I think this was unintentionally revealing. It's the feeling of safety and security that Facebook is frantic to defend. Actual safety and security? Well, that's... complicated.
Dealing with the sensibilities of Facebook seems to be like that.
Background: Facebook pulled down the hunting photos of Kendall Jones citing a violation of the social-media site's "community standards," but they allowed the page titled "Kill Kendall Jones" to remain stating that it did not violate their policies. A tad hypocritical, to say the least.
A Full Spectrum Land Force The Army National Guard is fully committed to implementing the joint operational concepts of dominant maneuver, precision engagement, focused logistics and full-dimensional protection. With 34 percent of the Army's strength, more than half of the combat power, nearly 70 percent of field artillery, and more than a third of its combat support and combat service support capabilities, the Army National Guard is a full partner in rapid strategic mobility, tailor-to-task organizational flexibility, and, ultimately, a key component in a seamless joint force that can be committed cross-dimensionally along the entire spectrum of contingencies.
A visual representation of the Army National Guard's brigades. This represents the National Guard's Infantry and Heavy brigades but also includes Engineer, Field Artillery and Aviation brigades as well..
Britain, France, and the US are all nuclear power states that have armies equipped with the most modern weapons systems. Why are they still fighting the Taliban after 13 years? How is it that ISIS defies them?
Is it possible that there are factors that you aren't considering? It would seem so. Not even the apartheid state of South Africa which was a nuclear state for a period of time was ultimately willing to use nuclear weapons on its own people.
The dismissive statements that the two of you have made take no recognition of the facts of the matter. Do you think that the Swiss government could impose a tyranny on the Swiss? Hardly. Nearly the whole of the army is composed of reservists that keep arms at home. Israel? Once again, unlikely. The US? Unlikely, at least in a coup. Half of the total combat power of the US military is in the reserve forces composed largely of state militias. Much of the support is also in the reserves. To that you add the factor of the unformed militia which is legally defined as:
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
So you see, those weapons are in the hands of the unformed militia which is responsible to defend the US Constitution again all enemies, foreign and domestic. That is a very useful addition to the state militias.
The case in many European countries is not as favorable. About 100 years ago in Britain free men and women owned large numbers of firearms, and bobbies pursuing criminals could appeal to the public for aid or arms. Those days are long gone, as is the mentality. The right of even self defense against attack has become endangered in Britain.
It appears to me that you aren't successfully identifying what is foolish, and there is plenty of that going on in Britain.
It's quite obvious that guns should not be freely available to just anybody.
They aren't in the US.
Distrust of the government is fine but the view that having everyone have guns as a defence against the government is just an absurd rationalisation of testosterone-driven desire to own firepower.
Shall we ascribe your rant to estrogen-driven fear of guns? Or are you simply bereft of an understanding of the relevant philosophy, history, and current events?
In the post you made to me in the other thread you made an intelligent argument in a civil manner. I think it is a shame that you do not make more posts like it. There are certainly topics I can be persuaded to change my mind about. If I respond to that post I plan to make my points in a respectful and hopefully persuasive manner in return.
In this post, on the other hand, you return to your unfortunate predilection of engaging in the practices of cranks and fringe progressives although I give you partial credit for not going full fascist as you have on other occasions.
There is nothing contradictory about being for limited government and an effective national defense. That you think so would be a reflection of your limitations, not mine.
I think it is a pity you stooped to the level of an obvious nutter. You can do better.
It's always interesting to read the comments of people willing to engage in civil discussion by making thoughtful posts in an articulate, respectful manner. If you run across any of those people you may want to ask them to make "guest posts" for you.
And then he turned into a neoconservative/fringe libertarian nutbar after that business with the skyscrapers in '01.
Do you have any proof of that? In this Slashdot interview from 1999, which you will astutely note is before 9/11, people were complaining about him in similar terms to today. What is this big change that you claim happened? Is there something in his writings or blog?
After 9/11 some people went cold turkey on the bat shit insanity that they had been involved in, others found a moment or two of sanity and then relapsed. And some others couldn't even manage that.
You seem to have made clear how you view ESR, but I guess we know where you stand too, eh?
There will be more Rotherham-style child sexual exploitation scandals unearthed in the coming months as the “stone is lifted” on the scale of abuse perpetrated on the young, one of Britain’s top police officers has warned.
Prof Jay said: "No-one knows the true scale of child sexual exploitation in Rotherham over the years. Our conservative estimate is that approximately 1,400 children were sexually exploited over the full inquiry period, from 1997 to 2013."
Revealing details of the inquiry's findings, Prof Jay said: "It is hard to describe the appalling nature of the abuse that child victims suffered."
The inquiry team found examples of "children who had been doused in petrol and threatened with being set alight, threatened with guns, made to witness brutally violent rapes and threatened they would be next if they told anyone....
