* Login   * Register
It is currently Thu Jul 31, 2014 9:32 am

View unanswered posts | View active topics



All times are UTC - 8 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic


 Post subject: Re: Show 219
PostPosted: Mon Feb 13, 2012 4:52 am 
Offline
Contributing Member
User avatar

Joined: Mon Dec 05, 2011 3:49 pm
Posts: 457
Harry K wrote:

You sure do know how to suck the oxygen out of threads. :D


That's what puts out flames on the forum.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Show 219
PostPosted: Mon Feb 13, 2012 5:27 am 
Offline
Contributing Member
User avatar

Joined: Mon Dec 05, 2011 3:49 pm
Posts: 457
I just hopped into this discussion thread, so I don't know if this take has been mentioned, but I'm guessing it hasn't been.

I'm actually somewhat looking forward to the surveillance drones and always being watched. And the reason why is because I think it will actually lead to less crime. I think it will lead to less crime because people will stop and want to make fewer things illegal.

My reasoning for this is that the internet has led to more people self-organizing and forming communities. Which means that people can more easily learn that they are not alone in their thoughts and beliefs. And that includes things that have normally been looked down upon by society.

Now, I don't know how explicit I'm able to get on this forum, so I'll just provide a link for my best case for this: The Rule of First Adopters.

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/M ... stAdopters

But something just as important - and touched upon in the show - is illegal drugs.

Look at the great movement there is to legalize recreational drugs, especially marijuana. Before the internet, marijuana enthusiasts had to organize around magazines and head shops. But now they can share information and socialize from their home.

So this has expanded the number of people who think they and others should be allowed to get a little high every now and then.

In fact, it's gotten so prevalent that one Pacific Northwest state - Oregon, I believe - held a convention for marijuana enthusiasts in which the participants openly partook of it.

Not only that, but local politicians were there too engaging in the convention's activities. They thought their political careers would benefit by advocating in a convention in which federal laws were broken. That's extraordinary.

So before now legislators were able to get away with criminalizing all these things that could be profitable by business interests by energizing voter blocs on a "law and order" and "tough on crime" stance.

But the problem with that is that when a nation criminalizes everything then everyone becomes a criminal. So if everyone becomes a criminal then everyone is related to a criminal. Which will make it very difficult for juries to be found who have had not some kind of negative experience with the "justice system."

And they will also be able to organize to stop all that overreaching. How? By forming communities on the internet.

Which is why I think that in a generation or two people will take a severe, hard look at what acts should be really worth criminalizing and to what degree the punishments should be.

So go ahead. Do drone surveillance. Let's have everybody watching everybody else. Let's have everybody see that what someone does when they smoke a joint isn't deserving of putting them in jail so they can never get a good job or they'll be forced to join up with a gang and commit more crimes just to survive. Let's let people realize that nobody's perfect and sometimes it's better to just let some shit go than to try to throw everybody in jail for doing something that you happen to not like just because you don't like it. I'm all for that.

Just thought I would give the "Brave New World" perspective on this issue as a balance to the "1984" perspective.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Show 219
PostPosted: Mon Feb 13, 2012 8:43 am 
Online
Hetairoi
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 26, 2010 10:46 am
Posts: 7261
Location: Hamilton, Ontario
samsmart wrote:
Just thought I would give the "Brave New World" perspective on this issue as a balance to the "1984" perspective.
You realize both are dystopic nightmares and that anyone suggesting implementing the ideas in those books on how to structure society will be a net positive for all is either trolling or only thinking things a quarter of the way through. Either make your jokes a bit more clever or use your actual brain to do the thinking next time.

_________________
*yip*


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Show 219
PostPosted: Mon Feb 13, 2012 9:52 am 
Offline
New Member
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 14, 2008 5:27 pm
Posts: 10
Location: Seattle, WA
I found the part on surveillance drones somewhat surprising actually, as I had been happy with the news of the bill passed by congress. Granted I am coming from a very different perspective than most people, as I do research in the area of future Air Traffic Management design and technologies. But the bill had two main parts: one, integration of unmanned vehicles in the national airspace, and two, accelerating the move to relying on GPS for air traffic control. The first part I believe is a natural progression, unmanned vehicles have been around for a long time now, both in military as well as commercial sectors; the FAA is actually behind, if anything, in coming up with a solution of how to regulate them. The second part, transitioning from radar-based aircraft surveillance to GPS-based is something even more overdue. The current air traffic management system basically relies primarily on 1950's technology: radar from WWII and voice communication. So in this respect I'm excited to see a more proactive stance in advancing use of GPS for more efficient traffic flow, which helps in fuel consumption, community noise around airports, and congestion of airspace (getting passengers where they need to on time).

