Assuming that fussion of an antihydrogen atom could actually work then you'd have both the initial explosion plus the reaction of the antiparticals which were created by the fussion.
I think we could improve on that by putting the cat in a anti-matter box with a anti-matter vial of anti-matter-cyanide that will open depending on whether or not an anti-matter atom decays.
You can go around apropriating words and redefining, that exact thing has happened many times throughout history. Prime example, Anarchism. The ruling classes have inevitably put forth a reactionary definition of Anarchism at every turn because Anarchism threatens their power. If they can do it I see no reason why I shouldn't revert to an older, more apt definition.
The other major problem with the definition is that it uses the term government. Anarchism would have a government of some sort; just not in a form comparable to any modern nation-state.
as for point b)
I have a gun, I know how to use it. My friends have guns. I'd like to see you try.
And to clarify on my point about the rejection of Anarchism. Most Anarchist societies, or proto-Anarchist societies have been destroyed from the outside, not the inside.
I don't expet you to agree with my views on Anarchism, but it would be nice if you'd read a bit more about the history and theory before you reject it so flippantly. And as I told someone else, I don't expect an Anarchist society to be a Utopia, I only expect it to be better than what we have now.
First I'd like to say that I do realize I'm lucky to live in a country where I have the ability to exercise my right to free speech. I'd also like to note that it is not the government which gives us this right or the ability, it is the actions of countless generations before us whom fought for this ability. The actions of the government merely reflect its understanding that the people would not acccept its legitimacy if it did not properly reflect the will of the people in these matters.
I'd also like to note that I don't believe in a utopian society. There will always be problems and I don't expect that a society which is Anarchist, in name or fact, will be a society which perfectly embodies the ideal of "a society based on the cooperation of free individuals." I just think that we can qualitatively improve our world and our society by moving closer to a society which does embody those ideals.
I don't claim to have all the answers, I just think we need to have a lot broader outlook on possible political systems.
oh, here's a pretty comprehensive explanation of what Anarchism is and how it might work.
Actually the whole point of proportional representation is to make people more likely to vote for who they actually want. If you look at the numbers that he came up with it's likely that nadar would have told his electors to go for Gore in exchange for consesions. (IE cabinet post or something) Add to that the fact that more people would be likely to vote for third party canidates if they knew that they would likely for a coalition government of sorts with the closer of the two major parties and you'd see some political change fairly quickly
No. We are paying because it is unjustifiable. The U.N. could only help rationalize the war. The people of Iraq are the only ones who can now justify the war, and judging from their actions, they don't find it justified.
I'd have to agree with you here. For a long time I was a Democrat, then I started looking at their record, and their goals and I just couldn't support them anymore. The problem I have now is that there really isn't a single party that comes close to representing my views. I'm nominally an Anarchist, but if you ever bring that up in conversation people instantly dismiss your views.
Not that most people have the slightest idea of what Anarchism is. And no I've never thrown a bomb or broken a window.
The American people really need to start looking at alternative politicaal structures, because our is pretty screwed up at this point.
Everyone in Iraq knows he a puppet, they aren't under any of the illusions that the American public is. Why do you think the Insurgents are so effective?
The post I responded to said that Germany never attacked us. I responded by noting that they did declare war on us. It should also be added that the Japanese, Germany's ally, did attack us.
I never mentioned Iraq.
Why can't you damn anonymous neocon trolls figure out how to argue correctly, stop with the damn non-sequitors.
I support neither Castro nor Clinton's wars, if you can call lobbing missile for a bit "war".
The problem with both sides here is that they only fight against strawmen. They decide that their opponent believes X and then calls them a hypocrite because they also support Y; when in fact it is the politicians whom are,almost universally, the hypocrites.
I'm an "leftist" by most definitions, yet I feel much more comfortable politically with the libertarians than either major party.
What this country really needs is for the third parties to form a coalition and help enact some basic, systemic change. Regardless of how each party feels about the platform on social or economic issues I think it's clear reform is needed; and the major parties sure as hell aren't going to do it.
This one seems especially bad. Why the hell do they have footage of stalinists at a protest saying that Hussein was good? That certainly isn't the general belief at a protest. That and the protest warrior sign about war only being good if a democrat is in office. This whole thing looks like a bunch of crap.
Slashdot Mirror
Ok bear with me here for a second.
Assuming that fussion of an antihydrogen atom could actually work then you'd have both the initial explosion plus the reaction of the antiparticals which were created by the fussion.
What happens if you make an anti-matter hydrogen bomb?
I think we could improve on that by putting the cat in a anti-matter box with a anti-matter vial of anti-matter-cyanide that will open depending on whether or not an anti-matter atom decays.
to respond to point a)
You can go around apropriating words and redefining, that exact thing has happened many times throughout history. Prime example, Anarchism. The ruling classes have inevitably put forth a reactionary definition of Anarchism at every turn because Anarchism threatens their power. If they can do it I see no reason why I shouldn't revert to an older, more apt definition.