The report found: "Several staff described their nervousness about identifying the ethnic origins of perpetrators for fear of being thought as racist; others remembered clear direction from their managers not to do so."
Failures by those charged with protecting children happened despite three reports between 2002 and 2006 which both the council and police were aware of, and "which could not have been clearer in the description of the situation in Rotherham".
No indeed, it appears the "moral panic" you are looking for is not about child molestation.
There will be more Rotherham-style child sexual exploitation scandals unearthed in the coming months as the “stone is lifted” on the scale of abuse perpetrated on the young, one of Britain’s top police officers has warned.
Paedophiles are abusing children in real life within an hour of grooming them online, the professor who led the investigation into the Rotherham sex abuse scandal has warned.
Professor Alexis Jay, who compiled a report into how gangs of mainly Asian men groomed, terrorised and abused 1,400 girls as young as 11 in Rotherham over a 16-year period said sex abuse went on undetected in many other areas across Britain.
Similarity to child pornography? Is there really someone so stupid that they cannot tell the difference between a cartoon drawing and a real child?
We are already well into the era of digital art being more or less indistinguishable from photographs without close or expert examination. You can disagree with the law, but I expect that one of the considerations is forestalling having to sort through the maze of identifying exactly what it is beyond being child pornography.
Is it original digital art? Is it a digitally manipulated photograph? Is it a digital photograph? Is it digital art produced from a photograph?
In the mind of the pedophile they all serve the same purpose: to arouse lust towards children. I don't think stimulating sexual lust towards children is something society finds acceptable.
No need to feel sorry, that constitution didn't apply to America. After the British government failed to apply to the American colonists the rights secured to Britons in the Glorious Revolution the American colonists ultimately decided to have an even more glorious revolution of their own and write a constitution that applied to them.
The UK constitution is often described as an 'unwritten constitution', but it is best described as 'partly written and wholly uncodified' (Budge et al, 1998).
It is derived from a number of sources. Its principal source is statute law, i.e., laws passed by the UK Parliament.
In the developed world, we do not feel obliged to be the worlds policeman and do not fund our services according to that idea.
Yes, they do tend to get a lot of money but it's not limitless.
Your use of the royal "we" is almost certainly mistaken. Even humble Canada is quite active in the use of its armed forces around the world.
Canada is active in all manner of UN peace operations. Since the first peacekeeping operation in 1956, Canada has accepted frequent requests to join UN operations around the world, whether in Cyprus, Bosnia, Haiti, or elsewhere. To date, over 125,000 Canadians have served in close to 50 UN missions
It would be easy to show similar commitments by Britain, Australia, and many other countries.
You are correct that about funding in that most of Europe is not meeting its defense spending targets agreed to within the NATO alliance.
Why you think that not meeting your defense obligations and misspending what you do have constitutes being part of "the developed world" shows the pitiful state of most of Europe's militaries. Even Britain is decimating its armed forces.
If you haven't been fucked by your insurance company yet, just wait until you're a bit older. I can guarantee you it will happen, it is only a matter of when and how badly. This is not a conspiracy theory, this is a guarantee. They hold all the cards and they set the rules of the game; you can't win or even hope to break even.
I've got news for you - government run healthcare in the US has denied people medical treatment while offering them a suicide pill, and we're not even talking about the VA here. You might want to think about that too.
The problem with your idea is that words have meaning, and terrorist doesn't mean the same thing as rebel. The word terrorist has its own meaning, and it isn't part of some "craze." Your certainty is nonsense.
Slashdot Mirror
I think this was unintentionally revealing. It's the feeling of safety and security that Facebook is frantic to defend. Actual safety and security? Well, that's... complicated.
Dealing with the sensibilities of Facebook seems to be like that.
Facebook Finally Deletes the ‘Kill Kendall Jones’ Page
Background: Facebook pulled down the hunting photos of Kendall Jones citing a violation of the social-media site's "community standards," but they allowed the page titled "Kill Kendall Jones" to remain stating that it did not violate their policies. A tad hypocritical, to say the least.
Have you considered submitting your material to Women & Guns?
You do realize that libertarians aren't the people that run libraries, right?
How indeed?
Army National Guard
Air National Guard
Army National Guard Vision 2010
A Full Spectrum Land Force
The Army National Guard is fully committed to implementing the joint operational concepts of dominant maneuver, precision engagement, focused logistics and full-dimensional protection. With 34 percent of the Army's strength, more than half of the combat power, nearly 70 percent of field artillery, and more than a third of its combat support and combat service support capabilities, the Army National Guard is a full partner in rapid strategic mobility, tailor-to-task organizational flexibility, and, ultimately, a key component in a seamless joint force that can be committed cross-dimensionally along the entire spectrum of contingencies.
