I think we're going in circles, even in violent agreement on most of what we're talking about. Whatever conflict we've got seems to have escalated pretty "meta" in order to find an actual direct disagreement.
I don't see where I've directly contradicted you in this discussion, or even criticized you, except in two points. 1: whether the article we're discussing (not the paper, which I haven't read due to inaccessibility you've just highlighted) includes theocrat propaganda; and 2: whether my aggressive style is worth using.
As to the article, I've already made my case as much as it deserves, mostly on inference and "pattern recognition", which is of course inconclusive. If you need more rigorous "proof", you won't be convinced. But I'm not really trying to convince you, I'm just saying what I believe and why - those for whom that's satisfactory can agree. Others can disagree, and perhaps it will even be worth arguing, depending on why they disagree. Merely reading the article wrong, as I've encountered in this discussion, is worth arguing about, when it reveals the bias in readers that lets theocrats publish junk pseudoscience propaganda unopposed.
Which attitude also underlies my aggressive style. I'm not leading anyone astray. When my BS detector goes off, I back up any alarms I ring with facts and logic. If I was wrong, I've got reason, and others can decide for themselves on that basis.
I'm not engaging in a scientific review of peers publishing facts in a research community. I'm helping to battle a propaganda war fought in the popular press. Where trolls and astroturf are the order of the day. That calls for aggressive confrontation. In turn, I depend on the large body of mostly dispassionate scientific research to guide my knowledge. But I'm not a scientist, nor are those who are abusing our society to get rid of scientists in favor of religious warlords. I will not fight like a scientist, but I will not leave the aggressive confrontation power to the theocrats, either.
If any of this has offended you, I regret that. You seem respectable and reasonable. I don't know where I did actually cause offense directly to you, although some of my criticisms of "others in this thread" have been pretty broad. I don't think I've been unfair to you where we've disagreed. Especially if you can tell me something specific, I'll glady accept that I might have gone too far, and apologize without qualifier. Until then I think we've just had a misunderstanding somewhere, amplified by my style. In any case I appreciate the respect you've maintained in your position, even while you think I might have treated you with less.
That kind of retardo talk is why Congressmembers get lobbyists to write the laws. Senators, like other elected politicians, are good at only one thing: public "fundraising" (collecting corporate bribes). That gets them re/elected. Sitting politicians get reelected about 98% of the time, because the machine behind them can rig crazy-shaped districts to elect them by party registration.
Senators have it a little harder, because they are elected by their entire state. So they get the longest terms of any allowed, during which they can hand out public money as bribes to people in their state to stay popular.
Stevens is one of the worst. He's a Senator from the largest area state, with one of the smallest populations, a thousand frozen miles away from the rest of the US, so his people are spread so thin they don't talk to each other about him so much. His state economy is fairly simple, mostly a few fishing megacorps and oil gigacorps, But even so, Stevens gets $1.87 for Alaska from the rest of the country for every $1 Alaska sends to Washington DC - the second-fattest return in the country. Which builds things like a bridge to nowhere for his buddies who keep him reelected.
Stevens has to split the gig with Alaska's other Senator, who was appointed by her father, the governor. Of course they're all Republicans. Their cozy little team does a fantastic job, as measured by that return on their Federal investment.
It's just cruel that they're for hire by lobbyists outside Alaska who are such good writers that they can carve up the Internet for telcos, with a retard like Stevens speaking their lines and pulling the strings.
The Russians at AllOfMP3 are claiming that they'll comply with Russian copyright law changes coming in September, which makes all these kinds of claims against them moot.
What are those legal changes? None of the articles discussing them that I've seen have mentioned the law or what it does.
The tribes I'm talking about are extremely xenophobic. One in particular surfaced in the mid-1990s, and was determined by anthropologists to be living in the same state as before European arrival, probably for thousands of years. Their condition is not random, or the result of mere distance. Their culture is extremely exclusive. I see no reason to believe in the "possibility" of their interbreeding just because our own culture makes that possible. Theirs does not, unless I learn otherwise.
Which is one reason why I doubt the article, at least. The writer's references to the family unity of Jews, Muslims and Christians are arbitrary, though supporting a "literal bible" agenda, along with their arbitrary timeframes. Even the basic logic of their article's lede, as I poked with my Lincoln example, is a setup for cheerleading fundamentalism. There is a large, well-funded theocrat movement at work in America today, priotitizing science in the media for subversion. So I prioritize counterattack. I don't want to see any bookburnings in my neighborhood.
