It might be subsidized up to high hell, but honestly I think a lot of us would agree that this is one of those industries where subsidies are a good thing.
Hardly. I'd support government funds going to further research on solar - I certainly don't support it going towards creating an industry based on current designs. I'd far rather see that money go to building new nuclear reactors.
businesses are dismally suited toward the task of education. Their mandate, a legal one at that, is to maintain and grow shareholder earnings and profit.
Ummmm.... no. You're thinking of corporations. Business have no legal mandate. A non-profit organization can also be a business.
I think that Kahn Academy is great for education. I do not think though that it will be able to stand against big money union propaganda and government hatred on the Local, State and Federal levels that will surely come down upon it.
I've never understood this mindset. Don't you get tired of living in a world where nothing ever gets better, and all good ideas are immediately destroyed by vested interests? Or, better yet, don't you look around once in a while and notice that these kinds of predictions are almost always wrong?
The rest of the world doesn't care in the slightest about bitcoin, including your readers
Speak for yourself. Back when it first started, I generated about 150 BTC in a week or so. At the time they were pretty much worthless - I figured I'd used more electricity than what they were worth. Today I can sell them for around $2,500, or use them to buy goods online. Yeah. You bet I care.
Since when is it the government's job to defend corporate interests?
Since always. Governments generally try to defend their citizens. This includes corporations.
Suppose I were to smoke pot (which I don't, but it's legal where I live). It's illegal in France, however. Now suppose France requested my extradition for smoking pot in Amsterdam. That's basically what this is about.
That's a stupid example. Smoking pot is not theft.
This would be more akin to a Canadian driving over the border, breaking into your house, stealing every valuable thing you have, and driving back over the border. A reasonable person would report the theft, and request that the individual responsible be arrested and the property recovered, damages paid, and the person responsible be jailed. Since the crime occurred in the US, this would require extradition.
Of course, what the case really comes down to is whether or not digital-piracy is equivalent to theft. I tend to think it's not, however, as long as it continues to be defined that way, the request being made by the US is perfectly reasonable.
I'm sorry, but you've either misunderstood everything I've said, or you're being intentionally obtuse, as your response seems to have only a tangential connection to my comment. I don't have the energy to try and explain everything again. You can claim victory, now, if you like.
Speaking as an atheist, it's a complete fallacy that atheism is peaceful and understanding
No, it's not. It's a fallacy to say that all atheists are peaceful and understanding, but that's not what he said. He merely pointed out that atheism itself inherently cannot be the motivation for that kind of behavior. Even if you weren't completely wrong about the nazis, it would have been irrelevant - being an atheist doesn't mean that your actions are motivated by atheism.
I wonder, if you feel the same way about vaccinations, of which there are serious consequences and adverse affects.
The adverse effects of vaccines are on the order of 1-in-a-million. The adverse effects of circumcision are on the order of several-per-100. To compare the two is ludicrous.
Never mind that Circumcision does have medical benefits, of which none of those proposing a ban are willing to admit.
No, it doesn't. It may have had some medical benefit for primitive cultures without an understanding of basic hygene, although even this is uncertain. In modern societies, such procedures serve no purpose except in the rare cases where they're required in order to treat an actual medical condition.
The problem with this stuff is, it clearly isn't 100% effective
I guess you're not familiar with the concept of a "thought-experiment"?
I'll help you out: the idea is that we take a "what-if" scenario, and then extrapolate to see how it affects a given argument. So, for instance, when you argue that scanners should be banned because they're ineffective, we can ask "would you oppose them if they were effective". If your answer is "yes", then it follows that you original complaint was pointless; you don't care whether they're effective, and even if someone were to show you that they ARE effective you would continue to oppose them.
Does that help? Can you understand, now, the purpose of a thought-experiment? Or of my question, specifically?
even if it was, there are still issues with passenger privacy and health (whether precieved or real)
Ridiculous. There are "perceived health issues" with cellphones - should we ban their sale and use? Sorry, FUD is not a "health issue", and it's certainly not a valid reason for avoiding a particular technology.
and the really genius bit of it all is that if it is successful the outcome from the point of view of an inpartial external viewer is exactly the same as if nothing happened at all.
