Welll... while state AG for Texas our dear Mister Cruz actually appealed the release of wrongfully convicted 20-year old after his innocense was incontrovertibly proven. The kid had been in prison for 4 years out of a ten year sentence when his innocense was proven absolutely by evidence uncovered during the investigation of a different crime. Cruz actually stood before a judge and argued that innocent or not a poor black kid should serve the full sentence he was given by a jury. He did this fully knowing it would undermine the trial his office was prosecuting against the actual offender.
Yeah you should be arguing with success when it gives people like that power. It also means that as far as I am concerned Cruz has proven absolutely that he has zero respect for civil liberties and anything whatsoever proposed by him must be considered an attempt at a power grab for the purpose of anihilating them.
For a start yes. Do you think the internet would have grown large enough to even need the move from host files to dns without its killer app ? What about the thousands of non-US folk who contributed to the RFCs for technologies like DNS and contributed code to the open source projects that implemented them ? Hell what internet would have happened without Turing (British), Zuze and Von Neuman (both German) ?
You are right about there being governments that should not be involved. You are wrong that the US government is not one of them.
There are two acceptable options. An international consortium of non-governmental and non-profit organisations would be the ideal. Take all governments out of it. Else give them all equal votes and hope they will all be restrained because any power I grab I am giving to my enemies as well. A mutually assured destruction for DNS.
Bad as that may be its not nearly as bad as the thought of a Trump government having exclusive control over it. No government has ever been worthy of such trust.
And yes Iran and North Korea deserves to have nuclear weapons. If they dont then nobody does. You cannot ever expect the me to support any situation where the US claims a right they deny to other countries. If its too dangerous to let NK have nukes then its too dangerous to let America have them. The sane answer is to never let washington or wall street have anything you would not want Kim Yong Ill to have.
Fine. Give china back gunpowder. Give germany back the automobile. Give agriculture back to Iran and Iraq. Give the Turing machine design back to Britain and the Von Neuman architecture to the Germans. Lets give each country exclusive control over how other countries can use technologies they developed. Right back to giving exclusive control over fire to ethiopia and archery to South Africa. Finnland gets exclusive control over Linux. Austria gets exclusive control over nuclear power and nuclear weapons. Technonlogy ultimately globalizes and every nation controlls tgeir own usage of it. There is no sane reason to treat the internet any differently.
What an absolutely, mindnumbingly stupid argument. Hell even if DNS had been patented it would be expired by now and a lot of non-US academics contributed to the DNS rfc and refference code before the current infrastructure was even built so to claim you invented it is barely a sane argument in the first place.
What ? DNS is hierachical but it is absolutely not centralized. Its one of histories first massive distributed databases. There is nothing in the design that mandates centralized root servers. Why not a cluster of them all of which are synchronized but no single entity controlling more than one.
Bad analogy. Let me fix it for you. My friendly neighbour built a dock and in the interest of keeping the rest of the shorelime pristine begged us all not build our docks and in return would give us untestricted access to the one he already built. We expressed some concern about vesting all our pond access in a dock he could stop being nice about but he assuaged our concerns by promising to sign the dock over to a trust run by the whole neighbourhood, we just had to be patient while the lawyers sorted out all the trust related paperwork. Now as that is becoming reality his asshole son who just got kicked out of college for pissing on the deans desk while wearing a ku klux klan outfit and moved into his backyard just announced he is seeking an injunction to prevent dad from signing the dock over to the trust because one day he will inherrit that property and he does not want his potential for being a dick to us all diminished.
In short though - the lack of an execute permission flag on Windows comes back to bite microsoft's customers yet again.
On linux the file will not run without it, and when you notice it didn't run and go look - it should be pretty instantly obvious that it was not a magnet link but a script/executable and that should stop you from trying to run it unless you are pretty damn determined.
Even with binmisc configured for wine it won't run a windows executable through wine without an execute bit set.
But thats exactly what Cruz is trying to prohibit. Now there is no practical way to prevent the rest of the world doing so and the US said 2 years ago that once a suitable and accountable alternative exists they will join it rather than balkanise the internet to everybody's detriment. Cruz is trying to legally prevent the US from joining such an international venture and actually use the force of law to require America to balkanise itself when it inevitably comes into being.