The original paper would be interesting to read for such bias. I'd like to read some peer reviews which critique its statistical premise. But the article linked to neither.
None of the people disagreeing with me in this thread have, either. Most have just argued with me without logic, just defensively against the idea that theocrats have gotten so far in the media. Which of course they have - Bush's administration is now notorious for vetting evolution and Greenhouse science publication, a theocrat mask on a fascist face. So my counterattack is merited.
Not "all over". There are several tribes far west in the Amazon and the eastern slope of the Andes which had no contact, not even visual from a distance, with Europeans or even Brazilian citizens. And they don't mate outside their tribes. They're extremely conservative, one reason they're not only living the life of their ancestors a thousand or more years ago, but are alive at all, despite the Europeans and their descendants.
Your post is pure speculation without any knowledge of these people. Try learning something about them first, before acting like you know how they act.
I haven't said anything much about the original study, except that its statistical analysis seems facile compared to the actual DNA population analysis done elsewhere.
I did say, in effect, "I think the article about it makes a number of superfluous, misleading, and maybe even dangerous statements that should really be critized, for they could lead to a wrong interpretation", as you'd like to paraphrase. I'm just not that polite.
Einstein died in 1955. He watched his Germany collapse into fascism and a holocaust that would have sent him to an oven, but he lived for a decade during which science chased lots of superstition from every corner of the globe.
Einstein did not face the theocrats that are taking over every corner of America, Einstein's haven, as fast as they can. Einstein stayed in America starting in 1933, when the Nazis forced all German Jews from university jobs. After his experience, he would easily have recognized the theocracy movement in America, especially as it fronts for our fascism. I will not remain polite while our theocrats gear up, more cautiously then their failed, overzealous Nazi predecessors. You can do however you like, but I will do it my way. If my way somehow reminds you of a theocracy, I'm baffled, but that's your problem, not mine.
The article builds on the common-sensical premise you talk about to make thinly veiled creationist points about 5-7000 years ago, "the time of Christ" and other Creationist code. I'm not denying the sense of our common ancestry, though the study's purely statistical basis isn't that interesting compared to actual DNA studies now cheap and easy.
I'm just pointing out how Creationist pseudoscientists use anything "sciency" to score bible points. Which is unacceptable, as they try to replace real science with their fake stuff.
I don't find theocrats in everyone I meet. Suggesting that I do, when I'm just picking the theocrat propaganda out of a single article, doesn't make me receptive to your advice.
I already showed where that crappy article goes beyond crudeness into Creationist propaganda. That it mixes with legitimate scientific inference is just a measure of how little regard Creationists have for science, journalism, or anyone who reads their drivel.
You go ahead doing nothing but accentuating the positive. Most of the people buying the theocrat propaganda are much more motivated by fear than by knowledge. So I offer them some scary truth about the propaganda they're getting fed. Your job is that much easier with me out there doing the dirty work. And I like it.
I can't believe you're still spouting that BushCo CYA from 2002 after all we've seen. Try reading one of the articles to which I linked, Anonymous denial Coward.
It certainly is implied, as I've already pointed out. The article leads off with "Whoever it was probably lived a few thousand years ago [...] was the ancestor of every person now living on Earth". The lede is the journalistic way of stating the main point. It then goes on to suggest dates, like 5-7000 years ago, and "the time of Christ". It makes a dramatic statement "It means when Muslims, Jews or Christians claim to be children of Abraham, they are all bound to be right."
There's certainly some basic truth to the research. And the article mentions other dates and eras which conflict with the Creationist pseudoscience. But that's the only way that creationists get any time as "science": in sloppy reporting that tolerates, encourages the contradictions that science rejects but faith accepts.
I haven't proposed any new insights on inbreeding. And I've got no time to waste on any lost cause "local cleric" who doesn't already accept that biblical Creation has nothing to do with the literal history of our species. But I've got plenty of time to debunk Creationist propaganda among the people who read Slashdot. If that shocks you, ask god for guidance, or just pay attention to the facts.
For starters, "Abraham Lincoln's administration" is just an arbitrary era, to illustrate the point that any era contains all the ancestors of any later era's people. To drive home that the article is blathering about arbitrary dates as if they're significant. Arbitrary to science, anyway - the dates of 2000 years ago and 6-7000 years ago are not arbitrary to the religious people who pump out such fake science. The people who are attacking science in the classroom, in the government, in the media - anywhere it could oppose the theocracy they're hellbent on getting.
