Slashdot Mirror

Here you go. http://www.psychologicalscience.org/observer/getArticle.cfm?id=1804 http://faculty.som.yale.edu/keithchen/articles/YaleBulletin%20text%207_15_05.pdf (pdf) Funny thing is that the pdf (which is published by Yale) dosen't mention the prostitution and favours. Maybe another study?

>>I asked you a question. Care to reply?

You asked this question: "Want to rant about environmental laws?"

I didn't think that this was a real question. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhetorical_question)

But if you demand an answer, then: yeah, sure.

>>Cutting the top off of mountains to get to coal is the logical consequence of regulations in the United States and modern technology. Our government (arguably that means our society) values people more than it values the environment.

No, currently, the pendulum has swung too far toward environmental protection. NIMBYism and the "I'm not opposed to the project in general, I'm just opposed to it HERE" lawsuits have been crippling our ability to do capital works projects. Companies will sink millions or billions into a project, and then the Sierra Club will sue and get it blocked, even if it is for a solar project or other green work. They've filed at least three lawsuits against solar plants here in California that I'm aware of. The Calico lawsuit was tossed out, but the SolarOne project got blocked, costing many millions to the company.

http://e360.yale.edu/feature/its_green_against_green_in_mojave_desert_solar_battle/2236/

>>Shaft mining is risky, and it always will be.

Is it? Or does it depend on the stability of the rock and other geological factors? What level of risk is acceptable? If a miner is willing to accept a 0.01% chance of dying in his lifetime for a $140,000 salary, is that his choice, or isn't it?

>>Mountaintop removal takes more machinery, more energy, but less people, and less risk.

And tends to run more afoul of environmental regulations, which was my point, if that was confusing you.

It's true that programming is male dominated, but I can't fathom why it is. The world's very first programmer, Lady Lovelace, was a woman. The first compiler was written by a woman.

Glad you asked for a citation, but you did not say which part... Taking them one at a time:

Murder of all jews: Hamas charter Article 7, last paragraph and following Hadith.

Blames them for being behind wars and revolutions: Hamas charter Article 22 (which explicitly blames "the French Revolution, the Communist revolution and most of the revolutions we heard and hear about, here and there" on the Jews, as well as World War I and World War II).

Protocols of the Elders of Zion: Hamas charter article 32, which says: Their plan is embodied in the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion", and their present conduct is the best proof of what we are saying.

You can get the full text of the Hamas charter at several of the References on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamas_Charter but here are two of those just for your convenience:

http://www.fas.org/irp/world/para/docs/880818a.htm
http://www.mideastweb.org/hamas.htm
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/hamas.asp

Or were you talking about some other charter? There are several different charters around in Gaza and the West Bank; the Hamas one is the one for the group that had a plurality (though not majority) of the votes in the one election held so far and the group that is the government of Gaza at the moment.

I was thinking the exact opposite. The game is too simple. There are just variations on combat missions to perform. There's no option to protect Somalian fisheries from the foreign trawlers that have taken advantage of the lack of government. There's no option to investigate foreign vessels dumping toxic materials in Somali waters

Some non-Somalian people went fishing therefore all non-Somalians can be held for ransom or murdered, anywhere they may be? If you truly think this than you're a vile racist.

Basically the game has no way to long term plan. Instead it's all about finding ways to "kill em faster than they can be made". An approach that's never worked.

Don't know much about history either

Its not politically correct nor a popular notion, but massive technology and societal improvements are the direct result of war.

Certainly depends on the war.

What massive technological improvements did we see as a result of the 6 day war?

And I hate to break it to you, but a war is between the armies of two or more countries. What the US is engaged in in Afghanistan and Iraq are not wars anymore - they are police actions.

But please, do enlighten the curious amongst us - what civilian technological advancements have we seen as a result of the situation in Afghanistan and Iraq? I'll even let you use the first Gulf War, if you can think of anything other than improvements in GPS and autonomous navigation.

Now, it IS true that in the "good old days", both World War I and II brought some rather massive technological improvements, but the main reasons for that was the time they lasted and the amount of rapid evolution needed to keep up against the other sides.

Now, why can't we have similar improvements without war? We probably could, but that will never happen because of one thing - money. When we have an enemy that is on the brink of destroying us, we don't really care if we get paid on time. Or get paid. Keep us fed and clothed, and we'll work 16 hours a day pumping out new weapons and technology.

Let's put the money part into perspective.

In 2004 there were 2,630,000 first-time freshmen college students enrolled.

Let's set tuition at a REALLY high average cost of 100,000 dollars/year - TWICE that of Yale's most expensive program.

It would cost 263 billion dollars a year to give these student a 100,000 dollar college education. The US Defense Department budget was 689 billion dollars in 2010.

To be honest, I was expecting this to be a very different result. I seriously thought that the tuition for these freshmen would have been a LOT higher than the defense budget.