The history of the net is one of progressively less US government control which has only benefitted the world (America included). Attempting to reverse course now is both inpossible to justify and utterly idiotic.
> Actual terrorists have specific aims and tactics which the US does not practice.
Noam Chomsky wrote an excellent analysis on this -and proved that the US government both domestically and in foreign military action CONSISTENTLY and WITHOUT EXCEPTION do exactly that. Oh, the exact definition he used for "terrorism" and measured them against... is their own, as published in the FBI handbook on terrorism.
The US is guilty of terrorism by it's very own definition of what terrorism is, constantly and repeatedly. If you believe otherwise you are either 1) Ignorant of how the US government defines terrorism or 2) Ignorant of what the US government actually DOES and have done around the world.
Neither would surprise me - but it's impossible to know the answers to both questions and claim the answers to number 2 are not textbook examples of what is described by number 1.
Speaking as a member of the rest of the world - yeah, going 'nuclear' option on this would be a lot of work, but it's entirely feasible.
We want a say in the management of a resource that directly impacts OUR freedom and livelihoods. We have a problem with a foreign government, ANY foreign government including the US one, having exclusive control over ANY aspect of the internet.
We would much rather NOT build a competing system with all the difficulties that entail - but if the US does not eventually give up this control, we damn well WILL do exactly that. It's nobody's first choice - but it is an available one. We would just prefer something where we get a stake through OUR elected representatives in the current one that doesn't require balkanizing the technology. The US government has NO right to control ANYTHING that affects non-Americans.
The key designs for it was conceived independently in Germany (Konrad Zuze) and Britain (Alan Turing). The first person in America to realize such a design was Von Neuman but he was more than ten years after Zuze and he wasn't an American.
CERN is in the US now ? Because quite a lot of "core technologies" were developed there - not least of which the internet's killer app, the world-wide-web. Are you seriously going to argue that control of the web should be vested in the government of Switzerland ? Let's take your argument to it's logical conclusion. Gunpowder was invented in china so I guess the US will be handing over control of all it's fire-arms companies, guns and bullets to the Chinese government ? Cars were invented in Europe - so I guess you'll be handing over the controlling interests in Ford and GM to the Germans. Mind you - Germany also built the first modern computers (predating you guys by nearly a decade with the Zuse computers) so I guess you can keep the internet but control of the servers it runs on goes to them too. The persians had the first real navy so I guess you'll be handing control of your naval forces over to Iran and Iraq. Mind you they also invented farming so your agriculture industry goes there too.
Basically - your argument is fucking idiotic and you would never consider applying it to anything else whatsoever. Every country gets to control it's own share of technologies that have become global resources. And the internet is DEFINITELY a global resource. In case you were wondering - the name of who owns it is right there in the name of the technology. It's the INTERnet because it's INTERnational and so any control that we can't avoid existing over it MUST also be international. Applying nationalist sentiments to an international technology makes about as much sense as trying to cure paralysis by severing your own spine.
Actually - I think he was parodying the large number of idiots above him. Pretty good job too. Seems like Poe's law in action. Was it parody or ACTUAL insanity ?
Yes, his comment may be a fallacy - but that doesn't mean it's not also true.
I say "may" because I'm not convinced that it IS even an ad hominem fallacy. The definition of pretty much every fallacy includes "without any other substantiating evidence" (appeal to emotion and appeal to tradition are notable exceptions) but most things are *only* fallacious if they stand by themselves, NOT when used as a part of a larger argument with strong evidence. The evidence in this case is Cruz's entire career - which has been massively anti-freedom (and particularly anti-civil-liberties while his time as an AG includes one of the worst breaches of due process in the history of the United States) and pretty much always being on the stupid side of every issue. It is perfectly reasonable then to start assuming that he is more likely than not to be on the stupid side of THIS issue.
Saying it must be the case - that would be fallacious, inductive logic does not lead to absolute truths, but saying it is "probably" the case (as the OP did) - that is absolutely logical and a perfectly reasonable argument. Nobody is saying Cruz can never be right about anything because he is Cruz. We are simply applying the laws of inductive logic - in a thousand "experiments" Cruz has been found to be wrong 999 times, it is reasonable to think he is probably wrong this time as well.
