Slashdot Mirror

The UN Convention Against Torture does not seem to forbid extraditing to countries where torture takes place. Article 3, paragraph 1, seems to indicate that extradition requests can be treated on a case-by-case basis, i.e. based on what the charges are, whether there's an equivalent Swedish crime, and the track-record of the destination country for treating criminals for such offenses. In this case it means that the Swedish judicial system had to get involved in order to make a ruling on whether to carry out the extradition request.

So I find your debunking to be fallacious, unless perhaps you've found an alternate official interpretation of it, or a paragraph that I missed.

Do you have any idea how funny it is when I state a basic principle from Smith's "The Wealth of Nations" and you decry me as a Marxist? Have you even read "The Wealth of Nations"? Do give it a read. It doesn't say what you think it does.

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki...

The issue is that as these devices become mainstream, the War on General Purpose Computing proceeds apace.

Back in the 80s, you could buy a consumer-level PC or 8-16-bit microcomputer for $500-$1000-2000. They ran DOS if you were lucky, or some sort of bootloader and BASIC interpreter burned in ROM. If you needed a workstation - a machine with a real operating system, multiuser support, multitasking, etc., the likes of IBM, HP, Sun, or SGI would sell you a powerful computing platform that would run some variant of AIX, HP-UX, SunOS/Solaris, etc., for $10000. These machines did a lot more than the consumer-level machines, but they cost more primarily because their manufacturers expected to sell tens of thousands of machines, not millions.

Some of that tech trickled down, and millions of gaming-oriented consumers wanted high-end CPUs and GPUs, and eventually companies like ATI and NVIDIA ate SGI's lunch, for example, in the high-performance graphics world. Anybody could have a workstation-class machine at the same price point as what used to be a consumer-class microcomputer.

We've been really lucky so far, in that the appliances we've been using happen to be just as good as computers (or thick clients) as they were as thin clients (or web browsers, or glorified smart terminals). That $1000 rig that Joe Officeworker uses only as a facebook machine on break and to run Excel during the day can also be a great Linux workstation if you wiped its drive, or a solid gaming rig if you just installed a $500 graphics card and a spare stick or two of RAM.

But that's something that happened by accident, not by design, and we're approaching the age where devices are built for the millions will target those who don't need a general-purpose computer.

If you want a computing appliance, you'll be able to buy a locked-down device from Google, Microsoft, or Apple for $500. It'll browse the web. It'll let you play games in a browser (wth full graphics acceleration comparable to today's high-end graphics cards). It'll let you stream movies and music from someone else's subscription platform. It'll store your vacation movies, pictures and blog writings on someone else's cloud. It'll be pretty secure from most malware -- after all, if the end user can't get root on it, neither will most malware. It'll be good enough for the millions of end consumers and office workers.

But if you want a computer... one that does what you tell it to do, not what the platform manager tells it to do, well, that's gonna cost you. Because the market for actual is going to shrink back into the tens-of-thousands: the researchers doing high-performance hashing in a lab, the team of people doing deep learning experiments who started by slapping a 3 or 4 1080Ti cards into a rack with a couple of 1000W power supplies, the startup enterprise that needs a petabyte of rackmounted SSDs... you can buy all those things too, but they're going to cost $10,000 for the motherboard and $5000 for the CPU, and probably $1000/year for the support contract, because the market for that sort of stuff is orders-of-magnitudes smaller than the market for information appliances.

Here you go, you dumb fuckwit. Democrats tend to understand that human biology, being shaped by evolutionary processes, is often imperfect, and that includes genetics and phenotypic expressions that relate to gender and sex.

"Humans, as well as some other organisms, can have a rare chromosomal arrangement that is contrary to their phenotypic sex; for example, XX males or XY gonadal dysgenesis (see androgen insensitivity syndrome). Additionally, an abnormal number of sex chromosomes (aneuploidy) may be present, such as Turner's syndrome, in which a single X chromosome is present, and Klinefelter's syndrome, in which two X chromosomes and a Y chromosome are present, XYY syndrome"|

Republicans tend to believe that God has told them there's a man and woman and that's that, because God is perfect and so is his creation. And definitely his, natch.

You try to be cleverer than everyone, but you can't even manage a correct quote of one of the most famous lines from the best character in one of the most famous plays by the most famous fucking playwright in the English language. It's "plague" not "pox", you insufferably stupidly smug pillock.

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki...

Some similarities? Oh come on. The original description of the credit:

``SEC. 30D. NEW QUALIFIED PLUG-IN ELECTRIC DRIVE MOTOR VEHICLES.
``(A) $2,500, plus
``(B) $417 for each kilowatt hour of traction battery capacity in excess of 4 kilowatt hours.
``(b) Limitations.—
``(1) Limitation based on weight.—The amount of the credit allowed under subsection (a) by reason of subsection (a)(2) shall not exceed—
``(A) $7,500, in the case of any new qualified plug-in electric drive motor vehicle with a gross vehicle weight rating of not more than 10,000 pounds, ...

The replacement:

‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—The amount determined under this subsection
with respect to any new qualified plug-in electric drive
motor vehicle is the sum of the amounts determined under
paragraphs (2) and (3) with respect to such vehicle.
‘‘(2) BASE AMOUNT.—The amount determined under this
paragraph is $2,500.
‘‘(3) BATTERY CAPACITY.—In the case of a vehicle which
draws propulsion energy from a battery with not less than
5 kilowatt hours of capacity, the amount determined under
this paragraph is $417, plus $417 for each kilowatt hour of
capacity in excess of 5 kilowatt hours. The amount determined
under this paragraph shall not exceed $5,000.

It's the exact same credit value. Yes, they changed it from a total vehicles (250k) to a per-manufacturer (200k) limit, but the credit itself was established in 2008.

Please tell me what you find here to be some sort of "sharp", onerous limitations that were subsequently dropped.