The question is - what would the US be able to achieve, as a nation, if they were to divert 263 billion dollars a year from its defense budget to pay for kids wanting to go to college? Sure, it'd have to drop the actions in Iraq and Afghanistan, which only cover some 150 billion dollars in the 2011 budget, so it'd have to pull another 120 billion from elsewhere in its budget. But would it really be that much less safe, if it reduced its budget from 661 billion to 398 billion? That would still put it a 3.98 times of what China spends in second place.

But seriously - can you look at these costs and still claim that you can never get any kind of similar boosts to technology and society, if you were willing to pump the same amount of money into education?

If we go with Yale's most expensive program (50k USD/year) and expect every freshman to complete and graduate a four year degree, we're looking at yearly costs of 526 billion USD. That'd still leave the Defense Department with 163 billion USD, which is STILL more than the second place spender.

The root of the problem is the extreme backlog of a decade or more for visa numbers and the onerous rules of the process. The rules assume that a new applicant can easily replace someone with multiple years of experience and knowledge of the company operations that the immigrant gained. This is the reason that companies have to do this or risk shipping someone who is extremely valuable (to the company, atleast) out of the country and replacing them with someone fresh and new(we all know how painful this is to a company to lose valuable talent). The nonsense rules are the problem and the cause for the things you mentioned.

>I went back to school and now I'm in the medical field, hopefully they don't start giving visas out to doctors.... aw crap [workpermit.com]

Ya right..healthcare cost is not high and needs to go up...
    http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/content/indian-doctors-help-fill-us-health-care-needs

Yale School of Management: "Laszlo Bock leads Google's people function globally...Laszlo earned a bachelor's degree in international relations from Pomona College and an MBA from the Yale School of Management."

Hamas doesn't want peace with Israel in the long term:
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/hamas.asp

The only peace they want is one where Israel is wiped out.

Fatah's old charter also stated similar stuff: http://www.alzaytouna.net/arabic/?c=1598&a=97061

Article (8) The Israeli existence in Palestine is a Zionist invasion with a colonial expansive base, and it is a natural ally to colonialism and international imperialism.
Article (12) Complete liberation of Palestine, and eradication of Zionist economic, political, military and cultural existence.
Article (19) Armed struggle is a strategy and not a tactic, and the Palestinian Arab People's armed revolution is a decisive factor in the liberation fight and in uprooting the Zionist existence, and this struggle will not cease unless the Zionist state is demolished and Palestine is completely liberated.

Apparently their new one no longer calls for Israel's destruction. http://jta.org/news/article/2010/01/27/1010372/new-fatah-charter-omits-negationist-language

But there will be problems as long as most of them continue to hold on to the popular "radical/extremist Islam" concepts listed here: http://www.tawfikhamid.com/abcs-test-for-radical-islam/

Yawn. I'm an ordinary working person and I have a small (by McMansion standards) house covered with solar panels. And I drive a car that gets 34 mpg. I don't care a bit what gasoline costs ($8-10/gallon would be fine, to encourage SUVs off the roads) and I like not paying for electricity. And the 75% of the cost of my panels covered by various government entities subsidized my panels from other *electric* customers, not gasoline taxes. You too could invest a paltry $15K to avoid electric bills for the rest of your time in your house, ordinary working person though you might be..

In other words

1. your solar panels would be a real money-pit without government cheese to pay 75% of the cost;
2. You aren't planning on living there for more than another decade or so (solar cells decrease in efficiency over time, so eventually they have to be replace)

Also, your solar panel production contributed to the unregulated release of NF3 - 17,000 times more potent greenhouse gas than CO2

COBOL -- Crappy Old Bad Obsolete Language

But, it IS a dinasaur. It was one of the very first computer languages there were. It was a milestone in computing history. From the Yale page about Grace Hopper:

Pursuing her belief that computer programs could be written in English, Admiral hopper moved forward with the development for Univac of the B-O compiler, later known as FLOW-MATIC. It was designed to translate a language that could be used for typical business tasks like automatic billing and payroll calculation. Using FLOW-MATIC, Admiral Hopper and her staff were able to make the UNIVAC I and II "understand" twenty statements in English. When she recommended that an entire programming language be developed using English words, however, she "was told very quickly that [she] couldn't do this because computers didn't understand English." It was three years before her idea was finally accepted; she published her first compiler paper in 1952.

Admiral Hopper actively participated in the first meetings to formulate specifications for a common business language. She was one of the two technical advisers to the resulting CODASYL Executive Committee, and several of her staff were members of the CODASYL Short Range Committee to define the basic COBOL language design. The design was greatly influenced by FLOW-MATIC. As one member of the Short Range Committee stated, "[FLOW-MATIC] was the only business-oriented programming language in use at the time COBOL development started... Without FLOW-MATIC we probably never would have had a COBOL." The first COBOL specifications appeared in 1959.

Admiral Hopper devoted much time to convincing business managers that English language compilers such as FLOW-MATIC and COBOL were feasible. She participated in a public demonstration by Sperry Corporation and RCA of COBOL compilers and the machine independence they provided. After her brief retirement from the Navy, Admiral Hopper led an effort to standardize COBOL and to persuade the entire Navy to use this high-level computer language. With her technical skills, she lead her team to develop useful COBOL manuals and tools. With her speaking skills, she convinced managers that they should learn to use them.