The American right is constantly warning us of their imminent need to have a revolution against the US government for abandoning everything they hold dear... but you demand the REST of the world's 7-billion people trust that government not to censor us ? Despite the fact that censoring YOU is prohibited by a constitution but censoring us is NOT. They may not have done so yet, but you have NO law that says they aren't ALLOWED to do so.
Sorry, we don't share your blind trust in your government - and having nominated the orangutan with the bad checks - we trust your government even less now.
You don't trust you OWN government, but you demand that WE must trust them ?
There are 350 million odd people who agree with you... and 7 Billion people who consider the US no more trustworthy than North Korea.
Sorry, this is an international resource and the ONLY just outcome is for it to be internationally managed. the US is NOT exceptional, it is NOT special and it does NOT have a manifest destiny. Those are bullshit propaganda things made up by racists to justify slavery which somehow, miraculously are still a thing today.
There are freedom loving people the world over - and to claim you are PROTECTING anybody's freedom by wresting power over things that directly influence their lives in YOUR government they have no vote or say in - is literally the worst kind of double-think. There can be nothing more ANTI-freedom than the US controlling ANY global resource since the US government is NOT a global government and, indeed, the same people who tend to think America is so special ALSO tends to believe that the US government should exclusively concern itself with US citizens and never, ever care about the rights of others - indeed should murder, maim, censor and oppress all other people whenever doing so would benefit an American.
If you truly believe in freedom - start with it's most foundational principles. No government without the consent of the governed. That means the US government can have ZERO jurisdiction over ANYTHING that is NOT exclusively an American resource. They cannot govern ME or MY life since I don't have a vote with which to give or withdraw consent for that governance.
I never said "definitely". I said very unlikely. Lets say one smartphone is found. What would be seen ? A lump of sillicates, carbon molecules and a few rare earth metals. If one was found by a human a mere 200 years ago it would not be recognized as technology. No serious scientist would propose it for fear of being lumped in with pyramidologists. How long before our children could not be sure if it was technology or just a fluke geological formation ? 1000 years ? We just had a headline over a sunken city near athens that is now being called "most likely a natural geological formation". A few thousand years and the line between natural and manmade are already so blurred that archeologists and geologists both believe they are seeing something from their own field.
How long until what is now contemporary technology is so obsolete *we* would struggle to recognize it ? But you are assuming it would be recognizable to a species with an entirely different biological and cultural history ?
Sure we have fossils from half a billion years ago... but for every species we have a fossil off there were probably a trillion species we never knew about or imagined. Its not impossible we would leave a trace - just exceedingly unlikely and that likelihood skyrocketed in the last century . A dinosaur civilization comparable to us im the 19th century at the time they went extinct could easilly have left no trace for us to find. What would somebody discern about 20th century earth if they found a few random fossils ? An elephant tooth and a pig's shinbone. Two from one century would already be extraordinary since the average rate of fossilization is estimated at one individual organism (out of everything alive) every 10 million years (and many believe that figure is optimistic).
That's just it - millions aren't enough to guarantee anything. Most species never left any fossils.
This is a genuine case of absence of evidence decidedly not being evidence of absence. You should read some Jack Cohen books - he is, after all, an expert in the field you're claiming to know more about than him.
Except for being buried under a 60-mile layer of ash...
A hundred-million years is quite enough for several volcanic superplumes to occur. Just one of those entirely resurfaced the Russian Steppes once - an area rather bigger than North America. Simple random distribution means that, on a long enough timeline, everything gets altered a great deal.
The longer the timeline, the less the odds that something recognisable is found.
It doesn't MATTER if things are stable or not when they are likely to be buried beneath mountains, or at the bottom of what is now oceans. Not to mention your fundamental assumption is utterly unfounded. At the same time as the dinosaurs three other major animal kingdoms existed. Icthyosaurs, Mosasaurs and Pterosaurs - none of which lived on land. One was airborn and the other were both acquatic. In either case the issue of sewage would require entirely different solutions to anything we've done.