Wide spacing between sentences pre-dates typewriters, and was common in printed books.
See, for instance, Mark Twain's "The Innocents Abroad" (1869).

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki...

Re "it's harder to process the text with software," the way it looks (including spacing) is a question of output formatting, and should be configurable. Processing text should be done on input data, which these days should be in a markup language.

I think it's easier to read text with wider sentence spacing. On a related note, wrapped and justified margins are sometimes ugly, often because this is not done carefully. This is covered by Knuth and Plass, "Breaking Paragraphs into Lines."

When I was little, I was told a house made of strawbale and another made of wood failed to survive severe weather, particularly strong rain[1] and wind.[2] Or have I been duped all these years by the brick construction lobby?

[1] "The Pros and Cons of Straw Bale Wall Construction In Green Building"
[2] "The Three Little Pigs" by Joseph Jacobs

Are they labeled that way? No?

Yes they are, though they use words so I can see why you're confused.

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki...

http://kfgo.com/blogs/ask-a-tr...

http://l7.alamy.com/zooms/e889...

My taxes paid for that road as well.

You mean your mom's taxes, unless you have one heck of a paper round.

Have you tried walking into Area 51 or a nuclear sub base using the same logic?

How do you know Jesus was male? Did someone see his dick? I don't recall that part of the bible.....

And lo, did Jesus uncoil his serpent of manhood, and those near to him turned away from its majesty.[17]

Well, it's mentioned in Luke that he was circumcised...

And when eight days were accomplished for the circumcising of the child, his name was called JESUS, which was so named of the angel before he was conceived in the womb.

-- Odd that the portions of healthcare that are only free market are far cheaper than the government regulated side. (laser eye surgery)

Yeeeeaaaaah, I don't think you can fault the government for the health care industry teaming up with insurance providers to fuck over anyone who doesn't have insurance.

That wasn't a government mandate. Insurance companies started demanding lower prices for medical services based on how much business they sent to the doctors. The doctors upped the price on the menu by 25% and then gave the insurance companies 20% off. Repeat for 50 years and now no one can pay the advertised cost so they give people paying with cash a discount. Now medical prices are a complete myth. A fabrication. No longer rooted in reality. A funny number in a book that doesn't represent anything.

Government has done some truly horrific shit in this field. Ostensibly to fix it. Sometimes to fuck over people. But businessmen have done plenty to distort prices and fuck over the free market.

There's not a dichotomy between free-market and the government. Sometimes government intervention really helps the free market. Like when they bust up a trust or monopoly. Sometimes government regulation makes markets more free. Like outlawing anti-competitive practices. I mean, typically no, but... sometimes.

Actually since 1871. Not that it helped in any way.

Care to explain how vilifying the rich resulted in Hitler being funded by big business?
Or maybe you can explain how NSDAP, being socialist, sent all socialists and communists to concentration camps immediately after seizing power?
The schools were taken over so the children could be raised in a patriotic way, starting very much like your very own pledge of allegiance.
Oh by the way, what idiot told you that nazis disarmed the general population? That never happened. Only jews, gypsies and socialists were disarmed, everyone else could buy any amount of long guns or munition they wanted without any paperwork.
Only handguns were regulated, but the permit was very easy to obtain. With a special permit citizens could even buy tanks or military airplanes - not disarmed, mind you,

How is any of this not right wing to you?

like most things, not strictly true, but the evidence is compelling that it is pragmatically true:
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki...

Actually, it's millions,

No - in the story in question, it is billions... You may want to familiarize yourself with the concept of paraphrasing.

It's makes you writing much more interesting and relevant when using old quotes.

Let's review your words:

As the old saying goes: Billions for defense, but not one cent for tribute!

Unfortunately for you, this expression means you're claiming the old saying follows your own words, so sorry, Superkendall, but in the old saying, it is, in fact, millions, making you mistaken.

You may wish to familiarize yourself with the XYZ Affair. It was actually an attempt to foment hawkish aggression in the matters of the nation, a less desirable goal than many people realize.

Now if you had initially indicated you were deliberately modifying it, you'd be believable since you'd be establishing your alteration from the start, but you didn't phrase yourself in such a way. Furthermore, your reaction is to attack by characterizing the person, rather than simply claim you were editing it, while lacking in further content and examination yourself. Thus making it more likely you didn't actually know you were misquoting it, and are just uselessly trying to insist you meant to change it all along, in a defensive reaction since you can't just admit to the error due to your own ego. Sorry, but that's the consequences of your choice to

Next time, however, if you do not wish to be shown to be mistaken so easily, consider that the problem was your choice of expression. You'll be less likely to sound foolish.

Anyway, here are some more words to consider:

HENRY FORD TO PUSH WORLD-WIDE CAMPAIGN FOR UNIVERSAL PEACE

Will Devote Life and Fortune to Combat Spirit of Militarism Now Rampant.

LAUGHS AT THOSE WHO PREDICT SUCCESSFUL INVASION OF U. S.

Scores Hypocrites Who Pretend to Be Religious, Yet Foster War For Sordid Gain.

"I will do everything in my power to prevent murderous, wasteful war in America and in the whole world; I will devote my life to fight this spirit which is now felt in the free and peaceful air of the United States, the spirit of militarism, mother to the cry of 'preparedness' preparedness, the root of all war."

These words, uttered Saturday by Henry Ford, hater of war and visualizer of vast foresight, marked the beginning of what will henceforth be the life-work of the man to strike with everything he commands at what he declares to be the direct cause of all wars and all national antipathies that breed war "preparedness."

"I would teach the child at its mother's knee," said Mr. Ford, "what a horrible, wasteful and unavailing thing war is. In the home and in the schools of the world I would see the child taught to feel the uselessness of war; that war is a thing unnecessary; that preparation for war can only end in war.

