One thing that does seem curiously absent is how the NX bit helps you with DMA transfers. Ok, granted, you'd need to trick hardware other than the cpu into overwriting it, but given how much buggy hardware *cough* wireless broadcom chips for example *cough* there is in this imperfect world that isn't going to take all that long.
So you'd need to forbid virtual machines from accessing any non-emulated hardware* (which I'd say is going to cost you in performance) and even then any mistake in the hypervisor's drivers for the real hardware will be fatal (the latest linux release needed about 6.3 megabytes to describe the driver changes done)
* if you allow direct access to any device capable of DMA transfers, that will enable the VM to overwrite any memory it chooses
Besides it occurs to me that if we're able to see 2 things that are moving at a relative speed > c (actually larger than c, not just appearing larger than c) you have a transitive paradox.
Objects A and B, moving at superluminal speeds relative to eachther, and E, earth, in the middle, moving at E was perfectly possible, it may have required a great deal of energy, but it still was within the realm of possibility.
Likewise the move from E -> B was perfectly allowed by relativity theory, for the same reasons.
Yet relativity theory also says that there can never be ANY path from A->B, as they're moving at superluminal speeds. Not even when making a pitstop at E.
That just brings the question "who's inflating the ballooon ?"
Does it?
Yes it does. And I don't mean to say it means Jesus is doing it.
That's like saying a childs growth begs the question of who's adding cells.
Exactly. Kind of goes against your argument, doesn't it ?
To which any scientist will simply say, "We don't know... yet. But we're working on it;)"
But isn't any theory that explains these things bound to contradict relativity ? The very most optimal "we were right" argument would probably be re-including the cosmological constant, but I doubt that constant could cover this FTL expansion we seem to observe.
And it would STILL violate relativity theory, for as the ants would measure eachother's speed, their measurements could exceed c, something we're presumably not seeing.
There's nothing about it that violates relativity! The idea that nothing can move faster than C is a law of this universe, but it applies only to things contained within this universe, not necessarily the universe itself.
How can anything that interacts with the universe somehow be exempt from it's rules ? Whatever "substance" the universe is, it seems to me that if it bends due to gravity, it obviously has nonzero weight. If it has nonzero weight, it should be limited to c. Dropping either seems to me equivalent to throwing out relativity theory...
Empty space contains no discernible information.
No ? At the very least it has a size, both in space and time. Clearly it's shape both exists and changes (if only a little bit).
Why does one always find the argument "X must spend more on open source software" ? It's ridiculous, especially when, as usual, right next to "open source software is free !" ?
That just brings the question "who's inflating the ballooon ?"
And it would STILL violate relativity theory, for as the ants would measure eachother's speed, their measurements could exceed c, something we're presumably not seeing.
What distance would an object have to be to get a "1.4" redshift (what is the unit used ?) ?
Actually the copyright on any code written "during work time" (or otherwise understood to be part of a job, be careful with that), is not the coder's to licence as he pleases, so it does not even matter what is in the employment contract. The code will be considered a "work for hire" (google that exact term for more information : it is the term used in copyright law, and is legal jargon)
His employer owns all rights to the code, except for 2 things : 1) the employer cannot deny the coder actually wrote that code (up-front attribution is not required, on-demand confirmation is required, e.g. "I want to hire person X, did he actually do the work in his CV on project Y ?" must be answered truthfully) 2) the coder gets to show, demonstrate, explain the functionality of the code to anyone he pleases*, ** (and -but be more careful- the coder is free to distribute extracts out of these materials for educational purposes)
* which can include limited distribution, e.g. in a job interview conducted over mail, however it must be clearly understood to not be used for anything other than portfolio work
** this explain bit can be used to get the code into the GPL program legally. The essential point is that the coder gets the work in, with his only involvement being explaining what it does to someone else, WITHOUT exchanging any of the protected work. In response to specific questions you can then (afterwards) use things like pseudocode. The coder cannot legally do this himself, but there's no law against him guiding -no matter how closely- another to do it. Given legal precedent, it would be very wise not to touch the computer of the guy doing the commit for any reason. If possible, document the exchanges made (do them over email ?, note down somewhere (in your gmail box for example) that you talked over the phone and what you talked about, or provide small "meeting reports", again mailed to yourself, that'd be a great help to any lawyer if it ever becomes a legal case)
Distribution, creation of derivative works (a second implementation of it by the same coder of the same thing would most likely be considered a derivative work, especially if parts of the code would turn out to match perfectly), and/or use in any manner other than described above is a violation of copyright law (and most likely also a serious violation of your employment contract)
And, frankly, don't tell your boss you're doing this. There's no legal necessity here, just common sense. Oh nothing in this post is legal advice for any case at all, it is merely a small summary of part of copyright law for informational purposes. It might be wrong, not applicable in your state,... so use at your own risk. Contact a lawyer for legal advice.
