In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up!
NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action.
On December 20 2016 06:30 zlefin wrote: That bill sounds like a not well thought out waste of effort and time. probably made by someone with a poor understanding of the internet.
Its people seeing an issue (human trafficking), blaming it on something they find morally problamatic (pornography) and defending it by saying its to protect the children.
and yeah they don't understand the technology. And I still have no idea how this is supposed to stop human trafficking. My best guess is they realized demanding filters solely for trafficking blocks was impractical and would seem to be not worth the effort so they went for the old, block pornography route to try to get their base fired up (and paint people who are against it as pro human traffiking.)
they said their willing to adjust it but I have no idea how they could do that in a constitutional way that actually is useful.
On December 20 2016 05:59 LegalLord wrote: Who sanctions hurt and help depends on the industry. Given that two out of the past three posts have been absurd strawmen, I'm not really in the mood to talk in depth about that. The bottom line, though, is this: Russia does want sanctions lifted, but it's not exactly desperate to have them lifted either. Many important economies thrive under the current conditions.
Why do you think that? Judging from all I have heard, Russias economy is down the toilet big time with GDP falling very quickly and prices living costs rising just as fast.
On December 20 2016 06:53 Yorbon wrote: Meanwhile, Trump is two electoral votes away from being chosen president.
Yeah I would hope so. The country voted for him. I did find it funny though that 4 faithless electors were supposed to vote for Hillary and didn't.
We're in for a great 4-8 years :D
slight quibbble, I wouldn't say "the country" voted for him. but he was the winner under the laws. because of stupid people who didn't setup the system better to avoid this kind of problem. as well as several other cases of various people being stupid.
the russian economy pretty much moves the same way as the price of oil. sanctions being lifted isnt going to exactly have a huge effect, though i suppose the russian authorities will stop smashing illegal luxury goods like imported cheese with tractors (link). iran will be flooding the market with cheap oil, and the US produces a good amount domestically - these things are very unlikely to change, especially the latter.
Bill seeks to put porn block on computers sold in SC
An Upstate legislator is hoping to prevent anyone who buys a computer in South Carolina from accessing pornography.
State Rep. Bill Chumley, R-Spartanburg, said the Human Trafficking Prevention Act would require manufacturers or sellers to install digital blocking capabilities on computers and other devices that access the internet to prevent the viewing of obscene content.
The bill would fine manufacturers or sellers that sell a device without a digital blocking system installed. But any manufacturer or seller that didn't want to install the system could pay a $20 opt-out fee for each device sold.
Any buyers who want the filter lifted after purchasing a computer or device would have to pay a $20 fee, after verifying they are 18 or older.
“If an end user buys an apparatus, a computer, and they want access to that, they would have to pay to have that filter removed,” Chumley said.
The money collected from the fines and fees would go to the S.C. Attorney General’s Office's human trafficking task force, which works with law enforcement leaders, nonprofits and state advocates to find solutions to trafficking.
The bill also would prohibit access to any online hub that facilities prostitution and would require manufacturers or sellers to block any websites that facilitate trafficking, Chumley said.
“The human trafficking thing has exploded. It’s gotten to be a real problem,” Chumley said.
State officials have categorized the Upstate as a hotbed for human trafficking due to its location on Interstate 85 between Atlanta and Charlotte, N.C., two cities that consistently rank among the top 20 for human sex trafficking in the U.S.
According to the National Human Trafficking Hotline, South Carolina has had 1,330 calls to the hotline and reported 308 actual human trafficking cases since 2007.
Upstate law enforcement officials say the actual numbers are likely much higher, since many cases go unreported and victims are often reluctant to come forward.
Chumley said the effort, co-sponsored by state Rep. Mike Burns, R-Greenville, would combat crimes against children and protect children from exposure to sexually explicit materials.
“If we could have manufacturers install filters that would be shipped to South Carolina, then anything that children have access on for pornography would be blocked,” Chumley said. “We felt like that would be another way to fight human trafficking.”
In the pre-filed bill, the filter must have a system in place to allow consumers to report any obscene content that hasn't been caught by the filter.
