Here's a better idea. Find something better to talk about than television shows.
Actually there are many things to talk about that don't suffer from this problem, Sport, Technology, Science, Politics - and if you must have something that is contrived by TV programme makers there is always reality shows.
Once they setup rules for the plebs then we might notice those how arn't following the rules. No rules, no domestic oversight!
Military drones of the kind that carry weapons are operated under the same rule set as other military aircraft or guided missiles. You may or may not regard the level of oversight as adequate - but it is far from "no rules" and it is not new.
The military have operated drones since the 1950s at least.
Generally speaking aviation authorities do not distinguish at the top level. Everything that flies is an aircraft. None of them are toys.
IF you drill down into the regulations that already exist at national level you will find that there are two key points. One is the weight, the other is whether the aircraft is always operated within direct line of sight of a pilot. For example in the UK regulation is very light touch for aircraft below 20kg operated in direct view. From 20kg-150kg regulation is done via approved hobbyist organisations to ensure that the airframe is sound.
The top end of this scale is represented bythis model. Still perfectly safe when operated as you see in the video, away from buildings, (uninvolved) people and man carrying aviation. (Bear in mind that there are man carrying aircraft that are smaller!).
Once you break the visual link between the aircraft and the operator, or operate over crowds etc then you are in a different category and new regulations are needed.
Even a "toy" quadcopter will hurt if it falls on your head from 200ft.
Re: Re: Surely they are trying to prove the wrong thing!
This "fight against radicalization" has me powerfully concerned. Nations that purport to be free have no business attempting to suppress or punish speech and thought.
and I agree.
If they really want to fight radicalisation it has to be done in the sphere of ideas - by more speech - not by curtailing speech.
However I suspect that they don't really want to do it - because it is far too useful as an excuse for doing the things that they really want to do anyway.
I am at a loss to understand why we need this level of surveillance to meet current threats when we did not need it to meet the threats from the Soviet Union, China under Mao and the IRA. The first two of these were far more powerful entities than any current group that threatens us and the third was a homegrown "under the radar" entity that was well hidden within its community and able to operate with impunity within its "territory".
What is is about the current sources of terrorism that is so special as to require this?
To me Google's response looks remarkably similar to the way Government agencies respond to FOIA requests - oddly the government don't seem to like that...
Of course many fraudsters try to get off the same way. They claim that stealing a tiny sum of a large number of people doesn't result in any real victims.
Of course we all know this is wrong so maybe there is a chance.
apparently in large parts of the rest of the world, the only person who was ever deemed to be at fault for rape was the victim.
That was because - in those societies - women were considered the property of fathers or husbands and hence the crime was a crime against them!
There is a case for discarding the term "rape" in order to free ourselves from this history. The only problem would be to find an alternative that conveys the same degree of seriousness.
Since that cruel and evil attitude still exists, nuance is a very tricky thing.
But that makes it even more important to get it right. Get it wrong and you give your opponent a foothold in the argument.
If my action is to rape, burglarize, or commit any other offense against someone, then I am the only one who is responsible for that.
Morally yes - but there is more to it than that. In this particular case there are others to blame. It is the responsibility of the Indian government and of the local transport authority to ensure that it is safe for a woman to ride on a bus without this kind of thing happening.
It is everyone's responsibility to do the things that lie in their power to prevent these kind of events. Only blaming the immediate perpetrator is a recipe for perpetuating the problem.
Dostoevsky had it right when he said "We are all responsible for everyone elseābut I am more responsible than all the others."
you are in no way at fault for being burglarized. Only the burglar is to blame for that.
Read my comment carefully. I already said that you are not morally at fauit. However that does not mean that your behaviour was sensible.
The underlying point is that blurring the distinction between moral and practical responsiblity is exactly what those who "blame the victim" are doing. When opposing their argument it is vitally important not to fall into the same error.
All those people who say that it's the victim's fault are guilty of something that is very close to rape as well.
Well, whilst I mostly agree with that, I think one has to be a little careful here. Leaving my house unlocked does not mean that I am in some way morally responsible for the ensuing burglary - but it may mean that I have been unwise not to lock it.
Having said that I would add that it shouldn't (in a civilised society) be even unwise simply to get on a bus.
On the post: FBI Pins 'Terrorist' Nametag On 'Retarded Fool' Without A 'Pot To Piss In'
Squandered Portion Sums
On the post: Why Are Some People So Intent On Making Netflix More Like Traditional TV?
Re:
Actually there are many things to talk about that don't suffer from this problem, Sport, Technology, Science, Politics - and if you must have something that is contrived by TV programme makers there is always reality shows.
On the post: EU Releases Its Regulatory Approach For Drones; US Puts Out 'Request For Comments' On Commercial And Private Use
Re: Re: Re: Military-grade attack hardware
I was replying to a claim that there were "no rules" - which is clearly not true.
The fact that the FAA is able to restrain the DoD, as you imply, suggests that the DoD is restrained at the moment.
On the post: EU Releases Its Regulatory Approach For Drones; US Puts Out 'Request For Comments' On Commercial And Private Use
Re: Military-grade attack hardware
Military drones of the kind that carry weapons are operated under the same rule set as other military aircraft or guided missiles. You may or may not regard the level of oversight as adequate - but it is far from "no rules" and it is not new.
The military have operated drones since the 1950s at least.
