If you must leap to "crazy old man with a nuke" to make your point then I believe you lack the ability to understand nuance.
Dude, you literally just argued that average citizens should be allowed to own jet fighters and anti aircraft weaponry. Where was I supposed to go to establish that some weapons are too dangerous? It was like, the next actual step.
And I am curious to hear your magic plan for identifying off balance people who might misuse their shiny new bomber before it gets into their hands.
Meanwhile, in the SANE world, we recognize that there are certain standards of lethality that it is irresponsible for all people have access to. Unless you are suggesting that we allow the crazy old man down the street who thinks trespassing is justification for murder to own a nuke, you do too. Now, as responsible citizens, we should be talking about where that line is. But it's more fun to pretend that the government is coming for all your guns, and to pretend that you will somehow heave yourself out of your comfy computer chair and become rambo.
Meanwhile, if the government DID decide to come get your guns, and you put up a resistance, it would end like every active shooter situation does today.
Also, I would go into why it is a bad idea to allow private armies within your borders, but I feel the nuance might be lost on you.
Which is why I have never understood why progressives don't spin solar power and electric vehicles as a defense measure. Worried about that electrical grid? You won't once it has been completely decentralized. Worried about fuel distribution and foreign supply during a time of war? Hey, they can't block out the sun, so no problem!
Completely off topic here, but I just wanted to thank you, Mashiki, for single handedly reminding me why I don't browse at 2. I wish I had your kind of free time.
I think you are minimizing the raw amount of computing power it takes to figure out what is something the AI should be shooting at vs a background texture. Just because vision is easy for us doesn't mean it is easy for a computer.
Lets not white wash the actual polls. The PPACA was very popular in the polls. Obamacare was wildly unpopular in those same polls. The fact that those were the same thing seems to have been lost on the average voter.
"I'm an independant" has become the new way of saying "I'm ashamed of my party, but I vote for them anyway." Whenever someone claims they are an independant to me, the first question I ask is, "So, when was the last time you voted for a democrat?"
Doesn't have to replace all radiologists. It just needs to read the MRI and write an automated report so fast and well, that a single radiologist can sit at home in his jammies and double check AI radiology reports for entire regions of hospitals. One radiologist doing the work of dozens.
Horses are still around despite the existence of cars. Just a whole lot fewer of them.
Ok, For what egomaniacal reason Trump is doing this is beyond me, but devils advocate, I don't hate this idea. If this is what we have to do to fund research into space vessels where large numbers of people can live without the hazards of space cutting their lifespans in half, I am all in. The one thing this country has repeatedly demonstrated is that, while it begrudges nasa every cent, there isn't a military spending bill that won't instantly pass. This could be a back door into developing a second wave of technologies that we export to the rest of the world, much in the same way we stimulated the economy with the first space race.
However, my gut tells me we will just start shooting drones up there.
You must not be caught up on the news, sir. I believe that tent cities filled with certain groups of people are the very definition of concentration camps. If you aren't going to stay informed, you should probably be less judgemental.
I know I am supposed to reward rather than punish with mod points, but I really do wish/. would add a mod category "-1 Without a basis in fact." Times like these it would come in handy.
The same George Soros who signed and sent a petition (along with 400 other ultra rich) to congress begging them NOT to give them a tax cut? This is the example you site when you are trying to debunk that the claim she wouldn't have cut taxes for the ultra rich?
It's possible that the information your present is a little more nuanced than you believe it to be.
Well, you started off on a bad foot and took it into a worse conclusion. You have to remember the time frame, Darwin had yet to produce his theory and wouldn't for a hundred ish years. Even if you didn't believe in the christian god at the time, you were at a loss as to how to explain how man got here. The intent of this statement is to add moral authority to the simple concept of "people are born free and anything you do to impune on that is wrong."
In short, you are looking at this exactly backwards. The declaration of independence was written as a message to an abusive government, and was done so in such a way as to accuse them of immorality. "We hold these TRUTHS to be self evident...." You can't claim ignorance, everybody knows these things. "All men are created equal." We are all born the same, any injustice is because YOU imposed it or allowed it. "certain unalienable Rights..." There are certain things, if you try to suppress them, we have a MORAL justification for fighting you.
Rights aren't a scientific classification, they are a moral justification. I have the right to free speech. Why? Because everyone does and you are an asshole if you try to take it away.