Will Give Much to End Wasteful "Preparation"
"I have prospered much, and I am ready to give much to end this constant, wasteful 'preparation.' Not by building palaces of peace, not by inspiring fearful peace by powerful armament, but by teaching the men, women and children of America that war does not threaten us, that war will not reach us, that the fullness of peace is their inheritance, not the burden of militarism with its heavy hand that curbs liberty and its foul sustenance upon the blood, the labor and the toil-earned happiness and goods of the worker.

Entire World United in Demand for Peace
"This I would make a world work, for all the world cries for peace, and there can be no peace wh

I did read your post, I just don't find your reasoning as convincing as you do. Appearing in science fiction doesn't really count as "thinking" from an engineering standpoint. I'm only counting actual engineering work.

I am reasonably confident that some engineers, somewhere have written some equations on it over the past 100 years. Certainly, it was more than just fiction. Exactly 100 years ago there appears to be some sort of paper on it in Popular Science, for instance.

Clearly you haven't even bothered to read about the competition before offering your opinion.

No, I based that comment on having read about prior small scale 'hyperloop' demonstrations which were just maglev, plus another poster's comment in this thread saying that that's all this was, plus my conversations in a Reddit thread with an enthusiast who was saying about how the 'Hyperloop One' (whatever that is) is apparently moving away from air bearing design and uses a maglev bearing instead, plus my rudimentary knowledge and suspicions that fully functional turbine jet engines of that size aren't cheap or (even if they were cheap) necessarily equivalent / mathematically useful in modeling a full sized hyperloop. That was sufficient to veto the RTFA article option for me.

*Are* they actually including jet engines and air bearings in this competition? That's kinda interesting. I mean, I'm still not going to read it, for the same reason that I'm not going to read about a contest to build tabletop thermal reactors in anticipation of a 100 billion dollar mega-scale geothermal plant in Yellowstone. I only have a limited number of minutes in the day. I find that disabusing people on the internet of nonsense to be somewhat stimulating, while reading about colossal wastes of time and money and enthusiasm to be depressing... doubly so when it's based on the hero worship of an individual as overrated (not horrible or talentless, just overrated) as Musk.

But if the other poster in this thread was right OR if the Reddit guy was right and the hyperloop focus is now on maglev in a vacuum tube... I think you must concede I have a bit of a point, yes? *If* maglev could be made cheap enough for hyperloop to be economical, it should be even more economical if we can simply leave out the bit where we need a huge sturdy pipe with custom airtight joints and various safety features. There's no plausible way that maglev could be far too expensive and maglev-based hyperloop be economical, yes?

Several years ago I sent off a collection of wild ideas about "cold fusion" to a magazine, hoping for some feedback, and they published it as an actual article. Toward the end of the article was something about a possible way to test the hypothesis. Basically, if you could make some solid metallic hydrogen out of pure deuterium instead of ordinary hydrogen, some cold fusion might happen. It seems to me that the chances of someone being able to do such an experiment have now increased greatly....

You can't really pardon someone who has not been convicted of crime.

There is no such limitation on pardons granted by the president.

NOW, THEREFORE, I, GERALD R. FORD, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, pursuant to the pardon power conferred upon me by Article II, Section 2, of the Constitution, have granted and by these presents do grant a full, free, and absolute pardon unto Richard Nixon for all offenses against the United States which he, Richard Nixon, has committed or may have committed or taken part in during the period from January 20, 1969 through August 9, 1974.

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki...

Remember, a vote for anything other than (D) or (R) is a wasted vote!

And a vote for (D) or (R) is a wasted vote. The Deep State will continue on its course, completely unaffected.

I agree, as I suspect someone else might if he were alive today.

"The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries, which result, gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of Public Liberty

        Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind, (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight,) the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it.

        It serves always to distract the Public Councils, and enfeeble the Public Administration. It agitates the Community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms; kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which find a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another.

        There is an opinion, that parties in free countries are useful checks upon the administration of the Government, and serve to keep alive the spirit of Liberty. This within certain limits is probably true; and in Governments of a Monarchical cast, Patriotism may look with indulgence, if not with favor, upon the spirit of party. But in those of the popular character, in Governments purely elective, it is a spirit not to be encouraged. From their natural tendency, it is certain there will always be enough of that spirit for every salutary purpose. And, there being constant danger of excess, the effort ought to be, by force of public opinion, to mitigate and assuage it. A fire not to be quenched, it demands a uniform vigilance to prevent its bursting into a flame, lest, instead of warming, it should consume." - George Washington's farewell address, September 17, 1796 https://en.wikisource.org/wiki...

Strat

>> The principle of intelligent design is the notion that we are intelligently designed. Period.

Nope. Leaders of the movement have said the designer is the Christian God.
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki...

>> My point is that if it is somehow probable that the universe is a simulation, then it can be no less probable that we are the product of intelligent design...

Nope the system may be the product of intelligent design, but we are a product of the system. With the simulation concept, at best you could claim we are indirectly the product of ID.

> and if we refuse to acknowledge intelligent design as likely on the basis that we can find no evidence for it, we must similarly reject the notion that the universe is just a simulation...

If there is no evidence for it, then I totally agree. Religion, ID and the simulation hypothesis all remind me of the old maps that label the most remote lands/seas with "dragons be here" rather than have the cartographer admit he simply has no data.

Your link seems to contradict what you're stating. The pardoned person can't introduce the pardon into court proceedings without there having been charges.

Ford kept a little excerpt from Burdick v. US in his wallet for years after he pardoned Nixon. However, again, he did that without Nixon having been formally charged with any offenses, and the pardon itself makes no mention of any specific crimes. The legality of the pardon is arguably questionable, but various executive officers have more or less unconstrained abilities to pardon individuals, and no one is going to proceed with a trial if the defendant has already obtained a blanket pardon. The Supreme Court in 1915 did not anticipate this exercise of Presidential power, but I don't think anyone has argued that it should be somehow limited. Either way, it happened, so what are you going to do about it?