You're unaware of their theocrat agenda, charitably just through common naivete, that you even misread that article's propaganda. It most certainly does say "Whoever it was probably lived a few thousand years ago [...] this was the ancestor of every person now living on Earth", not just "an ancestor". It's sloppy and inconsistent, like the rest of theocrat fake pseudoscience. But it is delivering the "young Earth creationism" in just one media package among the thousands that will make it to the public this year.
You go on to insist on the statistical inference ballyhooed in the article, despite my counterexample from reality of isolated tribes which didn't get get any pregnant women by "explorers", as I mentioned, and as is documented. There is no cited evidence showing those people are covered by this statistical model, though the completely noncontroversial Jews/Palestinians are cited as cousins. There are surely other examples, but one is enough for someone interested in science, not creationist propaganda.
Catching these theocrats in their fake pseudoscience propaganda is not "paranoia". Defending their propaganda is denial. Maybe you're just seeing it for the first time, so it's kind of hard to believe how far they've already gone. But you've now got the chance to open your eyes, because they'll go all the way. Many civilizations have fallen when barbarians pulled ignorance over their people, usually in the name of religion - Rome, Islam, Egypt all fell into disrepair choosing religion over real knowledge. Thinking we're special, it can't happen to us, makes us even more like those who have fallen before us.
What's the difference between a "performance artist" and a "performer"? Is "performance artist" just an excuse for claiming a bad performer is just misundertood, because they're really an "artist"?
Every human on Earth can trace our ancestries to someone who lived as recently as the Abraham Lincoln administration. Unless they spent some generations on another planet, or were recently created by an upstart god who got funding for Creation 2.0.
Really, what an insipid take on human descent. The writers might find plenty of inspiration in thinking that every warring religious faction is made of mere cousins. But the real agenda here is to say that our "common ancestors" were Adam and Eve, cryptoreligious "science" that insists the world was created around 6-7000 years ago. Statistical oversimplifications claiming "mathematical certainty" are easy meat for half-bright reporters. But when they don't bother to explain how isolated populations like deep Amazonian tribes factor into the "probability model", it's clear they're looking for data to fit their foregone conclusion. People who first encountered Europeans in the past few dozen years, whose ancestors migrated from Asia probably 30,000 years ago, are the obvious distant relatives to explain, not Palestinians and Jews who have already been experimentally demonstrated.
We will now see Bush's media flacks spinning his bottomless hunger for spying on Americans by saying that "if we had gotten this program before 9/11/2001, we would have had what we needed to stop those terrorists".
Even though we of course had more than enough info and spying programs to catch and stop them. The FBI tried to stop the hijackers in flight school, but the FBI refused to act. One FBI whistleblower has been gagged for years because she's tried to tell too much about how badly broken is our counterterrorism system. Amidst mountains of intelligence, Bush has been unable to even find Bin Laden for longer than it took FDR and Truman to beat Germany and Japan in WWII.
We don't need more mountains of intelligence, especially spying on every American's every transaction. We need regime change to one that will actually protect us, the way we elected them and pay them to do. Every threat we've faced - terrorists, recession, hurricane, and smaller - has been bungled or worse by the Bush regime. Giving them more power is like giving the school bully a gun. They'll just pistol whip everyone to make stealing our lunch money that much more efficient.
Bush is "trying to protect us from mass murderers", when he responds to the Presidential Daily Briefing titled "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in US" with the words "All right, you've covered your ass, now" and went fishing on his Texas estate?
No, he's attacking us while leaving us undefended, while Bush worshippers like you cover his ass.
Like when you lie about FISA, the law that prohibits Bush from wiretapping any call including a US person without a court order. Which he did, which he continues to do, which he has publicly insisted he will do - all in violation of the law. The law, BTW, that was passed after Rumsfeld, Cheney and their cronies spied on us in their first attack, during the Nixon administration, then made stronger by Clinton in the 1990s, to cover physical searches as well as wiretaps.
I've been watching this gang since the early 1970s. I watched them wage covert war in Iran/Contra in the 1980s. And I've watched them move from the fringes of the government to a takeover of all the branches. And I've watched people like you hurl lies to cover their attacks on our country. But I don't watch silently, and I don't think it's a joke. Because it's not funny.
Nixon didn't get oral sex, though he did bungle the Mideast and our own oil companies into an "oil crisis" and global oil tyranny.
