detect, then the entire notion of "stigma" surrounding that mental difficulty is moot. Nobody is talking about or is concerned with something going on, mentally, which in no way impacts behavior, social interaction, cognitive capability, etc. All of the hand-wringing is about the perception of being treated unfairly because an employer or co-worker is responding unreasonably to something they see in their interaction with or proximity to someone else. If there's nothing there, there's nothing there.
If the GP says his career has been seriously impacted by his bipolar disorder, he knows perfectly well it's not because it shows up on some insurance claim somewhere, but not in any way, at all, in the way he conducts himself on the job. If he's 100% even, and is never manic or depressed in his dealings with customers and co-workers, then there's no way to see how his career could be directly affected. What's the mechanism through which that effect takes place, if there is absolutely zero outward sign of the problem, and the GP's bipolar problem doesn't manifest itself as being any different than someone who is not bipolar?
You don't even know this person and have already condemned their behavior based on what your concept of what "bipolar" is, and what it means to have it.
Nonsense. If someone isn't exhibiting disruptive or counter-productive behavior at work, then it doesn't matter if they're bipolar or suffering from any other disorder. No outward behavior, no issue regardless. But if someone has a problem (say, a certain flavor/degree of Tourette's), should an employer simply ignore outbursts of profanity as that person handles customer service calls? If their flavor of Tourette's simply results in the occasional odd movement or other physical tic, that wouldn't be evident over the phone - the behavior would be invisible, and the stigma wouldn't have anything to latch onto. Not sure why you're foggy on this.
So you'd have the same reaction to a baby accidentally being sick on you as you would to a fully-grown person purposefully being sick on you. If the answer is "no", you might want to figure out why that makes you a terrible person.
You're setting up false choices.
Regardless, the point remains. Can you pay someone to wait tables in your restaurant if they're continuously puking - whether it's because they want to or can't help it?
Nonsense. If the organic/neurological problems didn't result in notable behavior experienced by others, nobody would care. The thing that people notice is the behavior. And that behavior is only notable when it falls outside of social norms. Some people - without any genetic or other medical condition - also act outside of social norms (because they want to) and their behavior is also noted by the people around them. It really doesn't matter why someone is a terrible communicator, or why someone responds to normal human interaction with alarming behavior - it's the fact of that behavior that others notice, and which raises concern. If someone completely hides that issue, and can act and respond normally, then the fact of their having a diagnosed condition really doesn't matter - nobody would notice or care.
But you've already gone and attached that behavior to the cause which is adding to the stigma.
No, I've pointed out that what makes people a bad fit in some jobs is their behavior. Whether their behavior results from meat computer chemistry issues, or from a lifetime of just being a jerk, is really beside the point. The behavior is what makes the friction. Yes, if someone becomes aware that the behavior essentially can't be fixed through conscious choices made by the person with the behavioral problems (the jerk can choose not to be a jerk, but the person with the chemistry problem isn't in control of that), then sure - there's stigma. Why? Because co-workers and employers know that for as long as they'll be working with that person, that behavior is always going to be a problem.
I am a developer/IT guy who has been diagnosed with bipolar disorder. It is still heavily stigmatized and has directly affected my career.
No. The disease is not stigmatized. Behavior is. And why shouldn't it be? Especially in the workplace, there are expectations for conduct and social interaction that, when ignored by someone (whether because they're just jerks, or because they can't stop themselves because they're damaged), that's that - the conduct, the protocols, aren't be followed. If that didn't matter, then the expectations (for good manners, for example) wouldn't matter, wouldn't be expected in the first place. But they are, and for solid reasons. So, people who (for example) exhibit poor judgement when it comes to talking to clients or investors are stigmatized because of that behavior, not because of the cause.
Slashdot Mirror
Right. The US caused the communists to invade Vietnam and South Korea. The US caused Saddam to invade Kuwait.
Yes, dealing with people who start wars frequently involves the use of violence in order to stop them. Let me guess, you're planning to accompany that folk singer who says he's traveling to visit ISIS and sing them into changing their ways, right?
There would have been no negotiations if not for the current administration. Or they would have fallen apart early on. And like North Korea, nothing would slow down Iran from getting nukes.
Why do you care if there was or was not negotiation? Iran will continue to develop their nukes, continue to export support for terrorists as they've been doing for decades, and will continue to pursue hegemony throughout the middle east ... and now they'll have access to billions of dollars to make it easier for them. The negotiations were worthless. They didn't happen previously because everyone else recognized that the Iranians aren't honorable negotiating partners. Obama knows this too, but he was willing to go through the motions for entirely domestic political purposes - it's all about what he can say he's done (never mind whether anything positive actually occurred).
So what is it that you think has been actually accomplished, other than the Iranians getting everything they wanted, including a huge financial windfall and no obligation to change their ways, at all?