People seriously do not understand just how mysterious deep time really is. The simple truth is that we have no idea what the world was like when dinosaurs lived. We have NO idea. We have a lot of educated guesses, and for every theory at least two major competing theories that fit the tiny, tiny bits of evidence we have just as well - and no way to pick between them while KNOWING that all of them likely have nothing in common with what ACTUALLY happened since it's virtually inconceivable we could possibly have ever imagined the reality - and that's just about tiny, narrow little areas.
What was life like ? What was the world like ? We have basically no idea and we certainly cannot imagine it as we have absolute no context to imagine it. For most of the dinosaurs existence there was only one continent on earth... how did that affect climates ? How did it affect weather ? How did it affect the creatures living ? And how did they affect it and each other ?
Right now India is crashing into Eurasia raising up the Himalayas - where will it be in a hundred million years ? Will it smash it's remaining energy into a fell swoop that raises them faster than they can erode and lift them to new heights ? Or will it bounce elastically and head the other way and crash into Australia ? Or something we can't even imagine... but just picture that, and tell me you still think toilets would survive. Tiny shards of pottery may make it - but the odds of anything finding them is near zero even if they were looking and even if they did find it they would likely come up with a dozen other explanations because if they are anything like us the concept of any previous species having been intelligent will apparently been utterly unacceptable to their minds.
We have nothing approaching a real view.
And through all this - we know that actual fossilisation is an exceedingly rare event. So rare that we believe we have only ever found fossils for a tiny fraction of the species that ever existed because it's such a billion to one chance for anything to be fossilised that nearly every species would come and go without any fossil actually surviving. It's quite likely that there haven't been enough humans yet for a human fossil to survive us.
Just to give you an idea. Prior to 1998 we were aware of exactly four body plans in the entire animal kingdom. Just four - everything that ever existed was some variety of that. Then we realized that, in a fossil discovered way back in 1905 - was in fact a lot of creatures from long before the dinosaurs, and just in that one site we discovered 20 new body plans that nobody had ever known about before, that apparently left no fossils anywhere else (at least, none that we've found), Twenty entire branches of life for which a single mudslide provided all the evidence they ever even existed. Each of them as different from the others as we are from insects. How many were NOT present when that mudslide made the Burgess shale ? How many entire KINGDOMS of animals have we never even imagined - yet had lived on this planet ? One single site - which nobody thought was significant for nearly a hundred years multiplied the number of animal kingdoms known to have existed by 5. How many more must the REAL number be ?
We can tell stories of evolution for that which lives, and that which we have enough fossils for. We can't be sure how accurate those stories are (but most paleontologists are fairly certain they are more likely than not to be way off). Walkring with dinosaurs was a fairy tal
On a human timeframe sure it does not matter. On geological timescales... tiny differences add up to huge effects. Thats literally the whole point of chaos theory.
In a hundred milion years your limepit could be burried beneath a mountain the size of the Andez... At that timeframe continental drift is a grand prix event. Continental plates colliding. Billions of tons of magma flowed, earthquakes, volcanoes and meteor strikes.
Do you know what a volcanic superplume is.. do you think anything manmade would be remotely distinguishable after one of those ? All across the entire surface of this planet lies a layer of clay with a unique cadmium signature. That was our first piece of evidence that the K/T event was a meteor... one giant rock collision covered this entire planet in a layer of clay.
Most likely we only even know of about 1 millionth of the dinosaurs that existed. The rest left no shred. We know a few thousand species from a period of 350 million years where the earth had 4 major animal kingdoms. What if a species of mosasaur had reached the point if asking what the purpose of life is ? Mosasaurs were acquatic. Their cities would have layn on long resurfaced bottoms of oceans that are now the tops pf mountain ranges and covered by the sands of deserts.
Look what we did in a mere hundred thousand years... and imagime the possobilities that could lie burried in 4 billion years... and be a little more humble.