Yep, just like vaccines. Guess we should ban those, too?
and yes, while it may be an ad-hominem to point out that your sources are all lunatics, I'm not going to waste time refuting people who have been shown to be liars, lunatics, and fanatics. You don't debate crazy people - you laugh at them, or you get them help.
If you actually manage to find a serious article from a credible news source which actually supports the original claim as it was first stated, let me know. I'd love to see it. Otherwise, thanks for the lulz:)
Yeah, that's great, except for the fact that it's a complete lie. Try checking their source article. It makes no mention of Chertoff representing anyone - it merely states that Rapiscan was a client of his security consulting business. Moreover, nowhere is it stated that Chertoff lobbied for that company, or for a technology that's unique to them.
To draw an analogy, this would be as if Microsoft hired me to do penetration testing for them, I lobbied a local politician to buy more computers for the local school, and then you came along and started whining that the reason the school board didn't buy Macs is because I was shilling for Microsoft. It's retarded.
Moreover, even if what's claimed in that article were 100% true, it wouldn't support the original statement, which was:
"the purpose of these body scanners was NEVER to increase security, it was a gigantic kickback to former homeland security chief Michael Chertoff who received very well documented "consulting" positions with the company that makes those scanners"
You'd have to show that their purpose wasn't to increase security, AND that Chertoff got kickbacks based on actual sales, AND you'd have to justify the quotation marks around the word "consulting". Failing that, the statement remains an idiotic conspiracy theory, based on the delusional interpretations of a paranoid mind.
The constitution, in these discussions, is a red herring. If you think it's not constitutional, take it up with the supreme court. When they rule in your favor, I'll take your argument seriously.
The statistics, likewise, fail to impress. You could use similar logic to get rid of the flu vaccine.
I appreciate the effort you put into your response, but I'd appreciate it more if you could make an actual case for why you want to get rid of airport security.
Would it be okay to give a good reason why my privacy is more important than the appearance of airline security?
Depends. First, think about whether you would still object if these machines were 100% effective. If the answer is "yes", then don't bother. Otherwise go ahead, but be ready to support your argument with statistics from a credible source.
did you get sent to the principals office for saying "i think you're brainwashing young impressionable minds with fascist imperialist lies Mrs. b" the day before?
Depends on the teacher, I suppose. But how is that comparable to "I smell bacon!"? Deliberately insulting your teacher - whether loudly or quietly - isn't likely to go without a reprimand. When did we decide that insulting one authority figure was ok, but insulting another is not? Let's have some consistency!! All students should be free to call Mrs. B a fascist cunt any time they feel like it!
Here is the essence of the problem. We only have ourselves to blame. We have given up on the idea of liberty and we ask the state to impose morality on citizens by force. Laws against adults doing consensual things be they gambling, drugs, sex, ect are naturally unjust. Their enforcement cannot be conducted without causing resentment and abuse of power. So until we eliminate all vice crimes we will live in a police state. If we eliminate them then you can go back to being peace officers
Well said. I think some of the resentment will always be there because much of it is simple rebellion against authority, but yes: whittle the laws down to the bare minimum and you'll decrease the amount of resentment, decrease the opportunities for corruption and abuse, and increase the ability of the police force to enforce laws which matter.
Unfortunately, the "FUCK DA KKKOPS" crowd much prefer having a visible target to hate over actually doing something productive, and they're vocal enough - even on forums like these - to make rational discussion next to impossible. Thanks for being one of the few voices of reason.
and yet you hold this power over the citizen every time you interact with them
Not with the courts being what they are. Even if I had my heart set on being a fascist and ruining random lives for no reason, it would be next to impossible even on a case-by-case basis, let alone as a consistent long-term policy. We can't even get the guilty convicted half the time - what makes you think I can ruin innocent lives at my whim?
what happened to "if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to worry about?"