Carter was underrated. He got blamed for stagflation but it was his (and his Fed appointee Paul Volcker's) anti-inflationary policies; the Fed raised interest rates to 20% in Q2 of 1980. Inflation moderated and growth resumed in Q3 of 1980 (when the election was held) however these results were too late to affect the election.

Reagan gets political credit for strong growth in 1981, but this is like his getting credit for the US hostages in Iran; the problem was fixed when he took office. In fact none of Reagan's fiscal policies would have been in place until October of that year (the US Federal budget year starts in October), and the full effect of his policies wouldn't have been felt until 1982.

Reagan also lucked out because by the start of 1981 OPEC's oil price fixing scheme had failed and energy prices were plummeting. His tax cuts did have a stimulative effect on the economy, along with massive increases in Federal spending. But averaged over his entire presidency economic growth was only slightly higher than over Carter's four years; if you shifted the window by nine months to reflect the fact that the first three fiscal quarters of a presidency are under the prior president's budget, Carter actually outperforms Reagan. Yet anyone who lived through it remembers the 1980 "stagflation"; it was a bona fide crisis.

As for where the inflation came from, that started all the way back under Johnson. Nixon tried a PR campaign called "Whip Inflation Now" to try to get people to save more and spend less; when that failed he actually imposed a freeze on all wage and price increases! When that didn't work he did it again in 1973. Carter did the brave thing and appointed an inflation hawk as Fed chairman, and suffered the consequences.

Primarily the invasive control by an external machine entity, so essentially the loss of the full range of individual liberty. I strongly value personal liberty, even with all of the obvious dangers which necessarily come with it. This is part of why I consider "Manna" to be an excellent example of what science fiction should be, though I suspect my prior post would lead one to expect exactly the opposite. I first read it years ago and have revisited it a few times, and it did get me thinking about the implications of the Australian Experiment (or whatever it was called), particularly around individual liberty and its intrinsic negatives. Each time I've gone back to reread "Manna", it has seemed even darker than the prior reading - that's quite an accomplishment. I've never looked into what the author intended to convey - perhaps something quite different, even utopian. Or perhaps the intent was intentionally murky.

For me, the loss of privacy is also undesirable, but secondary. In isolation, that aspect probably qualifies it as dystopian in my view, but wouldn't necessarily push the story into the horror category. I cannot say with certainty because the story didn't delve into that aspect much, so I suppose it would depend on the author's vision of the nature of that rabbit hole.

Finally, I wonder at the consequence for humanity living under such a system for many generations, eventually never needing to develop any control of their worst selves due to the machine's (perfect) intervention, but presumably still having the capacity for the worst humanity has to offer (the best of our nature is not in focus for this point). Note that selection pressure for or against such negatives is not implied in "Manna", and I'd say the free choice of mates argues against that possibility. Now, if you can imagine that, and also imagine a technological collapse scenario roughly like "The Machine Stops", what would the survivors of that collapse be like? They would no longer have the machine to halt their worst instincts (among many other things, like providing instant information), and would have no practice in doing so. Additionally, without the instant information provided by the machine, they would surely make a few terrible errors, and have no little to no practice in dealing with the emotional consequences of such decisions (sure they would have experience with mourning, but that's only a part of the experience). Well, this is already too long, so I'll just leave you with that.

- T

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki...

So you are saying that Christian culture is the worst:

• killing and raping the infidels
• woman are [not] equal to men (the link is about the Torah, but Paul's letters in the New Testament are just as misogynistic)
• killing homosexuals (Lev. 20:13)

The problem with many European racists is that they blindly assume that all muslims believe the Quran. Just like for Christians and the Bible, most muslims do not read the Quran, even if they keep a finely decorated hardcover copy in the house. In the case of the Quran it's actually even less likely they are going to read it, since the Quran makes a point of being in Arabic, while the Bible is usually translated. Even if many non-Arabic speaking muslim countries include Arabic in their school curriculum, often ostensibly to allow reading the Quran, no one can reach a level of skill sufficient to do so in school (think of how many US citizen can read the Bible in French or Spanish after high school).

Of course you will find plenty of evil in the Quran, just like in the Bible. Of course Mohammed did evil things, so did Jesus (being rude to his mother—note that it is a violation of the fourth commandment, punishable by death in the Bible—, proclaiming war in Matthew 10:34-35, vandalising property and inciting a mob against the merchants in the temple, etc.), and of course all these parts are ignored, repressed and buried among Christians. But if they are read those quotes and told it's the Quran, they promptly believe it, because Islam is evil, right? (NB: of course Islam is evil. I am pointing out Christianity, Judaism, and for that sake Buddhism are not better.)

We all despise Saudi Arabia and Iran for their barbarous executions of homosexuals, but can you remember what England did to Alan Turing? That's England, a country noted for centuries for being one of the most liberals on the continent, not Italy or Poland, just two generations ago. And it was a war hero they were punishing.

Point being: the Quran is not more representative of muslims than the Bible is of christians. Some believe that nonsense (extremist nutjobs), some say they believe but don't really care, some believe they believe even if they don't know what is in the books (looks like you), and some dismiss the whole humbug. "Culture", as you intend it, is a mostly personal issue, and there is no way to determine that Mr. X from Syria is less liberal than Mr. Y from Oslo. Variations between single persons dwarf the average difference between population by orders of magnitude.

Yes, there is a ritual (two actually).

Ritual is the correct word. Declarations of war are a matter of international law, and legal systems use rituals to mark important things and events. It's a specific act that cannot be re-interpreted to mean anything but the declaration of war. In the Roman era, for example, declarations of war involved a priest called a Fetial who would throw a particular kind of spear across the border into enemy territory. A Fetial priest would never have reason to throw a spear across the border except in declaring war, so his act cannot be misinterpreted or re-interpreted as anything except declaring war.