Carter didn't do much wrong in the Mideast other than shelter the Shah, covering for the CIA which promptly scored him Oliver North's scuttled desert helicopter rescue boondoggle, setting the stage for the 1980s Iran/Contra. Carter did negotiate the first Egypt/Israel peace in millennia. The 1970s were pretty good, as long as you weren't wearing polyester leisure suits like a Republican.
When we learn something outside that cycle, greed has a chance to motivate us to learn, create and obtain. That humans have done so much else outside negative cycle shows how much there is to learn, and how flexible we are.
I've had enough of this discussion. I'm learning nothing, and you're not apparently getting any benefit from the facts I'm giving you.
I've already talked about the economics of optical in consumer electronics, which hasn't made a dent, as you're still citing costs that directly contradicts.I'll leave you with some basic physics:
Electrons are accelerated by voltage in a wire. Their propagation speed is a function of the time they spend under an accelerating voltage. Higher voltages cost more power, longer times more delay.
Light travels at the speed of light, of course, even at low power. Which is 300Km:s, about 50% faster than even the fastest wire you mentioned.
These mistakes are not typos or spelling errors. They're brainos. There must be a whole taxonomy of them, matching the mind and brain structures that make them. All the way from pressing the wrong, adjacent key, up to wasting time on Slashdot.
Dick Cheney never went away. And Admiral John "Iran/Contra" Poindexter was pardoned by Bush Sr. When Bush Jr got the White House, the Iran/Contra "secret government" just got all their old parking spots back.
Of course, the scum floats atop the mud that elected it. 50M Americans who voted for them can't be written off as "a few bad apples". It's a bad orchard, poison fruits. To put it another way, the Bush administration is a turd blossom.
Slashdot Mirror
I think we're going in circles, even in violent agreement on most of what we're talking about. Whatever conflict we've got seems to have escalated pretty "meta" in order to find an actual direct disagreement.
I don't see where I've directly contradicted you in this discussion, or even criticized you, except in two points. 1: whether the article we're discussing (not the paper, which I haven't read due to inaccessibility you've just highlighted) includes theocrat propaganda; and 2: whether my aggressive style is worth using.
As to the article, I've already made my case as much as it deserves, mostly on inference and "pattern recognition", which is of course inconclusive. If you need more rigorous "proof", you won't be convinced. But I'm not really trying to convince you, I'm just saying what I believe and why - those for whom that's satisfactory can agree. Others can disagree, and perhaps it will even be worth arguing, depending on why they disagree. Merely reading the article wrong, as I've encountered in this discussion, is worth arguing about, when it reveals the bias in readers that lets theocrats publish junk pseudoscience propaganda unopposed.
Which attitude also underlies my aggressive style. I'm not leading anyone astray. When my BS detector goes off, I back up any alarms I ring with facts and logic. If I was wrong, I've got reason, and others can decide for themselves on that basis.
I'm not engaging in a scientific review of peers publishing facts in a research community. I'm helping to battle a propaganda war fought in the popular press. Where trolls and astroturf are the order of the day. That calls for aggressive confrontation. In turn, I depend on the large body of mostly dispassionate scientific research to guide my knowledge. But I'm not a scientist, nor are those who are abusing our society to get rid of scientists in favor of religious warlords. I will not fight like a scientist, but I will not leave the aggressive confrontation power to the theocrats, either.
If any of this has offended you, I regret that. You seem respectable and reasonable. I don't know where I did actually cause offense directly to you, although some of my criticisms of "others in this thread" have been pretty broad. I don't think I've been unfair to you where we've disagreed. Especially if you can tell me something specific, I'll glady accept that I might have gone too far, and apologize without qualifier. Until then I think we've just had a misunderstanding somewhere, amplified by my style. In any case I appreciate the respect you've maintained in your position, even while you think I might have treated you with less.
Give up your wallet so the muggers can't take it!
That kind of retardo talk is why Congressmembers get lobbyists to write the laws. Senators, like other elected politicians, are good at only one thing: public "fundraising" (collecting corporate bribes). That gets them re/elected. Sitting politicians get reelected about 98% of the time, because the machine behind them can rig crazy-shaped districts to elect them by party registration.
Senators have it a little harder, because they are elected by their entire state. So they get the longest terms of any allowed, during which they can hand out public money as bribes to people in their state to stay popular.
