Maybe you should read it. Again. The straight dope guy clearly states:In mid-1981, only a few months after Reagan took office, Congress cut $1 billion from child-nutrition funding and gave the USDA 90 days--the blink of an eye, for the federal bureaucracy--to come up with new standards that would enable school districts to economize, in theory without compromising nutrition.
This is entirely in keeping with the stupidity we've come to expect from the Republican Party- cut first, examine consequences later...and while the Democrats did take great advantage of the stupidity, the original stupidity of cost cutting in hopes of finding government waste where none existed was completely in keeping with the stupidity.
I think you meant excess- and see other reply for why this apparently isn't so (I was going on just the data, and failed the error correction bits and clock setting tranistions)
From your link: In mid-1981, only a few months after Reagan took office, Congress cut $1 billion from child-nutrition funding and gave the USDA 90 days--the blink of an eye, for the federal bureaucracy--to come up with new standards that would enable school districts to economize, in theory without compromising nutrition.
And this was listed as the cause of the whole mess- needless to say when the new standards came out, listing ketchup as a vegetable, the Democrats had a field day.
A large percentage (which I don't have the time to look up right now) of battlefield deaths are really bleeding to death, not instantaneous. To this end, soldiers carry "Quckclot", a powder that is similar to this product- similar but not the same. This seems to work faster- and would save lives on the battlefield.
Wrong debate- the debate I wanted is whether the law matches reality- that is the expectation of privacy in an increasingly public world as technology progresses to shrink the private domain. That debate did happen- in the 72+ posts so far- as well as a couple of other side debates that were highly interesting, and therefore valuable to slashdot- troll or no troll.
Not the point. Reagan's admin classified KETCHUP as a vegetable (that is tomato pureed and mixed with vinegar and sugar and a bunch of other stuff). But you're right- the argument of tomato as vegetable or fruit didn't start with Reagan by any means.
Except- the original inhabitants of Teotihuacan abandoned the city in approximately 300 A.D.- long before the Aztecs, about 700 years before Europeans discovered Newfoundland. The mystery is in that original evacuation of the city, not the later Aztec renaming of Teotihuacan and die off in 1500.
Archaeologists say a culture centred in Teotihuacan, known as the City of the Gods, dominated Mesoamerica for hundreds of years during the first millennium. It is unclear what led to the society's collapse.
The History Channel did a show on this- and suggested it was a lack of fuel & food (based on the fact that Teotihuacan is in the middle of a small mini-desert, which itself is in the middle of a jungle).
No, actually, it's more like the US government reclassifying ketchup as a tomato and therefore giving schoolchildren their "daily requirement of vegetables" in public school lunches that consist of a corn dog, some ketchup, and potato chips.
In other words it makes no sense at all but they did it anyway (under Reagan).
Doesn't that really depend on the data involved? Sure, for any random set of data, the net will be close to zero- but in reality it's whichever side gets the most 1s.
"No, I posted a remark I consider to be true but which is currently considered heretical by some in hopes of sparking a more productive debate on the topic."
Oh, so you're a troll.
I'd just like to point out that if it was a troll, it was a very successfull positive one; the debate is still active 5 days later!
My point is (IMHO) if you're going to say, "actually, here's how things are implemented at a very low level," you shouldn't dumb it down to the point where fleshing it out is quickly misleading.
Given the replies, in retrospect- you're completely correct.
Are you willing to publish your SSN, if not why are you covering it up?
Anybody can look it up with the Social Security system. In addition to that, I provide it freely on credit applications, health insurance, job applications, my resume...But I'm not talking publication, I'm talking simple use in situations where it might be recorded by a third party. I have no reason to hide my SSN from such people- do you?
Also I guess you haven't heard that many potential employers use the net to lookup applicants and see what they've uploaded or said which can disqualify them.
No, I'm well aware of that- and I'm downright proud of my online record.
Students using Myspace and Facebook along with blogs to upload and post helterskelter are only hurting themself by what they do if they don't take precautions to safeguard their privacy.
