For the record, the 2nd amendment isn't there for sporting, or self-defense from people, or collections, it's there to be able to stop the government from imposing tyranny. Take all the civilian gun crimes of the last 100 years globally and they would be absolutely dwarfed by the number killed by any single medium-large sized nation of the same time span. The 2nd amendment is the only reason you have the right to say shit about anything, it is the foundation of every other "right" conveyed by the constitution, because "rights" aren't granted, they are taken - the same today as they ever have been.
Yes, it is. It forced a friend of mine to put up with armed-to-the-teeth gunnut neighbors, who shot at his house twice some years ago, hurting his kid.
Your incompetence isn't a double standard. Someone else having something isn't something anyone has the right to take away if they aren't harming people with it. Governments aren't people, they are supposed to be restricted to prevent them from restricting people.
The 2nd amendment isn't forcing people to accept something, it's forcing a government to accept something. You should learn how things work before trying to speak about them and sounding dumb.
You mean enforcing laws doesn't work? That's news to me an roughly the entire population of planet earth. Yes, it can be imperfect, corrupt, unfair, but ineffective? Nah. Not on this planet.
They've been regulating shit for decades, if "enforcing laws" worked it would have worked by now. The issue is exactly as I've described and you've been too dense to get: you cannot enforce your laws without inducing tyranny when people don't want to follow them. As long as any nation, state, city, corporation, or person doesn't want to adhere to them badly enough you have the option of "enforce the laws and shoot them" or "fail entirely," thus it results in tyranny 100% of the time at scales far smaller than global.
A "tyranny" is an authoritarian regime in which the power of the state is unchecked and vested into the tyrant.
Yes, which is the only way to get everyone to do the same of anything.
A democratic government with a democratic legislative process is the precise opposite of tyranny, because the outcome of this process involves the whole society, and the process is to a very large degree of negotiation, and not of coercion. You cannot expect that every individual in a large society will agree to the precise legislative outcome, but acceptance of a democratically enacted law while disagreeing with it is something that happens all the time and is not even close to "tyranny".
For example, a lot of people in the US disagree with the second amendment, but they comply with it, and I haven't heard anyone calling it "the amendment of tyranny".
That's because the 2nd amendment is the opposite of tyranny. Tyrannies are applied to people, rights and constitutions are applied to governments (which are certainly not people.) You can't oppress a government because it exists as an entity to provide for citizens.
"You can't legislate away climate change because you can't force everyone to obey" - this is a non-sequitur. You can definitely legislate away an unpleasant side of some human activity by getting mostly everyone to agree it is bad and getting them on board to reduce it.
No, you can't. Legislation only works when backed by threat of force, people just ignore it otherwise. Legislating "save the trees" is functionally identical to saying "if you cut down too many trees we will shoot you," because however many layers of obfuscation you add to the process in the form of fines, jailtime, etc - if someone stands up for their right to tell you to fuck off they get shot for it, that is tyranny.
Ozone, DDT and atmospheric nuclear weapons testing are a few examples of these.
The Ozone hole came back for awhile and appears to grow and shrink in cycles. DDT was something which could be applied to corporations (not people,) and nuclear weapons testing spiked significantly after the start of sanctions against it and agreements to cut back.
There are many, many more. The situation with CO2 is not any different. As long as a sufficient majority of the people agree on the necessary measures to curb CO2, there will be no problem legislating stuff to correct the situation, and this ain't no tyranny.
People don't agree, people didn't even agree with the prior legislation you mentioned. It doesn't stop being tyranny just because you don't think it impacts you personally.
Everyone not being on the same page may be a root cause of the issues, but that doesn't mean it even should be treated at that level. You could just as well say "people are the root cause" and slaughter everyone - the only real difference is the level of extreme of the method, not the modality of the method itself. Diversity is a strength for the entire species, people doing things the same way is the ultimate weakness. This isn't even to say that educating everyone is possible, because the people holding the reins are always going to have different motives and a different set of education.
How's that worked out thus far? Force (e.g. legislation backed by it) isn't the solution, education arguably is, but it's been going on for decades and it suffers from the same issue: not everyone gets on the same page. The beauty of engineered solutions is you don't need anyone to take you seriously, you don't need to force everyone to adhere to your procedures and practices and audits, you don't need to do more than implement the solution because if you have a handful of nations who oppose it: fuck them, if it's engineered well it can't be stopped.
Legislation doesn't change people who don't ascribe to it. You can't legislate away climate change because you can't force everyone to obey, and if you make the attempt you get tyranny. This is an immutable law - as in it's not changing because you want it to. Those weren't big words, you just have reading comprehension issues.
Laws are not all tyranny. Denying that is delusion. Burning fossils to obtain power or transportation is NOT an "immutable law" in our world. Practical solutions exist, and impractical super-greedy obstacles called corporate oil industry profits stand in the way. These are cartels that you're allowing to be in charge of weaning you off their heroin.