Now, without a doubt, I will probably need help to protect those rights. So forming a government to acknowledge and defend those rights is probably a good idea, but the key point is that those rights existed before the government. Otherwise you get into an illogical chicken and egg loop.
As to the thread context, just because you call something a right, doesn't necessarily make it one. Being wrapped up with morality, they are difficult to define and limit, but that doesn't mean they don't exist. At least for humans.
As a side note, there was serious debate around the creation of a bill of rights. It was argued at the time that the "uneducated" would assume those rights were the only ones they possessed. To alleviate this concern, the 9th amendment was provided. "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
Smarter and better men than you or I have made their life's work arguing these things, and I for one am not willing to dismiss it as idealistic ramblings or religious zealots.
Oh, and I have been an atheist since 15, I would advise you not to let the inclusion of the word God in a sentence blind you with disgust such that you ignore the rest of the words in it.
Rights are not granted by anyone. "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed, by their Creator, with certain unalienable Rights..." Your rights are something you are born with, and they are numerous beyond counting, and universal, applying everywhere. Governments can only recognize and protect, or ignore and abuse those rights.
Undoing moderation to say this, but it has to be said. Unless you are naive enough to believe that the U.S. justice system works 100% of the time in capitol cases and always gets the right man, a death penalty by necessity kills innocent people some percentage of the time. Killing innocents is immoral and unwarranted, and by your own terms, murder.
Now some people may be ok with a "small" number of innocent people being killed for no reason, I am not. Supposedly about 1 in 20, subject to locality. I wish I could find a link but I saw an interview with the former pro-death penalty D.A. of chicago who's mind was changed when a DNA evidence review law was passed and almost half of death row inmates were exonerated. (I hope I am not mis remembering details there).
In any case, a country that concerns itself with justice would never take from one single man that which it can not return without just cause.
Wow, what a nice little fairy tale. Let me tell you a real story. I was alive and old enough to remember the runup to IRAQ, and I was politically aware enough to watch the news. TONS of people knew Iraq had jack and squat. THere were NIGHTLY news stories about how the UN weapons inspectors, over and over again, weren't finding even hints of a nuclear program. In fact, when bush finally got his authorization of force, they had to hurry inspectors out who had been begging for time to finish yet another inspection trying to debunk the made up evidence.
Evidence by the way that Cheney had to essentially create an office in the pentagon to come up with. After our intelligence continually told him over and over that it wasn't the case, he had to create a department to "find evidence at all cost". The most telling thing I remember was watching the state of the union and hearing bush say "...and a european intelligence report states that Sadam Hussien is actively seeking nuclear materials." I remember thinking "What do OUR intelligence agencies think about it? Why couldn't he cite them in the speech?"
A few days later we learned why, the news started airing reports that our intelligence agency had long considered that particular report fiction. Even the days of the week didn't match up to the numeric dates!
I don't know if you were a child or an early victim of fox news, but it was widely known by anyone paying attention that the Iraq war was being manufactured. There were protests, constant news reports, general skepticism.
What lobby do you suppose was feeling the pinch because of cheap Iranian exports? I think you might want to start paying attention to the details rather than assume you are powerless to make decisions about your own government that can affect change.
Flynn - Plead guilty to lying to the fbi about his russian contacts Pinedo - Plead guilty to opening up false bank accounts and selling them to russia Zwaan - Plead guilty to lying about work for a Ukranian political party
I don't know what you think "collusion" looks like, but this is it. If you are trying to convince me that "Trumps People" are being indicted for "Other things", you have a hard case to argue. Collusion isn't a crime, but all of the illegal things you do while you collude with a foreign power are. The only question that remains is if they can prove conspiracy, and if Trump can be named in it.
Being old enough to actually remember has it's perks, one being I don't need to look up things I watched happening. Also, I find it pretty interesting that you accuse GP of lying by showing the wrong statistics, and yet you end up digging up that image, as opposed to this one at the very tip top of the wikipedia article.
Slashdot Mirror
Which world is that? The land of make-believe? In the real world he is starting trade wars with our staunchest allies.
If you must leap to "crazy old man with a nuke" to make your point then I believe you lack the ability to understand nuance.
Dude, you literally just argued that average citizens should be allowed to own jet fighters and anti aircraft weaponry. Where was I supposed to go to establish that some weapons are too dangerous? It was like, the next actual step.
