I understand (please correct me if i am wrong) that the USA military has become (in the last couple of decades) more "POLICE/anti-terrorist" (like the Israeli military?), because of the type of the enemy you are against, so you must train harder in this "shoot accurately, shoot far away" and/or "clear the buildings/area".
I'm actually Canadian, but yes, we as well as the Americans do tend to focus quite a lot on training for urban combat these days. It's not the same as what police have to do - what you wrote earlier about us having a lot more luxury to just sit back and call in artlery is definitely true - but we do use very similar techniques when it comes to house clearing.
You mentioned later in your comment that you've been out for about 2 decades which, I think, is the real difference between what you experienced and what's going on now. I started my service about 2 decades ago, and at that time we were almost entirely dealing with things like trench warfare, ambushes, advance to contact, etc. The stuff which you termed "MILITARY, more rural". We also did a bit of urban combat training plus some crowd control and aid to civil power stuff, but that was all an afterthought; the majority of our training was for fighting away from cities.
The change in focus happened around 2002 / 2003 which is probably why you never saw it in the Greek military. I'm sure that these days your guys are also doing a lot more urban warfare training.
You must have missed the word "nearly". Though it's telling that, in your examples, the capitalistic aspects of the characters are completely absent from the story. It's mentioned that both of them are rich and own businesses, but other than that they may as well be communists, socialists, aristocrats or royalty; it would make absolutely no difference to their stories.
But it justified a militaristic society by arguing that the best and most noble members of that society were in the military, implying non-military were less noble and dedicated (else they'd have joined the military).
It did no such thing. Many of the characters were brutish and rather cruel, and the novel even included a military member committing a serious crime against a civilian, for which he was executed. There was nothing "noble" about the soldiers apart from their willingness to sacrifice in defense of society as a whole; in all other respects they were very much regular human beings, with all their wrinkles and warts, just trying to get through another day of living.
If you're arguing that the book encourages the concept of self sacrifice in defence of society, then I suppose that's true. I'm not sure why you're objecting to it, though.
And victory is won when necessity forces a full mobilization and essentially an embrace of militarism.
How is responding to a militaristic adversary with necessary force a glorification of the military, or "militarism"?
What's there to wave away? Let consenting adults do what they want in the privacy of their own bedroom. You would think that "progressives" would be all over that.
Yep. Moreover, IIRC, you didn't get your franchise until after releasing from the service, which is the exact opposite of what the movie suggested. In the movie, society is run by the "sky marshals" - active military leaders - whereas in the book the military doesn't get a say at all; the direction of their society is determined by voting citizens.
It takes an incredibly thoughtless person to read "fascism" into that.
Don't be stupid. Nearly every "capitalist" portrayed in Hollywood movies - outside of annointed saints like Steve Jobs - is an eeeeevil caricature. Pointing this out is not a demand for "sharks" to be painted in a positive light.
The reality is that the really good shooters are not in the military but in the police.
I served, and I also trained with police "SWAT" type teams; in my experience this isn't really true. Police snipers are quite good; I guess you could argue that they might be better than military snipers, but at that level "better" means differences which are largely insignificant, so I would say that the two are on-par.
The rest of the cops I trained with were really nothing special; they train at short distances (200 meters or less) so, if anything, they seemed to be worse shooters than most of my guys.
Their entry drills and tactics on the other hand were fantastic. We learned a lot from them.
How much time can an officer allocate for assessing targets on such a call?
That very much depends on the target. Sometimes you have loads of time, sometimes you don't even have two seconds. The latter is inherently going to cause innocent casualties in some situations. It doesn't matter how good your judgement, training, or tactics are; there are going to be situations in which you are going to have to make a split second decision, and some subset of those decisions are going to be wrong.
And then you'll end up on YouTube so that millions of morons can scream about how horrible cops are.
1. A fuel tank. 2. A compressed air tank. 3. A hose 4. An ignitor
Since these components are legal, it seems silly to make it illegal to connect them.
That doesn't seen to stop legislators though. To quote the late great George Carlin, "Selling is legal. Fucking is legal. Why isn't selling fucking legal?"
The cheaper a given service is, the more individuals' disposable incomes will support the outlay at which point it will start competing against all the other non-essential items that a given individual wants.
That's a valid point if we are talking about why piracy is rampant in third world countries but, I would argue, streaming services in the west have been "cheap enough" for years. Especially if you consider the fact that they are positioned as a replacement for cable television, which is generally far more expensive.
The issue has never been one of cost for us. I have access to two streaming services yet I still often frequent pirate bay. The bigger issues are selection, reliability, and the ability to use media offline.
