"Lawful" as determined by the party executing the action is very different from actually lawful.
The courts can intervene later, but they can't un-bomb a hospital.
This is setting aside the obvious problem where governments will often set laws based on self-interest rather than morality, particularly when it comes to military conflict.
This government doesn't GAF what is "lawful" and what isn't. Was what happened to Pretti and Good in Minneapolis lawful? Would you work for ICE/CBP with no qualms at all?
See also the new national sport of hunting for fishing boats off the South American coast. Is that "lawful?"
And yes, since you went there: everything the Nazis did was "lawful." To the extent it wasn't "lawful," they made it "lawful."
> Don't attack law enforcement with a deadly weapon, whether it's a vehicle or gun.
How do you attack law enforcement with a gun while on your knees, with your arms pinned behind you and the gun is holstered? It's interesting how we can watch the same video, and some people only see what they are told to see.
Atlas Shrugged, more charitably perhaps despite its manifest flaws, seemed to me to be about the dangers of putting “the needs of the many” over individual rights, and how it can ultimately be self defeating for the whole.
I don’t think, “too much equality” was one of the themes. Rather, it was about too much centralized power over the individual. And yes I do think that’s somewhat relevant to understanding issues of today, including mass surveillance the centralization of technological control behind crypto-nationalized zaibatsus, etc.
Wasn’t 1984 a bit more about control through surveillance and silencing, than about pain? Everything was a lie, and every refusal to accept the lie was a signal to Big Brother.
Cast as such it seems rather more prophetic than Soma, IMO.
Hard times don’t create hard people, they create scarred people. I’ll take the robot farmers, undoing of wage slavery, and time to maintain participatory democracy over my favorite author’s romanticized suffering.
Here’s why I don’t think so. If we look at the milestone efficiency gains over the past century across a broad base of industries, virtually none of those could have been accomplished by contemporary automation technologies. We are only beginning to cross that threshold. It was the sacrifice of our forefathers who brought us there, just as it was the sacrifice of theirs who brought us from dank caves and death in our 30s from curable illness, into the enlightened world.
Rebinding C-b to C-a is a necessity for those of us whose muscle memory formed on GNU screen, been doing this for years. I like to set status-right to include host load average, with something akin to:
Any tool that is that good at vulnerability research is bound to have some killer capabilities in attack surface mapping and exploitation…
Which is not to disagree with the thrust of your point, I think: it’s even more about the fundamentals than it was yesterday. The bar for “secure enough” is what is being raised.
>Like, does this guy think this single woman is responsible for the kafka-esque trap they're both in?
If there's any class of individual in whom I'm willing to place greater than average trust in their ability to read vocal tones, it's probably blind people. Just sayin'.
Curious: can you show the research steps you took to reach this conclusion? Really curious how we can all easily determine which companies are and aren't CIA fronts!
You propose that other governments militaries would not be so compromising. Seems reasonable.
But the question then becomes, what is the operative distinction between the two?
reply