One thing I do not quite understand is that given the fact that we are in the universe, and we can see 9.6 billion lightyears in one direction, yet we can also see several billion lightyears in the other direction.
This seems to me a direct contradiction with either the big bang theory or relativity. You see those objects are more than 13.7 billion lightyears apart (and let's not forget that that cluster was 9.6 billion lightyears away 9.6 billion years ago). WTF ? Seems to me that today, the universe must be somewhere near 30 billion lightyears in diameter to give us the images we're seeing.
So... how did they get so far apart ? Is the big bang theory wrong ? Or are these galaxies simply flying faster than light (relative to one another) ? Or is the universe in fact a lot bigger/older/... than we think ?
Nope. There are 2000+ magical solutions being tested in labs today. That one is just an extremely well tested approach. It's also one that people forget - why re-solve the hydrogen storage problem when gasoline is a solution? The magical solution is human creativity and ingenuity - run out of that, we're dead.
But an apt description of liberal thought (including all the generally left-of-center environmentalism) would be that we can legislate into existence, using a strong central state, a way to have a completely fair, completely steady-state existence.
From welfare, over pensions, to environmental protection, to healthcare, everything about liberal policies is dependant on the assumption that we can do completely without human ingenuity.
The more left you go on the political spectrum, the more extreme measures are required to kill that ingenuity :
On the extreme right it starts with absolute minimal tax for common defense and basic infrastructure, to the center where it mostly justifies the pre-Bush federal government, to the "moderate" left who wish to legislate all health threats out of existence (viruses, amongst others, do seem less than impressed though), to the extreme left who wish to keep massacring until human ingenuity IS killed out of existence.
The totalitarianism, followed by total destruction is not the purpose of leftist thought, it's just the ("so far" shown inevitable) result.
This sort of thing always works the same way. Something works well, really well (considering just how many things it's connecting), because of a lack of government control.
So they invite a problem, something that everyone knows isn't a problem at all, but the only solution is total submission to government control.
Democrats will, obviously, not stop this. Heck, I'd be amazed if republicans would stop it, but at least they'd be somewhat more restrained.
Why don't we let congress fix it ? We'll be back to running RIP on the internet backbone before anyone can say "it doesn't scale".
BGP works, and all secure origin (never mind secure path) bgp announcements require and effect a total government takeover. It basically brings internet routing under government control, and the government (ICANN) key can take any IP offline, through revoking it's authorization, without warning and without recourse.
About the only thing that could remain operational without government fiat would be p2p networks (although thepiratebay would be screwed).
Let's hope there aren't too many democrats here, otherwise I probably shouldn't have said that.
How about socialists prove socialism is better... seems simple enough.
H264 is far away from the theoretically best compression. So we just need one socialist to prove that they can do more, to make something that beats H264, and give it away for free.
The only way this could be impossible is if we all accept that socialism is inferior, or that it at least can never be as efficient as capitalism. You know, theora actually got somewhat close, and failed (or so it seems). Any other course of action, like the proposed legislation seems like an open insult. "Let's just steal it, since we can't hope to ever approach anything of that quality".
Actually roundup & gene therapy has probably delayed natural adaptation to herbicides and pesticides.
The whole problem roundup + gene splicing (the gene was not original) was supposed to solve (and did solve) was natural resistance. Now we see the first signs that it probably won't solve this problem forever...
In terms of sustainability, using the only metric that really matters (amount of sunlight over land per capita), the US is 3 times more sustainable than Cuba, which is about as sustainable as Europe (ie. Cuba and Europe need to kill at least half their population if they're to survive on their own, while the US could increase it's population by another 50% before problems start occuring).
The additional snag is that 2.1 hectares per person is only a viable number assuming industrial agriculture. Traditional agriculture, or "bio" products, or "sustainable farming" need between 10 times and 100 times that. Assuming 10 times, that means that Europe and Cuba need to kill (or starve) just slightly over 95% of their populations and the US would need to kill (or starve) a little under 85% of the US population.