In modern states, there's generally a legislative procedure for declaring war, one that produces a clearly written text. In the Dutch constitution, there are technically two procedures, although only one is now available: one for declaring war on another nation and one for declaring that a state of war exists between the Netherlands and another nation. The former cannot be used in the modern international legal climate, as it would imply a war of aggression. The latter, however, can be used if the Netherlands is attacked by an enemy and finds itself placed in a state of war through the actions of a second party. The relevant sections of the Dutch constitution are at https://nl.wikisource.org/wiki/Nederlandse_grondwet/Hoofdstuk_5#Artikel_96

Another nice part about the IAEA is that it has an over five decades old agreement with the WHO that effectively gives it free reign over how the latter handles anything related to nuclear/radiation: https://en.wikisource.org/wiki...

Does this tactic ever work for you ?

Sometimes the god-botherer gets the message that they;re being treated with fully-justified contempt and fuck off. Not often, because almost by definition they're idiots, but it works often enough to be worth the effort. Not so often with American god-botherers because they're not used to being treated with contempt for adhering to a religion, but it still works sometimes. I think it's worth the effort.

BTW just what are the consequences of greater reproductive in an ecosystem with finite resources ?

There has been a lot of work done on addressing the subject. If you want to get within a couple of centuries of the present day, then this text might help you get a handle on this not exactly challenging question. After that, feel free to follow papers that cite this source until you have educated yourself to a reasonable degree.

Its so clear then please point out in the constitution where it says "separation of church and state." I'll wait go and find it.

Having trouble finding it? Here is a link to the constitution I'm still waiting for where "separation of church and state" in the constitution. When you find it let me know how that is more clear than "Shall Not Be Infringed" in the second. Oh you think its in the Bill of Rights well go look and let me know where. Show me the quote.

Conversely you can let me know how respecting the religious views of others (i.e. not " prohibiting the free exercise thereof") is Congress making a "law respecting an establishment of religion."

If you ask very nicely I may actually tell you where the phrase "separation of church and state" comes from, but if/when I do the whole quote will undermine your beliefs.

Its so clear then please point out in the constitution where it says "separation of church and state." I'll wait go and find it.

Having trouble finding it? Here is a link to the constitution I'm still waiting for where "separation of church and state" in the constitution. When you find it let me know how that is more clear than "Shall Not Be Infringed" in the second. Oh you think its in the Bill of Rights well go look and let me know where. Show me the quote.

Conversely you can let me know how respecting the religious views of others (i.e. not " prohibiting the free exercise thereof") is Congress making a "law respecting an establishment of religion."

If you ask very nicely I may actually tell you where the phrase "separation of church and state" comes from, but if/when I do the whole quote will undermine your beliefs.

Utter BS, because of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. America has no credibility in nuclear weapons, especially now that US (and tis minions UK and France) failed to uphold the Budapest Memorandum of Understanding, in which they promised inviolable territorial integrity for the Ukraine, in exchange for Kiev giving up her 2,500 strong (!) stockpile of USSR-inherited nukes.

Have you read the Budapest Memorandum? It is not long:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B...
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/...

The United States of America, the Russian Federation, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, reaffirm their commitment to Ukraine, in accordance with the principles of the CSCE Final Act, to respect the Independence and Sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine.

The US has not invaded Ukraine.

The United States of America, the Russian Federation, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, reaffirm their obligation to refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of Ukraine, and that none of their weapons will ever be used against Ukraine except in self-defense or otherwise in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations.

The US has not threatened Ukraine.

The United States of America, the Russian Federation, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, reaffirm their commitment to Ukraine, in accordance with the principles of the CSCE Final Act, to refrain from economic coercion designed to subordinate to their own interest the exercise by Ukraine of the rights inherent in its sovereignty and thus to secure advantages of any kind.

The US has not used economic coercion on Ukraine.

The United States of America, the Russian Federation, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, reaffirm their commitment to seek immediate United Nations Security Council action to provide assistance to Ukraine, as a non-nuclear-weapon State Party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, if Ukraine should become a victim of an act of aggression or an object of a threat of aggression in which nuclear weapons are used.

The US brought the invasion of Ukraine up with the UNSC:

http://www.rferl.org/content/u...

The United States of America, the Russian Federation, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, reaffirm, in the case of the Ukraine, their commitment not to use nuclear weapons against any non-nuclear-weapon State Party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, except in the case of an attack on themselves, their territories or dependent territories, their armed forces, or their allies, by such a state in association or alliance with a nuclear weapon state.

The US has not used nuclear weapons against Ukraine.

The United States of America, the Russian Federation, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland will consult in the event a situation arises which raises a question concerning these commitments.

I am sure the US has consulted with the other nations listed.

because there are abundant contemporary writings by the people who wrote and ratified that amendment, explaining exactly what they had in mind

this is either a bluff, because you know you are wrong, or it is a bluff because you're ignorant of what you speak of

let me help you out:

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/...

Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the People at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped; and in order to see that this be not neglected, it will be necessary to assemble them once or twice in the course of a year. ...

if circumstances should at any time oblige the Government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the People, while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights, and those of their fellow-citizens.

so tell me, oh great second amendment scholar: is hamilton saying guns should be handed out to any asshole with no further claim on their intents or abilities with the gun? or is hamilton saying that to own a gun in the usa obligates one to be disciplined and trained in its use?

so far you've:

1. avoided my point

2. lied and bluffed your way around my point

will you now concede my point that the founding fathers clear intent in the second amendment was that gun owners in the usa be well-trained as a condition of their gun ownership?

or will you continue in cowardly intellectual dishonesty?

furthermore, if you consider yourself a responsible gun owner, or just a responsible person, period, are you saying owning a gun is something that does not require training, discipline and mastery? do you like the idea that any douchebag can grab a gun without any consideration as to their abilities or responsibility?

the founding fathers clearly did not think that

do you stand against the wishes of the founding fathers as clearly stated in second amendment?