Another major effort in Admiral Hopper's life was the standardization of compilers. Under her direction, the Navy developed a set of programs and procedures for validating COBOL compilers. This concept of validation has had widespread impact on other programming languages and organizations; it eventually led to national and international standards and validation facilities for most programming languages.

From wikipedia:

In the spring of 1959 a two day conference known as the CODASYL brought together computer experts from industry and government. Hopper served as the technical consultant to the committee, and many of her former employees served on the short-term committee that defined the new language, COBOL. The new language extended Hopper's FLOW-MATIC language with some ideas from the IBM equivalent, the COMTRAN. Hopper's belief that programs should be written in a language that was close to English rather than in machine code or languages close to machine code (such as assembly language) was captured in the new business language, and COBOL would go on to be the most ubiquitous business language to date.[10]

From 1967 to 1977, Hopper served as the director of the Navy Programming Languages Group in the Navy's Office of Information Systems Planning and was promoted to the rank of Captain in 1973.[9] She developed validation software for the programming language COBOL and its compiler as part of a COBOL standardization program for the entire Navy

In addition to the prohibitions provided by special Conventions, it is especially forbidden -
...
To employ arms, projectiles, or material calculated to cause unnecessary suffering;

South Korea is a signatory country of those conventions.

Yale Law Library has also delved into this subject, putting together a video and exhibit about the law's depiction in comic books. I don't know to what extent the library is open to the public, but if you are near New Haven, the exhibit closes 16 Dec. 2010.

http://blogs.law.yale.edu/blogs/rarebooks/archive/2010/10/18/video-of-quot-superheroes-in-court-quot-talk-is-now-available.aspx

I'm not a huge supporter of Israel at all, but I sure understand why they do what they do. It's like you fighting with someone, if he:
1) Doesn't promise to not kill you.
2) He keeps hitting you and trying to kill you whenever you let him go (even if he promises not to).

It's pretty understandable if you put a choke-hold on him and not let go. Also no surprise they stop getting hit as much as long as they have that chokehold.

Not pleasant to watch, but from what I see many of the Palestinians and their supporters share a HUGE part of the blame for their situation.

Israel seems to get on reasonably with Egypt and Jordan, after both agreed to make peace with Israel. But the rest of the Arab/muslim nations including the Palestinians refuse to recognize Israel and they want to ELIMINATE Israel completely.

So why should anyone be surprised when Israel does not want to loosen their chokehold on the Palestinians?

See this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli%E2%80%93Palestinian_conflict#Camp_David_Summit_.282000.29

In July 2000, U.S. President Bill Clinton convened a peace summit between Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat and Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak. Barak reportedly offered the Palestinian leader approximately 95% of the West Bank and Gaza Strip, as well as Palestinian sovereignty over East Jerusalem,[13] and that 69 Jewish settlements (which comprise 85% of the West Bank's Jewish settlers) would be ceded to Israel. He also proposed "temporary Israeli control" indefinitely over another 10% of the West Bank territory--an area including many more Jewish settlements. According to Palestinian sources, the remaining area would be under Palestinian control, yet certain areas would be broken up by Israeli bypass roads and checkpoints. Depending on how the security roads would be configured, these Israeli roads might impede free travel by Palestinians throughout their proposed nation and reduce the ability to absorb Palestinian refugees.

Arafat rejected this offer. President Clinton reportedly requested that Arafat make a counter-offer, but he proposed none. Former Israeli Foreign Minister Shlomo Ben Ami who kept a diary of the negotiations said in an interview in 2001, when asked whether the Palestinians made a counterproposal: "No. And that is the heart of the matter. Never, in the negotiations between us and the Palestinians, was there a Palestinian counterproposal."

They rejected that offer. Why don't they make a counterproposal? The Palestinians don't really want to make peace with Israel. To them peace = Israel wiped out.

Hamas (and Fatah) certainly don't want peace with Israel, as long as they follow their own charter, any peace they make with Israel can only be temporary: http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/hamas.asp http://www.alzaytouna.net/arabic/?c=1598&a=97061

Just go see what they want.

Yes it's pretty nasty what Israel is doing to the Palestinians, slowly strangling someone is nasty. But what should they do? The Palestinians themselves don't really want to make peace with Israel and as long as fighting or opposing Jews ( just because they are Jews) is _considered_ part of Islam by significant numbers of them (google it), go figure how long that peace will last.

As for getting rid of Israel totally:

From a secular objective perspective being a citizen of Israel would be better than being a citizen of "Greater Palestine" ruled by Hamas or Fatah (assuming Israel is gone). Just look at how the various muslim nations rule themselves. They kill and abuse their own people rather often (Shiites vs Sunnis, tribe vs tribe etc). Please list down the muslim countries that are doing better than Israel, by modern standards. Remember many of them have oil, Israel doesn

The primary value of catching the "perpetrators" is deterrence for others.