Possibly- either that or they're protecting themselves from unreasonable employers who are too stupid to value diversity. That sword cuts both ways.
Abortion is a private matter unless it's done in a public place or is paid for by the public,
Most legal abortions are done in a public business. I wouldn't want a relative of mine getting an abortion from a non-public provider. That is just asking for trouble.
and I'm against my tax dollars paying for abortions. However I don't know of any government programs that pay for abortions or public places where they are done, I don't know if insurance pays or not, otherwise the cost of abortions are paid for by individuals so they aren't public.
Hmm, just for kicks, I'm an insurance executive. I've got a choice of paying $400 for an abortion, or paying $6000 for a birth plus adding a new dependant to a policy holder. Which do you think I'd do?
As for Foley, I agree. Nobody should expect their electronic communications are private unless they take steps to encrypt it and make sure neither end has the ability to save or print it out. Years ago I used Yahoo Messenger and when I did I saved all of my sessions as well as printed them out, therefore I know not to expect privacy.
If a second person knows your secret, there is no reasonable expectation of privacy.
Oh I just realized I left a word out when I said " Yea I agree there's a disconnect in the expectation of privacy in public domains, people should expect any privacy when they are in public." I should of said they should not expect privacy in public domains.
Correct. The problem is that technology is quickly widening the public domain until there is no private domain left.
I'm not sure- given this provocation, and how nuts W is, well, we do have the technology to turn South Korea into an Island with no warning. The straits of Korea may glow in the dark afterwards though....cobalt having a rather nasty half life.
I have relatives in the National Guard, and friends in the National Guard. Every single one of them has served at least one tour of duty in Iraq or Afghanistan, and a relative was just killed about a month ago in his third tour of duty in Afghanistan.
Your chances of being deployed over seas to hostile combat zone are dramatically reduced in that organization.
Not under W, who seems to think that the best way to protect Oregon is to kill all of our soldiers in Afghanistan.
Nukes are the most useless weapon any country can have, simply because you can't use them. If North Korea nukes the South, the Americans will nuke North Korea; if the Americans nuke North Korea, the North Koreans will nuke the South. So both sides have to rely on their conventional armies, just like before.
I'm not sure about that last, see geological note below.
HOWEVER, assuming you are American, if you (and a significant majority of your countrymen) allow this to scare you and both 1) reelect jingoist pro-war politicians, and 2) support launching a 'pre-emptive' war against North Korea, things will become very dreadful indeed for the Korean peninsula.
Given the geology involved, the size of the warheads America has, and the fact that we'd probably want a "pre-emptive first strike" that leaves no hope of launching a Taepodong II at Seattle; shouldn't that be that things would get very dreadful indeed for the Island of South Korea?
The so-called rocketbelt uses Silver Idodide and Hydrogen Peroxide to make Silver Oxide in a rather nasty but highly energetic chemical reaction. Until Silver goes down in price, don't expect to see this in wide use.
Where did I say anything about covering up illegal actions?
What would be the purpose in covering up legal actions? Just paranoia?
As for commerce, there's disagreement as to whether commercial speech does or doesn't enjoy the same freedom as personal or political speech. Actually USSC rulings are mixed on this, some have limited commercial speech whereas others have said it enjoys the same rights to free speech.
Ah, not quite my point. My point is that if you're shouting out in the public sphere, if you're doing *anything* off your property, the reasonable expectation given our current state of technology is that it is being recorded. Whether anybody you know is watching that recording or not, is a good question. But there should be *no* reason to expect privacy in anything outside of your property, regardless of the law on the topic.
Yea I agree there's a disconnect in the expectation of privacy in public domains, people should expect any privacy when they are in public.
Therefore, for instance, abortion shouldn't be private; it is a service provided and paid for in the public sphere. Nor should Mr. Foley have expected his IM messages to be private- not once they left his computer anyway. It's all the same thing.
