Slashdot Mirror

...had a lot of acerbic observations on the topic.

"I said this in 1971, in the very first week of PG, that by the end of my lifetime you would be able to carry every word in the Library of Congress in one hand - but they will pass a law against it. I realized they would never let us have that much access to so much information." http://samvak.tripod.com/busiw...

He was scathing on the topic of the attempts (which are largely succeeding) to convert us from an ownership society to a rentier society:

http://comments.gmane.org/gman...

"I worry that 100 years from now that 99% of foods will be GMO's [Genetically
Manipulated/Manufactured Organisms] and hence under copyright. . .and this
will enforce a copyright-powered hunger/starvation/malnutrition of the body
just as current copyright extensions are powering such for the mind.

The goal of WIPO is that EVERYTHING should HAVE to be paid for, plus a
royalty for the intellectual property. . .at a time when everyone COULD
have everything pretty much free of charge from replicator technology.

100 years ago the atom-powered Nautilus and atomic bomb were fiction,
only 50 years later the Nautilus was being built, and it sailed into
my own home town and their crew came to my school. . . .

Do you REALLY think it won't be even more different in the future?

But WIPO still wants to charge hugely for replicated food, just as
it does for replicated books."

Some pilots have defected with their planes. If you do not count it as "theft" of aircraft it is very difficult to steal an aircraft. In my memory only this guy managed to do it. But he had the advantage of becoming invisible if electricity passes through him and he had a remote controlled steel hand too.

Cite: http://gbhint.tripod.com/paper...

Well, that quote is of one piece with what else we know about Obama. He thinks he is the best there is at everything. He has said that he wishes he could do everything, because he's a better speech writer than his speech writers, a better political director than his political directors, etc.

Source: http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/11/17/081117fa_fact_lizza?printable=true

I think he is a narcissist. One of the signs of a narcissist is lack of empathy.

http://samvak.tripod.com/obama.html

I'm not sure about Angelfire, but I was just shown a Tripod site today that's still up. I had no idea the tripod.com domain even resolved anymore. The page in question still has ancient (but revolutionary for the time) JavaScript slide-in ad boxes, and is almost a time capsule from 1997 or so.

Problem solved - just resume production of these:

Gilbert U-238 Atomic Energy Lab

This was a stunningly sophisticated science kit that cost $50 new. $430 adjusted for inflation.

There was nothing phony about our Atomic Energy laboratory. It was genuine, and it was also safe. We used radioactive materials in the set, but none that might conceivably prove dangerous. There was a Geiger-Mueller Counter. It was accurate; a carefully designed and manufactured instrument that could actually be used in prospecting for radioactive materials. The Atomic Energy lab also contained a cloud chamber in which the paths of alpha particles traveling at 12,000 miles a second could be seen; a spinthariscope showing the results of radioactive disintegration on a fluorescent screen; an electroscope that measured the radioactivity of different substances.

---- quoted from A. C. Gilbert's autobiography: ''The Man Who Lives In Paradise'' Rinehard & Company
1954.

A. C. Gilbert U-238 Atomic Energy Lab

The auction price on eBay in June for an incomplete set in fair condition: $4500. Gilbert U-238 Atomic Energy Lab, Original 1952

It was fascism, the way the English refused funding to Screaming Lord Sutch.

Based on their free hosting web presence I'd guess the USA MRLP isn't getting it's fair share of the tit ether. ref http://usloonyparty.tripod.com/

http://www.chomsky.info/articles/199710--.htm
"The universities, for example, are not independent institutions. There may be independent people scattered around in them but that is true of the media as well. And it's generally true of corporations. It's true of Fascist states, for that matter. But the institution itself is parasitic. It's dependent on outside sources of support and those sources of support, such as private wealth, big corporations with grants, and the government (which is so closely interlinked with corporate power you can barely distinguish them), they are essentially what the universities are in the middle of. People within them, who don't adjust to that structure, who don't accept it and internalize it (you can't really work with it unless you internalize it, and believe it); people who don't do that are likely to be weeded out along the way, starting from kindergarten, all the way up. There are all sorts of filtering devices to get rid of people who are a pain in the neck and think independently. Those of you who have been through college know that the educational system is very highly geared to rewarding conformity and obedience; if you don't do that, you are a troublemaker. So, it is kind of a filtering device which ends up with people who really honestly (they aren't lying) internalize the framework of belief and attitudes of the surrounding power system in the society. The elite institutions like, say, Harvard and Princeton and the small upscale colleges, for example, are very much geared to socialization. If you go through a place like Harvard, most of what goes on there is teaching manners; how to behave like a member of the upper classes, how to think the right thoughts, and so on."

