Feb 28, 17 / Ari 03, 01 14:53 UTC
Re: Punish Corruption with Death, By Law!! ¶
Truely the extent to which you demonstrate the inability to think is only dwarfed only by your inability to pay attention. Continually correcting your crud is now becoming that repetitive I can begin to respond to it entirely by almost entirely by copying and pasting from previous posts of mine.
We do have the ability to mine asteroids. Just no-one has yet. Just like you could build a train track from your house to the sea, but no-oine has yet. All the bits are in existence. It doesn't exist now, but it's not beyond the scope of possibility to make happen. Well, it would be for you as your lack of ability to do math, perform feasibility studies, geological surveys, understanding physics etc would seriously hamper the initative, but it's achieveable for most.
"infallible" hardware is possible by explictly expecting and planning for failures, combined with 21'st century monitoring and maintainence. It's commonly not going to be the CPU that exhibits failures as these should all be on filtered lines and environments maintained, but more likely things with moving parts.
"Unsinkable" is possible, approached correctly and supplied suffiently. All three you listed was operating at a much lower technological level in terms of raw material refinement and suffered immensely from attempting to save money - which can't reconcile with other requirements.
Insulting you is rather pointless, but as you're doing a lot better job of it than me it does render it futile. But there again the entire premise of attempting to speak sense unto yourself is a little futile because as one thing gets cleared up you revlove back unto another previously ratified facet, usually based on irrational fear caused by lack of education and a desperation to have something to be scared of.
The major difference between the road law example you cite and monitoring/maintainence of systems is that the road laws are an artificial construct, so easily ignored by the humans operating in the system - creating almost all the problems within. Systems monitoring rules are not so easily bypassed, not being done by humans. Similar to the driver in your example it will observe the data produced by equipment in order to "anticipate" and "excersize common sense" avoiding "accidents". The possibility of failure still happening is expected, and thusly mitigations probvided. Wherever practical the laws of physics themselves should be the operating mechanics and thus failure impossible. There are no countermeasures, the system is the countermeasure.
Realistically, you are not going to be recieving payment for delivery of harsh words. You're not interfering with systems, not having any access to anything important and any attempt to would be noticed and recified rapidly. It's reasonably safe to assume that the random and unusual (harmless) things people will pay for are both unlikley to meet your needs or be applicable at the precise time you would require it. Starting to run out of reasons for anyone to pay you for something, and you had specifically suggested harming others as a way to recieve this payment. The only specified direction. It's almost infinitely unlikely you'd be in posession of any information it's not possible to obtain via a more reliable source. Getting on the space station is unlikely to be your call, and even if you was somehow in some position of regulation involving, any sensible system would be set so you can't abuse anything, requiring collusion from more than yourself - involving multiple people to accept bribes of something there is no use for - You'd actually avoided hitting into any of the real details, like how you're supposed to collect this payment after, or use it to get some more crack, let alone in time to stop your blood itching. This isn't ending life to save life, as this doesn't directly involve the loss of one to preserve a greater number. It's 1:1 or many:1, and doesn't lead to any direct saving of life. Just a representation of the most complex and least assured to succeed plan you could come up with on such short notice. Unless your plan is to attempt screw up as many others as you can as you ensure you're never granted the opportunity to do the same again.
Having them hand you money before you do anything is quite wise from your point of view, however from their point of view it's wiser to hand you the money after. To assume that can be resolved, it still doesn't cover how you'd actually get to spend this money, considering the cost to get there to give you the money, and the amount required to motivate you we can safely assume that w/e it is would not be benign - or why the cloak and dagger, one would just knock on the front door. It'd be cheaper.
The government of Asgardia probably won't know your medicianal requirements - it could find it out - what would know is your medical records, unlike the attitude you seem to expect, you don't "hit and hope" with space, things like medical checkups will be regular. Your "medical condition" would be known beforehand, in order that you can recieve the medicaiton you require. Unless you was just hoping to magically find some lying around in the middle of space it's likely this will require to be produced for you, something a lot harder to do and unreasonable to expect when you don't know it's required. As previously mentioned, this will most likely manifest as a public dispenspment machinery or your personal/private equipment that will fabricate it on demand. It doesn't matter precisely what medication it is, it currently exists so it can be made.
I don't do hypocrisy. I would do w/e it takes to survive, on an instinct level - and if pressured into a corner taking of life to preserve my own would be without hesitation - however if afforded the time to think(ie: more than 1 second reaction time) I would be weighing in variables and the decision wouldn't be based entirely on preservation of my own life, with the situation handled as the individual case merits. In the larger picture my personal survival is a minor detail, and sometimes the queen must be sacrificed to force a checkmate. I'm not so selfish that I think it's all centric to myself, even in my "inner world". I do have some skill with thinking "outside the box" however, so when placed in such situations I commonly walk out, as evidenced by my still walking, with the checkmate and the queen. When presented three options, make your own fourth. I don't pretend to defecate rainbows, I do however recognise the value to morality and ethics. These are what will ultimately result in this "ideal society" of which you speak, so should be thoroughly promoted. One should also strive to lead by example, It is unreasonable to expect of others that which you cannot expect of yourself. I am not perfect(although some claim otherwise, despite my attempts to curb this opinion) but my flaws do not extend to that of the average human.
But, yes, to get back "on topic" - For the record, I also recognise the place forfieture of life could have. I also recognise this would not be entirely "civilised" and a defacto declaration of failure. Thusly seek alternates. If it's feasible to provide for long term mass residential facilities in space, then it should be equally feasible to provide for reahbilitaion and detention facilities, also in space. For the attribution of resources example, scaricity would require to be resolved before the attempt unless you'd evision life in perpetual deficit, especially when finely tuned and balanced cycles are disrupted through natural population expansion. "Unmet needs" isn't a concept that's sensible to entertain in space - it seriously won't work - and thusly needs will require to be met to consider habitation long term safely. Sensibly, "correction facilities" would not be in the "residential facilities", but entirely seperated and isolated. The scale of resource attribution being met to make the construction of habitation facilities possible should render the fabrication of additional facilities reasonably trivial.
As to the use of prisoners for manual labour, similar exists under another term: slavery. It's not an entirely progressive concept. It can certianly be useful, but considering most tedious labour is already possible to take place by machine then by the time this will be taking place it's questionable what labour could be productive for them to do - and you also have to consider if they can be trusted to do it and how you'd actually force this labour out of them.
The "return to Earth" option is only a truely viable concept for those that "came from Earth" - a generation or more into "born in Asgardia" isn't going to be "right" to send to Earth, as a punishment. It's got nothing to do with Earth, and forcing our problems on Earth isn't a sensible long term solution, and even short term is likely to be incredibly problematic. With regards to establising correction/detention facilities on Earth's land, then you still have the problem of them leaving this facility. Even those that "came from Earth" would still be us dumping our problems we cannot solve onto Earth. The reception to the topic of punishment vs rehabilitation indicates the larger percentage would choose to persue rehabilitation options, more than custodial sentences. Indefinite incarciration I'd hope to be an incredibly rare occurance, reserved for those whom there are no potentially corrective options. For "correctional facilities" to be considered worthy of the title then those that pass through them should leave, in theory, capable of integration back into "larger society". In the interests of fairness, they should be granted the opportunity to prove themselves. Lifting them from Earth then is an issue that could of been avoided. Leaving them there just abandons the investment in their rehabilitation.