You start from the assumption that humans form into incompatible groups that must anihlate each other in order to progress some ill-defined set of "values".
That is because, absent superstition, that is the entire history of the human race. It's as ingrained in us as the need for sleep and eating; it's what has defined our entire history. Banding together into tribes is the very core meaning of being human; to ignore that is just denial.
I am not denying that humans display this behaviour, I just happen think that one the "values" that makes a civilization great is resisting the instinct to kill those that are different.
We've failed at being a great civilization, almost from the outset. I can name no great civilizations based on that definition; not a single one in the history of the world. Such a value makes a civilization WEAK, not strong.
And while I share your idealism to some extent, there's a point where idealism meets reality and is destroyed utterly. I'm at that point- how many more millions will have to die before you are?
You justify yourself by appealing to a myopic history while chanting the magic words "freedom" and "democracy", all I see is a scared little man that would rather use nukes in a genocidal attack than live in a world with different "values".
Unlike you, I've faced the facts. Those facts would scare any sane man- and yes, do create their own insanity. But your utter ignorance of the history of the world and wishing for a value that doesn't exist won't make it so.
The real irony is that your "values" (in respect to human life) are no different to those you despise.
Of course they're not: 1. We're both human- these ARE human values, the values that are built into our genes. 2. To gain victory over any given enemy- you must sink to his moral level. The irony of war is that you cannot win without making yourself as bad as your enemy. Sun Tzu recognized that 6000 years ago- yet we ignore it today at our peril. 3. Only somebody who understands the enemy can defeat the enemy. Without understanding, without knowing why they fight, there is no way to win. War is a contest of wills- if you're not willing to die for what you believe, then the suicide bomber will win- because he is willing to die for what he believes.
So, do you realise now that advocating genocide is evil?
I always did. I see no other solution however, none at all. The events of the past 5 years have proven that. We may well be the cause of why as well.
The majority of the people you are talking about are on a higher level of enlightenment than yourself otherwise they would have banded together to wipe out Israel in 1948 right down to the last child.
The only reason they didn't is because there are several different sects that believe this- and they fight amongst themselves. As long as the Wahhabists have Mecca, they will not "band together", for they consider EACH OTHER to also be the infidel, fit only for slaughter. THAT is our one saving grace in all of this, the one thing that limits the damage they do.
What should be obvious in the press even today is that only the extremists think that way and what should be more obvious is that there are factions - there is no us and them neat divide you seem to imagine. A group of Islamic people in Malaysia who think Bin Laden is a dangerous heretic probably put together some components in the computer you are using now.
True enough- but Malaysia is not in the Middle East- and the tendency towards Nationalistic Islam is far older than Islam itself. Heck, even the Zionists are a part of the problem, rather than the solution, and they're not Islamic at all.
It's a big world out there - but trying to end it if you are scared of it is not the answer. From your website it appears that you are an adult - with that comes responsibility in words as well as in deeds.
With that also comes the responsibility to recongnize when a situation is intractable to the point of there being only one reasonable, if highly immoral, answer. Morality may always be reasonable- but the same is not true in the opposite direction.
I can see the "if you are not with me you are against me" attitude coming out here. Get out there and meet more people, you'll see that a my tribe versus everyone else attitude creates problems and solves nothing and that not eveyone that disagrees with you supports your percieved enemy.
In the case of most enemies, that's true. Enemies are usually more or less on the same level of civilization and enlightenment. That isn't true in this case- and a stubborn refusal to admit that is indeed support of the side that would kill us all indiscriminately.
I'll remind you that the first time the word genocide was used it was to describe Christians getting systematicly wiped out by an emerging secular state - perhaps you'll identify with those people more.
