Dakryn's Batshit Theory of the Week


Police drones would actually be a great thing to have imo, if they weren't used in an abusive way. In order for them to be used ethically I think they would have to give the public access to the video streams from the drones (except when it comes to raids and other police operations requiring an element of surprise, in which case they should require some kind of warrant to be used without public access for specific instances), that way the police and government personnel themselves are just as accountable for their actions as the general public is. Not gonna happen of course, but I just wanted to point out that drones could theoretically be done right.
 
Do you know if the FAA actually has any role in setting privacy/accountability criteria for the use of those drones, or if they're just handling approval on a safety/logistics basis? I'm tempted to send an e-mail to either the FAA or one of those police departments just to see if they'd actually bother to respond and address the accountability concern.
 
Do you know if the FAA actually has any role in setting privacy/accountability criteria for the use of those drones, or if they're just handling approval on a safety/logistics basis? I'm tempted to send an e-mail to either the FAA or one of those police departments just to see if they'd actually bother to respond and address the accountability concern.

As far as I know the FAA has zero to do with accounting for privacy concerns, and I doubt the police departments seeking drones would respond with more than "If you don't have anything to hide why worry about it?"
 
The problem with "subjective intuitions" is that they usually vary from person to person.

We both look at seat belts as a generally good thing.

You say "It's good enough for everyone to have to wear it by law."
I say "Sure it's good, but it's none of your business whether I wear it or not". And it isn't.My wearing or not wearing a seatbelt does not endanger you on the road that we share.

We both (I assume) would agree that texting while driving is dangerous.

You would say "It's bad enough that no one should be allowed to do it by law."
I would say " I agree, it's a danger to everyone on the road".

Having things and using things in ways that do not endanger others should never be unlawful IE: If I had a million guns and a million rounds of ammo next door to you but we are friends, are you in danger? No.

If someone owns a cell phone, but never texts (or calls to be extra safe) while driving, are they a danger on the road? No (at least not for that reason).


Edit: Post jumped.

We already discussed this didn't we? Again, having different political territories in different places on the 'freedom vs. welfare' spectrum renders this a non-issue sort of.
 
From www.democracynow.org:

Israeli Cabinet Minister: Goldstone Report on Gaza Is Anti-Semitic
The Israeli news agency Ynet is reporting the Israeli government is preparing an all-out attack on Richard Goldstone’s United Nations report that accused Israel of committing war crimes during its assault on Gaza. Israeli Cabinet Minister Yuli Edelstein said, “The Goldstone Report…and similar reports, are simply a type of anti-Semitism.” Ynet reports Israel will launch the attack on the Goldstone Report tomorrow, the sixty-fifth anniversary of the 1945 liberation of Auschwitz. Last year the United Nations called on Israel to conduct an independent credible investigation into the war crimes allegations, but Israel has refused to establish a commission of inquiry.

Leave it to the Israeli government to totally sap the term "anti-semitism" of any real meaning.

And this:

Halliburton Asks Supreme Court to Block Rape Trial
The military contractor Halliburton has petitioned the Supreme Court to overturn a lower court ruling in an attempt to block a former Halliburton employee’s lawsuit alleging she was raped by her co-workers in Iraq. Jamie Leigh Jones sued Halliburton and its former subsidiary KBR over claims she was drugged and gang-raped by co-workers in Baghdad. Jones also accused the company of keeping her in a shipping container without food or water for at least twenty-four hours after the alleged crime took place. Halliburton says the contract signed by Jones and other workers requires claims to be settled through arbitration, not trial.

This is bullshit! It's completely insane that in America corporations have all the rights of people but none of the responsibilities.
 
From www.democracynow.org:



Leave it to the Israeli government to totally sap the term "anti-semitism" of any real meaning.



This is bullshit! It's completely insane that in America corporations have all the rights of people but none of the responsibilities.

Agreed.

In reality it does matter to other people, for insurance/liability purposes, who wears a seatbelt I think. Doesn't it?

I said endanger, not matter. I have no sympathy for
A. A person's insurance going up because they hit an unseatbelted driver and had outrageous cost to cover, they should have been paying attention and not caused the accident.
B. A person dumb enough to drive around without a seat belt.
 
"Funded by the conservative Christian group Focus on the Family, the 30-second ad is expected to recount the story of Pam Tebow's pregnancy in 1987. After getting sick during a mission trip to the Philippines, she ignored a recommendation by doctors to abort her fifth child. She later gave birth to Tim, who won the 2007 Heisman Trophy and helped his Florida team win two BCS championships."


Great, just what we need... brainless welfare/poverty parents thinking that if they have enough kids then one of them will grow up to be a football star. What a terrible ad.
 
Or on the flip-side maybe "brainless welfare/poverty parents" will see that good things sometimes happen to people already doing good things.Tebow was also homeschooled and contributes to the family ministry. No one seems to be afraid the ad will convince people to homeschool or join a religious ministry.
 
Anything funded or endorsed by Focus on the Family should be viewed with skepticism. After all, they have refused to condemn the murder of Dr. George Tiller (late-term abortionist) by Scott Roeder while the doctor was at church.
 
Considering any anti-abortionist's stance that an abortionist doctor is a mass murderer, why would you expect them to? It would be equal to condemning the murder of a "Hitler".
 
rest in peace...

http://www.boston.com/news/local/breaking_news/2010/01/howard_zinn_his.html
Howard Zinn, the Boston University historian and political activist who was an early opponent of US involvement in Vietnam and whose books, such as "A People's History of the United States," inspired young and old to rethink the way textbooks present the American experience, died today in Santa Monica, Calif, where he was traveling. He was 87.

His daughter, Myla Kabat-Zinn of Lexington, said he suffered a heart attack.

"He's made an amazing contribution to American intellectual and moral culture," Noam Chomsky, the left-wing activist and MIT professor, said tonight. "He's changed the conscience of America in a highly constructive way. I really can't think of anyone I can compare him to in this respect."...