It's a stupid phrase used by stupid people. Why would you bring it up?
there needs to be a risk involved in arresting people (and potentially ruining lives on circumstantial evidence) so that police only arrest when they have a good reason to arrest someone and don't just go arresting peaceful people who smoke dope or dance at the Washington monument because it's "risk free".
The two examples you cite, I agree with completely - the drug laws are ridiculous, and dancing on a monument shouldn't be a problem unless you're doing it during a funeral or some kind of ceremony. Not sure what that has to do with "risk", though - if you're talking about the risk run by cops when performing a false arrest, that's almost always present. You don't need cameras for that.
NO THEY DO NOT. people lie, cameras are hard evidence, even if they can't paint a complete picture a camera is no more capable of lying then a DNA swab or a boot print.
That's just a stupid technicality. If I have one camera that shows me shooting an unarmed man, while another camera from a different angle shows that he was reloading a gun which he had just emptied in my direction, then the first camera lies. It presents a distorted version of what happened. It's no different than an eyewitness saying "yep, he murdered an unarmed man", except that it tends to be even more damning, and, in the absence of the second camera, would almost certainly get me convicted. You can call it by whatever words you want - it doesn't change the reality of the situation.
Agreed. Any system which would hand Rodney King 3 million dollars is definitely broken.
Trial-by-media is necessary because the justice system has been perverted.
The state isn't about to give up it's power. I understand, and agree with, your goals - the limiting of corruption. Your methods, on the other hand, are only more likely to bring your "police state" into reality. By demonizing police, you limit their effectiveness, and you breed more crime. You also create an us-vs-them mentality which is absolute poison to the survival of a civilized society. When you get to the point where police are no longer able to do their jobs, don't be surprised when the government rolls in the military, instead.
If the criticism is so broadly consistent that's gotta be a pretty big indication that your self image is out of whack
Yeah, I guess the 9/11-was-an-inside-job idiots are right when they accuse me of being a paid CIA "dinsinfo" agent, and the UFO fanatics are right when they insist that I'm "part of the government" so I must be covering up evidence. Thanks for that insight. I can't believe I forgot that people in large groups are always right, and that idiocy in large enough quantities is sheer genius.
the guy is arrested for TRESSPASSING, "the owners want you gone, if you don't go, that's trespassing, if you haven't done anything wrong talk to the owners or call a lawyer after you have left the premises." could avoid the scuffle that you so clearly enjoyed.
Trust me on this - if the words "the owners want you gone" don't mean anything to them, the word "trespassing" certainly won't. I stopped using it simply because every time I told someone they were trespassing, they'd look at me as if I had just flown in from Mars. I'd usually emphasize that the owners have a legal right to control who is on their property, but then I'd just get accused of being a fascist, and the yelling and swearing would start sooner.
Generally speaking, the caliber of people we have to deal with is pretty damn low. You're lucky if they know any words with more than two syllables, and even luckier if they actually care about the law. Reasonable, intelligent people rarely bothered arguing - they'd just mumble something about lodging a complaint, and then take off. You'd get the odd exception, like some rich overly-educated brat trying to look big in front of his girlfriend, but they were the exception.
Ah, yes, the ol' "mob-rule" line of argument. That's always a good way of getting to the truth of the matter! Thank you for your valuable contribution on this issue.
You prefer authoritarian? I don't. Just because this time your post was primarily authoritarian doesn't mean that you haven't made nationalistic, anti-egalitarian and militaristic posts in the past.
You know, as much as I appreciate having my own fan-club, I'd really prefer if the membership were limited to individuals of a higher caliber. It's rather annoying seeing the same buzz-words and emotional rants all the time; it would be nice if the bunch of you could put your brain cells together and come up with a coherent argument for a change.
Slashdot Mirror
It might be subsidized up to high hell, but honestly I think a lot of us would agree that this is one of those industries where subsidies are a good thing.
Hardly. I'd support government funds going to further research on solar - I certainly don't support it going towards creating an industry based on current designs. I'd far rather see that money go to building new nuclear reactors.
businesses are dismally suited toward the task of education. Their mandate, a legal one at that, is to maintain and grow shareholder earnings and profit.