I identify with them plenty fine right now; that's what scares me about them. That is *precisely* why I'm afraid of them. I know how the early Christians reacted to the purges once they overthrew that secular society that persecuted them. It is EXACTLY what the Islamics are doing now. I know what happened in England when Mary took the crown- and what happened AGAIN on the other side when Elizabeth took the crown- and what happened in Ireland when Cromwell became Prime Minister. It's the same story as the Islamics now- and it took centuries to resolve. I doubt very much if the Lutherans and Anglicans had C-4, it would have been so easy to resolve. It is because I identify with the Islamics that I know this won't be so easy to resolve as just "Introduce them to democracy and pray they'll vote in the right people".
Bullshit - and I wasn't defending them anyway just advocating not doing evil. You are slipping towards fanatic territory here - think of the new Christianity Lite religeons where God does what he is told and what is right or wrong is whatever you want it to be - you don't want to go there.
Funny you should say that- that's where our enemies currently are. That was bin Laden's great theological breakthrough; the changeable Allah and the Individual Jihad. I'm NOT going there- where I'm going is a much darker place than that- where ALL decisions are immoral and the only difference between them is how many BILLIONS of humans will die as a result of the decision. Where even doing absolutely nothing will result in the death of billions, and there are *no* good choices, only evil ones.
That is where I believe we are now at- and making an unliveable desert a little more uninhabitable is only the least objectional of several very objectional options. At one time I thought maybe armed isolationism would work- but it appears we as a nation have even less stomach for that than for genocide, and only the genocide of the Jews in 70 A.D. has ever been shown to stop terrorism.
Ok, but then wouldn't they have to keep resupplying chemicals to the machine at 1/1200th the volume of the water extracted? Or am I reading those articles wrong?
Seems to me, the key word would be SUSTAINABLE- a solar powered refridgeration radiator would be more sustainable.
Actually, that's one of the things I'd like to see changed- I want corporations to be demoted from persons *explicitly* in the constitution, by banning them from funding lobbyists and making campaign contributions, and requiring truth in advertisting as a constitutional mandate.
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe you should read it. Again. The straight dope guy clearly states:In mid-1981, only a few months after Reagan took office, Congress cut $1 billion from child-nutrition funding and gave the USDA 90 days--the blink of an eye, for the federal bureaucracy--to come up with new standards that would enable school districts to economize, in theory without compromising nutrition.
This is entirely in keeping with the stupidity we've come to expect from the Republican Party- cut first, examine consequences later...and while the Democrats did take great advantage of the stupidity, the original stupidity of cost cutting in hopes of finding government waste where none existed was completely in keeping with the stupidity.
I think you meant excess- and see other reply for why this apparently isn't so (I was going on just the data, and failed the error correction bits and clock setting tranistions)
From your link: In mid-1981, only a few months after Reagan took office, Congress cut $1 billion from child-nutrition funding and gave the USDA 90 days--the blink of an eye, for the federal bureaucracy--to come up with new standards that would enable school districts to economize, in theory without compromising nutrition.
And this was listed as the cause of the whole mess- needless to say when the new standards came out, listing ketchup as a vegetable, the Democrats had a field day.
A large percentage (which I don't have the time to look up right now) of battlefield deaths are really bleeding to death, not instantaneous. To this end, soldiers carry "Quckclot", a powder that is similar to this product- similar but not the same. This seems to work faster- and would save lives on the battlefield.
Wrong debate- the debate I wanted is whether the law matches reality- that is the expectation of privacy in an increasingly public world as technology progresses to shrink the private domain. That debate did happen- in the 72+ posts so far- as well as a couple of other side debates that were highly interesting, and therefore valuable to slashdot- troll or no troll.
Not the point. Reagan's admin classified KETCHUP as a vegetable (that is tomato pureed and mixed with vinegar and sugar and a bunch of other stuff). But you're right- the argument of tomato as vegetable or fruit didn't start with Reagan by any means.
Except- the original inhabitants of Teotihuacan abandoned the city in approximately 300 A.D.- long before the Aztecs, about 700 years before Europeans discovered Newfoundland. The mystery is in that original evacuation of the city, not the later Aztec renaming of Teotihuacan and die off in 1500.