The other major problem with the definition is that it uses the term government. Anarchism would have a government of some sort; just not in a form comparable to any modern nation-state.
as for point b)
I have a gun, I know how to use it. My friends have guns. I'd like to see you try.
And to clarify on my point about the rejection of Anarchism. Most Anarchist societies, or proto-Anarchist societies have been destroyed from the outside, not the inside.
I don't expet you to agree with my views on Anarchism, but it would be nice if you'd read a bit more about the history and theory before you reject it so flippantly. And as I told someone else, I don't expect an Anarchist society to be a Utopia, I only expect it to be better than what we have now.
I'd also like to note that I don't believe in a utopian society. There will always be problems and I don't expect that a society which is Anarchist, in name or fact, will be a society which perfectly embodies the ideal of "a society based on the cooperation of free individuals." I just think that we can qualitatively improve our world and our society by moving closer to a society which does embody those ideals.
I don't claim to have all the answers, I just think we need to have a lot broader outlook on possible political systems.
oh, here's a pretty comprehensive explanation of what Anarchism is and how it might work.
Well, my shotgun and my friend's shotguns will protect us.
thats lemon or lime to you
If by "rejected" you mean "got killed or deported by whoever was in power then sure you've got a point.
Actually the general working definition most anarchists I know use is:
A form of societal organization in which coersive methods are not necessary.
When they say no government they mean no rulers, not no rules.
Actually the whole point of proportional representation is to make people more likely to vote for who they actually want. If you look at the numbers that he came up with it's likely that nadar would have told his electors to go for Gore in exchange for consesions. (IE cabinet post or something) Add to that the fact that more people would be likely to vote for third party canidates if they knew that they would likely for a coalition government of sorts with the closer of the two major parties and you'd see some political change fairly quickly
Leaders that *want* us to be at war?
Never!
That would be the modern precedent.
No. We are paying because it is unjustifiable. The U.N. could only help rationalize the war. The people of Iraq are the only ones who can now justify the war, and judging from their actions, they don't find it justified.
I'd have to agree with you here. For a long time I was a Democrat, then I started looking at their record, and their goals and I just couldn't support them anymore. The problem I have now is that there really isn't a single party that comes close to representing my views. I'm nominally an Anarchist, but if you ever bring that up in conversation people instantly dismiss your views.
Not that most people have the slightest idea of what Anarchism is. And no I've never thrown a bomb or broken a window.
The American people really need to start looking at alternative politicaal structures, because our is pretty screwed up at this point.
You can only expect so much. I was just impressed that he could pronounce the word.
Everyone in Iraq knows he a puppet, they aren't under any of the illusions that the American public is. Why do you think the Insurgents are so effective?
Bush did say "rue the day" and "vociferous"
I was mildly impressed at that.
The post I responded to said that Germany never attacked us. I responded by noting that they did declare war on us. It should also be added that the Japanese, Germany's ally, did attack us.
I never mentioned Iraq.
Why can't you damn anonymous neocon trolls figure out how to argue correctly, stop with the damn non-sequitors.
I support neither Castro nor Clinton's wars, if you can call lobbing missile for a bit "war".
,almost universally, the hypocrites.
The problem with both sides here is that they only fight against strawmen. They decide that their opponent believes X and then calls them a hypocrite because they also support Y; when in fact it is the politicians whom are
I'm an "leftist" by most definitions, yet I feel much more comfortable politically with the libertarians than either major party.
What this country really needs is for the third parties to form a coalition and help enact some basic, systemic change. Regardless of how each party feels about the platform on social or economic issues I think it's clear reform is needed; and the major parties sure as hell aren't going to do it.
In case you missed it, Germany declared war on the US.
This one seems especially bad. Why the hell do they have footage of stalinists at a protest saying that Hussein was good? That certainly isn't the general belief at a protest. That and the protest warrior sign about war only being good if a democrat is in office. This whole thing looks like a bunch of crap.
How is any of that lying? Are you going to deny that atrocities happened in Vietnam?
Did you read the page you linked to? It does not, by any stretch, confirm that Kerry lied. People told him those stories.
As for disgusting acts not being forgotten, I agree, we need to remember the shame that we brought upon this country through our actions in Vietnam.
Like what? I haven't seen many stories anywhere lately that put Bush in a good light.
In the words of Public Enemy Don't believe the hype
ooh, i found it.
: ww w.math.tau.ac.il/~hezy/papers/c27.PDF+infrared+ide ntification+of+people&hl=en
http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:EApmzc4jwQAJ
hopefully I wasn't looking up too much off the roof. It sounds like its pretty good at Iding people.