Chumley referred to the bill as a “beginning point” and said once the legislation is debated in session, changes could be made.
“It’s where almost everybody has access to a computer now. It’s porn on demand,” Chumley said. “We have to start somewhere. … We’re bringing attention to it. We’re not being political. It’s an issue I’m pretty passionate about.”
Lol. For real? For starters, this seems to just be a hidden tax (a shame tax). And on the practical side, rather than paying USD 20, you can just reinstall your OS to unlock it (or wipe it and install Ubuntu). And that's assuming it comes baked into the OS (in which case SC has paid Microsoft for a special South Carolina OEM version of WIndows). If it doesn't come baked into the OS, you can just uninstall it. Also, what about those PCs that come without an OS at all?
Oh, and I forgot about the complete impracticalities of a PC-based porn-blocker with the sheer number of new porn sites that pop up daily. Unless it's an image-analysing software, which would use significant resources on that same PC...
Bill seeks to put porn block on computers sold in SC
An Upstate legislator is hoping to prevent anyone who buys a computer in South Carolina from accessing pornography.
State Rep. Bill Chumley, R-Spartanburg, said the Human Trafficking Prevention Act would require manufacturers or sellers to install digital blocking capabilities on computers and other devices that access the internet to prevent the viewing of obscene content.
The bill would fine manufacturers or sellers that sell a device without a digital blocking system installed. But any manufacturer or seller that didn't want to install the system could pay a $20 opt-out fee for each device sold.
Any buyers who want the filter lifted after purchasing a computer or device would have to pay a $20 fee, after verifying they are 18 or older.
“If an end user buys an apparatus, a computer, and they want access to that, they would have to pay to have that filter removed,” Chumley said.
The money collected from the fines and fees would go to the S.C. Attorney General’s Office's human trafficking task force, which works with law enforcement leaders, nonprofits and state advocates to find solutions to trafficking.
The bill also would prohibit access to any online hub that facilities prostitution and would require manufacturers or sellers to block any websites that facilitate trafficking, Chumley said.
“The human trafficking thing has exploded. It’s gotten to be a real problem,” Chumley said.
State officials have categorized the Upstate as a hotbed for human trafficking due to its location on Interstate 85 between Atlanta and Charlotte, N.C., two cities that consistently rank among the top 20 for human sex trafficking in the U.S.
According to the National Human Trafficking Hotline, South Carolina has had 1,330 calls to the hotline and reported 308 actual human trafficking cases since 2007.
Upstate law enforcement officials say the actual numbers are likely much higher, since many cases go unreported and victims are often reluctant to come forward.
Chumley said the effort, co-sponsored by state Rep. Mike Burns, R-Greenville, would combat crimes against children and protect children from exposure to sexually explicit materials.
“If we could have manufacturers install filters that would be shipped to South Carolina, then anything that children have access on for pornography would be blocked,” Chumley said. “We felt like that would be another way to fight human trafficking.”
In the pre-filed bill, the filter must have a system in place to allow consumers to report any obscene content that hasn't been caught by the filter.
Chumley referred to the bill as a “beginning point” and said once the legislation is debated in session, changes could be made.
“It’s where almost everybody has access to a computer now. It’s porn on demand,” Chumley said. “We have to start somewhere. … We’re bringing attention to it. We’re not being political. It’s an issue I’m pretty passionate about.”
Lol. For real? For starters, this seems to just be a hidden tax (a shame tax). And on the practical side, rather than paying USD 20, you can just reinstall your OS to unlock it (or wipe it and install Ubuntu). And that's assuming it comes baked into the OS (in which case SC has paid Microsoft for a special South Carolina OEM version of WIndows). If it doesn't come baked into the OS, you can just uninstall it. Also, what about those PCs that come without an OS at all?