Since his entire argument was that further lowering the cost of streaming services would cut piracy in the west, I think he's badly misguided. I don't know anyone who pirates because they can't afford Netflix or Amazon Prime; many of them pirate despite having access to at least one of those services.
Comparing the average salary in Beijing to the average salary in all of the USA is rather misleading. The average salary in China add a whole is about $4,700 per YEAR, which is significantly lower than the figure for Beijing.
Virtue signalling is the conspicuous expression of moral values done primarily with the intent of enhancing standing within a social group.[1] The term was first used in signalling theory, to describe any behavior that could be used to signal virtueâ"especially piety among the religious.[2] In recent years, the term has become more commonly used as a pejorative characterization by commentators to criticize what they regard as empty, or superficial support of certain political views, and also used within groups to criticize their own members for valuing outward appearance over substantive action.[3][4]
Who would think the three laws could have a bad outcome?
Anyone who has spent 5 minutes thinking about it. The problems would manifest long before the whole "enslaving man kind" thing popped up. The whole concept would get shitcanned the first time an android ran out onto the field during the Superbowl to try and stop the players from giving each other concussions.
You're not buying anything; auto insurance is a legal requirement which currently exists primarily to ensure that innocent parties will be covered for their losses.
Of course they can never predict how much you're going to cost them because your costs aren't necessarily dictated only by you. If tomorrow you get t-boned by an uninsured driver who ran a red light, there's not much you could have done to avoid that accident. They still have to pay for your losses, so you're "costing" them even though you did nothing wrong.
I can just picture an android designed by SJWs, protecting Muslims in the middle of a terror attack because the cops trying to stop them are white men.
No. The rules you've listed don't result in any such thing. You're missing the part which says they have to protect humans. So, in thus case, no enslavement.
Even if you add in an imperative to "keep humans safe", you're the one defining what "safe" means, so just don't be stupid as to how you define it.
Slashdot Mirror
I understand (please correct me if i am wrong) that the USA military has become (in the last couple of decades) more "POLICE/anti-terrorist" (like the Israeli military?), because of the type of the enemy you are against, so you must train harder in this "shoot accurately, shoot far away" and/or "clear the buildings/area" .
I'm actually Canadian, but yes, we as well as the Americans do tend to focus quite a lot on training for urban combat these days. It's not the same as what police have to do - what you wrote earlier about us having a lot more luxury to just sit back and call in artlery is definitely true - but we do use very similar techniques when it comes to house clearing.
You mentioned later in your comment that you've been out for about 2 decades which, I think, is the real difference between what you experienced and what's going on now. I started my service about 2 decades ago, and at that time we were almost entirely dealing with things like trench warfare, ambushes, advance to contact, etc. The stuff which you termed "MILITARY, more rural". We also did a bit of urban combat training plus some crowd control and aid to civil power stuff, but that was all an afterthought; the majority of our training was for fighting away from cities.
The change in focus happened around 2002 / 2003 which is probably why you never saw it in the Greek military. I'm sure that these days your guys are also doing a lot more urban warfare training.
You must have missed the word "nearly". Though it's telling that, in your examples, the capitalistic aspects of the characters are completely absent from the story. It's mentioned that both of them are rich and own businesses, but other than that they may as well be communists, socialists, aristocrats or royalty; it would make absolutely no difference to their stories.
But it justified a militaristic society by arguing that the best and most noble members of that society were in the military, implying non-military were less noble and dedicated (else they'd have joined the military).
It did no such thing. Many of the characters were brutish and rather cruel, and the novel even included a military member committing a serious crime against a civilian, for which he was executed. There was nothing "noble" about the soldiers apart from their willingness to sacrifice in defense of society as a whole; in all other respects they were very much regular human beings, with all their wrinkles and warts, just trying to get through another day of living.
If you're arguing that the book encourages the concept of self sacrifice in defence of society, then I suppose that's true. I'm not sure why you're objecting to it, though.
And victory is won when necessity forces a full mobilization and essentially an embrace of militarism.
How is responding to a militaristic adversary with necessary force a glorification of the military, or "militarism"?
What's there to wave away? Let consenting adults do what they want in the privacy of their own bedroom. You would think that "progressives" would be all over that.
Yep. Moreover, IIRC, you didn't get your franchise until after releasing from the service, which is the exact opposite of what the movie suggested. In the movie, society is run by the "sky marshals" - active military leaders - whereas in the book the military doesn't get a say at all; the direction of their society is determined by voting citizens.
It takes an incredibly thoughtless person to read "fascism" into that.
