In the end, you're treated like a spy, says MIT scientist

Post by nobody9999 » Fri, Jan 28, 2022, 9:27 PM UTC

dnautics wrote: post #400

nobody9999 wrote: post #397

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a difference between classified information and scientific research. Yes, some scientific research could be classified, but unless the government can show "national security implications" (a pretty low bar, IMHO), they should not be restricting the flow of speech or ideas. A general officer in the military is not only covered by the Constitution, but by the UCMJ[0]. As such, your comparison is flawed. We're (…

You act as if I haven't read the constitution. I've pored over the constitution so many times, I'm well versed in obscurities down to the twenty dollar clause and the post roads clause. Can you explain to me how classifying content is not an abridgement of free speech in an absolute reading of the constitution? "Congress shall make no law.." It does not say "Congress shall make no law, unless it's classified" The UCM…

Post by matthewdgreen » Fri, Jan 28, 2022, 10:09 PM UTC

dnautics wrote: post #328

matthewdgreen wrote: post #270

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you are 100% backwards in your thinking here. If the US taxpayer funds research then public funders actually have a very high bar in their ability to restrict the publication of that research. For the simple reason that the taxpayer funds it and government restrictions on speech face a very high Constitutional bar. By contrast if I take funding from Amazon or Apple it’s much easier for them to demand NDAs and…

you are right in practice, but my argument is not about what is de facto the case, but what should be the case. > government restrictions on speech Well this obviously should not generally be the case. If you are, say a high ranking general at the pentagon -- which is a position directly paid by the government, so arguably way more "protected" by the constitution than a subcontractor awardee of a grant, which could b…

Post by kragen » Fri, Jan 28, 2022, 10:39 PM UTC

the_doctah wrote: post #404

kragen wrote: post #390

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Trail of Tears, the US Civil War and the appalling form of slavery that led up to it, the Chinese Exclusion Act, racially-biased "eugenic" involuntary sterilization, Jim Crow, the Japanese internment camps, the Indian Schools, Wounded Knee, cowboys & Indians movies, the Tulsa race massacre, per-country immigration quotas, mass deportation, child internment camps, etc., are not mid-millennium colonization. There's…

>one so deeply embedded in US culture that I couldn't see most of it until I had been gone for several years. Wherever you went, odds are it has an equally shitty history, and present.

Post by kragen » Fri, Jan 28, 2022, 11:03 PM UTC

frankfrankfrank wrote: post #408

kragen wrote: post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, nothing equivalent to the Cultural Revolution has happened anywhere else ever. Hopefully it never will.

What is your definition of equivalent? Because I see the French Revolution and it’s Central European offshoots, the Russian revolution, the various Latin American and Asian communist revolutions all very equivalent; they all totally upended and and destroyed an existing culture and whole civilizations. If communistic elements and characteristics are involved, such a situation is equivalent to the Chinese communist “c…

      Equivalent \E*quiv"a*lent\ ([-e]*kw[i^]v"[.a]*lent), a. [L.
         aequivalens, -entis, p. pr. of aequivalere to have equal
         power; aequus equal + valere to be strong, be worth: cf. F.
         ['e]quivalent. See {Equal}, and {Valiant}.]
         1. Equal in worth or value, force, power, effect, import, and
            the like; alike in significance and value; of the same
            import or meaning.
            [1913 Webster]

                  For now to serve and to minister, servile and
                  ministerial, are terms equivalent.    --South.
            [1913 Webster]

Post by RyEgswuCsn » Sat, Jan 29, 2022, 12:15 AM UTC

howmayiannoyyou wrote: post #315

Banana699 wrote: post #266

Earlier quoted context omitted.

With all due respect, this is completely irrelevant. This same technology and better is being sold out to countries like Saudi Arabia[1] and Israel[2], which are not exactly shining beacons of human rights. What seems to be the argument here ? "If China wants to use US tech to oppress and kill people with no regard for human rights and the rule of law... they have to PAY for it first, like all respectable totalitaria…

Your point being: since the US provides aid to countries whose human rights records are controversial China should be free to steal and misuse US intellectual property. Great argument. Have fun in a world where China's views on human rights prevail. I'm sure you & your family and their families will be very happy.