As for the civil rights surveillance issue that was brought up, I am concerned about this, but don't see this piece of legislature as some sort of gateway with which legislature has decreased privacy. I think it was a necessary advancement of an outdated FAA regulatory system. Also, it's not like law enforcement hasn't already been using drones for certain tasks with special FAA approval. I think drone technologies certainly allow easier surveillance, but this is true of all kinds of technologies which shouldn't be held back because of some unpopular uses. Some other technologies similar to this would be High Definition video (a huge advancement for military, but developed in the commercial sector), as well as social networking...something we're kind of on right now.

We basically just have to wait until lawsuits start to appear, and hope for some judicial decisions that protect 4th amendment rights, as we had to with the recent supreme court GPS tracking decision.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Show 219
PostPosted: Mon Feb 13, 2012 11:11 am 
Offline
Master of Ceremonies
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 09, 2006 5:48 pm
Posts: 11264
tightler06 wrote:

We basically just have to wait until lawsuits start to appear, and hope for some judicial decisions that protect 4th amendment rights, as we had to with the recent supreme court GPS tracking decision.


That won't happen in the case of drones because they are like traffic cameras and the like. Since it is generalized surveillance, it will be deemed ok. The recent GPS ruling hinged on the idea that the target was specifically singled out. Mass surveillance is almost never deemed a violation of any sort of individual liberties.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Show 219
PostPosted: Mon Feb 13, 2012 11:37 am 
Offline
Hetairoi
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 04, 2010 2:23 pm
Posts: 5762
samsmart wrote:
My reasoning for this is that the internet has led to more people self-organizing and forming communities. Which means that people can more easily learn that they are not alone in their thoughts and beliefs. And that includes things that have normally been looked down upon by society.


Virtual communities. I fear the sun. The FedEx guy, my bridge to the outside world.

_________________
What is wrong with you people? - Dr. Youth


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Show 219
PostPosted: Tue Feb 14, 2012 9:15 am 
Offline
Hetairoi
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2011 9:42 am
Posts: 5121
Location: Canadastan
Very entertaining thread!

Smitty scores enforcer points. :popcorn: :popcorn: Just watch those concussions Smitty...

kolokol did have it coming for his uncharacteristic Danish arrogance. Is it uncharacteristic? ...actually I'm not up to speed on my Danish stereotypes...

I'll score a few points to kolokol on his argument that Cheese does fuel the economy... and does do more effectively than the MICC. The MICC takes a lot out of the economy in terms of $s out of the tax budget. Sure it can generate profit but if you subtract the military budget from the weapons budget I'm sure it's less of a clear winner. (Anyone have the numbers?) Cheese on the other hand is what economies are all about.

Investing in schools and other social infrastructure (housing, roads, basic recreation facilities) is a no-brainer.

Investing in armies is necessary... but the MICC can be a self-perpetuating monster that eats the budget and invents reasons for it's own existance. The military adds relatively little to social capital. It leads to a more martial culture... which has it's drawbacks.

And for that matter (recognizing Smitty and my entrenched interests).. Health care is not in my opinion social infrastructure. Health problems are a symptom of social stress and the medical system is not a pillar of social infrustructure, more of a bandaid for it's ills. The penal system is another band aid.

In conclusion we need to invest less in military/security/corrective justice and less in health care, while investing more in social infrastructure... for the best bang for your tax buck. (Basically - the best return on investment.) More infrastructure, less band-aids.

_________________
"Trek requires no sunshine to be happy. He feeds off the despair of others like a dementor." e_room_matt

"Thank you so much for your assessment of my wickedness and the depth of my depravity and immersion in sin." drtrech


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Show 219
PostPosted: Tue Feb 14, 2012 11:20 am 
Online
Hetairoi
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jan 08, 2010 9:29 am
Posts: 6511
Location: Mrs. Mendlebright's house--upstairs
Dan wrote:
tightler06 wrote:

We basically just have to wait until lawsuits start to appear, and hope for some judicial decisions that protect 4th amendment rights, as we had to with the recent supreme court GPS tracking decision.


That won't happen in the case of drones because they are like traffic cameras and the like. Since it is generalized surveillance, it will be deemed ok. The recent GPS ruling hinged on the idea that the target was specifically singled out. Mass surveillance is almost never deemed a violation of any sort of individual liberties.


I think you are generally right, Dan. However, unlike traffic cameras, these will be able to look in your bedroom window, check out your back yard, and see what and who is going in and out of your garage. It is a certainty that prosecutions will occur, regularly, resulting from such surveillance. The push back from defense counsel will wind up centering of course around the dreadful "expectation of privacy" type of analysis.