The primary value is stopping further activity by the perpetrators. The secondary value is deterring others. By treating this as a war, we have not only failed to take out the perpetrators (remember that guy, what's his name.. oh yes, I remember now: Osama bin Laden), we have recruited many thousands of fighters for al-Qaeda and related groups. When you engage in police activity, you target the perpetrator. When you invade two countries and engage in military operations in several others, you turn people who would otherwise be bystanders into combatants.

Putting terrorists in jail will not deter those in the future - they are already willing to die for their cause, no threat of punishment will prevent them from going ahead.

What cause? Initially they had a small cause. Now we have made it a much larger one. As for threat of punishment as a deterrent, you are assuming that all terrorists are suicide bombers, which is definitely not the case. Suicide bombers make up a third of the people who engage in terrorist acts across the globe.

So the idea that you are going to identify the "criminals" and put them in jail/execute them presumes that you will just take the hit, no matter the cost, and deal with the aftermath. That's why the "policing" concept has utterly failed.

You seem to be basing your entire argument on the belief that police activity does not deter criminal activity. That is simply untrue. It also presumes that the alternative the US has used, engaging the enemy with primarily military means, somehow is a more effective deterrent, when study after study has shown that it has turned many otherwise politically ambivalent people into combatants.

Further, you state that policing has failed. The United States hasn't even tried that approach.

No, because there were no State Constitutions. There was only one State Constitution (MASS) predating the US Constitution.
Most states still had Charters.

Um, no. The Wikipedia article you linked to lists the effective date of the current constitution of each state; however, many of the early states have rewritten their constitutions over time. According to Yale Law School 10 of the original 13 colonies adopted constitutions in 1776-7, on recommendation of the Continental Congress.

The words "The Constitution" everywhere else in The Constitution refer to the Constitution of the United States (as proposed).

The words "The Constitution" only appear twice in the Constitution. First in the presidential oath of office and again in the clause at issue. The term "this Constitution" appears 12 times, including 4 times in Article VI alone.

While the wording does require careful reading, it clearly should be read as "the Constitution [of any State] or Laws of any State."

How about this one:
Image= The downtrodden Palestinians being occupied by the genocidal Israelis. Reality: Hamas is a terrorist organization bent on the destruction of an internationally recognized state while hiding behind the suffereing of their people who's leadership lives free in Syria.

Hamas is a the child of a war declared by The Arab States to eliminate the State of Israel (The State being created by the UN). They lost the war but still will not recognize Israel's right to exist. Their main goal is still to eliminate Israel. Check the Hamas Covenant articles 12 and 13. By article 13 they will not even negotiate a peace treaty.

I am not in complete agreement with everything Israel has done but what do you expect Israel to do when they are continually subjected to rocket attacks and suicide bombers? The Palestinians started it and the will not quit.

Btw, Fatah is at least trying to be reasonable.

My point was that muslims first have to deal with the "ABC"s as per the link. If they continue to hold those beliefs, they will continue cause problems.

And as long as most Palestinians hold on to these "ABC"s they contribute to the Palestinian problem.

I'm not a huge supporter of Israel at all, but I sure understand why they do what they do. It's like you fighting with someone, if he:
1) Doesn't promise to not kill you.
2) Keeps hitting you and trying to kill you whenever you let him go.
It's pretty understandable if you put a choke-hold on him and not let go. Not pleasant to watch, but from what I see many of the Palestinians and their supporters share a HUGE part of the blame for their situation.

Israel seems to get on reasonably with Egypt and Jordan, after both agreed to make peace with Israel. But the rest of the Arab/muslim nations including the Palestinians refuse to recognize Israel and they want to eliminate Israel.

So why is anyone surprised when Israel does not want to loosen their chokehold on the Palestinians?

See this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli%E2%80%93Palestinian_conflict#Camp_David_Summit_.282000.29

In July 2000, U.S. President Bill Clinton convened a peace summit between Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat and Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak. Barak reportedly offered the Palestinian leader approximately 95% of the West Bank and Gaza Strip, as well as Palestinian sovereignty over East Jerusalem,[13] and that 69 Jewish settlements (which comprise 85% of the West Bank's Jewish settlers) would be ceded to Israel. He also proposed "temporary Israeli control" indefinitely over another 10% of the West Bank territory--an area including many more Jewish settlements. According to Palestinian sources, the remaining area would be under Palestinian control, yet certain areas would be broken up by Israeli bypass roads and checkpoints. Depending on how the security roads would be configured, these Israeli roads might impede free travel by Palestinians throughout their proposed nation and reduce the ability to absorb Palestinian refugees.

Arafat rejected this offer. President Clinton reportedly requested that Arafat make a counter-offer, but he proposed none. Former Israeli Foreign Minister Shlomo Ben Ami who kept a diary of the negotiations said in an interview in 2001, when asked whether the Palestinians made a counterproposal: "No. And that is the heart of the matter. Never, in the negotiations between us and the Palestinians, was there a Palestinian counterproposal."

They rejected that offer. Why don't they make a counterproposal? The Palestinians don't really want to make peace with Israel. To them peace = Israel wiped out.