See also: http://disciplinedminds.tripod.com/
"The hidden root of much career dissatisfaction, argues Schmidt, is the professionalâ(TM)s lack of control over the political component of his or her creative work. Many professionals set out to make a contribution to society and add meaning to their lives. Yet our system of professional education and employment abusively inculcates an acceptance of politically subordinate roles in which professionals typically do not make a significant difference, undermining the creative potential of individuals, organizations and even democracy."

And in recent history in relation to the run up to the Iraq war: http://fair.org/press-release/some-critical-media-voices-face-censorship/

How could it be different? Seriously, as a question, can people suggest alternatives? I've suggested some things elsewhere in terms of rethinking security and in my sig. How can things be different while still preserving current security?

The argument that this surveillance apparatus may fall into the hands of "bad people" is still (mostly) an argument about the future, so it has less weight if people can't see how to feel reasonably secure now. I'd like to see a lot more playing around with ideas about potential alternatives to keep the USA secure and healthy in the face of the fact that technology allows individuals and small groups to do ever more damage to the whole.... From a 2007 slashdot post by an AC:
http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=261555&cid=20127487
"Ben Bova, a major science fiction writer, has a proposed answer to the Fermi Paradox that startw with one of the side-effects of general technological advancement: The average person (of any intelligent species) acquires more and more power to do things. Well, on Earth it is well known that not all persons are emotionally stable, even as adults. Why should an assumption of stability be made for other worlds? Remember that if there is a technological cure for insanity, it is beyond our current technology, and it is

267,709

Too late for Iain though, sadly (vitamin d, iodine, phytonutrients, etc.): http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3610805&cid=43349347

Also google on cancer and a ketogenic diet (starves cancer cells of the sugar they need).

The sad thing is we could have a post-scarcity society right now, but our ideology gets in the way. Maybe it would not be "The Culture" level, but it would still be pretty neat. But we have not done that, and so many areas of our society, including medicine. remain backward for lack of appropriate investment.

Good luck on your career. Maybe there will be some magic bullets out there to fight cancer someday, maybe you will invent them, but until then, there is still a lot a person can do to prevent and in some cases reverse cancer, even if nothing is 100% guaranteed.

Sadly, we also lost another post-scarcity sci-fi writer, James P. Hogan, a couple years ago to heart disease (a disease generally reversible with excellent nutrition).
http://www.jamesphogan.com/books/info.php?titleID=29&cmd=summary

A book James P. Hogan told me about:
http://disciplinedminds.tripod.com/
"Who are you going to be? That is the question.
      In this riveting book about the world of professional work, Jeff Schmidt demonstrates that the workplace is a battleground for the very identity of the individual, as is graduate school, where professionals are trained. He shows that professional work is inherently political, and that professionals are hired to subordinate their own vision and maintain strict "ideological discipline."
  The hidden root of much career dissatisfaction, argues Schmidt, is the professional's lack of control over the political component of his or her creative work. Many professionals set out to make a contribution to society and add meaning to their lives. Yet our system of professional education and employment abusively inculcates an acceptance of politically subordinate roles in which professionals typically do not make a significant difference, undermining the creative potential of individuals, organizations and even democracy.
      Schmidt details the battle one must fight to be an independent thinker and to pursue one's own social vision in today's corporate society. He shows how an honest reassessment of what it really means to be a professional employee can be remarkably liberating. After reading this brutally frank book, no one who works for a living will ever think the same way about his or her job."

Quite agree with the ethical argument, which is why I do neither.

However one huge difference between cattle and whales is the way that they kill them. A bolt to the head is not the slow death of an explosive harpoon. Average time to death for the last year of Norwegian whaling was 3 minutes, with the longest being 50 minutes.

http://whales7.tripod.com/policies/methods.html

Concealed carry permits have not been linked with a reduction in crime.