Slashdot Mirror
Welll... while state AG for Texas our dear Mister Cruz actually appealed the release of wrongfully convicted 20-year old after his innocense was incontrovertibly proven. The kid had been in prison for 4 years out of a ten year sentence when his innocense was proven absolutely by evidence uncovered during the investigation of a different crime. Cruz actually stood before a judge and argued that innocent or not a poor black kid should serve the full sentence he was given by a jury. He did this fully knowing it would undermine the trial his office was prosecuting against the actual offender.
Yeah you should be arguing with success when it gives people like that power. It also means that as far as I am concerned Cruz has proven absolutely that he has zero respect for civil liberties and anything whatsoever proposed by him must be considered an attempt at a power grab for the purpose of anihilating them.
Its your contradiction not mine. You are asking me to trust a government you do not trust yourself.
For a start yes. Do you think the internet would have grown large enough to even need the move from host files to dns without its killer app ? What about the thousands of non-US folk who contributed to the RFCs for technologies like DNS and contributed code to the open source projects that implemented them ? Hell what internet would have happened without Turing (British), Zuze and Von Neuman (both German) ?
You are right about there being governments that should not be involved. You are wrong that the US government is not one of them.
There are two acceptable options. An international consortium of non-governmental and non-profit organisations would be the ideal. Take all governments out of it. Else give them all equal votes and hope they will all be restrained because any power I grab I am giving to my enemies as well. A mutually assured destruction for DNS.
Bad as that may be its not nearly as bad as the thought of a Trump government having exclusive control over it. No government has ever been worthy of such trust.
And yes Iran and North Korea deserves to have nuclear weapons. If they dont then nobody does. You cannot ever expect the me to support any situation where the US claims a right they deny to other countries. If its too dangerous to let NK have nukes then its too dangerous to let America have them. The sane answer is to never let washington or wall street have anything you would not want Kim Yong Ill to have.
Fine. Give china back gunpowder. Give germany back the automobile. Give agriculture back to Iran and Iraq. Give the Turing machine design back to Britain and the Von Neuman architecture to the Germans. Lets give each country exclusive control over how other countries can use technologies they developed. Right back to giving exclusive control over fire to ethiopia and archery to South Africa. Finnland gets exclusive control over Linux. Austria gets exclusive control over nuclear power and nuclear weapons. Technonlogy ultimately globalizes and every nation controlls tgeir own usage of it. There is no sane reason to treat the internet any differently.
What an absolutely, mindnumbingly stupid argument. Hell even if DNS had been patented it would be expired by now and a lot of non-US academics contributed to the DNS rfc and refference code before the current infrastructure was even built so to claim you invented it is barely a sane argument in the first place.
What ? DNS is hierachical but it is absolutely not centralized. Its one of histories first massive distributed databases. There is nothing in the design that mandates centralized root servers. Why not a cluster of them all of which are synchronized but no single entity controlling more than one.
The Germans and Swis were at least as important to the birth of the internet as tge US was. Everything else you say is less true than that.
Bad analogy. Let me fix it for you. My friendly neighbour built a dock and in the interest of keeping the rest of the shorelime pristine begged us all not build our docks and in return would give us untestricted access to the one he already built.
We expressed some concern about vesting all our pond access in a dock he could stop being nice about but he assuaged our concerns by promising to sign the dock over to a trust run by the whole neighbourhood, we just had to be patient while the lawyers sorted out all the trust related paperwork. Now as that is becoming reality his asshole son who just got kicked out of college for pissing on the deans desk while wearing a ku klux klan outfit and moved into his backyard just announced he is seeking an injunction to prevent dad from signing the dock over to the trust because one day he will inherrit that property and he does not want his potential for being a dick to us all diminished.
In short though - the lack of an execute permission flag on Windows comes back to bite microsoft's customers yet again.
On linux the file will not run without it, and when you notice it didn't run and go look - it should be pretty instantly obvious that it was not a magnet link but a script/executable and that should stop you from trying to run it unless you are pretty damn determined.
Even with binmisc configured for wine it won't run a windows executable through wine without an execute bit set.
But thats exactly what Cruz is trying to prohibit. Now there is no practical way to prevent the rest of the world doing so and the US said 2 years ago that once a suitable and accountable alternative exists they will join it rather than balkanise the internet to everybody's detriment. Cruz is trying to legally prevent the US from joining such an international venture and actually use the force of law to require America to balkanise itself when it inevitably comes into being.