Hamas certainly don't want peace with Israel, as long as they follow their own charter, any peace they make with Israel can only be temporary: http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/hamas.asp

Yes it's pretty nasty what Israel is doing to the Palestinians, slowly strangling someone is nasty. But what should they do? The Palestinians themselves don't really want to make peace with Israel (as long as killing Jews is considered part of your religion, go figure how long that peace will last).

As for the USA, sure they give aid to Israel (3 billion a year). But guess what, they also give Egypt about a billion a year too (they also give Jordan some money). You can say it's unfair that the USA gives Israel more money, but go visit both Israel and Egypt, compare how well each has been managing their resources, people and wealth.

From a secular perspective being a citizen of Israel would be better than being a citizen of "Greater Palestine" ruled by Hamas (assuming Israel is gone). Plenty of evidence - this "arrested for heresy" story is just one.

But it doesn't look like most Palestinians see it that way, they'd rather wipe out Israel and be ruled/oppressed by Hamas or similar. That is their dream.

You probably caught the Nova Episode about fractals, it has a segment where it talks about fractal phone antennas:

http://www.hulu.com/watch/181084/nova-hunting-the-hidden-dimension

Here's some other stuff:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractal_antenna

http://classes.yale.edu/fractals/Panorama/ManuFractals/FractalAntennas/FractalAntennas.html

http://www.fractenna.com/

Wubizixing is the fastest way to type simplified Chinese. It's based on breaking the characters down into radicals. Oh, you thought pinyin romanisation was the only way to type? Silly American boy hasn't ever seen a real Chinese keyboard.

Admiral Grace Hopper, who wrote the world's first compiler and co-wrote the world's second compiler, advocated FOSS in the 1950s. Admiral Hopper encouraged programmers to collect and share common portions of programs.

Woodie Guthrie's guitar read "This Machine Kills Fascists". And indeed, every musical instrument, poet's pen, comedian's voice, do also.

(Photo of Guthrie and his facist-killing machine)

"This song is Copyrighted in U.S., under Seal of Copyright #154085, for a period of 28 years, and anybody caught singin' it without our permission, will be mighty good friends of ourn, cause we don't give a dern. Publish it. Write it. Sing it. Swing to it. Yodel it. We wrote it, that's all we wanted to do."

This painting was credited by an art historian who taught a class I took as starting the French revolution. The arts and information (e.g., The Federalist Papers which contributed to starting the American revolution) have always been political weapons.

He's following in the late great Grace Hopper's footsteps. Hopper wrote the world's first compiler (FLOW-MATIC), then co-wrote the world's second compiler (COBOL). She coined the word "computer bug"; the first computer bug was a moth that got fried in the circutry. In pursuit of her vision she risked her career in 1949 to join the Eckert-Mauchly Computer Corporation and provide businesses with computers. There she began yet another pioneering effort of UNIVAC I, the first large-scale electronic digital computer. To ease their task, Admiral Hopper encouraged programmers to collect and share common portions of programs. Even though these early shared libraries of code had to be copied by hand, they reduced errors, tedium, and duplication of effort. Stallman has some big footsteps to follow.

Computers have been "he" pretty much since there have been computers, just like cars and boats are "she". I'm guessing that computers are "he" because of Grace Hopper?

The first 20 or so responses from Google when you search wubi are for an Ubuntu program.

"This document, the first of its kind, clearly presents both the basics and intricacies of the Wubi input method for the benefit of speakers of English."

More than you really wanted to know.

So what was your source that supported non-differentiation between the two categories?

My... source? My single source? Well, if I have to boil it down to just one (and discount any supporting evidence or writings)... I would go with reason based on history (for a start).

Given how explicit the Constitution is about some things... such as certain election processes or the Presidential oath of office... it seems odd that such an important thing such as declaring war is left so vague... that leaves two options either a) it is so well understood what the meaning was that no further expansion is necessary, or b) something that will be expanded upon by statute at a later time.

You would no doubt be quick to point out that A is the correct answer (which it is) and that it proves your case... only that assumes that declarations of war were at the time known and understood to be a written document which always contains the words "declaration of war" right up at the top... forgetting the meaning of the word declaration.

I'll pause here as you look it up.

Now let's go back to the signing of the Constitution... do you think it was well understood that a formal declaration of war follow an exact format, starting with the title "Declaration of War"... or that it was simply understood and accepted that such a declaration have a few key parts... such as why you are initiating military force, against who, and possibly conditions for the ceasing of hostilities?

For simplicity, go back to the Wikipedia article I linked to earlier on Declaration of war and refer to the first sentence (emphasis mine):

A declaration of war (aka DOW, DoW) is a formal performative speech act or signing of a document by an authorized party of a government in order to initiate a state of war between two or more nations.

Note 'speech act'... which means (in short) that such a declaration does not have to take the form of a written communication/act, but can be delivered not only verbally, but almost certainly entail the aspects I listed above... or do you wish to continue to claim that even that address/speech must contain the words "declaration of war" in that order?

More so... seems kind of odd, doesn't it, that it took until the 1907 Hague Convention before they formalized such a thing? Though even then... they didn't do that, did they? To quote Article 1 of Hague III:

Contracting Powers recognize that hostilities between themselves must not commence without previous and explicit warning, in the form either of a reasoned declaration of war or of an ultimatum with conditional declaration of war.