And I am curious to hear your magic plan for identifying off balance people who might misuse their shiny new bomber before it gets into their hands.
Meanwhile, in the SANE world, we recognize that there are certain standards of lethality that it is irresponsible for all people have access to. Unless you are suggesting that we allow the crazy old man down the street who thinks trespassing is justification for murder to own a nuke, you do too. Now, as responsible citizens, we should be talking about where that line is. But it's more fun to pretend that the government is coming for all your guns, and to pretend that you will somehow heave yourself out of your comfy computer chair and become rambo.
Meanwhile, if the government DID decide to come get your guns, and you put up a resistance, it would end like every active shooter situation does today.
Also, I would go into why it is a bad idea to allow private armies within your borders, but I feel the nuance might be lost on you.
Which is why I have never understood why progressives don't spin solar power and electric vehicles as a defense measure. Worried about that electrical grid? You won't once it has been completely decentralized. Worried about fuel distribution and foreign supply during a time of war? Hey, they can't block out the sun, so no problem!
Completely off topic here, but I just wanted to thank you, Mashiki, for single handedly reminding me why I don't browse at 2. I wish I had your kind of free time.
I think you are minimizing the raw amount of computing power it takes to figure out what is something the AI should be shooting at vs a background texture. Just because vision is easy for us doesn't mean it is easy for a computer.
Nuclear powered air travel and cement? Who the fuck mods this stuff up?
Lets not white wash the actual polls. The PPACA was very popular in the polls. Obamacare was wildly unpopular in those same polls. The fact that those were the same thing seems to have been lost on the average voter.
"I'm an independant" has become the new way of saying "I'm ashamed of my party, but I vote for them anyway." Whenever someone claims they are an independant to me, the first question I ask is, "So, when was the last time you voted for a democrat?"
The answer is almost always never.
Would you rather spend another 9 billion on a new one, or a billion finishing this one?
What makes you think we would be successful with some other technology if we can't be with this one?
So just out of curiosity, if it is that simple, then why aren't you super rich? Is it lack of ambition, or lack of ability?
Doesn't have to replace all radiologists. It just needs to read the MRI and write an automated report so fast and well, that a single radiologist can sit at home in his jammies and double check AI radiology reports for entire regions of hospitals. One radiologist doing the work of dozens.
Horses are still around despite the existence of cars. Just a whole lot fewer of them.
Ok, For what egomaniacal reason Trump is doing this is beyond me, but devils advocate, I don't hate this idea. If this is what we have to do to fund research into space vessels where large numbers of people can live without the hazards of space cutting their lifespans in half, I am all in. The one thing this country has repeatedly demonstrated is that, while it begrudges nasa every cent, there isn't a military spending bill that won't instantly pass. This could be a back door into developing a second wave of technologies that we export to the rest of the world, much in the same way we stimulated the economy with the first space race.
However, my gut tells me we will just start shooting drones up there.
You must not be caught up on the news, sir. I believe that tent cities filled with certain groups of people are the very definition of concentration camps. If you aren't going to stay informed, you should probably be less judgemental.
"works hard"
We talking about the same guy here?
I know I am supposed to reward rather than punish with mod points, but I really do wish /. would add a mod category "-1 Without a basis in fact." Times like these it would come in handy.
The same George Soros who signed and sent a petition (along with 400 other ultra rich) to congress begging them NOT to give them a tax cut? This is the example you site when you are trying to debunk that the claim she wouldn't have cut taxes for the ultra rich?
It's possible that the information your present is a little more nuanced than you believe it to be.
Well, you started off on a bad foot and took it into a worse conclusion. You have to remember the time frame, Darwin had yet to produce his theory and wouldn't for a hundred ish years. Even if you didn't believe in the christian god at the time, you were at a loss as to how to explain how man got here. The intent of this statement is to add moral authority to the simple concept of "people are born free and anything you do to impune on that is wrong."
In short, you are looking at this exactly backwards. The declaration of independence was written as a message to an abusive government, and was done so in such a way as to accuse them of immorality. "We hold these TRUTHS to be self evident...." You can't claim ignorance, everybody knows these things. "All men are created equal." We are all born the same, any injustice is because YOU imposed it or allowed it. "certain unalienable Rights..." There are certain things, if you try to suppress them, we have a MORAL justification for fighting you.