Army National Guard Combat Power
A visual representation of the Army National Guard's brigades. This represents the National Guard's Infantry and Heavy brigades but also includes Engineer, Field Artillery and Aviation brigades as well. .
Britain, France, and the US are all nuclear power states that have armies equipped with the most modern weapons systems. Why are they still fighting the Taliban after 13 years? How is it that ISIS defies them?
Is it possible that there are factors that you aren't considering? It would seem so. Not even the apartheid state of South Africa which was a nuclear state for a period of time was ultimately willing to use nuclear weapons on its own people.
The dismissive statements that the two of you have made take no recognition of the facts of the matter. Do you think that the Swiss government could impose a tyranny on the Swiss? Hardly. Nearly the whole of the army is composed of reservists that keep arms at home. Israel? Once again, unlikely. The US? Unlikely, at least in a coup. Half of the total combat power of the US military is in the reserve forces composed largely of state militias. Much of the support is also in the reserves. To that you add the factor of the unformed militia which is legally defined as:
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
So you see, those weapons are in the hands of the unformed militia which is responsible to defend the US Constitution again all enemies, foreign and domestic. That is a very useful addition to the state militias.
The case in many European countries is not as favorable. About 100 years ago in Britain free men and women owned large numbers of firearms, and bobbies pursuing criminals could appeal to the public for aid or arms. Those days are long gone, as is the mentality. The right of even self defense against attack has become endangered in Britain.
It appears to me that you aren't successfully identifying what is foolish, and there is plenty of that going on in Britain.
It's quite obvious that guns should not be freely available to just anybody.
They aren't in the US.
Distrust of the government is fine but the view that having everyone have guns as a defence against the government is just an absurd rationalisation of testosterone-driven desire to own firepower.
Shall we ascribe your rant to estrogen-driven fear of guns? Or are you simply bereft of an understanding of the relevant philosophy, history, and current events?
Imagine a Beowulf mode cluster of Emacs....
In the post you made to me in the other thread you made an intelligent argument in a civil manner. I think it is a shame that you do not make more posts like it. There are certainly topics I can be persuaded to change my mind about. If I respond to that post I plan to make my points in a respectful and hopefully persuasive manner in return.
In this post, on the other hand, you return to your unfortunate predilection of engaging in the practices of cranks and fringe progressives although I give you partial credit for not going full fascist as you have on other occasions.
There is nothing contradictory about being for limited government and an effective national defense. That you think so would be a reflection of your limitations, not mine.
I think it is a pity you stooped to the level of an obvious nutter. You can do better.
It's always interesting to read the comments of people willing to engage in civil discussion by making thoughtful posts in an articulate, respectful manner. If you run across any of those people you may want to ask them to make "guest posts" for you.
Actually I'm not a Libertarian (big or small "L"), but they often have ideas worth some consideration. You're 0 for 2.
I am curious now though. You're an "apostate" libertarian? That would make you formerly a libertarian. Where did you go wrong?
And then he turned into a neoconservative/fringe libertarian nutbar after that business with the skyscrapers in '01.
Do you have any proof of that? In this Slashdot interview from 1999, which you will astutely note is before 9/11, people were complaining about him in similar terms to today. What is this big change that you claim happened? Is there something in his writings or blog?
After 9/11 some people went cold turkey on the bat shit insanity that they had been involved in, others found a moment or two of sanity and then relapsed. And some others couldn't even manage that.
You seem to have made clear how you view ESR, but I guess we know where you stand too, eh?
What do you mean? Emacs can emulate vi.
The problem is there are not enough pedophiles to prosecute. The state has been forced to "create" pedophiles.
That doesn't really seem to be the problem. It is more like something approaching the opposite.
Rotherham child abuse scandal: 1,400 children exploited, report finds
Rotherham child sexual abuse scandal is tip of iceberg, says police chief
There will be more Rotherham-style child sexual exploitation scandals unearthed in the coming months as the “stone is lifted” on the scale of abuse perpetrated on the young, one of Britain’s top police officers has warned.
Is it legal to make counterfeit money even if you never attempt to use it?
No. But such is the moral panic over child molestation in the UK that no-one dare stand up and defend him.
I don't think you could build a good case that "moral panic" over child molestation is the biggest problem the UK has in this regard, viz:
Rotherham child abuse scandal: 1,400 children exploited, report finds
Prof Jay said: "No-one knows the true scale of child sexual exploitation in Rotherham over the years. Our conservative estimate is that approximately 1,400 children were sexually exploited over the full inquiry period, from 1997 to 2013."
Revealing details of the inquiry's findings, Prof Jay said: "It is hard to describe the appalling nature of the abuse that child victims suffered."