The supposed rebuttal, to which you linked, cites a single study, which did not rebut the original assertion by John Lott. The large collection of people authoring it could not come up to any conclusion — in their esteemed opinion, there is no link between the carry laws and the murder rate. From your link:

We conclude that Lott and Mustard have made an important scholarly contribution in establishing that these laws have not led to the massive bloodbath of death and injury that some of their opponents feared. On the other hand, we find that the statistical evidence that these laws have reduced crime is limited, sporadic, and extraordinarily fragile.

So, if John Lott is right, relaxing concealed carry laws will help. If he is wrong, it will not hurt. What grounds are there, again, for the massive violations of the 2nd Amendment, that you and yours are demanding?

Games People Play...

StereoStim
SmartStim
estim
http://www.kenstwistedmind.com/Fucking-Machines/ELEC.html
http://phaser405.tripod.com/

Play safe

http://devastationrisk.tripod.com/our_variant.htm

This is also a very good set of alternate rules. I have played these with a friend that knows the guy that wrote them.

Jesus was scrourged quite vigorously,

It is known that on the tips of these whips were nails, glass shards, and jagged sheep bone. These were attached form the three to twelve different strips of leather that made the scourge. The glass, nails, and bone were embedded in a fashion that they would not break, thus rendering the whip useless. ... Effects of such whips are devastating to the skin. The tear apart the flesh and rip open underlying veins and arteries. So effective are these whips that medical historians believe the very ribcage of a person would be visible through the skin after a scourging. The Roman Scourge

He was likey physically intimidating, he was a carpenter after all, in an age when if you needed a board, you went out and cut down a tree and sawed out the board. The Romans couldn't allow this man to cause any ruckus on the way to his execution, just making to his execution alive was no mean feat.
       

Facts are stubborn things. You're gun is many times more likely to kill or injure you or your family than save them.

Yes facts are stubborn things, your opinion is not a fact. http://www.pulpless.com/gunclock/stats.html http://ericwalczak0.tripod.com/id10.html The facts appear to be that a gun in the home (in the U.S) is ~10 times more likely to be used in saving a life thant in killing orinjuring the owner or a member of his houshold.

Apparently in 1998, there were 121 accidental firearm deaths in children 15 and under.

http://johnrlott.tripod.com/whitney.pdf

Much better than 20+ dead.

Can you cite any sources that aren't over a decade old?

Lot of shit can change in 14 years.

Apparently in 1998, there were 121 accidental firearm deaths in children 15 and under.

http://johnrlott.tripod.com/whitney.pdf

Much better than 20+ dead.

You seem to be under the impression that you cannot legislate morality. However, that is not true. All laws are an attempt to legislate morality.Any law which makes something that is not immoral illegal is a bad law.

You seem to be under the impression that there is such a thing as a group morality. No such animal exists. There are social norms. There is the social contract. But morality is an individual thing. Each person has to make moral choices for themselves. Those choices are almost certainly informed by the society around them but, in the end, each moral choice is an individual one.

As such, it is impossible to legislate morality. Any attempt to do so inevitably leads to imposing the moral choices of those who create the legislation on everyone else. That's not to say we shouldn't have laws. But those laws *should* be based on the ethics and ideals of the society and are unrelated (except by happenstance and the similar moral choices endorsed by the members of that society) to morality in a very real sense.

Perhaps I'm splitting hairs here, but I think it's important to recognize that your morality is not my morality even if we make similar (or even identical) moral choices.

Heinlein (while I disagree with many of his ideas) presented the concept of Rational Anarchy in his The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress which seems to, at least tangentially, address the point:
I am free, no matter what rules surround me. If I find them tolerable, I tolerate them; if I find them too obnoxious, I break them. I am free, because I know that I alone am morally responsible for everything that I do.[Emphasis Added]
--Robert Heinlein, The Moon is A Harsh Mistress

the problem, of course, is that while many pay lip service to this ideal, those same folks are often unwilling to take responsibility for their actions. This problem (the steaming pile that the so-called "conservatives" dump notwithstanding) knows no ideological, socio-economic or ethnic boundaries.

Hence, we need to have and enforce such laws that force (via sanctions or the threat thereof) people to take responsibility for their actions via monetary means like fines and legal judgements and/or restrictions on movement or personal privileges, such as prison terms or revocation of driver's licenses, etc., etc., etc.

The ideal, of course, is for these laws to be applied justly and equally to all members of society. Unfortunately, things haven't worked out that way. Those of us who *are* willing to take responsibility should make every effort to address those injustices or we all lose.