I thought at one point in time, it was agreed on that no single nation "owned" the moon. Therefore, what happens if someone goes up there for a commercial project and sells material gathered there? Is it "first come, first to profit"?

The Outer Space Treaty

Article II: "Outer space, including the moon and other celestial bodies, is not subject to national appropriation by claim of sovereignty, by means of use or occupation, or by any other means."

Article I says, in part, "Outer space, including the moon and other celestial bodies, shall be free for exploration and use by all States without discrimination of any kind, on a basis of equality and in accordance with international law". I would look to maritime law regarding resources in international waters as a basis for how lunar resources might be handled.

Article VI says, in part, "States Parties to the Treaty shall bear international responsibility for national activities in outer space, including the moon and other celestial bodies, whether such activities are carried on by governmental agencies or by non-governmental entities, and for assuring that national activities are carried out in conformity with the provisions set forth in the present Treaty. The activities of non-governmental entities in outer space, including the moon and other celestial bodies, shall require authorization and continuing supervision by the appropriate State Party to the Treaty." Since this is a US company they will need authorization from and supervision by the federal government.

The reason we have ISIS is because we defeated Saddam Hussein without thinking much about what would come next.

Not true. There were people talking in front of the UN audience, warning exactly what would come next in 2003.

Those are *really* antiquated, but they're not government regulations. These government regulations are even more antiquated than the common carrier Title II regulations, and we (Americans) are still forced to live by them.

The rules have only been modified only twenty seven times in over 200 years.

Silly, antiquated regulations.

And this is exactly what our Dear Leader is trying to fix, by getting rid of everything in that document.

Those are *really* antiquated, but they're not government regulations. These government regulations are even more antiquated than the common carrier Title II regulations, and we (Americans) are still forced to live by them.

The rules have only been modified only twenty seven times in over 200 years.

Silly, antiquated regulations.

And this is exactly what our Dear Leader is trying to fix, by getting rid of everything in that document.

Those are *really* antiquated, but they're not government regulations. These government regulations are even more antiquated than the common carrier Title II regulations, and we (Americans) are still forced to live by them.

The rules have only been modified only twenty seven times in over 200 years.

Silly, antiquated regulations.

And this is exactly what our Dear Leader is trying to fix, by getting rid of everything in that document.

Those are *really* antiquated, but they're not government regulations. These government regulations are even more antiquated than the common carrier Title II regulations, and we (Americans) are still forced to live by them.

The rules have only been modified only twenty seven times in over 200 years.

Silly, antiquated regulations.

Those are *really* antiquated, but they're not government regulations. These government regulations are even more antiquated than the common carrier Title II regulations, and we (Americans) are still forced to live by them.

The rules have only been modified only twenty seven times in over 200 years.

Silly, antiquated regulations.

Those are *really* antiquated, but they're not government regulations. These government regulations are even more antiquated than the common carrier Title II regulations, and we (Americans) are still forced to live by them.

The rules have only been modified only twenty seven times in over 200 years.

Silly, antiquated regulations.

You truly are an idiot - just as Alexander Graham Bell predicted you would be. One cannot prove that Bell did not say the thing attributed to him, but no one can find such a quote before 1997 (75 years after his death) from the falsified biography which was attempting to make Bell relevant, but no one has an image of an original document or contemporary reference to support the quotation - it is drawn from whole cloth. I can cite the source relevant to his supposed advocacy for alternative fuels which clearly shows he had no environmental concerns and confirms my statement as to his reasoning which were strictly economic contrary to many of the current attempts to rehabilitate his image as a forward-looking environmentalist instead of an industrialist: http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/...

It isn't nitpicking, I simply do not believe your post required more than a cursory response. I have no obligation to address the many falsehoods you put forth, but let's start with your initial statement, "Gore is right: the science is settled. In fact, it's been understood for nearly 200 years" Again, this is revisionist history. Fourier ultimately dismissed "greenhouse" effects in his published works which disqualifies him from being credited with an understanding of the issue of planetary temperature. https://geosci.uchicago.edu/~r...

If you want to insist that Fourier understood the issue, then you must conclude as he did that the atmosphere was not part of the issue of the the planet's temperature. I am confident you do not agree with his conclusion.

Svante Arrhenius described the greenhouse effect in 1896 which at 119 years ago is not really all that near 200 years.

Perhaps you should actually educate yourself on this issue. It is clear that your sources are dubious, and that you are not a critical thinker, but merely a parrot spewing talking points.

http://overpopulationisamyth.c...

I agree some technoligies should be banned or heavily taxed because they create unpaid for externalities like pollution. However, in general, what we need are more efficient technologies, technologies that create new resources out of abundant materials (like fusion of hydrogen), and also technologies that let us expand out into space (or responsibly in the ocean or desert or Antarctic, or underground).

The human imagination is the ultimate resource, The more (educated, well-fed) people you have, the more imagination.
"The Ultimate Resource II: People, Materials, and Environment"
http://www.juliansimon.com/wri...

If I told you that someone had (really) just invented fusion energy (or dirt cheap solar), and someone else had invented automated indoor agriculture, and someone else had invented 3D printers that can recycle 100% of everything they print in a non-polluting way -- even electronics and houses, and together these technologies could feed a trillion people on the planet and house them and clothe them and so on, would your feelings change about "over population"? BTW, we are not very far from all three of these technologies or equivalents.

Even if for aesthetic or environmental reasons we might want to limit the population of humans on the Earth at any one time, the carrying capacity of the solar system, even just with essentially known technologies discussed in 1980, is probably in the quadrillions of humans (plus much more of everything else in supporting ecosystems).
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/...