Stevens is one of the worst. He's a Senator from the largest area state, with one of the smallest populations, a thousand frozen miles away from the rest of the US, so his people are spread so thin they don't talk to each other about him so much. His state economy is fairly simple, mostly a few fishing megacorps and oil gigacorps, But even so, Stevens gets $1.87 for Alaska from the rest of the country for every $1 Alaska sends to Washington DC - the second-fattest return in the country. Which builds things like a bridge to nowhere for his buddies who keep him reelected.
Stevens has to split the gig with Alaska's other Senator, who was appointed by her father, the governor. Of course they're all Republicans. Their cozy little team does a fantastic job, as measured by that return on their Federal investment.
It's just cruel that they're for hire by lobbyists outside Alaska who are such good writers that they can carve up the Internet for telcos, with a retard like Stevens speaking their lines and pulling the strings.
The Russians at AllOfMP3 are claiming that they'll comply with Russian copyright law changes coming in September, which makes all these kinds of claims against them moot.
What are those legal changes? None of the articles discussing them that I've seen have mentioned the law or what it does.
The tribes I'm talking about are extremely xenophobic. One in particular surfaced in the mid-1990s, and was determined by anthropologists to be living in the same state as before European arrival, probably for thousands of years. Their condition is not random, or the result of mere distance. Their culture is extremely exclusive. I see no reason to believe in the "possibility" of their interbreeding just because our own culture makes that possible. Theirs does not, unless I learn otherwise.
Which is one reason why I doubt the article, at least. The writer's references to the family unity of Jews, Muslims and Christians are arbitrary, though supporting a "literal bible" agenda, along with their arbitrary timeframes. Even the basic logic of their article's lede, as I poked with my Lincoln example, is a setup for cheerleading fundamentalism. There is a large, well-funded theocrat movement at work in America today, priotitizing science in the media for subversion. So I prioritize counterattack. I don't want to see any bookburnings in my neighborhood.
The original paper would be interesting to read for such bias. I'd like to read some peer reviews which critique its statistical premise. But the article linked to neither.
None of the people disagreeing with me in this thread have, either. Most have just argued with me without logic, just defensively against the idea that theocrats have gotten so far in the media. Which of course they have - Bush's administration is now notorious for vetting evolution and Greenhouse science publication, a theocrat mask on a fascist face. So my counterattack is merited.
Not "all over". There are several tribes far west in the Amazon and the eastern slope of the Andes which had no contact, not even visual from a distance, with Europeans or even Brazilian citizens. And they don't mate outside their tribes. They're extremely conservative, one reason they're not only living the life of their ancestors a thousand or more years ago, but are alive at all, despite the Europeans and their descendants.
Your post is pure speculation without any knowledge of these people. Try learning something about them first, before acting like you know how they act.
I haven't said anything much about the original study, except that its statistical analysis seems facile compared to the actual DNA population analysis done elsewhere.
I did say, in effect, "I think the article about it makes a number of superfluous, misleading, and maybe even dangerous statements that should really be critized, for they could lead to a wrong interpretation", as you'd like to paraphrase. I'm just not that polite.
Einstein died in 1955. He watched his Germany collapse into fascism and a holocaust that would have sent him to an oven, but he lived for a decade during which science chased lots of superstition from every corner of the globe.
Einstein did not face the theocrats that are taking over every corner of America, Einstein's haven, as fast as they can. Einstein stayed in America starting in 1933, when the Nazis forced all German Jews from university jobs. After his experience, he would easily have recognized the theocracy movement in America, especially as it fronts for our fascism. I will not remain polite while our theocrats gear up, more cautiously then their failed, overzealous Nazi predecessors. You can do however you like, but I will do it my way. If my way somehow reminds you of a theocracy, I'm baffled, but that's your problem, not mine.
The article builds on the common-sensical premise you talk about to make thinly veiled creationist points about 5-7000 years ago, "the time of Christ" and other Creationist code. I'm not denying the sense of our common ancestry, though the study's purely statistical basis isn't that interesting compared to actual DNA studies now cheap and easy.
I'm just pointing out how Creationist pseudoscientists use anything "sciency" to score bible points. Which is unacceptable, as they try to replace real science with their fake stuff.
I don't find theocrats in everyone I meet. Suggesting that I do, when I'm just picking the theocrat propaganda out of a single article, doesn't make me receptive to your advice.
I already showed where that crappy article goes beyond crudeness into Creationist propaganda. That it mixes with legitimate scientific inference is just a measure of how little regard Creationists have for science, journalism, or anyone who reads their drivel.