Don't be stupid. Nearly every "capitalist" portrayed in Hollywood movies - outside of annointed saints like Steve Jobs - is an eeeeevil caricature. Pointing this out is not a demand for "sharks" to be painted in a positive light.
No the proper form should be "A civilized society is a polite society"
Oh yeah? Then explain France.
If you think starship troopers glorified militarism, you either didn't read it or didn't understand it. Just like Veerhoven.
Pretty sure they also hate his views on things like religion, sexual liberty, incest, and so on ...
The reality is that the really good shooters are not in the military but in the police.
I served, and I also trained with police "SWAT" type teams; in my experience this isn't really true. Police snipers are quite good; I guess you could argue that they might be better than military snipers, but at that level "better" means differences which are largely insignificant, so I would say that the two are on-par.
The rest of the cops I trained with were really nothing special; they train at short distances (200 meters or less) so, if anything, they seemed to be worse shooters than most of my guys.
Their entry drills and tactics on the other hand were fantastic. We learned a lot from them.
How much time can an officer allocate for assessing targets on such a call?
That very much depends on the target. Sometimes you have loads of time, sometimes you don't even have two seconds. The latter is inherently going to cause innocent casualties in some situations. It doesn't matter how good your judgement, training, or tactics are; there are going to be situations in which you are going to have to make a split second decision, and some subset of those decisions are going to be wrong.
And then you'll end up on YouTube so that millions of morons can scream about how horrible cops are.
If you don't at least try to falsify it you can't possibly know that you're right.
A good guy with a flame thrower, obviously.
As it should be. A flamethrower consists of:
1. A fuel tank.
2. A compressed air tank.
3. A hose
4. An ignitor
Since these components are legal, it seems silly to make it illegal to connect them.
That doesn't seen to stop legislators though. To quote the late great George Carlin, "Selling is legal. Fucking is legal. Why isn't selling fucking legal?"
The defining characteristic of conspiracy theorists is that they never try to falsify their own ideas.
The cheaper a given service is, the more individuals' disposable incomes will support the outlay at which point it will start competing against all the other non-essential items that a given individual wants.
That's a valid point if we are talking about why piracy is rampant in third world countries but, I would argue, streaming services in the west have been "cheap enough" for years. Especially if you consider the fact that they are positioned as a replacement for cable television, which is generally far more expensive.
The issue has never been one of cost for us. I have access to two streaming services yet I still often frequent pirate bay. The bigger issues are selection, reliability, and the ability to use media offline.
Since his entire argument was that further lowering the cost of streaming services would cut piracy in the west, I think he's badly misguided. I don't know anyone who pirates because they can't afford Netflix or Amazon Prime; many of them pirate despite having access to at least one of those services.
Comparing the average salary in Beijing to the average salary in all of the USA is rather misleading. The average salary in China add a whole is about $4,700 per YEAR, which is significantly lower than the figure for Beijing.
Try wikipedia:
Virtue signalling is the conspicuous expression of moral values done primarily with the intent of enhancing standing within a social group.[1] The term was first used in signalling theory, to describe any behavior that could be used to signal virtueâ"especially piety among the religious.[2] In recent years, the term has become more commonly used as a pejorative characterization by commentators to criticize what they regard as empty, or superficial support of certain political views, and also used within groups to criticize their own members for valuing outward appearance over substantive action.[3][4]
Obviously you have no idea how lonely and attention starved radar dishes get. Prime targets for social engineering.
lol @ "piling up missile systems"
Good one comrade! That's some fine cold war era propaganda right there.
That's some fine propaganda there, comrade. Russia is annexing neighbouring nations, but it's the US that's aggressive and "on their borders".
Who would think the three laws could have a bad outcome?
Anyone who has spent 5 minutes thinking about it. The problems would manifest long before the whole "enslaving man kind" thing popped up. The whole concept would get shitcanned the first time an android ran out onto the field during the Superbowl to try and stop the players from giving each other concussions.
You're not buying anything; auto insurance is a legal requirement which currently exists primarily to ensure that innocent parties will be covered for their losses.
Of course they can never predict how much you're going to cost them because your costs aren't necessarily dictated only by you. If tomorrow you get t-boned by an uninsured driver who ran a red light, there's not much you could have done to avoid that accident. They still have to pay for your losses, so you're "costing" them even though you did nothing wrong.
I can just picture an android designed by SJWs, protecting Muslims in the middle of a terror attack because the cops trying to stop them are white men.
No. The rules you've listed don't result in any such thing. You're missing the part which says they have to protect humans. So, in thus case, no enslavement.
Even if you add in an imperative to "keep humans safe", you're the one defining what "safe" means, so just don't be stupid as to how you define it.