The history of the net is one of progressively less US government control which has only benefitted the world (America included). Attempting to reverse course now is both inpossible to justify and utterly idiotic.
> Actual terrorists have specific aims and tactics which the US does not practice.
Noam Chomsky wrote an excellent analysis on this -and proved that the US government both domestically and in foreign military action CONSISTENTLY and WITHOUT EXCEPTION do exactly that. Oh, the exact definition he used for "terrorism" and measured them against... is their own, as published in the FBI handbook on terrorism.
The US is guilty of terrorism by it's very own definition of what terrorism is, constantly and repeatedly. If you believe otherwise you are either
1) Ignorant of how the US government defines terrorism or
2) Ignorant of what the US government actually DOES and have done around the world.
Neither would surprise me - but it's impossible to know the answers to both questions and claim the answers to number 2 are not textbook examples of what is described by number 1.
Speaking as a member of the rest of the world - yeah, going 'nuclear' option on this would be a lot of work, but it's entirely feasible.
We want a say in the management of a resource that directly impacts OUR freedom and livelihoods. We have a problem with a foreign government, ANY foreign government including the US one, having exclusive control over ANY aspect of the internet.
We would much rather NOT build a competing system with all the difficulties that entail - but if the US does not eventually give up this control, we damn well WILL do exactly that. It's nobody's first choice - but it is an available one. We would just prefer something where we get a stake through OUR elected representatives in the current one that doesn't require balkanizing the technology.
The US government has NO right to control ANYTHING that affects non-Americans.
The key designs for it was conceived independently in Germany (Konrad Zuze) and Britain (Alan Turing). The first person in America to realize such a design was Von Neuman but he was more than ten years after Zuze and he wasn't an American.
CERN is in the US now ? Because quite a lot of "core technologies" were developed there - not least of which the internet's killer app, the world-wide-web. Are you seriously going to argue that control of the web should be vested in the government of Switzerland ?
Let's take your argument to it's logical conclusion. Gunpowder was invented in china so I guess the US will be handing over control of all it's fire-arms companies, guns and bullets to the Chinese government ?
Cars were invented in Europe - so I guess you'll be handing over the controlling interests in Ford and GM to the Germans.
Mind you - Germany also built the first modern computers (predating you guys by nearly a decade with the Zuse computers) so I guess you can keep the internet but control of the servers it runs on goes to them too.
The persians had the first real navy so I guess you'll be handing control of your naval forces over to Iran and Iraq. Mind you they also invented farming so your agriculture industry goes there too.
Basically - your argument is fucking idiotic and you would never consider applying it to anything else whatsoever. Every country gets to control it's own share of technologies that have become global resources. And the internet is DEFINITELY a global resource.
In case you were wondering - the name of who owns it is right there in the name of the technology. It's the INTERnet because it's INTERnational and so any control that we can't avoid existing over it MUST also be international. Applying nationalist sentiments to an international technology makes about as much sense as trying to cure paralysis by severing your own spine.
Actually - I think he was parodying the large number of idiots above him. Pretty good job too. Seems like Poe's law in action. Was it parody or ACTUAL insanity ?
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.c...
Yes, his comment may be a fallacy - but that doesn't mean it's not also true.
I say "may" because I'm not convinced that it IS even an ad hominem fallacy. The definition of pretty much every fallacy includes "without any other substantiating evidence" (appeal to emotion and appeal to tradition are notable exceptions) but most things are *only* fallacious if they stand by themselves, NOT when used as a part of a larger argument with strong evidence.
The evidence in this case is Cruz's entire career - which has been massively anti-freedom (and particularly anti-civil-liberties while his time as an AG includes one of the worst breaches of due process in the history of the United States) and pretty much always being on the stupid side of every issue. It is perfectly reasonable then to start assuming that he is more likely than not to be on the stupid side of THIS issue.
