Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 19 submissions in the queue.
posted by Fnord666 on Wednesday June 07 2017, @12:49AM   Printer-friendly
from the another-brick-in-the-wall dept.

Oculus co-founder Palmer Luckey, who left Facebook in March, wants to build a wall... with LIDAR sensors:

Palmer Freeman Luckey was the kind of wunderkind Silicon Valley venerates. When he was just 21, he made an overnight fortune selling his start-up, a company called Oculus VR that made virtual-reality gear, to Facebook for $2 billion in 2014.

But the success story took a sideways turn this year when Mr. Luckey was pressured to leave Facebook months after news spread that he had secretly donated to an organization dedicated to spreading anti-Hillary Clinton internet memes.

[...] And he has a new start-up in the works, a company that is developing surveillance technology that could be deployed on borders between countries and around military bases, according to three people familiar with the plan who asked for anonymity because it's still confidential. They said the investment fund run by Peter Thiel, a technology adviser to Mr. Trump, planned to support the effort.

In an emailed statement, Mr. Luckey confirmed that he was working on a defense-related start-up. "We are spending more than ever on defense technology, yet the pace of innovation has been slowing for decades," he wrote. "We need a new kind of defense company, one that will save taxpayer dollars while creating superior technology to keep our troops and citizens safer."

Also at BBC, CNET, Boing Boing, PCMag, and Engadget.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by fyngyrz on Wednesday June 07 2017, @02:40AM (8 children)

    by fyngyrz (6567) on Wednesday June 07 2017, @02:40AM (#521722) Journal

    You cannot cherry-pick which laws you want to obey. End of discussion.

    Aaaaand that's why slavery was perfectly okay! Because it was the law!

    End of discussion, right? Your reasoning is so awesome...

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +3  
       Insightful=2, Informative=1, Total=3
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   5  
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 07 2017, @02:52AM (2 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 07 2017, @02:52AM (#521728)

    Slavery has nothing to do with this discussion.

    Perhaps you are intoxicated on drugs or alcohol ? That could explain your impaired thinking.

    • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 07 2017, @03:18AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 07 2017, @03:18AM (#521743)

      Easy there old chap, you have to read the quote at the top of the post for some context.
      Take it step by step, you'll be caught up in no time

    • (Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday June 07 2017, @12:32PM

      by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday June 07 2017, @12:32PM (#521856) Journal

      Slavery has nothing to do with this discussion.

      The grandparent might have skipped a couple of logic steps, but the point is that in the US, prior to 1863 or so, not only was slavery legal, but helping escaped slaves escape was very illegal. Yet people did that [wikipedia.org] anyway at considerable risk to themselves. So in rebuttal to the original assertion that one can't cherry pick laws to obey, we have a fine example of people refusing to obey what they considered immoral law. They successfully "cherry picked" which laws they would obey, which helped a lot of people, contrary to the original poster's assertion otherwise.

      The problem with that analogy is that I don't buy that there is a similarly great moral cause furthered by allowing illegal immigration. Instead, I think it's a variety of parties undermining this law for selfish reasons, such as pandering to immigrant votes (and in the long term creating more immigrant votes to pander to in a dynamic with positive feedback - probably the number one reason that there is and has ever been a backlash against illegal immigration in the US in the first place), cheap legally unprotected labor, or merely being cheaper and faster than legally applying for immigration to the US (and other parts of the developed world).

  • (Score: 0, Disagree) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 07 2017, @07:27AM (4 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 07 2017, @07:27AM (#521795)

    Aaaaand that's why slavery was perfectly okay! Because it was the law!

    End of discussion, right? Your reasoning is so awesome...

    Why the fuck is this drivel modded insightful?

    Advocacy for adherence to the law is in no way expressing support for every law that ever has existed. It is a perfectly reasonable position to obey the law to the best of your abilities and reject the law all the same. There are a number of legitimate methods to challenge bad laws, such as writing to your representatives, informing your fellow citizens of the downsides of such laws and protesting against them. None of these actions require violating the law in any way. Disobeying the laws just because your personal moral code says otherwise is not a justifiable position. After all, what makes YOU more morally upstanding than the rapist who claims that rape is okay in their personal moral code? The fact that your fee-fees make you feel fuzzy inside when you are doing it and not so fuzzy when they are doing it? Ridiculous.

    If you cannot enact your desired social change, you will just have to suck it up and live with it just as all other groups who claim moral high ground on illegal issues. You can always go live somewhere else if you don't like it. Should you choose to ignore the law however, you will rightfully be treated just as any other criminal.

    • (Score: 2, Informative) by khallow on Wednesday June 07 2017, @12:34PM (1 child)

      by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday June 07 2017, @12:34PM (#521858) Journal

      Advocacy for adherence to the law is in no way expressing support for every law that ever has existed.

      Actually, yes, it is. The number one way to express opposition to a law is to break it. If you take that choice off the table, then you've greatly weakened your opposition to the law in question.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 07 2017, @03:01PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 07 2017, @03:01PM (#521937)

        "We are benevolent and tolerant masters. We allow anyone to say whatever they want as long as they don't break the rules. Anyone who breaks the rules is immoral scum and will be sent to federal 'pound me in the ass' prison. Just don't break the laws! Otherwise do whatever you want. We love freedom here."

    • (Score: 2) by fyngyrz on Wednesday June 07 2017, @03:06PM

      by fyngyrz (6567) on Wednesday June 07 2017, @03:06PM (#521943) Journal

      It is a perfectly reasonable position to obey the law to the best of your abilities and reject the law all the same.

      No. It isn't. Often, when the law is immoral, obeying it is immoral. If the law says that it is illegal to escape from slavery (it did), yet a slave tries anyway, this is (a) not in any way unreasonable, and (b) a thoroughly moral thing to do. Further, if the law required one to return a runaway slave (it did; see the The Fugitive Slave Act, ca. 1850), then the law required others to do something immoral; doing so puts compliant individuals irretrievably in the wrong. When the law is wrong, not only is there no imperative (other than fear and coercion) to obey it, there is a bombproof moral case to disobey it should the issue arise.

      The only moral move is to follow moral laws: If the government wants the citizens to obey the laws, it must make only moral laws, and impose only moral consequences. This is (obviously) a goal that should be among the topmost when crafting legislation. Since it isn't, the duty to triage toxic law falls upon the public.

      There are many such immoral and toxic laws on the books today, and they make for interesting discussion, albeit a different one and one that certainly includes debate as to the various cases for morality, and what that means. I generally use the slavery laws because the dust has long since settled – any moderately sane person with two wet neurons to rub together can see that coercive slavery is inherently wrong.

      I wrote a more extended discussion of this 9/2016 in a (slightly) different context. You can read it here [fyngyrz.com] if you wish.

      The bottom line is that strict/rote compliance with the law can result in definitively evil and toxic acts. Don't use the law verbatim. Learn about the law, learn about ethics, develop an understanding of what informed, personal and consensual choice is, carefully devise a relevant morality you can defend, and then use your brain.

    • (Score: 2, Informative) by Roger Murdock on Wednesday June 07 2017, @11:01PM

      by Roger Murdock (4897) on Wednesday June 07 2017, @11:01PM (#522278)

      There are a number of legitimate methods to challenge bad laws, such as writing to your representatives, informing your fellow citizens of the downsides of such laws and protesting against them.

      Not obeying bad laws is another way of challenging them.

      Disobeying the laws just because your personal moral code says otherwise is not a justifiable position.

      Disobeying laws that the vast majority of reasonable people consider to be unjust, and that have no safety implications, can be pretty easy to justify.

      Only in simpleton-land do all laws deserve the same level of adherence.