Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

[Descan]

My fears are quite grounded in the "If you seperate people too much from the consequences of killing, they'll find it easier and easier."

It's quite bad already to have generals and such making decisions like that without boots on the ground, it's even worse to have even the guys pulling the trigger not really... There, you know?

[Frumple]

Most of the hysteria around them I would suspect comes from stupid fears about Matrix-style "robots kill the humans and take over the world" scenarios.

Nah, from what I've seen most of the concern comes from fear of disassociation (i.e. it gets too easy to kill, what with the separation between act of killing and the one pulling the trigger), fear of inaccuracy (which may or may not be misplaced currently, and certainly will be misplaced going forward, but expect it to linger), a fear of lack of someone to lay responsibility on for excesses (lot easier for "programming errors" or whathaveyou to cause war crimes that can't really be pinned on a direct human agent), and the perennial fear of it providing tyrants or whatever an easier avenue to do their thing, since you basically need capital instead of manpower (or at least it further skews the ratio) to run drones, so it's easier for a small, high resource, group to do more damage. And yeah, the latter is something inherent to most military advances, just kicked up yet another notch.

Robots taking over is more of an AI research thing than drone tech.

[Descan]

Nah, inaccuracy will never be an issue, Frumpster. We've already licked THAT little problem!

See, inaccuracy is impossible if -everything- is a target! Just label every male 15 years or older an "enemy combatant", and you'll never miss a shot!

[Max White]

Only males 15+? Good to see they are a little more careful these days...

[hector13]

You want Greece to pay for all the Olympics xD?

First up, they wouldn't be anywhere near so expensive if there were established facilities which were reused every time. And second, each country could provide some funding to the IOC, and the IOC also handle international merchandising etc to fund the games, third, it would boost the economy of Greece like nothing else. Overall it would be better for the environment and cost of the games to reuse the same facilities.

Other countries might get upset about the fact that one country is the only one receiving tangible benefits for hosting an international tournament though, even if that country is economically cream crackered.

Anyway, some of the Olympics seem to be these days seem to just be a race to better technology, as opposed to individual (or team) attainment in a specific discipline. I recall the Sydney Olympics in 2000, during the swimming events 14 world records and 38 Olympic records were set over 32 events, which (at least by the manufacturer's claims) were set because of the suits they were wearing. Some countries either couldn't afford or had rules against sponsorship so couldn't get the suits for their competitors, and were naturally at a disadvantage to the more affluent and lenient nations.

Seems a bit pointless having a competition in which you have no chance of winning because you can't afford the magic bullet to help you compete.

Could also go on about the lack of amateur competition, like the Olympics were initially meant to be (if you got paid for it, you couldn't compete in it) but that's another kettle of fish.

I like how it gets kicked around the world though. Then you get to see how different nations completely bugger up getting ready for it, and how they cope with the massive amount of money they've just invested in something that lasts less than 3 weeks.

[Reelya]

That whole "amateur" thing was a scam to keep the lower classes out of the Olympic games. i.e. the gentry classes "men of leisure" were well represented, because they had family wealth. Working-class people who'd ever been paid or sponsored to train, they were excluded. Even if you'd been paid for things almost completely unrelated to the sport you were doing, you'd still be barred from competition.

As an example of how it all worked, military officers were considered amateur horsemen for competition purposes, whilst enlisted men were considered "professionals".

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-08-09/how-olympians-evolved-from-amateurs-to-commercial-gods.html

For the next half-century, the IOC interpreted the amateur code so strictly that collegiate athletes who received as little as $5 for an article published in a local newspaper were considered professionals. Jim Thorpe, the American-Indian winner of the pentathlon and the decathlon at the 1912 Olympics in Stockholm, was stripped of his medals when it was discovered that he had played semipro baseball while a high-school student in Pennsylvania.

In this era, interpretations of the IOC’s amateur rule were so bizarre that army officers were allowed to compete in equestrian events while enlisted men weren’t. It was assumed that enlisted men needed their military pay while officers, like all true gentlemen, did not.

I read elsewhere about soldiers promoted to officer ranks so that they could compete in the Olympics for their nation, then promptly demoted back to the ranks after the games finished.

google books result

Sailors, fishermen, etc. were considered "professional rowers" so they couldn't compete. But if your rowing club paid your travel and living expenses, well that was clearly ok.