Oh, and I forgot about the complete impracticalities of a PC-based porn-blocker with the sheer number of new porn sites that pop up daily. Unless it's an image-analysing software, which would use significant resources on that same PC...
the money's going to the human trafficking task force so I think their trying to solve an actual problem just in a terrible terrible way. unfortunately I think those people actually think that a porn filter would somehow deter human trafficking.
and of course this is more just a rough draft idea albeit one that seems unifxable
On December 20 2016 05:59 LegalLord wrote: Who sanctions hurt and help depends on the industry. Given that two out of the past three posts have been absurd strawmen, I'm not really in the mood to talk in depth about that. The bottom line, though, is this: Russia does want sanctions lifted, but it's not exactly desperate to have them lifted either. Many important economies thrive under the current conditions.
Why do you think that? Judging from all I have heard, Russias economy is down the toilet big time with GDP falling very quickly and prices living costs rising just as fast.
The GDP drop is mostly from currency devaluation, which was partially self-inflicted and a result of a floating exchange rate. The real number of interest is the GDP PPP, which has seen a pretty modest drop over the past few years, consistent with a recession about in line with what Russian structural weaknesses would lead to. The nominal numbers suggest a substantial decline that simply hasn't occurred.
Long story short, those who benefit from imports or who deal in foreign currency are hurt, while those who dealt in domestic currency mostly survived and were mostly insulated from the effects of the recession. The internal issues in the country are much more of a concern right now than easing sanctions.
On December 20 2016 07:35 LegalLord wrote: Trump just hit 270. The Nevertrumper failure is complete.
it seems like people kinda stopped trying after the election. twas only a modest number actually pushing for something irregular; and then without a good and proper strategy.
On December 20 2016 05:59 LegalLord wrote: Who sanctions hurt and help depends on the industry. Given that two out of the past three posts have been absurd strawmen, I'm not really in the mood to talk in depth about that. The bottom line, though, is this: Russia does want sanctions lifted, but it's not exactly desperate to have them lifted either. Many important economies thrive under the current conditions.
Why do you think that? Judging from all I have heard, Russias economy is down the toilet big time with GDP falling very quickly and prices living costs rising just as fast.
The GDP drop is mostly from currency devaluation, which was partially self-inflicted and a result of a floating exchange rate. The real number of interest is the GDP PPP, which has seen a pretty modest drop over the past few years, consistent with a recession about in line with what Russian structural weaknesses would lead to. The nominal numbers suggest a substantial decline that simply hasn't occurred.
Long story short, those who benefit from imports or who deal in foreign currency are hurt, while those who dealt in domestic currency mostly survived and were mostly insulated from the effects of the recession. The internal issues in the country are much more of a concern right now than easing sanctions.
That seems like the expected effect of the imposed sanctions? One wouldn't expect to hit the internal economy (that part conducted in domestic currency) unless the sanctions really set off a recession. And given that the sanctions are restricted to certain sectors that don't hit Russia's main economy, that seemed unlikely and not the goal. The goal is to restrict Russia's economical progress, not destroy Russia's economy.
On December 20 2016 05:59 LegalLord wrote: Who sanctions hurt and help depends on the industry. Given that two out of the past three posts have been absurd strawmen, I'm not really in the mood to talk in depth about that. The bottom line, though, is this: Russia does want sanctions lifted, but it's not exactly desperate to have them lifted either. Many important economies thrive under the current conditions.
Why do you think that? Judging from all I have heard, Russias economy is down the toilet big time with GDP falling very quickly and prices living costs rising just as fast.
The GDP drop is mostly from currency devaluation, which was partially self-inflicted and a result of a floating exchange rate. The real number of interest is the GDP PPP, which has seen a pretty modest drop over the past few years, consistent with a recession about in line with what Russian structural weaknesses would lead to. The nominal numbers suggest a substantial decline that simply hasn't occurred.
Long story short, those who benefit from imports or who deal in foreign currency are hurt, while those who dealt in domestic currency mostly survived and were mostly insulated from the effects of the recession. The internal issues in the country are much more of a concern right now than easing sanctions.
That seems like the expected effect of the imposed sanctions? One wouldn't expect to hit the internal economy (that part conducted in domestic currency) unless the sanctions really set off a recession. And given that the sanctions are restricted to certain sectors that don't hit Russia's main economy, that seemed unlikely and not the goal. The goal is to restrict Russia's economical progress, not destroy Russia's economy.