So "sustainable agriculture" ? That ship has sailed, and is long gone over the horizon. I wonder how "greenies" think about this. Is it acceptable to kill 90% of all humans alive so that the remainder could be slightly healther (live 5 years longer) ? If one is to believe actions, clearly greenies believe this. Of course, in reality, I doubt they've even thought about it.
On the other hand, Japan has survived now for about 60 years with less than 0.1 ha/capita, and is now approaching 0.04 ha/capita. Whatever the catches in that, it's possible.
And there's always the technological option. The best plants are less than 2% efficient in collecting energy. Storing that energy is about 8% efficient (energy in ATP -> energy in starch). Eating those plants directly is less than 0.2% efficient. Eating plants gives human bodies about 2 millionth of the original solar power that went into producing what they ate. If we were to find a way to convert sunlight directly into sugar (or starch, or... I'm in favor of starch, that would, after all, mean free beer) with an efficiency of 10%, 0.2 ha/capita should be easily attainable. If we can get 50% efficient at that, we could feed over 90000 trillion people.
In addition, a sunlight -> oil process would only need to be 0.0001% efficient to match current oil output. If you could make that 10%, we could send every human alive today to the moon on holiday for a weekend every month.
But your concern for me is unwarranted : I have a master's degree in exact sciences, and one day I'll have a doctorate I'm pretty confident I make more money than you I'm also married and have kids.
If you had any real education, you'd know the amount of respect "political philosophy" gets from exact sciences. I would refuse to wipe my ass with a political science paper, as it would not get any cleaner at all.
So I'm doing quite fine. Since your whole argument depends on the "appeal to authority" fallacy, with the added idiocy that you appeal to yourself as an authority, as if that will convince anyone. So in addition it's circular thinking : we're to believe you're right because your opinion matches... your own opinion.
I'm thinking... someone making mistakes like that... not a graduate in any science worth mentioning. Doesn't being underqualified make people worthless according to you ?
And your viewpoint of "everyone should just accept my rules with or without world government, or I'm going to cry" is really very cute. Of course I don't agree with it, nor do the other 5.99 billion humans on this earth. We'd tell you to go fuck yourself, but you're not quite worth the effort.
All that "should be", according to your eminence the grand fart yourself, is worth less than a bag full of horseshit, without, obviously, the bag.
By the way : judging someone "less worthy" due to either political differences, or education differences, or worldview... doesn't that make you a racist ?
I ask, because all those agreements were written before the internet even existed, so if you're going to complain that your $ubercheap internet account does not give you unlimited kiddie porn downloading rights, you'll find me less than understanding.
And incidentally, where does the 200 billion figure come from ?
Because, see, I was discussing the legal defensibility, in front of a deliberative body like the UN or an international court, of satellite weaponry. I didn't say anything about whether anybody would ever abrogate the treaty. So your whole post is totally irrelevant, to mine.
I was making the point that law without enforcer is worthless, which obviously does matter to your point.
And the only way to enforce laws on all possible fighting parties... well is to have a truly global, VERY well organized and capable police force, which is powerfull enough to take on everyone everywhere. It should be able to win from the US military in New York, and it should be able to win, without warning, from any warring tribe in Kalabasoraswaskishi (in Rwanda). It needs deployed forces everywhere.
In the absence of such a force, "legal defensibility" is as likely to stop any actor that considers itself sovereign as it is likely to stop a bullet.
About your other remarks : kindly go fuck yourself.
Simple question : do you need the UN's permission to start a war ?
No.
You just need to tell the UN before the first shot is fired.
For sure, UN is not a deterrent for foreign attacks. But putting the UN aside and behaving like peace doesn't matter is way more than stupid, it's psychopathic.
Peace matters, but it is the decision of the strongest military force whether there is peace or not.
Iraq was NOT at peace under Saddam. That much must be clear to even such a deluded idiot as yourself.
We can only have peace if the strong defend the weak. Which means attacking. Deal with it. I stand with my previous point:
So seriously : counting on UN treaties to defend you is like counting on Hezbollah to defend your family when they're firing rockets from your daughter's kindergarten. It's not merely "stupid" it's somewhere between negligence and euthanasia.
