I was talking about it and you tried lying about common knowledge. So you tried trolling because you know Obama is wrong on this issues and you know he is a liar like yourself, so you try to find other things to spin and lie about so we don't focus on important things. It's pretty clear. You talk out of your ass. Getting angry about it, then lying and trying to spin the subject that I'm right about won't change anything.
Neither will your emotions.
It's not spin. You were simply asked to back up your claim.
You didn't.
You got angry.
You went into ad hominem mode.
You're still in it.
You're still angry.
You want to be the sole arbiter of what is important and what will be discussed and you whine and try to attack anyone feels differently from you in any way on any issue.
Tough for you.
I'm still lying, and whining. I do this for a living
I understand you can't talk about the topic anymore.
Yes, you have to declare e-victory once more to compensate for your complete inability to back up your claim.
Do what you have to do to avoid it.
Yes, you have to lie about common knowledge and pretend others are avoiding a trick question. You have declared e-victories for over ten years and now project that onto others
Funny thing is my statement is actually true. You are still butthurt from the ass whoopin'. Let it burn, troll lol
Do what you have to do to avoid it.
If it's common knowledge it will be easy for you to prove empirically.
Go right ahead.
yes, but it devolves quickly into towelsnapping and locker room repartee. you have a hard time staying on topic.
nothing wrong with that, but it sorts ill with the gravitas you improbably affect.
Last edited by Winehole23; 03-28-2013 at 11:21 AM.
you did ok in this thread: about a 50-50 split between topical posting and flames.
AP, today: http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/...555b90da6d3e66
via HuffPo
They wouldn't like artillery. They wouldn't like conventional aircraft bombing. They wouldn't like an army battalion.
I really wish they would quit fixating on the weapon. It shouldn't matter if they're shooting US citizens with fire missiles or with an M-16. It should matter that it has been done without regard to due process and little to no accountability.
ME doesn't like fighting drones because it's a damn effective weapon that they cannot really fight back against. Even if they 'kill' the target, the same pilot can flip a switch and they put up another plane.
If you accept that there are military targets in the hills, deserts, random bunker, then why on Earth do you have an issue with sending in a plane with a camera on it? If you think that there should be no violent response that is one thing but the fixation on the weapon is besides the point from what I see.
Right, when Rand Paul grandstanded he didn't ask the real question, which is "Would you kill any US citizen suspected of terra-ism on US soil in any fashion without due process?"
The answer is pretty much yes, and the further implication is people like Paul are OK with it -- as long as big (small) bad pilotless planes aren't used for the assassination.
i think one concern is that ultimately this type of warfare will be one that will be based on algorithms as opposed to human judgement. (hints of skynet i suppose)
we're about halfway there, tbh. we don't always know who we're targeting to a dead certainty.
the govt (police) murders American citizens every day.
Unarmed and not threatening to anyone, esp not the cop, just try running away from a cop and see far you get before you're shot dead.
Judge, jury, executioner, in a matter of seconds. The Wall of Blue and the judiciary will protect the cop every time.
Well, are the algorithms more correct, more often?
some have argued that the use of technology has or will make the world a safer place. yet, the logic of drones is the same utilitarian calculus that facilitated the dropping of the A-bomb. we would lose less lives through the use of a weapon that could end the war (and would come out ahead in terms of cost-versus an ongoing war against japan).Well, are the algorithms more correct, more often?
drones and their eventual progeny are perfect soldiers-they never tire, will not go AWOL, do not require medical attention and are not concerned about self-preservation. maybe that is why the skynet analogy is used so often.
as to your question, however, it is not the algorithm itself but rather the nebulous region from which the inputs for the former come from. the scientist acting under the au es of the military. how often has that pairing proved to be rather problematic ?
As problematic as politicians and the military, I suppose.
The drones aren't robots. They are human piloted. If they were to implement AI on weapons systems then I can see a line being crossed. Up to that point I see little difference between the move from knife to gun or from gun to cannon or from foot to horse or horse to plane. At least from that standpoint.
They are "robotic" as a backup. They can be programmed to finish a mission should comms be lost. They are already programmed to return home when comms are lost.
considering that the US army funded a study en led "Governing Lethal Behavior in Autonomous Robots” i'd say it's inevitable. the technology is in place. the question is once again: do we open that pandora's box? if i was a betting man i'd say we probably will. hubris trumps all.
How about we cross that bridge when and if it comes to bear then? Humanism is a form of hubris in and of itself btw.
there are actually quite a few humanists who are in support of drones.
That is besides the point as drones are operated by men. You issue is the removal of man as the controller which is at the crux of humanism.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