Are lasers cheaper there too?
Still, I found this comment interesting:
Archaeologists say a culture centred in Teotihuacan, known as the City of the Gods, dominated Mesoamerica for hundreds of years during the first millennium. It is unclear what led to the society's collapse.
The History Channel did a show on this- and suggested it was a lack of fuel & food (based on the fact that Teotihuacan is in the middle of a small mini-desert, which itself is in the middle of a jungle).
No, actually, it's more like the US government reclassifying ketchup as a tomato and therefore giving schoolchildren their "daily requirement of vegetables" in public school lunches that consist of a corn dog, some ketchup, and potato chips.
In other words it makes no sense at all but they did it anyway (under Reagan).
Doesn't that really depend on the data involved? Sure, for any random set of data, the net will be close to zero- but in reality it's whichever side gets the most 1s.
"No, I posted a remark I consider to be true but which is currently considered heretical by some in hopes of sparking a more productive debate on the topic."
Oh, so you're a troll.
I'd just like to point out that if it was a troll, it was a very successfull positive one; the debate is still active 5 days later!
My point is (IMHO) if you're going to say, "actually, here's how things are implemented at a very low level," you shouldn't dumb it down to the point where fleshing it out is quickly misleading.
Given the replies, in retrospect- you're completely correct.
Are you willing to publish your SSN, if not why are you covering it up?
Anybody can look it up with the Social Security system. In addition to that, I provide it freely on credit applications, health insurance, job applications, my resume...But I'm not talking publication, I'm talking simple use in situations where it might be recorded by a third party. I have no reason to hide my SSN from such people- do you?
Also I guess you haven't heard that many potential employers use the net to lookup applicants and see what they've uploaded or said which can disqualify them.
No, I'm well aware of that- and I'm downright proud of my online record.
Students using Myspace and Facebook along with blogs to upload and post helterskelter are only hurting themself by what they do if they don't take precautions to safeguard their privacy.
Possibly- either that or they're protecting themselves from unreasonable employers who are too stupid to value diversity. That sword cuts both ways.
Abortion is a private matter unless it's done in a public place or is paid for by the public,
Most legal abortions are done in a public business. I wouldn't want a relative of mine getting an abortion from a non-public provider. That is just asking for trouble.
and I'm against my tax dollars paying for abortions. However I don't know of any government programs that pay for abortions or public places where they are done, I don't know if insurance pays or not, otherwise the cost of abortions are paid for by individuals so they aren't public.
Hmm, just for kicks, I'm an insurance executive. I've got a choice of paying $400 for an abortion, or paying $6000 for a birth plus adding a new dependant to a policy holder. Which do you think I'd do?
As for Foley, I agree. Nobody should expect their electronic communications are private unless they take steps to encrypt it and make sure neither end has the ability to save or print it out. Years ago I used Yahoo Messenger and when I did I saved all of my sessions as well as printed them out, therefore I know not to expect privacy.
If a second person knows your secret, there is no reasonable expectation of privacy.
Oh I just realized I left a word out when I said " Yea I agree there's a disconnect in the expectation of privacy in public domains, people should expect any privacy when they are in public." I should of said they should not expect privacy in public domains.
Correct. The problem is that technology is quickly widening the public domain until there is no private domain left.
With a possible 1kt aftershock- thus indicating the possible dud...
I'm not sure- given this provocation, and how nuts W is, well, we do have the technology to turn South Korea into an Island with no warning. The straits of Korea may glow in the dark afterwards though....cobalt having a rather nasty half life.
Why didn't you go for the National Guard, hmm?
I have relatives in the National Guard, and friends in the National Guard. Every single one of them has served at least one tour of duty in Iraq or Afghanistan, and a relative was just killed about a month ago in his third tour of duty in Afghanistan.
Your chances of being deployed over seas to hostile combat zone are dramatically reduced in that organization.
Not under W, who seems to think that the best way to protect Oregon is to kill all of our soldiers in Afghanistan.