The same goes for any other law. You don't have the "right" to peace. You MIGHT (MIGHT) succeed in conquering it, and you MIGHT be so lucky that someone else conquers it for you.
But if there is even a single state in the world that would attack if there were no consequences, peace has to be conquered.
I also wonder why idiots like you can't simply accept evolution theory. Either you fight (which doesn't necessarily mean war, but DOES mean you are prepared to go to war if necessary), or you die. Don't you socialist idiots prefer that to "Jesus loves us all" ?
And as we all know everyone holds itself to UN treaties ?
Oh wait... no-one does ? The US pretends somewhat, even fixes the most obvious fuckups, everyone else just openly violates every UN treaty regularly (just check just how much co2 the middle eastern oil-producing nations send into the air to give one example. Nobody's ever given so much as a peep, when on a per-capita basis these nations top the top-10 by a decent factor and on a total they still manage to get into the top5 despite having only a few dozen million people at most. Besides how fair is it to count oil-co2 produced in America as American ? The only ones to profit off it are in the middle east) ?
So seriously : counting on UN treaties to defend you is like counting on Hezbollah to defend your family when they're firing rockets from your daughter's kindergarten. It's not merely "stupid" it's somewhere between negligence and euthanasia.
Slashdot Mirror
One thing that does seem curiously absent is how the NX bit helps you with DMA transfers. Ok, granted, you'd need to trick hardware other than the cpu into overwriting it, but given how much buggy hardware *cough* wireless broadcom chips for example *cough* there is in this imperfect world that isn't going to take all that long.
So you'd need to forbid virtual machines from accessing any non-emulated hardware* (which I'd say is going to cost you in performance) and even then any mistake in the hypervisor's drivers for the real hardware will be fatal (the latest linux release needed about 6.3 megabytes to describe the driver changes done)
* if you allow direct access to any device capable of DMA transfers, that will enable the VM to overwrite any memory it chooses
Besides it occurs to me that if we're able to see 2 things that are moving at a relative speed > c (actually larger than c, not just appearing larger than c) you have a transitive paradox.
Objects A and B, moving at superluminal speeds relative to eachther, and E, earth, in the middle, moving at E was perfectly possible, it may have required a great deal of energy, but it still was within the realm of possibility.
Likewise the move from E -> B was perfectly allowed by relativity theory, for the same reasons.
Yet relativity theory also says that there can never be ANY path from A->B, as they're moving at superluminal speeds. Not even when making a pitstop at E.
So what just happened ?
That just brings the question "who's inflating the ballooon ?"
Does it?
Yes it does. And I don't mean to say it means Jesus is doing it.
That's like saying a childs growth begs the question of who's adding cells.
Exactly. Kind of goes against your argument, doesn't it ?
To which any scientist will simply say, "We don't know... yet. But we're working on it ;)"
But isn't any theory that explains these things bound to contradict relativity ? The very most optimal "we were right" argument would probably be re-including the cosmological constant, but I doubt that constant could cover this FTL expansion
we seem to observe.
And it would STILL violate relativity theory, for as the ants would measure eachother's speed, their measurements could exceed c, something we're presumably not seeing.
There's nothing about it that violates relativity! The idea that nothing can move faster than C is a law of this universe, but it applies only to things contained within this universe, not necessarily the universe itself.
How can anything that interacts with the universe somehow be exempt from it's rules ? Whatever "substance" the universe is, it seems to me that if it bends due to gravity, it obviously has nonzero weight. If it has nonzero weight, it should be limited to c. Dropping either seems to me equivalent to throwing out relativity theory ...
Empty space contains no discernible information.
No ? At the very least it has a size, both in space and time. Clearly it's shape both exists and changes (if only a little bit).
Why does one always find the argument "X must spend more on open source software" ? It's ridiculous, especially when, as usual, right next to "open source software is free !" ?
That just brings the question "who's inflating the ballooon ?"
And it would STILL violate relativity theory, for as the ants would measure eachother's speed, their measurements could exceed c, something we're presumably not seeing.
What distance would an object have to be to get a "1.4" redshift (what is the unit used ?) ?