More uses of the word 'declaration'... but still no definition of what constitutes 'declaration of war' is... now what is a declaration again? Oh yes... simply a formal (and usually public) statement... so based on a continued lack of formal and explicit definition of what exactly constitutes a 'declaration of war'... we are left with the need of a dictionary!

Declaration we've already defined, and war... well that's pretty self-explanatory... so together we have a formal statement (written or not) that a state of hostility (very possibly resulting in armed conflict) now exists between one nation/group and another.

But when it comes to something you can read... good chapter on a related subject in the book Men In Black: How the Supreme Court is Destroying America when discussing the run-up to Iraq. Be warned though... the book reads like a legal brief (meticulously detailed and dry)... though that isn’t surprising given the aut

Explain how increasing atmospheric CO2 is not problematic.

Plants eat CO2. Our food eats plants. More plants is a good thing.

Also CO2 levels are near a 500 million year low at the present time.

That depends on what time scale you consider. The graph you cite makes any fluctuation over the past few thousand years impossible to see.

Reference?
While child labor was a serious problem, you're off by 20-60% according to:
http://www.yale.edu/ynhti/curriculum/units/2004/1/04.01.08.x.html

OK you've lost me, how does my carbon footprint in North America effect whether billions of Nepalese, Pakistanis, Bangladeshis, Chinese and Hindustanis cook their food over a sooty kerosene fire, or ride around on smoky 2-cycle mopeds?

Not necessarily. One does not preclude the other. But I didn't make the statement -- I merely pointed to information supporting the statement. And that looking for information is quite easy. That is, if one isn't lazy.

How about:

http://e360.yale.edu/content/digest.msp?id=2264

Aerosols and black carbon from air pollution may be responsible for as much as 90 percent of the melting taking place in Himalayan glaciers, according to a new study.

Anybody who's been mildly following this with an open mind would be aware of these studies.

Wow. That's one angry post. Sounds like you need to see a clinical psychologist.

Since I'd like to be constructive, here are a few clinical psychologists in your neck of the woods. Maybe one of them can fit you in for an appointment. I'm sure they aren't busy doing research or anything.

All you've done is copy the very same document I linked to way up-thread.

Which is the English Bill of Rights of 1689. Not a "Constitution".

You're digging yourself a deeper and deeper hole, Tastecicles. I'm sorry, but you're simply misinformed, and it's time to become silent, listen, and become more knowledgeable.

The US Constitution, which itself is based upon the British Constitution of 1689, stipulates the right to engage in commerce without interference.

No, it isn't, and no, it doesn't.

There is no "British Constitution of 1689". The "British Constitution" is not a written document but a set of traditions. You may be thinking of the 1689 Bill of Rights, which certainly did inspire similar enumerations by states and eventually by the federal government, but it's a far stretch to say that our Bill of Rights is based on that document.

And the U.S. Constitution does not have any passage about a "right to engage in commerce without interference". (Nor, from my admitted quick scan, does the 1689 Bill of Rights) The Constitution does, though, explicitly stipulate the power of the federal government to "regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes" (Article I, Section 8). As AOL is an American company, and the buyer is Russian, the feds have legitimate Constitutional authority to regulate the transaction as they wish.

May I suggest you read the document in question before you make statements about what it stipulates?

I tell ya, conservatives and propertarians remind me more and more often of that old Star Trek (TOS) episode where there's a barbarian tribe that worships the Constitution but has no idea what it actually says. ("E pleb neesta...")

Much like the initial debate over the existence of black holes there seems to be lots of wiggle room when it comes to declaring whether the Universe is in a runaway state, whether it's just expanding, or, whether it will collapse. This Standford Uni link gives a quick overview and suggests in ~15bn years it'll collapse to the size of a proton. The Yale Astrophysics Course, IIRC, is strongly steeped in black hole theory and so speaks to the same issues.

The shuttle cabin pressure is 14.7 PSI, (0 feet), and the external pressure is 0, where an airliner has a cabin pressure of 10.916 PSI, (8,000 feet) and an external pressure of 3.4580 PSI (35,000 feet) for a difference of 7.458 psi; so the shuttle is a little under twice the pressure of a typical commercial airliner.

Sadly this may only be one of the last steps in the hydrogen bomb era, not a first step...

Most "ultimate" weapons have a shelf life.

Take the history of the battleship for example, between WW-I and WW-II was the era of the the Naval limitation treaties which concentrated on battleships. Of course the war that finally erupted WW-II in the pacific, the nations took great advantage of the aircraft carriers, and in the atlantic, it was submarines. The battleships used during WW-II primarily came from upgraded WW-I battleships.

These types of arms limitation treaties have not be shown to prevent any historical conflicts as they just tend to lock-in the status quo (although poorly crafted treaties may cause big problems like WW-I and WW-II). You only need to start with the Hauge Convention of 1899 declaration II and how it didn't seem to affect chemical weapon usage in WW-I very much.