And yes, there were ways to prevent the North Koreans from getting nukes. Those opportunities were blown. They couldn't have done it without help from Pakistan, and allowing it to happen was an intelligence and policy failure.
This deal was the best we were going to get.
Given the spinelessness of our current administration, yes, probably so.
It's insane that a tiny client state, that's not even in the G20, can have this sort of influence.
No, it's insane that some people still don't understand that it's the entire middle east, as a region, that is influential because of its geography (which includes key shipping routes) and its oil deposits. The fact that Israel is the closest thing to a rational actor in the entire region is what makes supporting its existence appropriate. Would we support Denmark in a similar fashion if every country around it was wallowing in medieval theocracy, swearing to destroy it, lobbing missiles at it every day for sport, and some of them taking turns chanting "Death To America!" to open their phony parliamentary sessions? Yes, we would. For the same reasons. Just like we put so much into supporting that little group of islands off the coast of France and Scandinavia when lunatic regimes were stomping all around Europe.
Many take the wrong path
Yes. Like Chomsky. Who has invariably followed his own ego, egged on by witless, low-information emoto-college students wallowing in liberal guilt. Definitely the wrong path.
If the government has this type of surveillance power, you may joke about the word "bomb" in your post triggering the FBI's monitoring software, but the chilling effect it has on free speech is the same whether the search was carried out by software or by an authoritarian government trying to control the populace.
Except in the thought experiment being discussed here, it's not the presence of a key word in your files or communication on a private system like Google's ... it's the presence of a file that would be an exact match for one found in connection to a mass murder (like Paris) in the hands of the murderers, detailing specifics related to that terrorist attack. This isn't you saying "bomb" in an email, this is you sharing a specific document with someone who just slaughtered a bunch of people in a Parisian concert hall.
The sole reason for democracy's existence is as a bulwark against authoritarian government control.
It's not democracy that is the bulwark (in fact, democracy is often how tyrants get their power - through mob rule). It's constitutional republicanism that braces itself against such things. Straight democracy is almost always a very bad idea, and the people who chartered our country knew that (whew!).
Lets deal with threats like ISIS at their source rather than playing wack-a-mole with our liberties here at home.
The problem is that the source of ISIS is a medieval-minded culture comprised of billions of people, hundreds of millions of which at the least happily applaud ISIS-like and Taliban-esque behavior. What did you have in mind in terms of solving that problem? Were you proposing to go into those countries and change how they mal-educate their citizens? Just conduct a little cultural imperialism to fix how they think? Hint: that's exactly what they're complaining about: the fundamentalists among them (who comprise and finance groups like ISIS) are using violence to establish a geographical zone that they hope will be completely impervious to such western taint. And then they want to spread that zone everywhere, to get rid of the taint. Please be more specific about your "deal with" plan.
Uh, if we used THAT standard, Arabs would have to leave all countries - Syria, Egypt, Iraq, Sudan, Libya, et al and move back to the Arabian peninsula. Turks would have to leave Turkey and move back to Turkmenistan.
Yup, and "Native" Americans would have to walk back to Asia where they came from. Or not. The entire history of the world involves cultures sloshing around from one place to another.
They had the paris shootings hours before cnn
What? CNN and Fox were both airing on-air interviews with people on the ground in Paris before police had entered the concert venue. You might dislike both of those networks, and really have liked AJAM ... but what do you gain by lying in a way that's so easily debunked? Really, what's the point?
You ought to at least attempt to learn a thing or two about allocated spectrum, directional radiators, and tune able power levels before showing you ignorance to the masses.
Really? You're lecturing me about learning something as I respond to a completely witless post about "just jam drones" being the simple solution?
No, learning more about directional radiators and tunable power levels won't teach me more that I need to know about how "jamming a drone" that's on a combination of inertial, magnetic, and GPS guidance while moving on a pre-programmed waypoint path at, say, 75mph just above tree-top level as it approaches from a mile away. Though it sounds like YOU could learn a few things.
Just make it legal to jam drones. Problem solved.
So you have a plan for how you're going to jam GPS across a miles-wide area, but without impacting all of the other users who need it? And, you have a pretty good sense of how all "drones" use RF? Meaning, you're going to jam all of the same frequencies that mobile phones and WiFi devices use in the entire area? Please be specific.
Eternal vigilance is the price of freedom from incorrect apostrophe use. We shall meet again, probably over something having to do with quoting Steven Hawking, or something.
I routinely fly my multi-rotor camera platforms up over 300'. Good luck with bird shot at that distance!
Isn't law meant to say what you "can not" do, rather than what you "can" do ?
Right. This law says that obsessive SJW neighbors and social workers can't ruin your family's life for allowing your children to walk a few blocks to school.
Jesus FUCK! As a European, I find living 30 miles from the school your kids go to be totally batshit crazy.