Actually the copyright on any code written "during work time" (or otherwise understood to be part of a job, be careful with that), is not the coder's to licence as he pleases, so it does not even matter what is in the employment contract. The code will be considered a "work for hire" (google that exact term for more information : it is the term used in copyright law, and is legal jargon)
His employer owns all rights to the code, except for 2 things :
1) the employer cannot deny the coder actually wrote that code (up-front attribution is not required, on-demand confirmation is required, e.g. "I want to hire person X, did he actually do the work in his CV on project Y ?" must be answered truthfully)
2) the coder gets to show, demonstrate, explain the functionality of the code to anyone he pleases*, **
(and -but be more careful- the coder is free to distribute extracts out of these materials for educational purposes)
* which can include limited distribution, e.g. in a job interview conducted over mail, however it must be clearly understood to not be used for anything other than portfolio work
** this explain bit can be used to get the code into the GPL program legally. The essential point is that the coder gets the work in, with his only involvement being explaining what it does to someone else, WITHOUT exchanging any of the protected work. In response to specific questions you can then (afterwards) use things like pseudocode. The coder cannot legally do this himself, but there's no law against him guiding -no matter how closely- another to do it. Given legal precedent, it would be very wise not to touch the computer of the guy doing the commit for any reason. If possible, document the exchanges made (do them over email ?, note down somewhere (in your gmail box for example) that you talked over the phone and what you talked about, or provide small "meeting reports", again mailed to yourself, that'd be a great help to any lawyer if it ever becomes a legal case)
Distribution, creation of derivative works (a second implementation of it by the same coder of the same thing would most likely be considered a derivative work, especially if parts of the code would turn out to match perfectly), and/or use in any manner other than described above is a violation of copyright law (and most likely also a serious violation of your employment contract)
And, frankly, don't tell your boss you're doing this. There's no legal necessity here, just common sense. Oh nothing in this post is legal advice for any case at all, it is merely a small summary of part of copyright law for informational purposes. It might be wrong, not applicable in your state, ... so use at your own risk. Contact a lawyer for legal advice.
One thing I do not quite understand is that given the fact that we are in the universe, and we can see 9.6 billion lightyears in one direction, yet we can also see several billion lightyears in the other direction.
This seems to me a direct contradiction with either the big bang theory or relativity. You see those objects are more than 13.7 billion lightyears apart (and let's not forget that that cluster was 9.6 billion lightyears away 9.6 billion years ago). WTF ? Seems to me that today, the universe must be somewhere near 30 billion lightyears in diameter to give us the images we're seeing.
So ... how did they get so far apart ? Is the big bang theory wrong ? Or are these galaxies simply flying faster than light (relative to one another) ? Or is the universe in fact a lot bigger/older/... than we think ?
Nope. There are 2000+ magical solutions being tested in labs today. That one is just an extremely well tested approach. It's also one that people forget - why re-solve the hydrogen storage problem when gasoline is a solution? The magical solution is human creativity and ingenuity - run out of that, we're dead.
But an apt description of liberal thought (including all the generally left-of-center environmentalism) would be that we can legislate into existence, using a strong central state, a way to have a completely fair, completely steady-state existence.
From welfare, over pensions, to environmental protection, to healthcare, everything about liberal policies is dependant on the assumption that we can do completely without human ingenuity.
The more left you go on the political spectrum, the more extreme measures are required to kill that ingenuity :
On the extreme right it starts with absolute minimal tax for common defense and basic infrastructure, to the center where it mostly justifies the pre-Bush federal government, to the "moderate" left who wish to legislate all health threats out of existence (viruses, amongst others, do seem less than impressed though), to the extreme left who wish to keep massacring until human ingenuity IS killed out of existence.
The totalitarianism, followed by total destruction is not the purpose of leftist thought, it's just the ("so far" shown inevitable) result.
This sort of thing always works the same way. Something works well, really well (considering just how many things it's connecting), because of a lack of government control.
So they invite a problem, something that everyone knows isn't a problem at all, but the only solution is total submission to government control.
Democrats will, obviously, not stop this. Heck, I'd be amazed if republicans would stop it, but at least they'd be somewhat more restrained.
Why don't we let congress fix it ? We'll be back to running RIP on the internet backbone before anyone can say "it doesn't scale".
BGP works, and all secure origin (never mind secure path) bgp announcements require and effect a total government takeover. It basically brings internet routing under government control, and the government (ICANN) key can take any IP offline, through revoking it's authorization, without warning and without recourse.
About the only thing that could remain operational without government fiat would be p2p networks (although thepiratebay would be screwed).