We may see this a sign that nations are recognizing on emminent transition to a new munitions era. We may see nations start developing a whole new class of armaments after this. MOP or MOAB style bombs or even anti-matter bombs. These new non-nuclear bombs seem to promise to be more useful in the next battle (or war on terror).

Maybe, fortunatly, we get the opportunity bypass the urge to use this generation's strategic weapons that cause massive collateral damage and concentrate on more tactical (and containable) munitions. Strategic weapons are historically only useful to prevent a country from sustaing a war effort (if you want a more "street-fight" analogy, basically a kick in the nuts). For many countries that have nuclear weapons, demoralization by "media" has replaced the need for strategic weapons. Of course there are some other countries (e.g., like North Korea, Sudan), where media influence is insufficient other strategic mechanisms may still be needed, but probably in lower amounts.

Although this might be a glimmer of hope that we may be make to the end of the hydrogen bomb era, who knows what the next era will bring us.

This treaty was a successor to the St. Petersburg Declaration of 1868 (Declaration Renouncing the Use, in Time of War, of Explosive Projectiles Under 400 Grammes Weight)

Full Text

In this treaty the signatories agreed to prevent the use of explosive or fulminating bullets.

The 30mm cannon on the AH-64 Apache can use either Armor Piercing or High Explosive bullets. However, AP bullets are primarily used against armored vehicles.

Besides the phohibitions provided by special Conventions, it is especially prohibited:--
[...]
To employ arms, projectiles, or material of a nature to cause superfluous injury;
Citation

Superfluous may be too subjective a term, but I think this is the line typically thought to deal with this sort of thing.

Personally, I'd like to see an army of giant wrecker robots used to smash the enemy, but I guess I'm impractical.

It's not the Geneva Convention(s) it is part of the much older La Hague Convention.

"The Contracting Parties agree to abstain from the use of bullets which expand or flatten easily in the human body, such as bullets with a hard envelope which does not entirely cover the core, or is pierced with incisions. "

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/dec99-03.asp

It's not about what Yale can afford, but whether maintaining their own email system is worth the cost. If Yale can get email service cheaper or better (or both) through GMail, then Yale should switch over (I don't know whether they can or not).

Veering OT here, but the nice thing about Yale and many, perhaps all of the other Ivies is that you can attend them even if you're poor since they guarantee financial aid for those who cannot afford the cost of tuition (though at some you have to be a US citizen, too). Of course, you have to get admitted first! Anyway, the cost of tuition is important only to those who can afford it.

You're right. Freedom from prior restraint is a long standing American principle.

"Here, then, is to be discerned the genuine meaning of this section in the bill of rights... Every man may publish what he pleases; but, it is at his peril, if he publishes any thing which violates the rights of another, or interrupts the peace and order of society; as every man may keep poisons in his closet, but who will assert that he may vend them to the public for cordials? If, indeed, this section of the bill of rights had not circumscribed the authority of the legislature, this house, being a single branch, might in a despotic paroxism, revive all the odious restraints, which disgraced the early annals of the British government. Hence, arises the great fundamental advantage of the provision, which the authors of the constitution have wisely interwoven with our political system; not, it appears, to tolerate and indulge the passions and animosities of individuals, but effectually to protect the citizens from the encroachments of men in power."

Respublica v. Oswald, 1 U.S. 319, 1 Dall. 319 (1788) (cited in Near v. Minnesota, 283 U.S. 697 (1931))

This is the earliest American case I could find on prior restraints. It's published in the United States Reports, which is supposed to be United States Supreme Court decisions, but this particular case seems to be from the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. It is referring to the freedom of the press provision in the Pennsylvania Bill of Rights in the 1776 Constitution - it read "That the people have a right to freedom of speech, and of writing, and publishing their sentiments; therefore the freedom of the press ought not to be restrained."

Check out the PA 1776 Constitution. It's an amazingly democratic document. The fifth article of the bill of rights read: "That government is, or ought to be, instituted for the common benefit, protection and security of the people, nation or community; and not for the particular emolument or advantage of any single man, family, or soft of men, who are a part only of that community, And that the community hath an indubitable, unalienable and indefeasible right to reform, alter, or abolish government in such manner as shall be by that community judged most conducive to the public weal. "

Global Problems of Population Growth with Professor Robert Wyman a Yale uni online course speaks extensively to overpopulation. In the context of this thread the overriding message would be that women need most of all to be given control of their own bodies, especially in terms of birth control. In countries where poor education and overpopulation are prevalent problems most women will say they want as many children as possible, or, that children are a gift from God and therefore every child a gift; but, the same women when questioned in a different context wanted fewer children. The much joked about 2.1 children per couple is close to the replacement level for most populations. Giving women control over their own reproduction cycle will bring down population and likely along with it poverty, under nourishment, disease and lack of education. The lectures are very entertaining.

Yale makes this available. Edit to suit your needs.

http://www.library.yale.edu/~llicense/standlicagree.html

....or even better, Real the Documents!