[Kicior]

This is fairly old news, dates back to December 2013, but I realised we've never really discussed this: 

If I go to Russia and try to convince people that Chechen/Tyvan/Buryat etc independence and other such independence is actually a good idea I can be put in prison for 5 years. I would be because I wouldn't pay the fine, anyway.

Foreingers "calling for action aimed against Russia’s territorial integrity" sounds like some serious business
Don't other countries have some similar laws?

[Sergarr]

This is fairly old news, dates back to December 2013, but I realised we've never really discussed this: 

If I go to Russia and try to convince people that Chechen/Tyvan/Buryat etc independence and other such independence is actually a good idea I can be put in prison for 5 years. I would be because I wouldn't pay the fine, anyway.

Foreingers "calling for action aimed against Russia’s territorial integrity" sounds like some serious business
Don't other countries have some similar laws?

But then Russia can't be considered the empire of evil! *semijoking*

[Guardian G.I.]

This is fairly old news, dates back to December 2013, but I realised we've never really discussed this: 

If I go to Russia and try to convince people that Chechen/Tyvan/Buryat etc independence and other such independence is actually a good idea I can be put in prison for 5 years. I would be because I wouldn't pay the fine, anyway.

This law have been created in response to various statements by Russian liberals about the need to separate Russia from its various territories.
For example, in October 2013, Sergei Medvedev, one of the professors of Higher School of Economics, a Russian liberal university preparing specialists for the Russian Ministry of Economics, stated that Russian oil drilling in the Arctic poses a serious threat to ecology and that Russian territories in the Arctic Sea should be brought under international jurisdiction. To put that into perspective, it's like saying that oil drilling conducted by British companies in the North Sea is a threat to ecology and British territories and territorial waters in that region should be separated from Britain and put under control of the "international community".
Imagine how the British parliament would react to that, or how the parliament of independent Scotland would respond to an international ultimatum demanding Scotland to relinquish its control over Scottish territories in the North Sea because of the ecological threat allegedly posed by Scottish oil platforms.

[Ukrainian Ranger]

Those arctic territories are not Russian and never been. Read international laws about how territorial waters are determined. Nation can't claim a random piece of ocean and scream "It's ours" and expect that everyone will agree

[ChairmanPoo]

...not to mention that we're talking about a gratuitous restriction of freedom of expression.

[MonkeyHead]

So, UK broadcaster Channel 4 (who can be depended upon to be quite the rabble rousers at times) have aired this... No hidden message there at all, oh no, Its blatant and in your face, and I for one approve.

[LordSlowpoke]

so people expect the russians to see that and think that the west does not "support homosexuality in favor of traditional family values" or whatever is the proper term for that nowadays

or maybe they don't expect the russians to see it at all, what with putting it on an international website with loads of traffic vOv

[MonkeyHead]

I think its more of a middle finger - a statement of "We are OK with homosexuality as a normal part of our society, and we think it is wrong of you to opress it".

[Owlbread]

Foreingers "calling for action aimed against Russia’s territorial integrity" sounds like some serious business
Don't other countries have some similar laws?

But it doesn't explicitly target foreigners. It targets everyone, even people in the areas that should have the right to national self determination.

This law have been created in response to various statements by Russian liberals about the need to separate Russia from its various territories.
For example, in October 2013, Sergei Medvedev, one of the professors of Higher School of Economics, a Russian liberal university preparing specialists for the Russian Ministry of Economics, stated that Russian oil drilling in the Arctic poses a serious threat to ecology and that Russian territories in the Arctic Sea should be brought under international jurisdiction. To put that into perspective, it's like saying that oil drilling conducted by British companies in the North Sea is a threat to ecology and British territories and territorial waters in that region should be separated from Britain and put under control of the "international community".

I think that's quite a neat dodge around the real target of that legislation - any organisations that hold nationalist/independentist aspirations. I know some Liberals are more open minded about dividing Russian territory, for instance I understand Akhmed Zakayev is targeting Alexei Navalny as much as he can in a bid to win some kind of greater autonomy for Chechnya post-Putin, but the primary targets of the legislation are separatists.

Imagine how the British parliament would react to that, or how the parliament of independent Scotland would respond to an international ultimatum demanding Scotland to relinquish its control over Scottish territories in the North Sea because of the ecological threat allegedly posed by Scottish oil platforms.

I'd agree to it if it was necessary, no problem. As Ukrainian Ranger says it's a bit odd for nations to claim territories in the ocean anyway.