On the post: EU Releases Its Regulatory Approach For Drones; US Puts Out 'Request For Comments' On Commercial And Private Use
Re: Translation, please
IF you drill down into the regulations that already exist at national level you will find that there are two key points. One is the weight, the other is whether the aircraft is always operated within direct line of sight of a pilot. For example in the UK regulation is very light touch for aircraft below 20kg operated in direct view. From 20kg-150kg regulation is done via approved hobbyist organisations to ensure that the airframe is sound.
The top end of this scale is represented bythis model. Still perfectly safe when operated as you see in the video, away from buildings, (uninvolved) people and man carrying aviation. (Bear in mind that there are man carrying aircraft that are smaller!).
Once you break the visual link between the aircraft and the operator, or operate over crowds etc then you are in a different category and new regulations are needed.
Even a "toy" quadcopter will hurt if it falls on your head from 200ft.
On the post: Years Of Brainwashing The Public Into Thinking Everything Creative Must Be 'Owned' Has Led To This New Mess
Re: folk songs/rock songs/choir
No because House of the Rising Sun is itself a traditional song and in the public domain.
On the post: Years Of Brainwashing The Public Into Thinking Everything Creative Must Be 'Owned' Has Led To This New Mess
Re: Good News
Thar would be wonderful! Please let it happen!
On the post: Years Of Brainwashing The Public Into Thinking Everything Creative Must Be 'Owned' Has Led To This New Mess
Re: Re: Re: Question...
Plagiarism is not necessarily infringement - if you plagiarise from the public domain then that is fine by copyright.
So not all plagiarism is infringement and not all infringement is plagiarism - they are separate concepts.
On the post: The FBI's Paranoia And Incompetence Threatens Free Speech
Re: Re: Surely they are trying to prove the wrong thing!
and I agree.
If they really want to fight radicalisation it has to be done in the sphere of ideas - by more speech - not by curtailing speech.
However I suspect that they don't really want to do it - because it is far too useful as an excuse for doing the things that they really want to do anyway.
On the post: The FBI's Paranoia And Incompetence Threatens Free Speech
Re: Re: Surely they are trying to prove the wrong thing!
Well they are trying to prove something that is hard to even define - so no wonder they are having trouble.
The government is asking for the death penalty.
The government is trying to prove that they are no better than him.
On the post: The FBI's Paranoia And Incompetence Threatens Free Speech
Surely they are trying to prove the wrong thing!
The point here is surely to prove that he was responsible for the bombing.
That should be a matter of witness statements and forensic evidence surrounding the event itself.
On the post: Report Says UK Citizens Must Give Up Right To Privacy Because 'Terrorism', Reveals Huge Secret Government Databases
Re:
On the post: Report Says UK Citizens Must Give Up Right To Privacy Because 'Terrorism', Reveals Huge Secret Government Databases
Why?
What is is about the current sources of terrorism that is so special as to require this?
On the post: Google Denies Narrow Warrant Request For Emails; Government Responds By Asking For Everything Ever
Google copying the Government
On the post: Wikimedia Sues NSA Over Its Mass Surveillance Program
Re:
Of course we all know this is wrong so maybe there is a chance.
On the post: Indian Government Attempts To Censor BBC Gang Rape Documentary; Succeeds Only In Drawing More Attention To It
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
That was because - in those societies - women were considered the property of fathers or husbands and hence the crime was a crime against them!
There is a case for discarding the term "rape" in order to free ourselves from this history. The only problem would be to find an alternative that conveys the same degree of seriousness.
On the post: Indian Government Attempts To Censor BBC Gang Rape Documentary; Succeeds Only In Drawing More Attention To It
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
But that makes it even more important to get it right. Get it wrong and you give your opponent a foothold in the argument.
If my action is to rape, burglarize, or commit any other offense against someone, then I am the only one who is responsible for that.
Morally yes - but there is more to it than that. In this particular case there are others to blame. It is the responsibility of the Indian government and of the local transport authority to ensure that it is safe for a woman to ride on a bus without this kind of thing happening.
It is everyone's responsibility to do the things that lie in their power to prevent these kind of events. Only blaming the immediate perpetrator is a recipe for perpetuating the problem.
Dostoevsky had it right when he said "We are all responsible for everyone elseābut I am more responsible than all the others."
On the post: Jeb Bush Is The Latest Politician To Demonstrate Absolutely No Understanding Of Net Neutrality
Bush Clinton
and if you count Secretary of State...
On the post: Indian Government Attempts To Censor BBC Gang Rape Documentary; Succeeds Only In Drawing More Attention To It
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Read my comment carefully. I already said that you are not morally at fauit. However that does not mean that your behaviour was sensible.
The underlying point is that blurring the distinction between moral and practical responsiblity is exactly what those who "blame the victim" are doing. When opposing their argument it is vitally important not to fall into the same error.
On the post: Indian Government Attempts To Censor BBC Gang Rape Documentary; Succeeds Only In Drawing More Attention To It
Re: Re:
Well, whilst I mostly agree with that, I think one has to be a little careful here. Leaving my house unlocked does not mean that I am in some way morally responsible for the ensuing burglary - but it may mean that I have been unwise not to lock it.
Having said that I would add that it shouldn't (in a civilised society) be even unwise simply to get on a bus.
Next >>