In any case, the bigger issue is that populations of industrialized countries are peaking already with non-immigrant female citizens in most generally having less than two or so kids each, so less than replacement.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L...

As I wrote here:
http://p2pfoundation.net/backu...
"As with the comment on Ireland, that is why the industrialized globe is facing a "Peak Population" crisis, not a "Peak Oil" crisis, even though people are confusing the two, which is odd given solar is now (or soon will be) cheaper than coal. :-)
But, think about it, how many of the industrialized world's current problems are better explained by "Peak Population" rather than "Peak Oil"?
And how much has the "Peak Energy" misrepresentation of the "Peak Oil" fact by people like Catton led to smaller families and made worse the "Peak Population" crisis? Gloomsters and Doomsters are in that sense creating the terrible problems we are facing right now. In Voyage from Yesteryear, James P. Hogan talks about despair versus optimist in a culture, in part based on appreciation of the potential abundance energy in the universe.
The less peers that are around, the less peers can help each other and contribute to a free commons. Maybe there are laws of diminishing returns, but are we anywhere near them? What would Wikipedia be like with only 100 contributors instead of 100 thousand? Especially in a digital age, it is easy for a peer to add more to the free commons than they take away. What do you take away from Wikipedia by reading a page? A little electricity power perhaps, but Wikipedia shows us how to get all the power we need from the sun.So, even in a physical sense, Wikipedia is helping peers physically power it by giving away such knowledge.
We can support quadrillions of humans in the solar system (see my previous references to Dyson, Bernal, Savage, O'Neill, and there are many others), or about a million times our current population on Earth. We essen

The EU is very much a group of independent countries that have agreed to work together on many issues but have not been willing to give up sovereignty to the point where an EU law has supremacy over local laws.

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/...

"The Conference recalls that, in accordance with well settled case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union, the Treaties and the law adopted by the Union on the basis of the Treaties have primacy over the law of Member States, under the conditions laid down by the said case law."

No, that's just a silly movie. The discoveries of this university research project in the 1930s are much more disturbing: http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/...

I was reading "Pandora's Seed: The Unforeseen Cost of Civilization" by Spencer Wells this morning. He makes the point that hunter/gatherers tend to walk away from social conflicts, whereas people in large militaristic agricultural hierarchies instead tend to end up fighting wars for resources as they see no other alternatives. I had a lot of youthful optimism in the 1970s stemming in part from the US space program and many space-related TV shows (Thunderbirds, Star Trek, Space: 1999, Lost In Space). To be potentially capable of the military conquest of the planet Earth, a country probably has to be of the scale of WWII Germany or the USA -- having about 5% of the planet's population and land. So that means, ignoring moral aspects and such, the maximum return on military investment for Empire can be at most about 20 to 1 relative to the total resources (including people) you are starting with and essentially gambling. By contrast, investments in Research & Development, such as the space program like with Orion or new energy sources like hot or cold fusion or dirt-cheap solar PV or whatever have the potential to produce much greater returns than 20:1 on investment. Imagine if the USA had poured the cost of the Iraq war (three or more trillion US$ at this point) into fusion research. We might have 1000X as much cheap less-polluting energy to use (including for space launches) than we have now. Increasing human capability to get into space and live there in self-replicating space habitats potentially could produce another 1000X or more return in land area to live in. Even as 100 trillion dollars to make the first such self-replicating space habitat, the ROI is so much higher than that of preparing to fight a global war of empire-building.

Maybe we can see a return to other ideas, like those from back when NASA overall was more optimistic under Carter?
"Advanced Automation for Space Missions"
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/...
"This document is the final report of a study on the feasability of using machine intelligence, including automation and robotics, in future space missions. The 10-week study was conducted during the summer of 1980 by 18 educators from universities throughout the United States who worked with 15 NASA program engineers. The specific study objectives were to identify and analyze several representative missions that would require extensive applications of machine intelligence, and then to identify technologies that must be developed to accomplish these types of missions. This study was sponsored jointly by NASA, through the Office of Aeronautics and Space Technology and the Office of University Affairs, and by the American Society for Engineering Education as part of their continuing program of summer study faculty fellowships. Co-hosts for the study were the NASA Ames Research Center and the University of Santa Clara, where the study was carried out. Project co-directors were James E. Long of the Jet Propulsion Laboratory and Timothy J. Healy of the University of Santa Clara."

There are probably nuances here regarding how much of the country is at risk in such a military gamble and so on, as well as the value of military investments for deterrence (how much is enough?), but that is the broad brush picture I've always seen based on that early optimism. And given that a supervolcano like Toba (mentioned by Spencer Wells as killing of most humans about 70,000 years ago) or a pandemic (like Ebola) could wipe out most people (from a decade long winter and a new ice age), it seems investments in cooperation to develop productive innovations including space habitats has a much better risk/reward ratio than most military investments which ultimately still don't secure you against supervolcanos or plagues and similar things.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T...

While it has sometimes been called "The Conquest of Space", it is a very d

Which section says that? Searching the Outer Space Treaty for the word nuclear, I can only find prohibitions on nuclear weapons, not nuclear power. IIRC the USSR launched several small nuclear reactors into earth orbit.

Also like Google's AI that doesn't technically give Google employees access to read emails unless they snoop but is still read by AI and ads served based on content, government automates with advanced AI scanning through audio, images, text, location data, and not all surveillance is done through collection such as satellites which analyze and watch and track each human from space. They therefore know where each person is at all times. Vital signs are monitored, as are brainwave emissions observing thoughts, passcodes, and intentions.

12333 was put into effect by Ronald Reagan and enabled the government to warrantlessly spy on Americans during black world and other operations.

There is another Executive Order myself and Russell Tice have gone on about. The system enables agents inside government to construct Special Access Programs (and ECIs and VRKs), programs that are completely black and secret and only parties authorized are allowed to know about or brought in on. SAPs enable any type of program to be created, including weapons system, surveillance, and torture and programs of targeting Americans.