Let's hope there aren't too many democrats here, otherwise I probably shouldn't have said that.
How about socialists prove socialism is better ... seems simple enough.
H264 is far away from the theoretically best compression. So we just need one socialist to prove that they can do more, to make something that beats H264, and give it away for free.
The only way this could be impossible is if we all accept that socialism is inferior, or that it at least can never be as efficient as capitalism. You know, theora actually got somewhat close, and failed (or so it seems). Any other course of action, like the proposed legislation seems like an open insult. "Let's just steal it, since we can't hope to ever approach anything of that quality".
I kinda wonder why it's not possible to use these projects as backends for mysql and postgres. Seems to me that shouldn't be that hard an exercise.
Or even having these as mountable volumes.
Actually roundup & gene therapy has probably delayed natural adaptation to herbicides and pesticides.
The whole problem roundup + gene splicing (the gene was not original) was supposed to solve (and did solve) was natural resistance. Now we see the first signs that it probably won't solve this problem forever ...
Which is all perfectly normal.
Which would be the traditionally stupid political move, since normal herbicides have been doing the same, breeding immunity.
Heck, even "traditional farming" methods have caused adaptations in weeds.
Well, evolution means eternally fighting everyone and everything, or dying ... so I guess one shouldn't complain.
just repeating the myth doesn't make it true
Funny how I can't remember that being in any of the articles about those gene trials.
Never waste a good crisis is not just Obama's tactic, but a newsmedia tactic too it seems.
All that graph means is that Cuba has a relatively low population given it's agricultural production.
If you were to include theoretically possible agricultural production, instead of actual, the US would be a lot better off than cuba :
wolframalpha to the rescue
In terms of sustainability, using the only metric that really matters (amount of sunlight over land per capita), the US is 3 times more sustainable than Cuba, which is about as sustainable as Europe (ie. Cuba and Europe need to kill at least half their population if they're to survive on their own, while the US could increase it's population by another 50% before problems start occuring).
The additional snag is that 2.1 hectares per person is only a viable number assuming industrial agriculture. Traditional agriculture, or "bio" products, or "sustainable farming" need between 10 times and 100 times that. Assuming 10 times, that means that Europe and Cuba need to kill (or starve) just slightly over 95% of their populations and the US would need to kill (or starve) a little under 85% of the US population.
So "sustainable agriculture" ? That ship has sailed, and is long gone over the horizon. I wonder how "greenies" think about this. Is it acceptable to kill 90% of all humans alive so that the remainder could be slightly healther (live 5 years longer) ? If one is to believe actions, clearly greenies believe this. Of course, in reality, I doubt they've even thought about it.
On the other hand, Japan has survived now for about 60 years with less than 0.1 ha/capita, and is now approaching 0.04 ha/capita. Whatever the catches in that, it's possible.
And there's always the technological option. The best plants are less than 2% efficient in collecting energy. Storing that energy is about 8% efficient (energy in ATP -> energy in starch). Eating those plants directly is less than 0.2% efficient. Eating plants gives human bodies about 2 millionth of the original solar power that went into producing what they ate. If we were to find a way to convert sunlight directly into sugar (or starch, or ... I'm in favor of starch, that would, after all, mean free beer) with an efficiency of 10%, 0.2 ha/capita should be easily attainable. If we can get 50% efficient at that, we could feed over 90000 trillion people.
In addition, a sunlight -> oil process would only need to be 0.0001% efficient to match current oil output. If you could make that 10%, we could send every human alive today to the moon on holiday for a weekend every month.
The SEC tried to get the guy who made the error to testify, but they'd already fired him, so he was not in the mood to cooperate.
In a statement the guy declared "I'm going into politics".
All's well that ends well.
Gee you make a compelling argument there.
But your concern for me is unwarranted :
I have a master's degree in exact sciences, and one day I'll have a doctorate
I'm pretty confident I make more money than you
I'm also married and have kids.
If you had any real education, you'd know the amount of respect "political philosophy" gets from exact sciences. I would refuse to wipe my ass with a political science paper, as it would not get any cleaner at all.
So I'm doing quite fine. Since your whole argument depends on the "appeal to authority" fallacy, with the added idiocy that you appeal to yourself as an authority, as if that will convince anyone. So in addition it's circular thinking : we're to believe you're right because your opinion matches ... your own opinion.