Ummmm .... no. You're thinking of corporations. Business have no legal mandate. A non-profit organization can also be a business.
I think that Kahn Academy is great for education. I do not think though that it will be able to stand against big money union propaganda and government hatred on the Local, State and Federal levels that will surely come down upon it.
I've never understood this mindset. Don't you get tired of living in a world where nothing ever gets better, and all good ideas are immediately destroyed by vested interests? Or, better yet, don't you look around once in a while and notice that these kinds of predictions are almost always wrong?
The rest of the world doesn't care in the slightest about bitcoin, including your readers
Speak for yourself. Back when it first started, I generated about 150 BTC in a week or so. At the time they were pretty much worthless - I figured I'd used more electricity than what they were worth. Today I can sell them for around $2,500, or use them to buy goods online. Yeah. You bet I care.
Since when is it the government's job to defend corporate interests?
Since always. Governments generally try to defend their citizens. This includes corporations.
Suppose I were to smoke pot (which I don't, but it's legal where I live). It's illegal in France, however. Now suppose France requested my extradition for smoking pot in Amsterdam. That's basically what this is about.
That's a stupid example. Smoking pot is not theft.
This would be more akin to a Canadian driving over the border, breaking into your house, stealing every valuable thing you have, and driving back over the border. A reasonable person would report the theft, and request that the individual responsible be arrested and the property recovered, damages paid, and the person responsible be jailed. Since the crime occurred in the US, this would require extradition.
Of course, what the case really comes down to is whether or not digital-piracy is equivalent to theft. I tend to think it's not, however, as long as it continues to be defined that way, the request being made by the US is perfectly reasonable.
*facepalm*
I'm sorry, but you've either misunderstood everything I've said, or you're being intentionally obtuse, as your response seems to have only a tangential connection to my comment. I don't have the energy to try and explain everything again. You can claim victory, now, if you like.
Speaking as an atheist, it's a complete fallacy that atheism is peaceful and understanding
No, it's not. It's a fallacy to say that all atheists are peaceful and understanding, but that's not what he said. He merely pointed out that atheism itself inherently cannot be the motivation for that kind of behavior. Even if you weren't completely wrong about the nazis, it would have been irrelevant - being an atheist doesn't mean that your actions are motivated by atheism.
I wonder, if you feel the same way about vaccinations, of which there are serious consequences and adverse affects.
The adverse effects of vaccines are on the order of 1-in-a-million. The adverse effects of circumcision are on the order of several-per-100. To compare the two is ludicrous.
Never mind that Circumcision does have medical benefits, of which none of those proposing a ban are willing to admit.
No, it doesn't. It may have had some medical benefit for primitive cultures without an understanding of basic hygene, although even this is uncertain. In modern societies, such procedures serve no purpose except in the rare cases where they're required in order to treat an actual medical condition.
Define 100% effective?
Either 1 or 2 would be fine. 3 is just retarded.
The problem with this stuff is, it clearly isn't 100% effective
I guess you're not familiar with the concept of a "thought-experiment"?
I'll help you out: the idea is that we take a "what-if" scenario, and then extrapolate to see how it affects a given argument. So, for instance, when you argue that scanners should be banned because they're ineffective, we can ask "would you oppose them if they were effective". If your answer is "yes", then it follows that you original complaint was pointless; you don't care whether they're effective, and even if someone were to show you that they ARE effective you would continue to oppose them.
Does that help? Can you understand, now, the purpose of a thought-experiment? Or of my question, specifically?
even if it was, there are still issues with passenger privacy and health (whether precieved or real)
Ridiculous. There are "perceived health issues" with cellphones - should we ban their sale and use? Sorry, FUD is not a "health issue", and it's certainly not a valid reason for avoiding a particular technology.
and the really genius bit of it all is that if it is successful the outcome from the point of view of an inpartial external viewer is exactly the same as if nothing happened at all.
Yep, just like vaccines. Guess we should ban those, too?
prisonplanet ... prisonplanet ... infowars ... papersplease ....
lol. best ... google search ... EVER!
you're awesome :)
and yes, while it may be an ad-hominem to point out that your sources are all lunatics, I'm not going to waste time refuting people who have been shown to be liars, lunatics, and fanatics. You don't debate crazy people - you laugh at them, or you get them help.