The inquiry team found examples of "children who had been doused in petrol and threatened with being set alight, threatened with guns, made to witness brutally violent rapes and threatened they would be next if they told anyone ....
The report found: "Several staff described their nervousness about identifying the ethnic origins of perpetrators for fear of being thought as racist; others remembered clear direction from their managers not to do so."
Failures by those charged with protecting children happened despite three reports between 2002 and 2006 which both the council and police were aware of, and "which could not have been clearer in the description of the situation in Rotherham".
No indeed, it appears the "moral panic" you are looking for is not about child molestation.
Rotherham child sexual abuse scandal is tip of iceberg, says police chief
There will be more Rotherham-style child sexual exploitation scandals unearthed in the coming months as the “stone is lifted” on the scale of abuse perpetrated on the young, one of Britain’s top police officers has warned.
Children are being abused an hour after being groomed online, Rotherham sex abuse scandal expert warns
Paedophiles are abusing children in real life within an hour of grooming them online, the professor who led the investigation into the Rotherham sex abuse scandal has warned.
Professor Alexis Jay, who compiled a report into how gangs of mainly Asian men groomed, terrorised and abused 1,400 girls as young as 11 in Rotherham over a 16-year period said sex abuse went on undetected in many other areas across Britain.
Similarity to child pornography? Is there really someone so stupid that they cannot tell the difference between a cartoon drawing and a real child?
We are already well into the era of digital art being more or less indistinguishable from photographs without close or expert examination. You can disagree with the law, but I expect that one of the considerations is forestalling having to sort through the maze of identifying exactly what it is beyond being child pornography.
Is it original digital art?
Is it a digitally manipulated photograph?
Is it a digital photograph?
Is it digital art produced from a photograph?
In the mind of the pedophile they all serve the same purpose: to arouse lust towards children. I don't think stimulating sexual lust towards children is something society finds acceptable.
You don't seem to have contradicted what I wrote, and I didn't write that Britain doesn't have a constitution.
No need to feel sorry, that constitution didn't apply to America. After the British government failed to apply to the American colonists the rights secured to Britons in the Glorious Revolution the American colonists ultimately decided to have an even more glorious revolution of their own and write a constitution that applied to them.
As to the "written Constitution" of the UK....
The UK constitution
The UK constitution is often described as an 'unwritten constitution', but it is best described as 'partly written and wholly uncodified' (Budge et al, 1998).
It is derived from a number of sources. Its principal source is statute law, i.e., laws passed by the UK Parliament.
In the developed world, we do not feel obliged to be the worlds policeman and do not fund our services according to that idea.
Yes, they do tend to get a lot of money but it's not limitless.
Your use of the royal "we" is almost certainly mistaken. Even humble Canada is quite active in the use of its armed forces around the world.
Canada extending anti-piracy mission near Somalia
Peacekeeping and Peacebuilding Operations
Canada is active in all manner of UN peace operations. Since the first peacekeeping operation in 1956, Canada has accepted frequent requests to join UN operations around the world, whether in Cyprus, Bosnia, Haiti, or elsewhere. To date, over 125,000 Canadians have served in close to 50 UN missions
Canadian Armed Forces completes military mission in Afghanistan
It would be easy to show similar commitments by Britain, Australia, and many other countries.
You are correct that about funding in that most of Europe is not meeting its defense spending targets agreed to within the NATO alliance.
Why you think that not meeting your defense obligations and misspending what you do have constitutes being part of "the developed world" shows the pitiful state of most of Europe's militaries. Even Britain is decimating its armed forces.
It may appear counterintuitive but the crank newsletters where you get your ideas aren't the final arbiters of meaning either.
Burning trees from managed forests is nearly carbon neutral (carbon lean, actually). Forrests that aren't harvested are carbon sinks.
If you haven't been fucked by your insurance company yet, just wait until you're a bit older. I can guarantee you it will happen, it is only a matter of when and how badly. This is not a conspiracy theory, this is a guarantee. They hold all the cards and they set the rules of the game; you can't win or even hope to break even.
I've got news for you - government run healthcare in the US has denied people medical treatment while offering them a suicide pill, and we're not even talking about the VA here. You might want to think about that too.
The problem with your idea is that words have meaning, and terrorist doesn't mean the same thing as rebel. The word terrorist has its own meaning, and it isn't part of some "craze." Your certainty is nonsense.
The US is a functioning democracy. It's government changes by election, not rebellion.
The Civil War makes clear the label attached to rebels against the US government: rebels.
Your fantasy life is of no interest to me and probably anyone else on Slashdot.
Dumping the Brit's tea could've been construed as an act of terrorism at the time they were in.
I think that the implied ability of an ocean port with some floating tea in it to inspire "terror" is .... a bit underwhelming.