I'm thinking ... someone making mistakes like that ... not a graduate in any science worth mentioning. Doesn't being underqualified make people worthless according to you ?
And your viewpoint of "everyone should just accept my rules with or without world government, or I'm going to cry" is really very cute. Of course I don't agree with it, nor do the other 5.99 billion humans on this earth. We'd tell you to go fuck yourself, but you're not quite worth the effort.
All that "should be", according to your eminence the grand fart yourself, is worth less than a bag full of horseshit, without, obviously, the bag.
By the way : judging someone "less worthy" due to either political differences, or education differences, or worldview ... doesn't that make you a racist ?
It will basically mean that my chances of blocking out commercials from the sites I like drop to ... well ... to zero, really.
And all because Apple wants MORE lockin, and may actually get it.
This is like paying money to stay in prison.
Acutally your raid array can't regenerate your data in most failure scenarios because of idiotic design :
Bit error in RAID 1 :
disk A : 000000111011011
disk B : 001000111011011
that's the information your raid array has in case of a bit error. Do tell, which is the correct one ?
Or, better, yet, a 3 disk RAID-5 array :
disk A : 000000111011011
disk B : 001001010011001
parity disk : 001101101000010
clearly something is wrong ... now fix the problem.
RAID is worthless unless you know which data set is wrong.
How did they fail ? Please illuminate me.
I ask, because all those agreements were written before the internet even existed, so if you're going to complain that your $ubercheap internet account does not give you unlimited kiddie porn downloading rights, you'll find me less than understanding.
And incidentally, where does the 200 billion figure come from ?
Because, see, I was discussing the legal defensibility, in front of a deliberative body like the UN or an international court, of satellite weaponry. I didn't say anything about whether anybody would ever abrogate the treaty. So your whole post is totally irrelevant, to mine.
I was making the point that law without enforcer is worthless, which obviously does matter to your point.
And the only way to enforce laws on all possible fighting parties ... well is to have a truly global, VERY well organized and capable police force, which is powerfull enough to take on everyone everywhere. It should be able to win from the US military in New York, and it should be able to win, without warning, from any warring tribe in Kalabasoraswaskishi (in Rwanda). It needs deployed forces everywhere.
In the absence of such a force, "legal defensibility" is as likely to stop any actor that considers itself sovereign as it is likely to stop a bullet.
About your other remarks : kindly go fuck yourself.
Simple question : do you need the UN's permission to start a war ?
No.
You just need to tell the UN before the first shot is fired.
For sure, UN is not a deterrent for foreign attacks. But putting the UN aside and behaving like peace doesn't matter is way more than stupid, it's psychopathic.
Peace matters, but it is the decision of the strongest military force whether there is peace or not.
Iraq was NOT at peace under Saddam. That much must be clear to even such a deluded idiot as yourself.
We can only have peace if the strong defend the weak. Which means attacking. Deal with it. I stand with my previous point :
So seriously : counting on UN treaties to defend you is like counting on Hezbollah to defend your family when they're firing rockets from your daughter's kindergarten. It's not merely "stupid" it's somewhere between negligence and euthanasia.
The same goes for any other law. You don't have the "right" to peace. You MIGHT (MIGHT) succeed in conquering it, and you MIGHT be so lucky that someone else conquers it for you.
But if there is even a single state in the world that would attack if there were no consequences, peace has to be conquered.
I also wonder why idiots like you can't simply accept evolution theory. Either you fight (which doesn't necessarily mean war, but DOES mean you are prepared to go to war if necessary), or you die. Don't you socialist idiots prefer that to "Jesus loves us all" ?
And as we all know everyone holds itself to UN treaties ?
Oh wait ... no-one does ? The US pretends somewhat, even fixes the most obvious fuckups, everyone else just openly violates every UN treaty regularly (just check just how much co2 the middle eastern oil-producing nations send into the air to give one example. Nobody's ever given so much as a peep, when on a per-capita basis these nations top the top-10 by a decent factor and on a total they still manage to get into the top5 despite having only a few dozen million people at most. Besides how fair is it to count oil-co2 produced in America as American ? The only ones to profit off it are in the middle east) ?
So seriously : counting on UN treaties to defend you is like counting on Hezbollah to defend your family when they're firing rockets from your daughter's kindergarten. It's not merely "stupid" it's somewhere between negligence and euthanasia.