The only confirmed terrorist is one that already has committed a terrorist act, as a former military who served in Afghanistan I would rather not wait till they took a shot at me or tried to blow me up thank you very much.

You remind me of the Monty Python mock ad for the Welsh martial art of LLAP-Goch:

"It is an ANCIENT Welsh ART based on a BRILLIANTLY simple l-D-E-A, which is a SECRET. The best form of DEFENCE is ATTACK (Clausewitz) and the most VlTAL element of ATTACK is SURPRISE (Oscar HAMMERstein). Therefore . . . the BEST way to protect yourself AGAINST any ASSAILANT is to ATTACK him before he attacks YOU . . . Or BETTER... BEFORE the THOUGHT of doing so has EVEN OCCURRED TO HIM!!! SO YOU MAY BE ABLE TO RENDER YOUR ASSAILANT UNCONSCIOUS BEFORE he is EVEN aware of your very existence!"

Check this out. The heat transfer coefficients to various gases also vary wildly (measured as fluid flowing over tube bundles).

http://v_ganapathy.tripod.com/preshtcout.pdf

Though helium is not listed, look how much higher the figures are for hydrogen. Interesting!

Another interesting thing is how the hydrogen curves vary so little with pressure, right down to very low temps.

If helium is similar to hydrogen, it would be good at removing heat. As far as heat transfer trhough the gas goes, I would expect that to be aided by convection.

No, many of them are little less careful and lose things less replaceable with their garage shenanigans...

Next thing you know Star Trek episodes will be prior art.

Uh, regarding the rounded-corner rectangle design patent thing, how are they not prior art? Design patents are specifically for an appearance/shape, irrespective of function or purpose.

How can people claim this is prior art for the iPad, but these look nothing alike?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disciplined_Minds
"Disciplined Minds is a book by physicist Jeff Schmidt published in 2000. The book describes how professionals are made; the methods of professional and graduate schools that turn eager entering students into disciplined managerial and intellectual workers that correctly perceive and apply the employer's doctrine and outlook. Schmidt uses the examples of law, medicine, and physics, and describes methods that students and professional workers can use to preserve their personalities and independent thought."

See also:
http://disciplinedminds.tripod.com/
http://www.chomsky.info/articles/199710--.htm
http://www.johntaylorgatto.com/chapters/16a.htm
http://www.historyisaweapon.com/defcon1/zinncomrev24.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Best_and_the_Brightest

Those links explain in part how can such "smart" people totally ignore the potential for "blowback" from the violent actions they endorse (actions which include the slaughter of endless innocents, the violation of national sovereignty and probably international law, the setting of an example of ironic misuse of advanced technology that could otherwise bring material abundance to the entire world, and so on)... These links help show why these academics are willfully blind to the idea that they are endorsing polices that may be creating 100 new terrorist for every one they think they might have killed.

Never forget what one of our greatest Marine Major Generals said:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Is_a_Racket
"War Is a Racket is the title of two works, a speech and a booklet, by retired United States Marine Corps Major General and two time Medal of Honor recipient Smedley D. Butler. In them, Butler frankly discusses from his experience as a career military officer how business interests commercially benefit from warfare."

Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan were *supposed* to be expensive quagmires so somebody's buddies coudl get lucrative "defense" contracts. These conflicts were *supposed* to drive up oil prices so somebody's buddies would see the value of their domestic oil holdings increase. And so on...

See also:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/marjorie-cohn/killer-drone-attacks-ille_b_1623065.html
"Christof Heyns, the current UN Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial, Summary, or Arbitrary Executions, expressed grave concern about the targeted killings, saying they may constitute war crimes. He called on the Obama administration to explain how its drone strikes comport with international law, specify the bases for decisions to kill rather than capture particular individuals, and whether the State in which the killing takes place has given consent. Heyns further asked for specification of the procedural safeguards in place, if any, to ensure in advance of drone killings that they comply with international law. He also wanted to know what measures the U.S. government takes after any such killing to ensure that its legal and factual analysis was accurate and, if not, the remedial measures it would take, including justice and reparations for victims and their families. Although Heyns' predecessor made similar requests, Heyns said the United States has not provided a satisfactory response.
Heyns also called on the U.S. government to make public the number of civilians collaterally killed as a result of drone attacks, and the measures in place to prevent such casualties. Once again, Heyns said the United States has not satisfactor

Well.. there is a nice system in the USA for fixing that without killing, that many, people.....