You go ahead doing nothing but accentuating the positive. Most of the people buying the theocrat propaganda are much more motivated by fear than by knowledge. So I offer them some scary truth about the propaganda they're getting fed. Your job is that much easier with me out there doing the dirty work. And I like it.
You are certainly a retard, Anonymous retard Coward, unable to distinguish the vast distance between "every" and "none".
And probably a fascist, too. So many Anonymous fascist retard Cowards, impossible to tell the difference among you.
Bullshit, Anonymous Bushworshipper Coward.
I can't believe you're still spouting that BushCo CYA from 2002 after all we've seen. Try reading one of the articles to which I linked, Anonymous denial Coward.
Tell you what. I'll reread the article (3rd time today), if you'll read the Dominionism article to which I already linked.
It certainly is implied, as I've already pointed out. The article leads off with "Whoever it was probably lived a few thousand years ago [...] was the ancestor of every person now living on Earth". The lede is the journalistic way of stating the main point. It then goes on to suggest dates, like 5-7000 years ago, and "the time of Christ". It makes a dramatic statement "It means when Muslims, Jews or Christians claim to be children of Abraham, they are all bound to be right."
There's certainly some basic truth to the research. And the article mentions other dates and eras which conflict with the Creationist pseudoscience. But that's the only way that creationists get any time as "science": in sloppy reporting that tolerates, encourages the contradictions that science rejects but faith accepts.
I haven't proposed any new insights on inbreeding. And I've got no time to waste on any lost cause "local cleric" who doesn't already accept that biblical Creation has nothing to do with the literal history of our species. But I've got plenty of time to debunk Creationist propaganda among the people who read Slashdot. If that shocks you, ask god for guidance, or just pay attention to the facts.
No, you just don't get it. Here's some more help.
For starters, "Abraham Lincoln's administration" is just an arbitrary era, to illustrate the point that any era contains all the ancestors of any later era's people. To drive home that the article is blathering about arbitrary dates as if they're significant. Arbitrary to science, anyway - the dates of 2000 years ago and 6-7000 years ago are not arbitrary to the religious people who pump out such fake science. The people who are attacking science in the classroom, in the government, in the media - anywhere it could oppose the theocracy they're hellbent on getting.
You're unaware of their theocrat agenda, charitably just through common naivete, that you even misread that article's propaganda. It most certainly does say "Whoever it was probably lived a few thousand years ago [...] this was the ancestor of every person now living on Earth", not just "an ancestor". It's sloppy and inconsistent, like the rest of theocrat fake pseudoscience. But it is delivering the "young Earth creationism" in just one media package among the thousands that will make it to the public this year.
You go on to insist on the statistical inference ballyhooed in the article, despite my counterexample from reality of isolated tribes which didn't get get any pregnant women by "explorers", as I mentioned, and as is documented. There is no cited evidence showing those people are covered by this statistical model, though the completely noncontroversial Jews/Palestinians are cited as cousins. There are surely other examples, but one is enough for someone interested in science, not creationist propaganda.
Catching these theocrats in their fake pseudoscience propaganda is not "paranoia". Defending their propaganda is denial. Maybe you're just seeing it for the first time, so it's kind of hard to believe how far they've already gone. But you've now got the chance to open your eyes, because they'll go all the way. Many civilizations have fallen when barbarians pulled ignorance over their people, usually in the name of religion - Rome, Islam, Egypt all fell into disrepair choosing religion over real knowledge. Thinking we're special, it can't happen to us, makes us even more like those who have fallen before us.
What's the difference between a "performance artist" and a "performer"? Is "performance artist" just an excuse for claiming a bad performer is just misundertood, because they're really an "artist"?
Every human on Earth can trace our ancestries to someone who lived as recently as the Abraham Lincoln administration. Unless they spent some generations on another planet, or were recently created by an upstart god who got funding for Creation 2.0.
Really, what an insipid take on human descent. The writers might find plenty of inspiration in thinking that every warring religious faction is made of mere cousins. But the real agenda here is to say that our "common ancestors" were Adam and Eve, cryptoreligious "science" that insists the world was created around 6-7000 years ago. Statistical oversimplifications claiming "mathematical certainty" are easy meat for half-bright reporters. But when they don't bother to explain how isolated populations like deep Amazonian tribes factor into the "probability model", it's clear they're looking for data to fit their foregone conclusion. People who first encountered Europeans in the past few dozen years, whose ancestors migrated from Asia probably 30,000 years ago, are the obvious distant relatives to explain, not Palestinians and Jews who have already been experimentally demonstrated.