Saying it must be the case - that would be fallacious, inductive logic does not lead to absolute truths, but saying it is "probably" the case (as the OP did) - that is absolutely logical and a perfectly reasonable argument. Nobody is saying Cruz can never be right about anything because he is Cruz. We are simply applying the laws of inductive logic - in a thousand "experiments" Cruz has been found to be wrong 999 times, it is reasonable to think he is probably wrong this time as well.
The American right is constantly warning us of their imminent need to have a revolution against the US government for abandoning everything they hold dear... but you demand the REST of the world's 7-billion people trust that government not to censor us ?
Despite the fact that censoring YOU is prohibited by a constitution but censoring us is NOT. They may not have done so yet, but you have NO law that says they aren't ALLOWED to do so.
Sorry, we don't share your blind trust in your government - and having nominated the orangutan with the bad checks - we trust your government even less now.
You don't trust you OWN government, but you demand that WE must trust them ?
Fuck that shit.
There are 350 million odd people who agree with you... and 7 Billion people who consider the US no more trustworthy than North Korea.
Sorry, this is an international resource and the ONLY just outcome is for it to be internationally managed. the US is NOT exceptional, it is NOT special and it does NOT have a manifest destiny. Those are bullshit propaganda things made up by racists to justify slavery which somehow, miraculously are still a thing today.
There are freedom loving people the world over - and to claim you are PROTECTING anybody's freedom by wresting power over things that directly influence their lives in YOUR government they have no vote or say in - is literally the worst kind of double-think. There can be nothing more ANTI-freedom than the US controlling ANY global resource since the US government is NOT a global government and, indeed, the same people who tend to think America is so special ALSO tends to believe that the US government should exclusively concern itself with US citizens and never, ever care about the rights of others - indeed should murder, maim, censor and oppress all other people whenever doing so would benefit an American.
If you truly believe in freedom - start with it's most foundational principles. No government without the consent of the governed. That means the US government can have ZERO jurisdiction over ANYTHING that is NOT exclusively an American resource. They cannot govern ME or MY life since I don't have a vote with which to give or withdraw consent for that governance.
I never said "definitely". I said very unlikely. Lets say one smartphone is found. What would be seen ? A lump of sillicates, carbon molecules and a few rare earth metals. If one was found by a human a mere 200 years ago it would not be recognized as technology. No serious scientist would propose it for fear of being lumped in with pyramidologists. How long before our children could not be sure if it was technology or just a fluke geological formation ? 1000 years ?
We just had a headline over a sunken city near athens that is now being called "most likely a natural geological formation".
A few thousand years and the line between natural and manmade are already so blurred that archeologists and geologists both believe they are seeing something from their own field.
How long until what is now contemporary technology is so obsolete *we* would struggle to recognize it ? But you are assuming it would be recognizable to a species with an entirely different biological and cultural history ?
Sure we have fossils from half a billion years ago... but for every species we have a fossil off there were probably a trillion species we never knew about or imagined. Its not impossible we would leave a trace - just exceedingly unlikely and that likelihood skyrocketed in the last century . A dinosaur civilization comparable to us im the 19th century at the time they went extinct could easilly have left no trace for us to find. What would somebody discern about 20th century earth if they found a few random fossils ? An elephant tooth and a pig's shinbone. Two from one century would already be extraordinary since the average rate of fossilization is estimated at one individual organism (out of everything alive) every 10 million years (and many believe that figure is optimistic).
That's just it - millions aren't enough to guarantee anything. Most species never left any fossils.
This is a genuine case of absence of evidence decidedly not being evidence of absence. You should read some Jack Cohen books - he is, after all, an expert in the field you're claiming to know more about than him.
Except for being buried under a 60-mile layer of ash...
A hundred-million years is quite enough for several volcanic superplumes to occur. Just one of those entirely resurfaced the Russian Steppes once - an area rather bigger than North America. Simple random distribution means that, on a long enough timeline, everything gets altered a great deal.
The longer the timeline, the less the odds that something recognisable is found.
It doesn't MATTER if things are stable or not when they are likely to be buried beneath mountains, or at the bottom of what is now oceans. Not to mention your fundamental assumption is utterly unfounded. At the same time as the dinosaurs three other major animal kingdoms existed. Icthyosaurs, Mosasaurs and Pterosaurs - none of which lived on land. One was airborn and the other were both acquatic. In either case the issue of sewage would require entirely different solutions to anything we've done.