1. Create a police-state where everyone is afraid of the police. Especially the 'non-wanted groups'.

2. Erode the Judicial system and allow even more corrupt people to control it.
http://boingboing.net/2009/02/02/judges-jailed-for-ta.html
http://www.judicialwatch.org/blog/2010/03/house-impeaches-bribed-fed-judge/
http://medicolegal.tripod.com/govtcrime.htm
http://www.judiciaryreport.com/bribing_a_judge.htm

3. Convince people that taking a plea is in their best interest since otherwise they might face much harder punishments.. Even if they are innocent.. Thereby reducing the number of votes from non-wanted groups.
http://www.brennancenter.org/content/section/category/voting_after_criminal_conviction/ (~5 million not allowed to vote!)

With a voter turnout of only 57% during presidential election years and 38% rest of the years it's quite easy to start influencing where it all will go.... Especially since lower-income families usually have a much higher rate of crime, and also a higher rate of taking pleas since they cannot afford lawyers..

Ie what's been happening is that the power to influence the country is shifting upwards towards where the money is...

There are a few things a country never should be able to remove from a person.
- The right to vote.
- The right to privacy.
- The rights to a fair trial. Without the need of having money for a lawyer.
- The right to education for all children.

arth1 wrote:
Hell, Ayn Rand is way to the left of Ron "Dr. No" Paul.

It is a toss-up, but I don't completely disagree.

IMO: Ron "Mr Constitution" Paul has very little interest protecting the mass of the U.S. citizenry from government "tyranny." Although Paul has spoken in favor of the Constitutional right of Jury Nullification, the last I looked, his campaign web site fails to mention the issue. A little over a month ago they added some very minor rights for trial lawyers. When I first searched the site for the words 'trial' and "jury," they where not found!

Thomas Jefferson felt the subject was more important. Quote: "I consider...[trial by jury] as the only anchor ever yet imagined by man, by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution.. [1789 in correspondence to Thomas Paine]

I guess it is possible that Ron Paul "believes" in a juries Constitutional function, but like all politicians they are strongly motivated, much like your average pastor, by the need to fill that collection plate. IMO: That motivation tends to make them desire to please the wealthy, and since the legal right of Jury nullification would empower all citizens - the wealthy tend to lack a (positive) interest in the subject.

Reference article:
The Constitutional Relationship of the People to the Law
http://i-voter.tripod.com/ConstitutionalJury.html

Try this site. Chemical condensers that can produce 32 liters of water from the energy of a single gallon of diesel. With these new filters that would improve by a factor of 5-10x. You could put these in places with little or no water and provide the water needs of an entire village. Add solar power and the thing is totally self sufficient. Unfortunately, technology like this will probably make someone very wealthy, and if it isn't made widely available at near cost, make little difference for those who will need it most.

Oh, give me a clone
Of my own flesh and bone
With its Y chromosome changed to X.
And after it's grown,
Then my own little clone
Will be of the opposite sex.

Clone, clone of my own,
With its Y chromosome changed to X.
And when I'm alone
With my own little clone
We will both think of nothing but sex.

The Clone Song: Isaac Asimov

Umm, you are completely wrong, sir. There already exists laws on the books for campfires that say if the fire gets out of control it's your fault. There is already precedent in case law for idiots that throw lit cigarettes out of cars and start fires that they are responsible. Quit trying to duck responsibility for your actions. If something *YOU* did started a fire, *YOU* are responsible. Period. Nothing "superficial" about it. And the people that are caught aren't usually turned in or self-sacrificing either. There's usually an investigation into who did it because the responsible party must face justice for their actions. The ones who get caught certainly face stiff fines, bills for cleanup and jail time. I don't see a logical reason why a gun owner would get a pass.

I smell filk

Oh yeah? How are you getting the cars in behind to drive themselves?

In Australia, a "road train" is a transport truck with multiple physically coupled trailers, not a convoy of independent vehicles. It's like a train - but on the road. Hence, the name: road train.

http://reno4governor.tripod.com/index-8.html

See also: Bucknell Handbook on Verilog HDL

Slavery was already on its way out, because slaves have low productivity and trained and motivated workers provided more profits despite wage cost.