So, unlike traffic cameras, this deals with targeted surveillance of individuals from above, which SCOTUS said was okey-dokey back in 1989, in Florida v. Riley, an interesting if typical treatment of the "expectation of privacy" reasoning. Also, it's another typical 5-4 decision. Who knows how the current crew (with a couple or more new appointments probable in the next term) will handle it. God only knows what kinds of appointments are coming down the pike from Obamney.

_________________
"As an aside, this is what I keep hearing in my head when reading Fife's posts. (X)" --Dr. Strangelove
“I mean there can't be only one person like Fife on the planet, its statistically unlikely.” --Cid
"I asked the internet, it said Fife's full of shit" “In other news, Fife admits his posts are gay.” “You've herped your last derp, Fife.” --DBTrek
“Fife, if you keep typing stuff like this we'll lose our designated driver!” “Never, ever kick a drinking buddy like Fife down... just pour him more shots!” --Harry K
“Fife might just get his present stuffed up his chimney.” --drtrech
“Geez, Fife. A new low.” --vive42
“Meh, you read one Fife post, you've pretty much read them all.” --Smitty-48
“That smells like a Fife quote.” “Fife is on my list, but I thought I'd give him a chance this one time in about 4 months. That was a waste.” --RAnthony


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Show 219
PostPosted: Tue Feb 14, 2012 11:56 am 
Offline
Archon
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 11, 2007 9:23 am
Posts: 19147
DrYouth wrote:

In conclusion we need to invest less in military/security/corrective justice and less in health care, while investing more in social infrastructure... for the best bang for your tax buck. (Basically - the best return on investment.) More infrastructure, less band-aids.


In conclusion, Lt. Gen. Leslie, Vice Chief of the Defence Staff at the time, put forward his plan to cut billions in wasteful spending at defence, in the massively bloated staff side of things (mostly civilians) and the report was "deep six'ed" by the Nabobs, er I mean bureaucrats in Ottawa and he was sent packing too.

Meanwhile, they are building a big fancy school in my neighborhood, with all the fancy trimmings, even though there aren't many people having a bunch of kids around here, and a lot of people are actually older and have already sent their kids off to adulthood, so the whole "guns, or butter", "Army generals are taking education away from our kids" meme is a bunch of simplistic partisan bullshit. Zero sum. Binary choice. Nuance free bafflegab.

Neither Canada, nor Denmark is actually spending that much on defence capability. Canada spends 1.5% GDP which is almost a quarter what the US is spending, per capita and the real problem is not how much they spend, but what they spend it on.

Schools should be a provincial jurisdiction spending issue anyways, so you are mixing budgetary apples to oranges, to support your simplistic mantra. I mean, you're the same as the Harper Cons, you just shill for your favorite pet projects (pork) and they shill for theirs.

I'm willing to go at defense with a razor sharp scalpel and cut a lot of fat. I bet your public sector union buddies aren't so into it, since they suckle from that teat as much as any general does.

Nova Scotia NDP Premier Dexter and federal NDP MP Peter Stouffer seem to be very supportive of building $35 billion worth of warships in Sackville NS, so it seems like the left is inconsistent when unionized pork jobs are on the line. You just want to spend less? Well make those ships offshore then, cause they could be acquired for a third of the price, if they just made them in Korea.

In fact, for about the half the price, you could just buy them off Denmark, because they have a massive warship building program going on right now (Absalon and Ivar Huitfeldt class for the Royal Danish Navy), which could easily be modified for RCN purposes and it is up and running, not being rebuilt over again from the ground up, and they could deliver sooner, as well as cheaper.

If you are going to merge federal and provincial spending jurisdictions as you are doing, Canada is actually way over the required capacity for schools, many of them being closed cause they are half empty, and way under the required capacity for warships and soldiers. The bloated and largely under performing education system is actually "stealing bullets" from the troops, who are making heroic efforts to overcome deficiencies, in harrowing life and death situations, in the middle of left wing supported and always expanding international "stability" missions, be they US, NATO, or UN led operations.

Cut the bureaucrats in Ottawa and the unionized pork and give my troops their due, if you want to simplify things into a moralizing binary choice.

_________________
Nec Aspera Terrent


Last edited by Smitty-48 on Tue Feb 14, 2012 12:43 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Show 219
PostPosted: Tue Feb 14, 2012 12:43 pm 
Offline
Hetairoi
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2011 9:42 am
Posts: 5121
Location: Canadastan
I don't think we have a military spending problem in Canada.
(We seem to be angling for a prison build-up though - security/penal pork in your terms.)