People seriously do not understand just how mysterious deep time really is. The simple truth is that we have no idea what the world was like when dinosaurs lived. We have NO idea. We have a lot of educated guesses, and for every theory at least two major competing theories that fit the tiny, tiny bits of evidence we have just as well - and no way to pick between them while KNOWING that all of them likely have nothing in common with what ACTUALLY happened since it's virtually inconceivable we could possibly have ever imagined the reality - and that's just about tiny, narrow little areas.
What was life like ? What was the world like ? We have basically no idea and we certainly cannot imagine it as we have absolute no context to imagine it. For most of the dinosaurs existence there was only one continent on earth... how did that affect climates ? How did it affect weather ? How did it affect the creatures living ? And how did they affect it and each other ?
Right now India is crashing into Eurasia raising up the Himalayas - where will it be in a hundred million years ? Will it smash it's remaining energy into a fell swoop that raises them faster than they can erode and lift them to new heights ? Or will it bounce elastically and head the other way and crash into Australia ? Or something we can't even imagine... but just picture that, and tell me you still think toilets would survive. Tiny shards of pottery may make it - but the odds of anything finding them is near zero even if they were looking and even if they did find it they would likely come up with a dozen other explanations because if they are anything like us the concept of any previous species having been intelligent will apparently been utterly unacceptable to their minds.
We have nothing approaching a real view.
And through all this - we know that actual fossilisation is an exceedingly rare event. So rare that we believe we have only ever found fossils for a tiny fraction of the species that ever existed because it's such a billion to one chance for anything to be fossilised that nearly every species would come and go without any fossil actually surviving. It's quite likely that there haven't been enough humans yet for a human fossil to survive us.
Just to give you an idea. Prior to 1998 we were aware of exactly four body plans in the entire animal kingdom. Just four - everything that ever existed was some variety of that. Then we realized that, in a fossil discovered way back in 1905 - was in fact a lot of creatures from long before the dinosaurs, and just in that one site we discovered 20 new body plans that nobody had ever known about before, that apparently left no fossils anywhere else (at least, none that we've found), Twenty entire branches of life for which a single mudslide provided all the evidence they ever even existed. Each of them as different from the others as we are from insects.
How many were NOT present when that mudslide made the Burgess shale ? How many entire KINGDOMS of animals have we never even imagined - yet had lived on this planet ? One single site - which nobody thought was significant for nearly a hundred years multiplied the number of animal kingdoms known to have existed by 5. How many more must the REAL number be ?
We can tell stories of evolution for that which lives, and that which we have enough fossils for. We can't be sure how accurate those stories are (but most paleontologists are fairly certain they are more likely than not to be way off).
Walkring with dinosaurs was a fairy tal
On a human timeframe sure it does not matter. On geological timescales... tiny differences add up to huge effects. Thats literally the whole point of chaos theory.
Platinum jewelry vs 100m years of volcanoes... my money is on the forces of geology over more time than the entire existence of mammals.
Were talking about the age of the himalayas here.
In a hundred milion years your limepit could be burried beneath a mountain the size of the Andez...
At that timeframe continental drift is a grand prix event. Continental plates colliding. Billions of tons of magma flowed, earthquakes, volcanoes and meteor strikes.
Do you know what a volcanic superplume is.. do you think anything manmade would be remotely distinguishable after one of those ?
All across the entire surface of this planet lies a layer of clay with a unique cadmium signature. That was our first piece of evidence that the K/T event was a meteor... one giant rock collision covered this entire planet in a layer of clay.
Most likely we only even know of about 1 millionth of the dinosaurs that existed. The rest left no shred. We know a few thousand species from a period of 350 million years where the earth had 4 major animal kingdoms. What if a species of mosasaur had reached the point if asking what the purpose of life is ? Mosasaurs were acquatic. Their cities would have layn on long resurfaced bottoms of oceans that are now the tops pf mountain ranges and covered by the sands of deserts.
Look what we did in a mere hundred thousand years... and imagime the possobilities that could lie burried in 4 billion years... and be a little more humble.