This argument gets made a lot, but there really isn't any evidence for it. If you look at census data, the number of slaves went up at every census through 1860. The number of slaves increased by almost 60% from 1840 to 1860. That doesn't look like a dying system. And then sharecropping, which was in many respects an extension of slavery, survived in much of the South until the second half of the 20th century. There's no reason to think that slavery wouldn't have survived a very long time after 1865 had the war not happened.

The argument that slavery would wither on the vine was made a lot in the late 18th century as a way of excusing the Founders' unwillingness to do anything about it. Maybe it even looked correct; slavery certainly withered in the Northern states and disappeared there in large part because it wasn't economically important enough to overcome people's moral qualms. But the South had an export economy based on plantations producing cotton, tobacco, and rice, and those demanded lots of heavy labor, and so slavery never withered. It increased until it was killed.

Pity it's a copy/paste-job from another site, and at least a year and a half old: http://gombessa.tripod.com/scienceleadstheway/id9.html

Except that you can't really produce oil in your basement following info found on the internet.

Sure you can. Chemistry is as chemistry does. And ethanol is cheaper to make per gram than meth.

They were also distributing the msg's using HAM equipment. I was temporarily living in a situation with my Tandy Color Computer, but no telephone! I didn't have a HAM license, but I discovered that you could receive the messages with a shortwave receiver and a radio modem. So I spent $300 - $400 so I could STARE at the msg's for the few weeks until I got back home.

Our National Committees: Ever wonder what they do?

Re: Jury nullification.

I am not from England. but I seem to remember someone named Tony Blair who modified the right of jury nullification.

U.S. background article
The Constitutional Relationship of the People to the Law

Ron Paul supporters take note - I can not find any mention of Jury nullification on "Mr. Constitution's" campaign website.

Of course what's really scary are the number of evangelicals who are HOPING that the end times are here and are willing, again, to do anything to bring it about.

You're obviously not well read and don't understand what the end times as described in Christian scripture entail. They can't be hurried or brought about by anyone's actions. The bible repeatedly enjoins believers to be prepared by living righteous lives, but never once does it say you can make it happen by anything you do. Evangelicals can hope for the end times all they want - that won't make it happen any faster or slower.

Maybe that's why the founding fathers put such a clear line between Church and State (please read Jefferson's exact, specific, detailed words on the subject before claiming otherwise).

Or maybe put them in context first. Jefferson was writing to the Danbury Baptists in response to their letter expressing worry that the government will trample on their religious liberties. In fact, they say in their letter that their concern is that the government views their rights as "favors granted, and not as inalienable rights"; they then ask Jefferson to reassure them the government will not attempt to remove their liberties with laws. Jefferson responds very clearly that "religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions". There is not a single reference anywhere, in either of those communications, of a fear of religion having influence on government, which is how "separation of church and state" has been construed since. Again, you apparently have never read any of this, so please do as you encourage and go read it yourself.

blowing up the world won't automatically send them (and their families!) to Heaven

That's Islam, not Christianity. Please inform yourself. Your ignorance is stunning.

In J.E.M. Ag Supply v. Pioneer Hi-Bred International the Supreme Court ruled for companies licensing patented seeds where the majority opinion was written by Clarence Thomas a former Monsanto lawyer. So thanks to a very business friendly Supreme Court agroindustry can get away with putting farmers and seed cleaners out of business. 1. Create an invasive noxious weed species 2. Patent the weed and method for its removal 3. Spread the weed everywhere 4. Sue anyone who owns the property it grows on 5. Profit!

Anthony Mouse wrote:
The primaries are what matter.

Yes & No You have a point, but the incumbents that control the hill committees have a lot of power behind the scenes. This is the kind of stuff that the newspapers rarely mention.
see reference:
Our Glorious National Committees: Ever wonder what they do?

This is the only positive political development that I am aware of.
Modern U.S. Party Platforms: From the Voters Perspective

Anthony Mouse wrote:
The primaries are what matter.

Yes & No You have a point, but the incumbents that control the hill committees have a lot of power behind the scenes. This is the kind of stuff that the newspapers rarely mention.
see reference:
Our Glorious National Committees: Ever wonder what they do?

This is the only positive political development that I am aware of.
Modern U.S. Party Platforms: From the Voters Perspective

DNS-and-BIND wrote: If they do that (support multiple issues) then they're no longer the Pirate Party,

Actually that is a good tactic. Most nations, other than the U.S., allow private member-based political party organizations to have control of the politicians that want to run under the parties ballot label. This allows enforceable party platforms.