Furthermore exists criminal surveillance and criminal targeting, which goes on even if laws criminalize or otherwise make the programs or actions illegal. They can do this because the actions are kept secret and normally hard proof kept from the public.

SAPs are set up under Executive Order 13526.

Executive Order 13526

Sec. 4.3. Special Access Programs.

(a) Establishment of special access programs. Unless otherwise authorized by the President, only the Secretaries of State, Defense, Energy, and Homeland Security, the Attorney General, and the Director of National Intelligence, or the principal deputy of each, may create a special access program. For special access programs pertaining to intelligence sources, methods, and activities (but not including military operational, strategic, and tactical programs), this function shall be exercised by the Director of National Intelligence. These officials shall keep the number of these programs at an absolute minimum, and shall establish them only when the program is required by statute or upon a specific finding that:

(1) the vulnerability of, or threat to, specific information is exceptional; and
(2) the normal criteria for determining eligibility for access applicable to information classified at the same level are not deemed sufficient to protect the information from unauthorized disclosure.

(b) Requirements and limitations.

(1) Special access programs shall be limited to programs in which the number of persons who ordinarily will have access will be reasonably small and commensurate with the objective of providing enhanced protection for the information involved.
(2) Each agency head shall establish and maintain a system of accounting for special access programs consistent with directives issued pursuant to this order.
(3) Special access programs shall be subject to the oversight program established under section 5.4(d) of this order. In addition, the Director of the Information Security Oversight Office shall be afforded access to these programs, in accordance with the security requirements of each program, in order to perform the functions assigned to the Information Security Oversight Office under this order. An agency head may limit access to a special access program to the Director of the Information Security Oversight Office and no more than one other employee of the Information Security Oversight Office or, for special access programs that are extraordinarily sensitive and vulnerable, to the Director only.
(4) The agency head or principal deputy shall review annually each special access program to determine whether it continues to meet the requirements of this order.
(5) Upon request, an agency head shall brief the National Security Advisor, or a designee, on any or all of the agency's special access programs.
(6) For the purp

Note: the outer Space treaty only applies to governments, not individuals or corporations.

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/...

Article VI

States Parties to the Treaty shall bear international responsibility for national activities in outer space, including the moon and other celestial bodies, whether such activities are carried on by governmental agencies or by non-governmental entities, and for assuring that national activities are carried out in conformity with the provisions set forth in the present Treaty. The activities of non-governmental entities in outer space, including the moon and other celestial bodies, shall require authorization and continuing supervision by the appropriate State Party to the Treaty. When activities are carried on in outer space, including the moon and other celestial bodies, by an international organization, responsibility for compliance with this Treaty shall be borne both by the international organization and by the States Parties to the Treaty participating in such organization.

One of the terms of Ukraine's independance was that they give up the nukes they had left over from the break up of the USSR, but their supposed pay back from that would be protection from NATO if Russia were to invade.

The treaty has no such requirement and does not mention NATO at all.

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_13526

Executive Order 13526 was issued on December 29, 2009 by United States President Barack Obama. It is the latest in a series of executive orders from US Presidents outlining how classified information should be handled. It revokes and replaces the previous Executive Orders in effect for this, which were EO 12958 (text) and EO 13292 (text).

Within this order, and previous orders signed by President Bush, and other Presidents, exists the ability to create classified systems called Special Access Programs. In a Special Access Program, the entire program is black and hidden. And it bypasses the FISA court just the same, as normally only those involved in the operation even have knowledge of it's function or existence.

Within these programs you'll find space capability, military radar, electronic warfare systems, ground and building penetrating tomography, and brain hacking / surveillance technologies, to which the FBI, CIA, NSA, DOD, and local and state governments are all utilizing to spy on and even to commit rapes and murders of American citizens. Details of operations with insider whistleblowers, NSA Russell Tice and DOD/CIA/US DOJ/NASA Dr. Robert Duncan: http://www.oregonstatehospital.net/d/story.html#nsabrainlink. There's a good Russell Tice article talking about how Edward Snowden didn't have access to the juiciest documents, those hidden in Special Access Programs, Exceptionally Controlled Information programs, and Very Restricted Knowledge programs.

Video w/ Russell Tice available on this page and that previously mentioned page. http://www.oregonstatehospital.net/d/russelltice-nsarnmebl.html.

Two technologies are involved in these programs: NSA Remote Neural Monitoring and NSA Electronic Brain Link.

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-2011-title10/html/USCODE-2011-title10-subtitleA-partI-chap2-sec119.htm.

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Executive_Order_13526.

Sec. 4.3. Special Access Programs.

(a) Establishment of special access programs. Unless otherwise authorized by the President, only the Secretaries of State, Defense, Energy, and Homeland Security, the Attorney General, and the Director of National Intelligence, or the principal deputy of each, may create a special access program. For special access programs pertaining to intelligence sources, methods, and activities (but not including military operational, strategic, and tactical programs), this function shall be exercised by the Director of National Intelligence. These officials shall keep the number of these programs at an absolute minimum, and shall establish them only when the program is required by statute or upon a specific finding that:

(1) the vulnerability of, or threat to, specific information is exceptional; and
(2) the normal criteria for determining eligibility for access applicable to information classified at the same level are not deemed sufficient to protect the information from unauthorized disclosure.

(b) Requirements and limitations.

(1) Special access programs shall be limited to programs in which the number of persons who ordinarily will have access will be reasonably small and commensurate with the objective of providing enhanced protection for the information involved.
(2) Each agency head shall establish and maintain a system of accounting for special access programs consistent with directives issued pursuant to this order.
(3) Special access programs shall be subject to the oversight program established under section 5.4(d) of this order. In addition, the Director of the Informat