The recession was coming anyways; the causes were corruption and dependence on oil, among other structural failures. The biggest effect of the sanctions in isolation is simply that credit is harder to come by and that Russian local businesses are favored over imports.
I would pin their effect more so as to damage the European Union and Russian economic ties, since that was the result more so than any harm to the actual Russian economy.
On December 20 2016 07:35 LegalLord wrote: Trump just hit 270. The Nevertrumper failure is complete.
I know you mean this somewhat in jest, but most #nevertrump people have been mocking those Democrats calling for electoral college defections, including that hilarious celebrity video.
On December 20 2016 07:00 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote: also China's newspaper has already said that once he becomes president the gloves are coming off. So that will be fun to watch.
The drone capture was a message to Trump, not Obama.
Trump does not have all the leverage on trade. China could do some painful things to our economy.
Wonder how the rural working class would like a recession...
On December 20 2016 02:08 Doodsmack wrote: I think there was plenty of disdain and hate for the war at all times, as well as multiple rationales before it started. Most of the war's supporters now don't want to touch it with a ten foot pole, because history is not treating it well. The argument that the war was well-conceived to begin with is a convenient out for those who were originally supporters.
Just saying that the actions of the US Military during the first two weeks matched up precisely with what was requested to both the UN and Congress.
Yes, the US with 100, more?, times the budget of the aged Iraqi military were able to swiftly dispatch an insignificant but clearly visible foe. Truly a work of art for the ages /s.
Looking at the easiest and simplest part of the iraq war and going 'we did that well' is not something worth celebrating.
I'm not celebrating. LegalLord asked if anything in Iraq did better than things done in Libya and Syria. And for the most part, there was only one.
The invasion of Iraq went better then the invasion that didn't happen in Libya and Syria. Bravo. You did something better then... not doing it at all (and that's assuming you don't want to debate that not invading at all would have been an improvement for Iraq).
After spending a billion dollars on Libya the US Military has jack shit to show when it comes to results. No progress in improving the country, no progress to show that anything was won, just a billion dollars spent to kill random people over the course of 3-4 years. If you consider that much more successful than the first two weeks of Iraq before the started moving the goal posts then I don't know what metric you measure success.
As I have stated many times before, The US has no interest in winning the war in Syria. Its wants to drag it out as long as possible and bleed as much resources from the forces in the region as possible. Iraq shows that the US could have ended it in days if it wanted to. The lack of progress you describe as a failure is very much a successful operation and a billion dollars is a lot cheaper then Iraq turned out to be.
Yes, occupation is more expensive than not occupying. And being that the argument presented for the Iraq War was not an occupation but simply a disarming of the people in power, it did in 2 weeks what the intended plan was for Libya failed to do in the span of 4 years.
And, just like I said, it wasn't until the goal posts started getting shoved further and further as the plan got changed further and further that Iraq became a quagmire. Had the US simply showed up in Libya, spent 2 weeks retaking the capital, and then give the land to the rebel forces after they decimated the Libyan army, then Libya would have been where it is now but 4 years sooner and for a LOT LOT cheaper. But instead we simply spent years throwing random rockets and random targets with the hopes that the rebel forces would get their act together. End result was thousands dying for no reason and both sides of the conflicting at war for 4 years what should have been lasting a month.
EDIT
Don't get me wrong, I think Iraq was shit, I think the whole thing was shit, I think that people were presented with a scary enough threat that many felt forced to do something about it. A kind of "ignorance is bliss but now that I know how I can I not do something" hero complex.
The two options for why it got extended are both awful. Either we got into a quagmire that was too horrible to leave because too many people would die (and die they did when we left) or some homicidal elites in our leadership decided they enjoyed having children bleed on foreign soil. It really doesn't matter to me which one of those two bullshit possibilities dragged Iraq longer than the month needed to realize they either couldn't find WMDs or couldn't find proof of WMDs.