No, you idiot. Nobody is "allowing" shit - people do things, everyone has free will and agency of their own. That's "the law" of our system: you cannot pass legislation to step on it in practice without actually inducing tyranny - it has never been done in Human history and it likely will never be done. I'm not saying the system is perfect or even that it is good, but it's beyond change because it's all game theory. If you attempt to say "the world is wrong" and instill laws over top of things you get failure or tyranny every single time. Legislation doesn't work, you can not make the whole world march in lock step - what you can do is use a much more limited set of resources to impact the entire ecosphere to geoengineer things as you see fit - precisely because nobody can stop you (just like how you can't stop them.)
You can't force everyone to obey without tyranny, denying that is delusion. Practical solutions to things require working around the reality of a system, not trying to change immutable laws of that system.
You don't solve a problem by trying to tip the scales in the other direction.
Yes, that's actually exactly how you fix a problem. If you accept that there is a problem then cutbacks and regulations won't do it, we've been doing those for half a century with no noticeable impact whatsoever. If the end is truly nigh as basically every climate change spokesperson for decades has been saying then we have two options: accept it and die like animals, or embrace our Humanity and fix the fucking problem.
2023-2025 all modern asymmetric crypto algorithms are projected to be fully compromised based on a linear trend of qubit density over the last decade, this is a fact.
Sorry if I misjudged you, it's typically the cryptoshills screaming that quantum computing won't happen as if their cries will make it that way.
Let me guess, you're one of those people with your head in the sand screaming "buy bitcoins, it's not going to collapse in a few years due to Shor's algorithm?"
Indeed. The biggest hurdle is that entanglement scales extremely badly. From available evidence (scaling over several decades), even an exponential increase in effort for each qbit added is plausible. That would mean that QC's will not get much larger than they are today and will never even reach the power of conventional computers. That they talk about millions of qbits is just hubris.
This research actually addresses that exact problem. Having a bunch of coax cables hanging off the device is a major potential source of noise.
The internet was made by millions of people working in collaborative and adversarial manners. Stop trying to raise up some pope-of-the-internet to give decrees and kindly fuck yourselves (or unkindly.)
Who would you rather have spying on you, a nation which is aiming to become the world's next superpower through market manipulation and shady tactics or a preexisting ally with a strong track record of supporting you? It's going to be someone, you don't have another option because your tech industry is too pathetic to make your own chips and hardware (yay globalism and strategic divisions of labor!)
Slashdot Mirror
Careful, waving LASERs in the air is how you summon black helicopters. /s)
(note the lack of a
For the record, the 2nd amendment isn't there for sporting, or self-defense from people, or collections, it's there to be able to stop the government from imposing tyranny. Take all the civilian gun crimes of the last 100 years globally and they would be absolutely dwarfed by the number killed by any single medium-large sized nation of the same time span. The 2nd amendment is the only reason you have the right to say shit about anything, it is the foundation of every other "right" conveyed by the constitution, because "rights" aren't granted, they are taken - the same today as they ever have been.
Yes, it is. It forced a friend of mine to put up with armed-to-the-teeth gunnut neighbors, who shot at his house twice some years ago, hurting his kid.
I would recommend shooting back next time.
Your incompetence isn't a double standard. Someone else having something isn't something anyone has the right to take away if they aren't harming people with it. Governments aren't people, they are supposed to be restricted to prevent them from restricting people.
The 2nd amendment isn't forcing people to accept something, it's forcing a government to accept something. You should learn how things work before trying to speak about them and sounding dumb.
You mean enforcing laws doesn't work? That's news to me an roughly the entire population of planet earth. Yes, it can be imperfect, corrupt, unfair, but ineffective? Nah. Not on this planet.
They've been regulating shit for decades, if "enforcing laws" worked it would have worked by now. The issue is exactly as I've described and you've been too dense to get: you cannot enforce your laws without inducing tyranny when people don't want to follow them. As long as any nation, state, city, corporation, or person doesn't want to adhere to them badly enough you have the option of "enforce the laws and shoot them" or "fail entirely," thus it results in tyranny 100% of the time at scales far smaller than global.
A "tyranny" is an authoritarian regime in which the power of the state is unchecked and vested into the tyrant.
Yes, which is the only way to get everyone to do the same of anything.
A democratic government with a democratic legislative process is the precise opposite of tyranny, because the outcome of this process involves the whole society, and the process is to a very large degree of negotiation, and not of coercion. You cannot expect that every individual in a large society will agree to the precise legislative outcome, but acceptance of a democratically enacted law while disagreeing with it is something that happens all the time and is not even close to "tyranny".
Wrong.
For example, a lot of people in the US disagree with the second amendment, but they comply with it, and I haven't heard anyone calling it "the amendment of tyranny".
That's because the 2nd amendment is the opposite of tyranny. Tyrannies are applied to people, rights and constitutions are applied to governments (which are certainly not people.) You can't oppress a government because it exists as an entity to provide for citizens.
"You can't legislate away climate change because you can't force everyone to obey" - this is a non-sequitur. You can definitely legislate away an unpleasant side of some human activity by getting mostly everyone to agree it is bad and getting them on board to reduce it.
No, you can't. Legislation only works when backed by threat of force, people just ignore it otherwise. Legislating "save the trees" is functionally identical to saying "if you cut down too many trees we will shoot you," because however many layers of obfuscation you add to the process in the form of fines, jailtime, etc - if someone stands up for their right to tell you to fuck off they get shot for it, that is tyranny.