Nukes are the most useless weapon any country can have, simply because you can't use them. If North Korea nukes the South, the Americans will nuke North Korea; if the Americans nuke North Korea, the North Koreans will nuke the South. So both sides have to rely on their conventional armies, just like before.
I'm not sure about that last, see geological note below.
HOWEVER, assuming you are American, if you (and a significant majority of your countrymen) allow this to scare you and both 1) reelect jingoist pro-war politicians, and 2) support launching a 'pre-emptive' war against North Korea, things will become very dreadful indeed for the Korean peninsula.
Given the geology involved, the size of the warheads America has, and the fact that we'd probably want a "pre-emptive first strike" that leaves no hope of launching a Taepodong II at Seattle; shouldn't that be that things would get very dreadful indeed for the Island of South Korea?
The so-called rocketbelt uses Silver Idodide and Hydrogen Peroxide to make Silver Oxide in a rather nasty but highly energetic chemical reaction. Until Silver goes down in price, don't expect to see this in wide use.
Where did I say anything about covering up illegal actions?
What would be the purpose in covering up legal actions? Just paranoia?
As for commerce, there's disagreement as to whether commercial speech does or doesn't enjoy the same freedom as personal or political speech. Actually USSC rulings are mixed on this, some have limited commercial speech whereas others have said it enjoys the same rights to free speech.
Ah, not quite my point. My point is that if you're shouting out in the public sphere, if you're doing *anything* off your property, the reasonable expectation given our current state of technology is that it is being recorded. Whether anybody you know is watching that recording or not, is a good question. But there should be *no* reason to expect privacy in anything outside of your property, regardless of the law on the topic.
Yea I agree there's a disconnect in the expectation of privacy in public domains, people should expect any privacy when they are in public.
Therefore, for instance, abortion shouldn't be private; it is a service provided and paid for in the public sphere. Nor should Mr. Foley have expected his IM messages to be private- not once they left his computer anyway. It's all the same thing.
You start from the assumption that humans form into incompatible groups that must anihlate each other in order to progress some ill-defined set of "values".
That is because, absent superstition, that is the entire history of the human race. It's as ingrained in us as the need for sleep and eating; it's what has defined our entire history. Banding together into tribes is the very core meaning of being human; to ignore that is just denial.
I am not denying that humans display this behaviour, I just happen think that one the "values" that makes a civilization great is resisting the instinct to kill those that are different.
We've failed at being a great civilization, almost from the outset. I can name no great civilizations based on that definition; not a single one in the history of the world. Such a value makes a civilization WEAK, not strong.
And while I share your idealism to some extent, there's a point where idealism meets reality and is destroyed utterly. I'm at that point- how many more millions will have to die before you are?
You justify yourself by appealing to a myopic history while chanting the magic words "freedom" and "democracy", all I see is a scared little man that would rather use nukes in a genocidal attack than live in a world with different "values".
Unlike you, I've faced the facts. Those facts would scare any sane man- and yes, do create their own insanity. But your utter ignorance of the history of the world and wishing for a value that doesn't exist won't make it so.
The real irony is that your "values" (in respect to human life) are no different to those you despise.
Of course they're not:
1. We're both human- these ARE human values, the values that are built into our genes.
2. To gain victory over any given enemy- you must sink to his moral level. The irony of war is that you cannot win without making yourself as bad as your enemy. Sun Tzu recognized that 6000 years ago- yet we ignore it today at our peril.
3. Only somebody who understands the enemy can defeat the enemy. Without understanding, without knowing why they fight, there is no way to win. War is a contest of wills- if you're not willing to die for what you believe, then the suicide bomber will win- because he is willing to die for what he believes.
So, do you realise now that advocating genocide is evil?
I always did. I see no other solution however, none at all. The events of the past 5 years have proven that. We may well be the cause of why as well.
The majority of the people you are talking about are on a higher level of enlightenment than yourself otherwise they would have banded together to wipe out Israel in 1948 right down to the last child.
