EFT 2010/03/19

Good analysis and suggestions all the way around, but who has jurisdiction is not all that clear cut. While the UW claims authority over all mankind, as a practical matter, Skyland, though immensely valuable, has nothing that can be plundered, It has no value except that as an amusement park. Without constant tweaking and maintenance, it self-destructs in no time. Also, there is the PR factor. Any use of force against Skyland would be really bad press. Sort of like, "Government Threatens to Nuke Disneyworld." And any military action against Skyland could kill hundreds of UW citizens, the majority of which would be rich and powerful.

On the other hand, Skyland cannot claim independence. Think Taiwan and China. As a Martian corporation, it has some legal theory on its side, but they really do not want to poke the bear to test that. So, what can they do?

I stand corrected, the "bees" were poisonous.

As it stands it's up to the park's curator what to do to the military thugs since they committed their "crimes" in his territory, not on Ceres or Earth.

As I see it, these belligerent idiots are guilty of...

1.) Damage to park property (destroying Buzz).

2.) Carrying a slug thrower in a forbidden area endangering the park visitors as a whole.

3.) Assaulting honored guests of the curator.

4.) Being a general nuisance/ menace.

How he's going to punish them aside from the poison "stings," is anyone's guess.

Some options.

1.) SELL them back to Earth. As in fine the UW some monetary amount for what they've done.

2.) Broadcast the video of the assault to the media and humiliate them further in new and interesting ways.

3.) Make them "work off" their debt as park staff.

4.) Turn them over to Ceres or Reggie and let "the belt" decide what to do.

5.) Hold a public "trial" with them as the defendants.

6.) Some combination of the above.

7.) Something bizarre that I have not considered.

Publicize the assault in a manner calculated to paint the thugs in a poor light.  Use a lot of closeups, so everyone knows this was malicious.

When the UW disavows them, and they'll need to, since it'll have resulted in bad publicity, do whatever is necessary, quietly.  Since attempted 1st degree murder is involved, this could be a quiet shooting in the back room, or a live spacing.  Which is cheaper?  An ounce of lead and powder, or a few gallons of atmosphere mix?
Since the backers didn't pull weapons until the counter charge of the bumblebee brigade, they should probably receive some lesser sentence.  I'm not sure how far to criminalize "willing witness to an atrocity".

If the UW backs them, (hey, bureaucrats can be idiots sometimes,) kick the navy out, and ban any navy ship or active duty personnel from the park.  Also, keep giving that attack airplay.

Do they have a recording of the assault? Can recordings be trusted, or has data manipulation advanced to such a degree that you have to trust the source in order to trust the message? How trusted is the owner of an amusement park who's just pulled some major pranks? (Granted, none of them involved violence.)

Is there any personal privacy to be had with all those bees around? Is that the price you have to pay in order to stay safe in a society where you've given up your arms? Then again, in a society where everyone is largely free to do as they wish, perhaps personal privacy is of less concern? (I know that it's not terribly important to me, but a lot of other people seem really concerned with cameras everywhere. Possibly because they care what other people think, and realise that with cameras everywhere, it's quite possible for an operator to paint a very unappealing picture. Or stalk them for nefarious purposes.)

On the other hand, if the UW is supposed to become a major customer, those rich people would probably be very concerned with personal privacy. Or are they so used to being monitored at all times that it'd be no big thing for them? Perhaps it's only the navy who are used to being able to do whatever they want, no matter who might be watching?

I figure even without an actual direct-to-video recording, there's enough data tied up in that swarm network to reconstruct a very unflattering 3-d animation of exactly what transpired.
I figure the bureaucrats on earth would be too busy covering their own buts to protect someone who really did go out of line.  That is, beyond the instructions they'd been given.
I figure the proprietor might ask the would-be victims for permission to use their likeness, but would probably declare government agents to be "public servants", and thus their likenesses public property.


The only thing wrong with too many cameras, in my book, is the ease of detection.
I feel while there is an absolute morality, culture has a set of relative morals that at best intersects absolute morality.  Culture, for instance, once had it as wrong for black and white people to use the same dining facilities.  Too many cameras, or any other automated detection, or just recording, systems, make it easier to enforce too many laws.  The more you CAN enforce, the more you WILL, the more you do enforce, the more rigid society becomes, and the more it demands more laws.
I'm all for detection and immediate prosecution of violent offenders, but quite frankly, those cameras would be used to prosecute jaywalkers more than muggers, because the cameras were there, and the evidence was incontrovertible.

Remember how black and white things were as a child?  There is no actual "bending" of the law.  There's obeying the absolute letter of the law, and breaking the absolute letter of the law.  However, those who "bend" it are less prone to call out witchhunts over it, or demand tighter regulations to stop it.

Men weren't meant to be ants.  There has to be give in society or society will become brittle.