Then you have no idea how millions of people in rural areas live. Huge portions of the US are a lot less crammed-in and densely populated than the European patchwork. Are you suggesting that kids shouldn't be allowed to live in rural areas? Or that we build thousands of new schools so that each facility and its staff can tend to the needs of half a dozen kids in a given grade?
Thirty miles isn't a big distance when you're used to living in wide-open spaces. Thirty miles is how far you go for groceries.
I invite you to travel to the US, and actually drive across the great midwest. See the prairies. Understand the scale of things before you call everyone who, for example, produces food for a living "batshit crazy."
Citation needed
"Anything that won't sell, I don't want to invent. Its sale is proof of utility, and utility is success." - T.A.E.
I don't understand. How does this explain any missing Malaysian airliners?
Because he is dead and will not be able to falsely claim credit for it's invention.
Still, at least Edison understood the difference between the contracted "it's" and the possessive "its."
The right-wing blowhards on the radio will still complain about having to use them.
Is that anything like left-wing blowhards on Slashdot complaining about what other people say?
What behavior did the GP mention?
It's inferred. If the person has some sort of mental difficulty that doesn't manifest itself in any way that another person could detect, then the entire notion of "stigma" surrounding that mental difficulty is moot. Nobody is talking about or is concerned with something going on, mentally, which in no way impacts behavior, social interaction, cognitive capability, etc. All of the hand-wringing is about the perception of being treated unfairly because an employer or co-worker is responding unreasonably to something they see in their interaction with or proximity to someone else. If there's nothing there, there's nothing there.
If the GP says his career has been seriously impacted by his bipolar disorder, he knows perfectly well it's not because it shows up on some insurance claim somewhere, but not in any way, at all, in the way he conducts himself on the job. If he's 100% even, and is never manic or depressed in his dealings with customers and co-workers, then there's no way to see how his career could be directly affected. What's the mechanism through which that effect takes place, if there is absolutely zero outward sign of the problem, and the GP's bipolar problem doesn't manifest itself as being any different than someone who is not bipolar?
You don't even know this person and have already condemned their behavior based on what your concept of what "bipolar" is, and what it means to have it.
Nonsense. If someone isn't exhibiting disruptive or counter-productive behavior at work, then it doesn't matter if they're bipolar or suffering from any other disorder. No outward behavior, no issue regardless. But if someone has a problem (say, a certain flavor/degree of Tourette's), should an employer simply ignore outbursts of profanity as that person handles customer service calls? If their flavor of Tourette's simply results in the occasional odd movement or other physical tic, that wouldn't be evident over the phone - the behavior would be invisible, and the stigma wouldn't have anything to latch onto. Not sure why you're foggy on this.
So you'd have the same reaction to a baby accidentally being sick on you as you would to a fully-grown person purposefully being sick on you. If the answer is "no", you might want to figure out why that makes you a terrible person.
You're setting up false choices.
Regardless, the point remains. Can you pay someone to wait tables in your restaurant if they're continuously puking - whether it's because they want to or can't help it?
Nonsense. If the organic/neurological problems didn't result in notable behavior experienced by others, nobody would care. The thing that people notice is the behavior. And that behavior is only notable when it falls outside of social norms. Some people - without any genetic or other medical condition - also act outside of social norms (because they want to) and their behavior is also noted by the people around them. It really doesn't matter why someone is a terrible communicator, or why someone responds to normal human interaction with alarming behavior - it's the fact of that behavior that others notice, and which raises concern. If someone completely hides that issue, and can act and respond normally, then the fact of their having a diagnosed condition really doesn't matter - nobody would notice or care.
But you've already gone and attached that behavior to the cause which is adding to the stigma.
No, I've pointed out that what makes people a bad fit in some jobs is their behavior. Whether their behavior results from meat computer chemistry issues, or from a lifetime of just being a jerk, is really beside the point. The behavior is what makes the friction. Yes, if someone becomes aware that the behavior essentially can't be fixed through conscious choices made by the person with the behavioral problems (the jerk can choose not to be a jerk, but the person with the chemistry problem isn't in control of that), then sure - there's stigma. Why? Because co-workers and employers know that for as long as they'll be working with that person, that behavior is always going to be a problem.
I am a developer/IT guy who has been diagnosed with bipolar disorder. It is still heavily stigmatized and has directly affected my career.
No. The disease is not stigmatized. Behavior is. And why shouldn't it be? Especially in the workplace, there are expectations for conduct and social interaction that, when ignored by someone (whether because they're just jerks, or because they can't stop themselves because they're damaged), that's that - the conduct, the protocols, aren't be followed. If that didn't matter, then the expectations (for good manners, for example) wouldn't matter, wouldn't be expected in the first place. But they are, and for solid reasons. So, people who (for example) exhibit poor judgement when it comes to talking to clients or investors are stigmatized because of that behavior, not because of the cause.