We will now see Bush's media flacks spinning his bottomless hunger for spying on Americans by saying that "if we had gotten this program before 9/11/2001, we would have had what we needed to stop those terrorists".
Even though we of course had more than enough info and spying programs to catch and stop them. The FBI tried to stop the hijackers in flight school, but the FBI refused to act. One FBI whistleblower has been gagged for years because she's tried to tell too much about how badly broken is our counterterrorism system. Amidst mountains of intelligence, Bush has been unable to even find Bin Laden for longer than it took FDR and Truman to beat Germany and Japan in WWII.
We don't need more mountains of intelligence, especially spying on every American's every transaction. We need regime change to one that will actually protect us, the way we elected them and pay them to do. Every threat we've faced - terrorists, recession, hurricane, and smaller - has been bungled or worse by the Bush regime. Giving them more power is like giving the school bully a gun. They'll just pistol whip everyone to make stealing our lunch money that much more efficient.
Bush is "trying to protect us from mass murderers", when he responds to the Presidential Daily Briefing titled "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in US" with the words "All right, you've covered your ass, now" and went fishing on his Texas estate?
No, he's attacking us while leaving us undefended, while Bush worshippers like you cover his ass.
Like when you lie about FISA, the law that prohibits Bush from wiretapping any call including a US person without a court order. Which he did, which he continues to do, which he has publicly insisted he will do - all in violation of the law. The law, BTW, that was passed after Rumsfeld, Cheney and their cronies spied on us in their first attack, during the Nixon administration, then made stronger by Clinton in the 1990s, to cover physical searches as well as wiretaps.
I've been watching this gang since the early 1970s. I watched them wage covert war in Iran/Contra in the 1980s. And I've watched them move from the fringes of the government to a takeover of all the branches. And I've watched people like you hurl lies to cover their attacks on our country. But I don't watch silently, and I don't think it's a joke. Because it's not funny.
"Old news" that Bush is spying on us, while he lies about it, and continues to do it, is still NEWS. Important news. Stuff that matters.
This thread is filled with my refutations of your lies. And your robotic insistence on repeating them.
Lying fascist, you cannot fool me with your delusions. Nor waste any more of my time with your lies.
Nixon didn't get oral sex, though he did bungle the Mideast and our own oil companies into an "oil crisis" and global oil tyranny.
Carter didn't do much wrong in the Mideast other than shelter the Shah, covering for the CIA which promptly scored him Oliver North's scuttled desert helicopter rescue boondoggle, setting the stage for the 1980s Iran/Contra. Carter did negotiate the first Egypt/Israel peace in millennia. The 1970s were pretty good, as long as you weren't wearing polyester leisure suits like a Republican.
Anyone who's disappointed to learn that "ignorance makes fear" has hallucinatory expectations.
The human condition is underwritten by the negative cycle:
Ignorance -> Fear -> Anger -> Violence -> Destruction -> Nothingness -> Ignorance
When we learn something outside that cycle, greed has a chance to motivate us to learn, create and obtain. That humans have done so much else outside negative cycle shows how much there is to learn, and how flexible we are.
I've had enough of this discussion. I'm learning nothing, and you're not apparently getting any benefit from the facts I'm giving you.
I've already talked about the economics of optical in consumer electronics, which hasn't made a dent, as you're still citing costs that directly contradicts.I'll leave you with some basic physics:
Electrons are accelerated by voltage in a wire. Their propagation speed is a function of the time they spend under an accelerating voltage. Higher voltages cost more power, longer times more delay.
Light travels at the speed of light, of course, even at low power. Which is 300Km:s, about 50% faster than even the fastest wire you mentioned.
These mistakes are not typos or spelling errors. They're brainos. There must be a whole taxonomy of them, matching the mind and brain structures that make them. All the way from pressing the wrong, adjacent key, up to wasting time on Slashdot.
Dick Cheney never went away. And Admiral John "Iran/Contra" Poindexter was pardoned by Bush Sr. When Bush Jr got the White House, the Iran/Contra "secret government" just got all their old parking spots back.
Of course, the scum floats atop the mud that elected it. 50M Americans who voted for them can't be written off as "a few bad apples". It's a bad orchard, poison fruits. To put it another way, the Bush administration is a turd blossom.