Rights aren't a scientific classification, they are a moral justification. I have the right to free speech. Why? Because everyone does and you are an asshole if you try to take it away.
Now, without a doubt, I will probably need help to protect those rights. So forming a government to acknowledge and defend those rights is probably a good idea, but the key point is that those rights existed before the government. Otherwise you get into an illogical chicken and egg loop.
As to the thread context, just because you call something a right, doesn't necessarily make it one. Being wrapped up with morality, they are difficult to define and limit, but that doesn't mean they don't exist. At least for humans.
As a side note, there was serious debate around the creation of a bill of rights. It was argued at the time that the "uneducated" would assume those rights were the only ones they possessed. To alleviate this concern, the 9th amendment was provided. "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
Smarter and better men than you or I have made their life's work arguing these things, and I for one am not willing to dismiss it as idealistic ramblings or religious zealots.
Oh, and I have been an atheist since 15, I would advise you not to let the inclusion of the word God in a sentence blind you with disgust such that you ignore the rest of the words in it.
Rights are not granted by anyone. "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed, by their Creator, with certain unalienable Rights..." Your rights are something you are born with, and they are numerous beyond counting, and universal, applying everywhere. Governments can only recognize and protect, or ignore and abuse those rights.
The distinction is seriously important.
Yeah! And why does the NAVY have PLANES! I mean, HELLO! We have an air force!
Or, you know, maybe Noah and NASA are exploring 2 different things?
Undoing moderation to say this, but it has to be said. Unless you are naive enough to believe that the U.S. justice system works 100% of the time in capitol cases and always gets the right man, a death penalty by necessity kills innocent people some percentage of the time. Killing innocents is immoral and unwarranted, and by your own terms, murder.
Now some people may be ok with a "small" number of innocent people being killed for no reason, I am not. Supposedly about 1 in 20, subject to locality. I wish I could find a link but I saw an interview with the former pro-death penalty D.A. of chicago who's mind was changed when a DNA evidence review law was passed and almost half of death row inmates were exonerated. (I hope I am not mis remembering details there).
In any case, a country that concerns itself with justice would never take from one single man that which it can not return without just cause.
Wow, what a nice little fairy tale. Let me tell you a real story. I was alive and old enough to remember the runup to IRAQ, and I was politically aware enough to watch the news. TONS of people knew Iraq had jack and squat. THere were NIGHTLY news stories about how the UN weapons inspectors, over and over again, weren't finding even hints of a nuclear program. In fact, when bush finally got his authorization of force, they had to hurry inspectors out who had been begging for time to finish yet another inspection trying to debunk the made up evidence.
Evidence by the way that Cheney had to essentially create an office in the pentagon to come up with. After our intelligence continually told him over and over that it wasn't the case, he had to create a department to "find evidence at all cost". The most telling thing I remember was watching the state of the union and hearing bush say "...and a european intelligence report states that Sadam Hussien is actively seeking nuclear materials." I remember thinking "What do OUR intelligence agencies think about it? Why couldn't he cite them in the speech?"
A few days later we learned why, the news started airing reports that our intelligence agency had long considered that particular report fiction. Even the days of the week didn't match up to the numeric dates!
I don't know if you were a child or an early victim of fox news, but it was widely known by anyone paying attention that the Iraq war was being manufactured. There were protests, constant news reports, general skepticism.
What lobby do you suppose was feeling the pinch because of cheap Iranian exports? I think you might want to start paying attention to the details rather than assume you are powerless to make decisions about your own government that can affect change.
Flynn - Plead guilty to lying to the fbi about his russian contacts
Pinedo - Plead guilty to opening up false bank accounts and selling them to russia
Zwaan - Plead guilty to lying about work for a Ukranian political party
I don't know what you think "collusion" looks like, but this is it. If you are trying to convince me that "Trumps People" are being indicted for "Other things", you have a hard case to argue. Collusion isn't a crime, but all of the illegal things you do while you collude with a foreign power are. The only question that remains is if they can prove conspiracy, and if Trump can be named in it.
Being old enough to actually remember has it's perks, one being I don't need to look up things I watched happening. Also, I find it pretty interesting that you accuse GP of lying by showing the wrong statistics, and yet you end up digging up that image, as opposed to this one at the very tip top of the wikipedia article.