No, the data recordings can't be trusted.  Absolutely not.  Public opinion has been swayed by hearsay before, though.  Considering the example of our last admiral, I suspect this first officer is probably mouthy enough to stick his foot in it and not only admit to everything, but try to justify himself.  The only way the UW could prevent it would be to order him to shut up, and let his handlers speak for him.

(hey, bureaucrats can be idiots sometimes,)

Sometimes?  Counterexample?

Remember how black and white things were as a child?

Certainly I do.  The first time I lived in a house with a polychrome TV was when I moved in with my grandmother at 15 in 1970.  The whole first run of the original Star Trek series (aside from a few episodes I saw at friends' homes) were black and white.

Let me put it another way.
Sometimes even bureaucrats are idiots where butt covering is concerned.

Let me put it another way.
Sometimes even bureaucrats are idiots where butt covering is concerned.

Speaking of that, the wrappings the girls are wearing when they hug in Friday's (4/2/10) episode seem a bit thin for towels.  (I'm not complaining, but I've seen towels used as wraparounds (three marriages, a few other relationships, and my own ugly self in a mirror I wish wasn't there), and they aren't that form-fitting).

... the wrappings the girls are wearing when they hug in Friday's (4/2/10) episode seem a bit thin for towels.  (I'm not complaining, but I've seen towels used as wraparounds (three marriages, a few other relationships, and my own ugly self in a mirror I wish wasn't there), and they aren't that form-fitting).

Nanotech... ?

Nanotech... ?

Besides the anarchist philosophy, great art and good story line, I love how does Sandy and Co throw some technology here and there 

Make the story mind challenging in a different way and help cool down my brain 

Since moving cargo through space is so expensive, it is reasonable that to safe money you can make ''smart'' wrap around, which weight 5% of the normal and have some ''nanoattach'' to hold togueter in zero-g ambient

But there we come again in the case of how to deal with criminals I have not liked the EFT episode in which the young girl executed two UW soldiers

From there I have the following doubts :

- This wasn't just a matter of the girl and the admiral, since despite her family was the only casualty ... other people risked their arse to catch him and neutralize the UW fleet. They were their prisoners and they were the one who had to choose what to do with them ... but we can suppose that they surrendered the two UW soldiers to the young girl

- Having the girl execute the 2 UW soldiers was to extreme ... but I understand that your objective is to provoke reactions and see if we can gear our brain to think about it
The subordinate execution was way to harsh since independently of what he could do, someone would have pressed the button ... or does the rest of the crew was guilty has they failed to restraint the Admiral ?
Maybe the storyline could have explored another path (dare me suggest) of the criminal paying back the victim through forced labour... or like a friend of mine call it : Judicial Slavery
But it would be difficult to know how many years worth of slave work equals the lives of ones dear family

or maybe they should had thrown the Admiral in outer space and proceeded at an execution by vacuum

But there we come again in the case of how to deal with criminals I have not liked the EFT episode in which the young girl executed two UW soldiers

From there I have the following doubts :

- Having the girl execute the 2 UW soldiers was to extreme ... but I understand that your objective is to provoke reactions and see if we can gear our brain to think about it

Nobody "had" Emily execute the criminals--not Reggie, not anyone (except me, sort of). Emily was given their lives to do with whatever she chose. She could have given them cookies and milk and set them free. Instead, she opted to shot them.

This has created controversy on non-Big Head lists, as well. Some people are furious with me. But in all cases, they missed the explicitly stated point of the exercise. That is: You, and only you, are responsible for the consequences of your acts. You cannot fob it off on anyone else.

The subordinate execution was way to harsh since independently of what he could do, someone would have pressed the button ... or does the rest of the crew was guilty has they failed to restraint the Admiral ?

No, there is a big difference between sins of omission and sins of commission. No one is under any moral compulsion to prevent a crime by another (unless they have agreed to do so). For example, under Anglo-American jurisprudence, I could be walking beside a river, carrying a life preserver tied to a rope. If a canoe with a small child capsized in front of me and the child can not swim, I would be under no legal nor moral obligation to lift a finger to save the kid. (There is one exception, but it does not change the basic scenario.)

If the gunner had refused to fire, someone else might have. However, that in no way exonerates the gunner who did pull the trigger. He turned the victims' death from a possibility into a certainty.

Maybe the storyline could have explored another path (dare me suggest) of the criminal paying back the victim through forced labour...

Yeah, it could have explored that or I could have explored how pixie dust helps Tinkerbelle to fly, or any number of other possibilities. I chose to explore individual responsibility. I'm the writer, so I get to do that. Feel free to write your own story.

Interestingly enough, one of my critics did just that. He wrote a little scenario about Harris hiring an advocate,  selection of a judge, and some ridiculous hypothetical reasons why the Admiral's attack might have been legitimate and therefore, creating the need for all the legalistic hoopla. It sucked as a story, but more importantly, it totally trivialized the enormity of the crime and the underlying moral premise.

But don't worry, an anarchist "trial" will be featured in an upcoming story. I have the feeling, though, that it will really piss off some of my critics. I sure hope so. 