If you actually manage to find a serious article from a credible news source which actually supports the original claim as it was first stated, let me know. I'd love to see it. Otherwise, thanks for the lulz :)
Frankly, it's common knowledge.
Yeah, that's great, except for the fact that it's a complete lie. Try checking their source article. It makes no mention of Chertoff representing anyone - it merely states that Rapiscan was a client of his security consulting business. Moreover, nowhere is it stated that Chertoff lobbied for that company, or for a technology that's unique to them.
To draw an analogy, this would be as if Microsoft hired me to do penetration testing for them, I lobbied a local politician to buy more computers for the local school, and then you came along and started whining that the reason the school board didn't buy Macs is because I was shilling for Microsoft. It's retarded.
Moreover, even if what's claimed in that article were 100% true, it wouldn't support the original statement, which was:
"the purpose of these body scanners was NEVER to increase security, it was a gigantic kickback to former homeland security chief Michael Chertoff who received very well documented "consulting" positions with the company that makes those scanners"
You'd have to show that their purpose wasn't to increase security, AND that Chertoff got kickbacks based on actual sales, AND you'd have to justify the quotation marks around the word "consulting". Failing that, the statement remains an idiotic conspiracy theory, based on the delusional interpretations of a paranoid mind.
The constitution, in these discussions, is a red herring. If you think it's not constitutional, take it up with the supreme court. When they rule in your favor, I'll take your argument seriously.
The statistics, likewise, fail to impress. You could use similar logic to get rid of the flu vaccine.
I appreciate the effort you put into your response, but I'd appreciate it more if you could make an actual case for why you want to get rid of airport security.
Would it be okay to give a good reason why my privacy is more important than the appearance of airline security?
Depends. First, think about whether you would still object if these machines were 100% effective. If the answer is "yes", then don't bother. Otherwise go ahead, but be ready to support your argument with statistics from a credible source.
lol. The Health Rebel? Prison Planet?
Good troll, sir, good troll.
For shame, slashdot. When did we get to the point that conspiracy-theory garbage automatically gets modded +5 without even a cursory citation?
This place has really degenerated.
Yeah, the same way you "lost privacy" when they first installed metal detectors. And luggage scanners. And security cameras.
Enough already. Either give a good reason why your privacy is more important than airline security, or go find a new topic to complain about.
zero tolerance for cops that go astray.
(that would be a 50% reduction right off the bat).
they carry lethal force and can ruin your LIFE.
I guess you're in favor of the same punishment for drunk drivers?
did you get sent to the principals office for saying "i think you're brainwashing young impressionable minds with fascist imperialist lies Mrs. b" the day before?
Depends on the teacher, I suppose. But how is that comparable to "I smell bacon!"? Deliberately insulting your teacher - whether loudly or quietly - isn't likely to go without a reprimand. When did we decide that insulting one authority figure was ok, but insulting another is not? Let's have some consistency!! All students should be free to call Mrs. B a fascist cunt any time they feel like it!
Here is the essence of the problem. We only have ourselves to blame. We have given up on the idea of liberty and we ask the state to impose morality on citizens by force. Laws against adults doing consensual things be they gambling, drugs, sex, ect are naturally unjust. Their enforcement cannot be conducted without causing resentment and abuse of power. So until we eliminate all vice crimes we will live in a police state. If we eliminate them then you can go back to being peace officers
Well said. I think some of the resentment will always be there because much of it is simple rebellion against authority, but yes: whittle the laws down to the bare minimum and you'll decrease the amount of resentment, decrease the opportunities for corruption and abuse, and increase the ability of the police force to enforce laws which matter.