You understand that in both your Iraq and Syria scenario your basically creating the ISIS Kalifaat for them right?
If you fuck up Iraq and then leave ISIS takes it over entirely instead of the resistance offered now. Dito for Syria where the 'moderate' rebels probably wouldn't have held out. So instead of spending the money on an Iraq occupation and a Syria stalemate you create a 2 country state of radical Islam who hate the West.
On December 20 2016 02:08 Doodsmack wrote: I think there was plenty of disdain and hate for the war at all times, as well as multiple rationales before it started. Most of the war's supporters now don't want to touch it with a ten foot pole, because history is not treating it well. The argument that the war was well-conceived to begin with is a convenient out for those who were originally supporters.
Just saying that the actions of the US Military during the first two weeks matched up precisely with what was requested to both the UN and Congress.
Yes, the US with 100, more?, times the budget of the aged Iraqi military were able to swiftly dispatch an insignificant but clearly visible foe. Truly a work of art for the ages /s.
Looking at the easiest and simplest part of the iraq war and going 'we did that well' is not something worth celebrating.
I'm not celebrating. LegalLord asked if anything in Iraq did better than things done in Libya and Syria. And for the most part, there was only one.
The invasion of Iraq went better then the invasion that didn't happen in Libya and Syria. Bravo. You did something better then... not doing it at all (and that's assuming you don't want to debate that not invading at all would have been an improvement for Iraq).
After spending a billion dollars on Libya the US Military has jack shit to show when it comes to results. No progress in improving the country, no progress to show that anything was won, just a billion dollars spent to kill random people over the course of 3-4 years. If you consider that much more successful than the first two weeks of Iraq before the started moving the goal posts then I don't know what metric you measure success.
As I have stated many times before, The US has no interest in winning the war in Syria. Its wants to drag it out as long as possible and bleed as much resources from the forces in the region as possible. Iraq shows that the US could have ended it in days if it wanted to. The lack of progress you describe as a failure is very much a successful operation and a billion dollars is a lot cheaper then Iraq turned out to be.
I don't think that worked out. For one, they created ISIS, which is going to be problematic for years to come (first taste was when they entered Mosul and forced further US involvement). Second, the US credibility in the region seems to have gone down the shitter with the rise of ISIS and the effect is felt all around the world with the refugee crisis, increase in terrorism, and populist movements all over Europe and in the US. Third of all, the "bleed each other dry" part sort of went out the window when Russia entered into the scene. As I linked in the other thread, Hezbollah became stronger from Syrian cooperation, Iran seems to have gained a lot (including security agreements with both Russia and China), Assad gets the best chance he's had in years to consolidate power, and Russia has spent an absolutely trivial amount (alternative, newer but possibly more biased source) in Syria, and in fact a third of what the US has spent since 2014 on containing ISIS.
Maybe that was the goal, but it seems to have failed, like most of the other US interventions in the area. Much of the reason is that the US military just doesn't know how to keep costs down.
ISIS forming in the wake of the Iraq withdraw is a failure 100%. My resource draining stalemate solution is for how to deal with ISIS existing without a 2nd invasion (unacceptable to the US people).
-At that point you either bomb them into submission, they go underground and terror cells ruin everyones day. -You don't intervene and hope they don't win but with Russia not in the picture yet at this point there is a big chance ISIS does win. -You prolong the conflict to drain resources and keep their focus away from US soil terrorism.
I believe they took the 3e option and while it has resulted in the refugees crisis thats a problem for Europe and not the US who are safely far away. And again while Europe had some terrorist attacks (While they claim ISIS allegiance I wonder how many of these attacks were actually being orchestrated but ISIS itself) the US has been pretty safe from them.
When Russia came along the plan kinda fell apart and I don't think they were expected to join by the US. I'm still kinda convinced its the best of the options available tho at the time. In hindsight staying entirely out of it and letting Russia fix it with Assad might have been a better solution.
And yes I agree with your final point that the US military is horribly cost inefficient and using high tech expensive to operate equipment when cheaper options would be just as successful.
EPT