The only reason they didn't is because there are several different sects that believe this- and they fight amongst themselves. As long as the Wahhabists have Mecca, they will not "band together", for they consider EACH OTHER to also be the infidel, fit only for slaughter. THAT is our one saving grace in all of this, the one thing that limits the damage they do.
What should be obvious in the press even today is that only the extremists think that way and what should be more obvious is that there are factions - there is no us and them neat divide you seem to imagine. A group of Islamic people in Malaysia who think Bin Laden is a dangerous heretic probably put together some components in the computer you are using now.
True enough- but Malaysia is not in the Middle East- and the tendency towards Nationalistic Islam is far older than Islam itself. Heck, even the Zionists are a part of the problem, rather than the solution, and they're not Islamic at all.
It's a big world out there - but trying to end it if you are scared of it is not the answer. From your website it appears that you are an adult - with that comes responsibility in words as well as in deeds.
With that also comes the responsibility to recongnize when a situation is intractable to the point of there being only one reasonable, if highly immoral, answer. Morality may always be reasonable- but the same is not true in the opposite direction.
I can see the "if you are not with me you are against me" attitude coming out here. Get out there and meet more people, you'll see that a my tribe versus everyone else attitude creates problems and solves nothing and that not eveyone that disagrees with you supports your percieved enemy.
In the case of most enemies, that's true. Enemies are usually more or less on the same level of civilization and enlightenment. That isn't true in this case- and a stubborn refusal to admit that is indeed support of the side that would kill us all indiscriminately.
I'll remind you that the first time the word genocide was used it was to describe Christians getting systematicly wiped out by an emerging secular state - perhaps you'll identify with those people more.
I identify with them plenty fine right now; that's what scares me about them. That is *precisely* why I'm afraid of them. I know how the early Christians reacted to the purges once they overthrew that secular society that persecuted them. It is EXACTLY what the Islamics are doing now. I know what happened in England when Mary took the crown- and what happened AGAIN on the other side when Elizabeth took the crown- and what happened in Ireland when Cromwell became Prime Minister. It's the same story as the Islamics now- and it took centuries to resolve. I doubt very much if the Lutherans and Anglicans had C-4, it would have been so easy to resolve. It is because I identify with the Islamics that I know this won't be so easy to resolve as just "Introduce them to democracy and pray they'll vote in the right people".
Bullshit - and I wasn't defending them anyway just advocating not doing evil. You are slipping towards fanatic territory here - think of the new Christianity Lite religeons where God does what he is told and what is right or wrong is whatever you want it to be - you don't want to go there.
Funny you should say that- that's where our enemies currently are. That was bin Laden's great theological breakthrough; the changeable Allah and the Individual Jihad. I'm NOT going there- where I'm going is a much darker place than that- where ALL decisions are immoral and the only difference between them is how many BILLIONS of humans will die as a result of the decision. Where even doing absolutely nothing will result in the death of billions, and there are *no* good choices, only evil ones.
That is where I believe we are now at- and making an unliveable desert a little more uninhabitable is only the least objectional of several very objectional options. At one time I thought maybe armed isolationism would work- but it appears we as a nation have even less stomach for that than for genocide, and only the genocide of the Jews in 70 A.D. has ever been shown to stop terrorism.
Ok, but then wouldn't they have to keep resupplying chemicals to the machine at 1/1200th the volume of the water extracted? Or am I reading those articles wrong?
Seems to me, the key word would be SUSTAINABLE- a solar powered refridgeration radiator would be more sustainable.
You mean actually, as opposed to the common 10% of damages fines the courts seem to be so fond of right now?
I'm actually for asset confiscation and exile for anybody heading even a single partnership, let alone a corporation.
Actually, that's one of the things I'd like to see changed- I want corporations to be demoted from persons *explicitly* in the constitution, by banning them from funding lobbyists and making campaign contributions, and requiring truth in advertisting as a constitutional mandate.