You can find Reagan's 1983 Executive Order on the subject here. In my reading of the text, it puts INTERPOL under the rules of the International Organizations Immunities Act in all areas except for customs duties and tax. Obama's Executive Order (which is here) appears to put INTERPOL under the remaining rules that Reagan didn't do. If one wants to blame Obama for giving INTERPOL unlimited immunity, then Reagan should be blamed as well since he put the organization under this Act to begin with.

Yale uni has astr160 available Online. Professor Bayiln gives hot inner planets and black holes a good going over and folds them in with dark matter and dark energy to suggest whatever is cooking out there possibly ain't like noth'n we've been served before. It's a low maths, freshman course but doesn't shy away from anything. Professor Baylin is interesting, well spoken and easy to listen to. The production values on all the Yale courses are head and shoulders above that offered by mit and Berkeley, and, the Yale stuff comes with full html transcripts and added resources.

There are a number of human traits (and the genes which cause them) that statistically cluster into groups that correspond to what we consider race. You can test a person's DNA and determine their racial heritage, to a fairly accurate degree. Obviously race is real, if you can nearly automate measuring it. The fact that statistical clusters don't have firm boundaries doesn't mean those clusters don't exist.

While this is true, it still doesn't validate existing concepts of race. You can pick out a preexisting notion of race and, indeed, find genetic markers which will correlate with that concept. However, if you do it the other way around, throw out all such preconceived notions, look at the data and derive groupings of humans, you get totally different results. You don't get what people typically think of as the major races. ALFRED has some of this information although it takes a lot of work to go through all the data and the maintainers of the site try to stay out of discussions of race.

you should also have doubts about science done by someone who is paid by people, with, say, a political agenda that happens to include making life painful for businesses.

Climate scientists don't have a political agenda to "make life painful for businesses". And believe it or not, they like economic prosperity as much as anybody.

There is no alternative energy source that can replace oil, coal, natural gas, etc., anywhere even close to being on the horizon for the next several decades - at least, none that can possibly meet the hugely expanding economies of India, China, and soon to be Africa. Taxing energy use is simply a tax on economic activity. Period. That will incredibly impact GDP.

That contradicts what actual economists find (e.g., here, here).

The initial carbon tax would be low, ramping up over time as alternative energies continue to improve. Emissions reductions gains will come first mostly from energy efficiency measures. Such measures currently have an insufficient economic incentive because of the artificially low price of fossil fuel which neglects environmental externalities. A carbon price changes that equation. Efficiency measures will be followed later by gradually increasing investments in alternative energy (which is also incentivized by a carbon price). The large majority of the revenue raised by the tax would be returned to the public in the form of tax rebates, direct dividends, or a tax shift; the remainder would be invested in further alternative energy R&D and to cushion the economic impact to particularly vulnerable sectors.

It does have an impact on GDP, on the order of the total amount of money invested in environmental regulation and remediation so far (which hasn't bankrupted anybody). But it's not pure suppression of economic activity with "incredible" devastating impacts, either.

meanwhile, if you believe that two similar parties is a weakness, or under some shadowy force's control, you are either a paranoid schizophrenic, or you simply don't understand that marginal, fringe parties should never dominate a country. because no matter how progressive your beliefs, the purpose of a government is to provide stability, first and foremost. the government should reflect the great moderate middle as much as possible, and this is what two parties achieves, and this goal is far more important than any other you can put forth

finally, third parties merely siphon votes off from their more moderate cousins, and therefore perversely empower the party most opposite you and your beliefs. its simple math

two parties the ultimate natural evolution of all democracies, and this is a good thing, despite you and your fringe beliefs, whether far right or far left. your marginalization is a benefit to the stability of your country

You really couldn't be more wrong.
Go read the Federalist Papers or George Washington's Farewell Address
The short version is that the learned individuals who founded our Democratic Republic
thought that political parties were bad and that a two party system was even worse.

About 40 years after Washington left office, a bunch of assholes decided to create ballot access laws to prevent third parties from joining the political process. This grand tradition has lasted 150 years and leaves us with our current duopoly.

I'm nearly finished the Yale lectures on evolution, ecology and behavior. Professor Stearns addresses the RNA world theory of life origins. The Yale lecture series is really outstanding. If you're a Global Warming skeptic you'll be interested in Professor Stearns suggestion that human induced global warming has the potential for an extinction event on par with the one that drove the extinction of the dinosaurs. The production values in the Yale lectures is really good and the lectures offered give a sort of pocket edition of the human condition.

It might not be trivial that the baby boomer generation, who more than any other generation sated themselves at an inestimable cost to future generations, are intent in keeping their children and grandchildren in suspended development. I recently finished an excellent set of lectures by R Wyman global population and biological development. The lectures are one of a number of an excellent series of Yale lectures with comparatively outstanding production values. I'm not suggesting Professor Wyman even hints at the subjugation of a younger generation by an older generation by enforcing a prolonged adolescence but his lectures on ape behaviour speak to behaviour in older males in terms of excluding others from resources. Thinking of the well being of children is sacrosanct and well intentioned but it's not uninteresting to view it as an unconscious ploy by a bloated, disproportionately over populated generation to control resources.