Ozone, DDT and atmospheric nuclear weapons testing are a few examples of these.
The Ozone hole came back for awhile and appears to grow and shrink in cycles. DDT was something which could be applied to corporations (not people,) and nuclear weapons testing spiked significantly after the start of sanctions against it and agreements to cut back.
There are many, many more. The situation with CO2 is not any different. As long as a sufficient majority of the people agree on the necessary measures to curb CO2, there will be no problem legislating stuff to correct the situation, and this ain't no tyranny.
People don't agree, people didn't even agree with the prior legislation you mentioned. It doesn't stop being tyranny just because you don't think it impacts you personally.
Everyone not being on the same page may be a root cause of the issues, but that doesn't mean it even should be treated at that level. You could just as well say "people are the root cause" and slaughter everyone - the only real difference is the level of extreme of the method, not the modality of the method itself. Diversity is a strength for the entire species, people doing things the same way is the ultimate weakness. This isn't even to say that educating everyone is possible, because the people holding the reins are always going to have different motives and a different set of education.
If people like journalism a lot they will pay for it.
But it's difficult to get people to pay for propaganda!
How's that worked out thus far? Force (e.g. legislation backed by it) isn't the solution, education arguably is, but it's been going on for decades and it suffers from the same issue: not everyone gets on the same page. The beauty of engineered solutions is you don't need anyone to take you seriously, you don't need to force everyone to adhere to your procedures and practices and audits, you don't need to do more than implement the solution because if you have a handful of nations who oppose it: fuck them, if it's engineered well it can't be stopped.
Legislation doesn't change people who don't ascribe to it. You can't legislate away climate change because you can't force everyone to obey, and if you make the attempt you get tyranny. This is an immutable law - as in it's not changing because you want it to. Those weren't big words, you just have reading comprehension issues.
Laws are not all tyranny. Denying that is delusion. Burning fossils to obtain power or transportation is NOT an "immutable law" in our world. Practical solutions exist, and impractical super-greedy obstacles called corporate oil industry profits stand in the way. These are cartels that you're allowing to be in charge of weaning you off their heroin.
No, you idiot. Nobody is "allowing" shit - people do things, everyone has free will and agency of their own. That's "the law" of our system: you cannot pass legislation to step on it in practice without actually inducing tyranny - it has never been done in Human history and it likely will never be done. I'm not saying the system is perfect or even that it is good, but it's beyond change because it's all game theory. If you attempt to say "the world is wrong" and instill laws over top of things you get failure or tyranny every single time. Legislation doesn't work, you can not make the whole world march in lock step - what you can do is use a much more limited set of resources to impact the entire ecosphere to geoengineer things as you see fit - precisely because nobody can stop you (just like how you can't stop them.)
You can't force everyone to obey without tyranny, denying that is delusion. Practical solutions to things require working around the reality of a system, not trying to change immutable laws of that system.
You don't solve a problem by trying to tip the scales in the other direction.
Yes, that's actually exactly how you fix a problem. If you accept that there is a problem then cutbacks and regulations won't do it, we've been doing those for half a century with no noticeable impact whatsoever. If the end is truly nigh as basically every climate change spokesperson for decades has been saying then we have two options: accept it and die like animals, or embrace our Humanity and fix the fucking problem.
Wrong.
There's a linear trend in qubit density going back about a decade. They're up to around 400-600 qubits depending on type.
2023-2025 all modern asymmetric crypto algorithms are projected to be fully compromised based on a linear trend of qubit density over the last decade, this is a fact.
Sorry if I misjudged you, it's typically the cryptoshills screaming that quantum computing won't happen as if their cries will make it that way.
Let me guess, you're one of those people with your head in the sand screaming "buy bitcoins, it's not going to collapse in a few years due to Shor's algorithm?"
This isn't reversing time, it's zeroing bits.
Indeed. The biggest hurdle is that entanglement scales extremely badly. From available evidence (scaling over several decades), even an exponential increase in effort for each qbit added is plausible. That would mean that QC's will not get much larger than they are today and will never even reach the power of conventional computers. That they talk about millions of qbits is just hubris.
This research actually addresses that exact problem. Having a bunch of coax cables hanging off the device is a major potential source of noise.
Let me guess, you don't believe he said "Tim Apple" either?
I believe that the fact you find that worth mentioning is absolute proof you have no beef with him aside from the fact he's not "your" guy.
The internet was made by millions of people working in collaborative and adversarial manners. Stop trying to raise up some pope-of-the-internet to give decrees and kindly fuck yourselves (or unkindly.)
Who would you rather have spying on you, a nation which is aiming to become the world's next superpower through market manipulation and shady tactics or a preexisting ally with a strong track record of supporting you? It's going to be someone, you don't have another option because your tech industry is too pathetic to make your own chips and hardware (yay globalism and strategic divisions of labor!)
And what's that one Chinese company to you anyway? There are so many more.
Obvious Chinese shill or actual traitor is obvious.
Gravity affects things differently during acceleration/deceleration - like every fringe science experiment suggests.