But there is definitely a military spending problem in the US.

You want to have a go at Unions... Why not strip the last security from the workforce? Why should any workers have the right to organize? Now I agree that it is bizarre for government workers to be organized while private sector workers rarely have that luxury... but the problem is more with the lack of freedom to organize in the private sector than the other way round.

My point was that Cheese is the stuff that economies should be built on... I'm not a crazy utopian who envisions a world without armies... I'm just saying there is a dependence in the US on the military/security complex that is beyond unhealthy. I don't think you actually disagree with that. Sure, Canada benefits from it. Free defence and lucrative defence contracts... I get that. But if the US crumbles under the burden of this bizarre military spending addiction, we will all go down the pipe. The US should start finding ways to keep things running without relying so heavily on the military "welfare state".

_________________
"Trek requires no sunshine to be happy. He feeds off the despair of others like a dementor." e_room_matt

"Thank you so much for your assessment of my wickedness and the depth of my depravity and immersion in sin." drtrech


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Show 219
PostPosted: Tue Feb 14, 2012 12:45 pm 
Offline
Archon
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 11, 2007 9:23 am
Posts: 19147
DrYouth wrote:
I don't think we have a military spending problem in Canada.
(We seem to be angling for a prison build-up though - security/penal pork in your terms.)

But there is definitely a military spending problem in the US.

You want to have a go at Unions... Why not strip the last security from the workforce? Why should any workers have the right to organize? Now I agree that it is bizarre for government workers to be organized while private sector workers rarely have that luxury... but the problem is more with the lack of freedom to organize in the private sector than the other way round.

My point was that Cheese is the stuff that economies should be built on... I'm not a crazy utopian who envisions a world without armies... I'm just saying there is a dependence in the US on the military/security complex that is beyond unhealthy. I don't think you actually disagree with that. Sure, Canada benefits from it. Free defence and lucrative defence contracts... I get that. But if the US crumbles under the burden of this bizarre military spending addiction, we will all go down the pipe. The US should start finding ways to keep things running without relying so heavily on the military "welfare state".


What-ev. You just got "schooled", Professor Pork Sauce. Cheese you don't need is cheese you don't need. The government is not in the cheese business. Warships are a nation state priority, cheese is a private sector interest, of the shareholders of the cheese companies. And you don't employ thousands upon thousands of highly skilled laborers, to make cheese, nor does cheese support the industrial base, or technological innovation.

We're talking about Canada and Denmark, not America. Everything is not about the Americans, so quit pointing fingers at "foreign devils".

_________________
Nec Aspera Terrent


Last edited by Smitty-48 on Tue Feb 14, 2012 12:51 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Show 219
PostPosted: Tue Feb 14, 2012 12:50 pm 
Offline
Archon
User avatar

Joined: Wed May 09, 2007 4:37 pm
Posts: 25654
Location: Seattle
Why Smitty hatin' on cheese now?

_________________
In my defense . . .


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Show 219
PostPosted: Tue Feb 14, 2012 12:54 pm 
Offline
Archon
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 11, 2007 9:23 am
Posts: 19147
DBTrek wrote:
Why Smitty hatin' on cheese now?



Cheese is bad for you. Makes you fat and clogs the arteries. Military training is good for you, keeps you young, fit and sharp... dump the cheese and do some military PT, then these kids would live longer healthier lives.

Put that cheese down you disgusting fatbodies and form up for circuit training!

_________________
Nec Aspera Terrent


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Show 219
PostPosted: Tue Feb 14, 2012 1:03 pm 
Offline
Hetairoi
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 04, 2010 2:23 pm
Posts: 5762
Cheese is delicious. I'm impartial to all varieties. It's too bad, I wanted to be lean and mean so I don't eat it much anymore.

_________________
What is wrong with you people? - Dr. Youth


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Show 219
PostPosted: Tue Feb 14, 2012 1:06 pm 
Offline
Archon
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 11, 2007 9:23 am
Posts: 19147
You want less people in prison? Run it like military prison. Guaranteed to cut down on recidivism.

That's actually how the Japanese do it. Hard labor.

You want to see fit young people, working hard with a sense of purpose, and developing life skills? Don't go to a high school, go to Camp Petawawa.

_________________
Nec Aspera Terrent


Last edited by Smitty-48 on Tue Feb 14, 2012 1:12 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  


Post new topic Reply to topic

All times are UTC - 8 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group


Home l Common Sense l Hardcore History l Donate l Community l Merchandise l Blog l About Us