Maybe the storyline could have explored another path (dare me suggest) of the criminal paying back the victim through forced labour...

Yeah, it could have explored that or I could have explored how pixie dust helps Tinkerbelle to fly, or any number of other possibilities. I chose to explore individual responsibility. I'm the writer, so I get to do that. Feel free to write your own story.

I knew I was going to be beaten up for this comment ... but nope I won't be writing a story of my own until I finish to ... read and appreciate yours

Looks like the movie scenes of artist getting pissed off/annoyed when their art is criticised were no exagerations  

Interestingly enough, one of my critics did just that. He wrote a little scenario about Harris hiring an advocate,  selection of a judge, and some ridiculous hypothetical reasons why the Admiral's attack might have been legitimate and therefore, creating the need for all the legalistic hoopla. It sucked as a story, but more importantly, it totally trivialized the enormity of the crime and the underlying moral premise.

I'm happy you had this storyline ... has I said it was though provoking and good to question some about preconceived stuff and yes that hypothetical scenario sucks

Harris selecting an advocate is plain stupid since He will only want an a UW one and a military court ... and burying the whole storyline into legalistic bull crap destroy the point of the whole sequence : Who is responsible for your own actions?

But I shall know shut my mouth and religiously wait for monday strip  

ETA:

I wasn't bitching about the storyline or implying that I can write better, but despite not agreeing with all of EFT plots and how they solve out, I find them mind challenging

People who want to mentally masturbate themselves should turn watch avatar or read Tintin ... So when I say that I dissagree with Sandy&CO, it means that I was pleased to find my brain working and trying to understand them plot and the underlying moral premises of the story

So sorry about suggesting ''storylines/themes/whatever'' it is not a a comic on demand and I understand it

I knew I was going to be beaten up for this comment ... but nope I won't be writing a story of my own until I finish to ... read and appreciate yours

You call that a beating? Ha! I was easy on you because I like you. When I really get going, nothing is left but garden mulch.   

Looks like the movie scenes of artist getting pissed off/annoyed when their art is criticised were no exagerations  

However, don't push it.   

I will let you in on a little secret. I haven't yet decided if Emily's actions were justified. My gut says, yes, but I am still pondering it philosophically. I feel no obligation to agree with everything I write.

I actually don't mind constructive criticism, but the one thing that pisses me off above all others, is someone presuming to tell my how I should have written my story (or even suggesting what I could have written). That is one provocation too many. In other words, the critic is saying, "Well if I had written it, it would have been better." The point is, they are not the writer, yet feel justified in telling the writer how to write. That is arrogant and obnoxious in the extreme.

I don't mind people thinking they can writer better than I can, but talk is cheap. Walk a mile in moccasins. The world is hungry for good content. If anybody thinks they can write, they should put their pen where their mouth is. If you write something good, I assure you that Big Head Press or some other venue will be more than happy to run it.

Whoa! That was way more than I intended to say on the subject, so maybe I am a bit sensitive about (some) criticism.

I wasn't bitching about the storyline or implying that I can write better, but despite not agreeing with all of EFT plots and how they solve out, I find them mind challenging

 ... So when I say that I dissagree with Sandy&CO, it means that I was pleased to find my brain working and trying to understand them plot and the underlying moral premises of the story

So sorry about suggesting ''storylines/themes/whatever'' it is not a a comic on demand and I understand it

Okay sams, you are back in the club. 

The biggest problem with cameras "everywhere" is the person or people who control them. Cameras CAN lie by omission. Videos and photos can also be altered in many ways from the ridiculous to the dangerously scandalous.

Some prime examples are ...

The movie, "Paparazzi" where these "journalists" decide, for their own fun and profit, to harass a man and his family. When he quite understandably objects, they stage an ambush and then catch him in picture "assaulting" the camera man. The poor man gets sentenced to "anger management" afterwards. As if that were not enough, these "journalists" pull a "princess Diana" on him and use flashbulbs to blind him to stage a crash (which nearly kills him and his wife) just so they could take some pictures of the wreck. (Don't worry, according to the trailer, he DOES get even.)

"The new adventures of Superman," a photo was doctored by a tabloid so that it looks like Superman is in bed with another man's wife (Clark Kent's wife ) They were able to prove the photo fake only at the end of the episode AFTER Superman's name had been terribly smeared, and they had to repair the damage.

Real life. In some states, "Red light" cameras have been shown IN COURT being set to take pictures and send tickets for "failing to stop at a red light" on drivers who were crossing while the light was YELLOW.

There's many reasons to be wary of having cameras watching your every move.

The biggest problem with cameras "everywhere" is the person or people who control them. Cameras CAN lie by omission. Videos and photos can also be altered in many ways from the ridiculous to the dangerously scandalous.

Ubiquitous cameras are becoming a fact of life. The only way to ameliorate the problem is through encryption and strict chain-of-custody. See my WIRED article that touches on the issue:

http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/2.12/sandfort.if.html