Unfortunately, the "FUCK DA KKKOPS" crowd much prefer having a visible target to hate over actually doing something productive, and they're vocal enough - even on forums like these - to make rational discussion next to impossible. Thanks for being one of the few voices of reason.
and yet you hold this power over the citizen every time you interact with them
Not with the courts being what they are. Even if I had my heart set on being a fascist and ruining random lives for no reason, it would be next to impossible even on a case-by-case basis, let alone as a consistent long-term policy. We can't even get the guilty convicted half the time - what makes you think I can ruin innocent lives at my whim?
what happened to "if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to worry about?"
It's a stupid phrase used by stupid people. Why would you bring it up?
there needs to be a risk involved in arresting people (and potentially ruining lives on circumstantial evidence) so that police only arrest when they have a good reason to arrest someone and don't just go arresting peaceful people who smoke dope or dance at the Washington monument because it's "risk free".
The two examples you cite, I agree with completely - the drug laws are ridiculous, and dancing on a monument shouldn't be a problem unless you're doing it during a funeral or some kind of ceremony. Not sure what that has to do with "risk", though - if you're talking about the risk run by cops when performing a false arrest, that's almost always present. You don't need cameras for that.
NO THEY DO NOT. people lie, cameras are hard evidence, even if they can't paint a complete picture a camera is no more capable of lying then a DNA swab or a boot print.
That's just a stupid technicality. If I have one camera that shows me shooting an unarmed man, while another camera from a different angle shows that he was reloading a gun which he had just emptied in my direction, then the first camera lies. It presents a distorted version of what happened. It's no different than an eyewitness saying "yep, he murdered an unarmed man", except that it tends to be even more damning, and, in the absence of the second camera, would almost certainly get me convicted. You can call it by whatever words you want - it doesn't change the reality of the situation.
The system is broken.
Agreed. Any system which would hand Rodney King 3 million dollars is definitely broken.
Trial-by-media is necessary because the justice system has been perverted.
The state isn't about to give up it's power. I understand, and agree with, your goals - the limiting of corruption. Your methods, on the other hand, are only more likely to bring your "police state" into reality. By demonizing police, you limit their effectiveness, and you breed more crime. You also create an us-vs-them mentality which is absolute poison to the survival of a civilized society. When you get to the point where police are no longer able to do their jobs, don't be surprised when the government rolls in the military, instead.
If the criticism is so broadly consistent that's gotta be a pretty big indication that your self image is out of whack
Yeah, I guess the 9/11-was-an-inside-job idiots are right when they accuse me of being a paid CIA "dinsinfo" agent, and the UFO fanatics are right when they insist that I'm "part of the government" so I must be covering up evidence. Thanks for that insight. I can't believe I forgot that people in large groups are always right, and that idiocy in large enough quantities is sheer genius.
the guy is arrested for TRESSPASSING, "the owners want you gone, if you don't go, that's trespassing, if you haven't done anything wrong talk to the owners or call a lawyer after you have left the premises." could avoid the scuffle that you so clearly enjoyed.
Trust me on this - if the words "the owners want you gone" don't mean anything to them, the word "trespassing" certainly won't. I stopped using it simply because every time I told someone they were trespassing, they'd look at me as if I had just flown in from Mars. I'd usually emphasize that the owners have a legal right to control who is on their property, but then I'd just get accused of being a fascist, and the yelling and swearing would start sooner.
Generally speaking, the caliber of people we have to deal with is pretty damn low. You're lucky if they know any words with more than two syllables, and even luckier if they actually care about the law. Reasonable, intelligent people rarely bothered arguing - they'd just mumble something about lodging a complaint, and then take off. You'd get the odd exception, like some rich overly-educated brat trying to look big in front of his girlfriend, but they were the exception.
Ah, yes, the ol' "mob-rule" line of argument. That's always a good way of getting to the truth of the matter! Thank you for your valuable contribution on this issue.
You prefer authoritarian? I don't. Just because this time your post was primarily authoritarian doesn't mean that you haven't made nationalistic, anti-egalitarian and militaristic posts in the past.
You know, as much as I appreciate having my own fan-club, I'd really prefer if the membership were limited to individuals of a higher caliber. It's rather annoying seeing the same buzz-words and emotional rants all the time; it would be nice if the bunch of you could put your brain cells together and come up with a coherent argument for a change.