Copyright issues may not be the primary issue for a large number of voters, although they may be friendly or a least neutral. These voters can be encouraged to vote for the Pirate party by including other issues in the Party platform, and promising to enforce this platform on the parties elected politicians.

Background for U.S. citizens What is a Political Party?

Actually, that mystery was solved back in 1991 when the first one fell. Here's a really in-depth article about it:

http://fernlea.tripod.com/tank.html

RE: If just 5% of the American public wanted to overthrow the government, an armed revolution would be possible.

Hey it doesn't even take 5% since you didn't predict victory. If you did, you might need a little more than 5% You also seem to be labeling the vast majority of the population stupid because they have different priorities than you. Some probably want to raise their children, or some other thing, before running out in the street shooting guns in the air. Maybe they are saving that type of activity for retirement.

Personally my primary interest is the U.S. political system.

Citizen's Political Power in the U.S.

German salaries are also significantly lower than in the US. The per capita GDP in Germany is $34,800 (in USD) while the per capita GDP in the US is $47,000.

See: http://siakhenn.tripod.com/capita.html

What the hell does GDP have to do with salaries?

See: http://siakhenn.tripod.com/capita.html

And many prominent scientists rejected the big bang theory, and string theory, etc. Eventually they came around. So did those within the church regarding Copernicus as more data became available and tools (telescopes, mathematics) improved.

It's not quite the same. In a true scientific setting, you'll never hear an idea be rejected because an authority figure or holy book said that it wasn't so. It will be rejected based on lack of supporting evidence. In a religious setting, if an idea contradicts what the religion teaches, there will either be someone who says that it can't be possible since it's against scripture or there will be a new interpretation made for when the fact contradicts a section of the holy text.

Imagine that we're looking back on scientific history and we find some writings of Aristotle who believed that heavier objects fall faster than lighter ones. We know that that isn't true, so instead of saying that he was wrong, we interpret his writing. When he said "heavier" he really meant that an object resisted more wind. See? He was never wrong! Would you be convinced by this assertion? I doubt it.

The specifically cited biblical passages linked to in previous posts did not seem to state that the earth was flat, and seemed to show that the proponent's interpretation of scripture was quite a stretch.

Are you talking about this source? If you scroll down, there's an illustration of the cosmos as described by the Bible, which the rest of that source covers.

I'd also like to point out that you've completely ignored my statement that the Bible has been used to justify such atrocities as slavery.

Its an irrelevant straw man, off topic related to the church and science. Many scientists back in the day supported slavery and various atrocities as well.

No, it's quite relevant. It shows that religious minds are willing to use their faith to justify atrocities. And it's also important given that the Bible has a number of passages condoning slavery. I haven't seen any interpretations for what those are actually supposed to mean.

I was unable to find any genuine scientific claims for slavery, but I was able to find plenty of recent things like this 17-page message Baptist board thread from 2009 [NSFW] that use the Bible to justify their desire for it. These people are using the same Bible that you do. The only difference is that you have your own way of abstracting and interpreting the text so that you can feel free to safely ignore these passages. You do this because, despite god saying that it's okay, you know that slavery is wrong. (And yes, I'm comfortable making this assertion of your views on slavery because, given your dismissal of my argument, it seems that you wouldn't be in favor of treating people as property.)

Catholics are not a majority of christians in the US. Also the graph shows that those believing in a literal interpretation are declining and those with faith believing in evolution are increasing.

So Catholics believe that the Bible advocates evolution while other Christians believe that the same bible argue against evolution. Also, you may have missed some of the other data in that source:

40 percent of Americans still believe that humans were created by God within the last 10,000 years. ... Another 38 percent of respondents believe that humans have evolved from more basic organisms but with God playing a role in the process. ... A mere 16 percent of respondents subscribed to the belief of "secular evolution

It has been well-known forever that capsaicin (the active component of peppers) can be used as a poison.

Here's some more background information straight out of the age of geocities (joking aside - the side is very good, the colloquial style makes the information easy to digest and as far as I can tell the doctor knows what he is writing about)

The LD50 of capsaicin is estimated to around 47mg/kg (mice), so it's only a case of "the dose makes the poison", but an actual toxic substance (and officially classified as such).
Some murders by capsaicin poisoning have even been reported.