If we live in a society where any measure of cooperation with others is subject to such a high level of scrutiny, we are all guilty of every moral indiscretion committed by anyone. Individual responsibility is almost a requirement for the complex and interdependent world in which we exist.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wech_Baghtu_wedding_party_airst...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deh_Bala_wedding_party_airstrik...
These days, I'm fortunate enough to work on training sims for demining. I'd have to recommend that if you are really concerned about being a potential party to killing, don't worry about it - until you vote. Or maybe even write a letter or do some activism. But the last thing you should do is cripple the tools you make for others to use in some sort of ignoble bid to be moral. That's not moral, it's unprofessional.
[1] The study of history is, to a first approximation, the study of war. I am not conceited enough to believe that my generation is the first one that is living outside of history.
We need a strong military - we just need to stop going to war at the drop of a hat.
I could just stop making tools.
I don't think I'm okay with making wars a clean, professional thing. It should be brutal and bloody and messy at every stage, so we can't isolate ourselves from what we're doing.
If you're making weapon systems and going "Well, I'm not responsible, I just helped make a technology" and the guy firing them is saying "Well, I'm just following orders and pressing some buttons, I'm not really killing them" and the guy in charge is saying "I'm just implementing what the politicians/people want" (depending on how high up the command), who exactly is left actually carrying the price of it?
No, I think I should do everything I can to make sure that we are forced to viscerally feel the terribleness of war when we decide to wage it - not pretend it's a video game.
If you believe that carnality would put a stop to warfare, I think the last couple thousand years of it might disagree with you.
Granted, the sight of carnage can turn the tide of public opinion against a war... that's been the case since World War 1 put an end to the idea of war as a noble game where boys became men. But it's not going to stop wars from being waged, just make the politics of managing them more difficult, and make it more torturous for the soldiers doing the killing. The generals probably aren't going to lose a night of sleep even if people have to hack away at each other with machetes.
My goal it's to End All Wars Forever! (TM), it's to raise the cost of waging wars for a society, so it's something we do less casually.
Do the containers shield against strong EM fields? Otherwise an enemy could detonate a mini em-/atom-bomb close to the target, in order to destroy their operative computer systems. Is that the reason for the heavy metal casing? In that case they probably also used Fiber cables with the lastest known modulation techniques to get (n-)Terabit/s per container. Maybe they even have radiation shielding [1] to protect from inner and outer radiation. This beast doesn't look like it solely runs on diesel, but on an atom-reactor.
from article: Each EME has its own shock and vibration damping, power protection, water cooling systems, and electromagnetic shielding to prevent interference from the ship's radar and other big radio frequency emitters.
I would imagine that would include EMP given the modern threats and US Navy's general understatement of capabilities.
You don't get to avoid the whole balance of power/MAD card because your nukes were used for EMP only.
[citation needed]
"Each EME has its own shock and vibration damping, power protection, water cooling systems, and electromagnetic shielding to prevent interference from the ship's radar and other big radio frequency emitters."
The military is no stranger to EM hardening their systems. They've been doing it since the cold war after all.
[1] https://www.navalengineers.org/SiteCollectionDocuments/2010%...
shitty citation - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zumwalt-class_destroyer
In much the same way that the food one grew might make one party to killing, should it nourish a killer, sure. But that's a bit of a dorm-room realisation: nothing any of us does can be wholly good or wholly evil; rather, we must each strive to do the most good and the least evil within our ability.
> you know we're all pretty gross if the NRA is wrong, don't you?
And elephants are spherical if ducks are constructed of silicon and finely-shredded buts of the Rubaiyat. Fortunately, the NRA's not wrong: it's not the technology, but the people who wield it, which can be a problem.
The long-term ethics of producing open source are fascinating -- you know we're all pretty gross if the NRA is wrong, don't you? About X not killing people, people killing people. 'Cause we brought a whole lot of X, and gave it away, puffed with pride, to people who can name something a 'dreadnought' without it being weird.