Yes, I read about Carter. It appears to be a gross overreaction by the Texas authorities. Although technically, he did threaten to shoot kindergartners and other violence. He's had a restraining order against him before.
A Canadian reported him. He was not caught by surveillance. Your example is bogus.
You can't go to jail in the US just for illegal use of the internet. You can for looking at kiddie porn, or threatening somebody, but those things were illegal before we had an internet. You can freely read about Marxism, Nazism, Al-Qaeda musings... with no fear. If they caught you being part of Al-Qaeda through the internet, they would have caught you before, through the telephone, post, or surveillance. Ed Snowden has shown us that lately the NSA goes too far in surveillance, but that's not the same thing (yet), as a Cuba and the like.
Nobody is in jail here for reading or posting political views.
The imprisonment badge on the US is BS, and was the whole purpose of making this political statement of a silly map.
Yes, 'free market' is abused quite often. Let's look at the term.
'Free', as in the freedom to buy a thing, or not buy a thing; the freedom to pick and choose among various styles and vendors of that thing...
There's no freedom here; I have to have internet access to my house, on just about the same level as I need power and water. Going without it is not an option. And as far as the kind of internet access I need, there's really just one of those too; and it's called 'Fast Enough'.
'Market', as in more than one store to buy something at. There's no market here; I have to buy that internet access from whatever cable comes to by house, regardless of what they call themselves this week. I will give you that where FIOS has overlapped cable, you have a market of 2. (I won't count DSL) And yes, we see temporary price wars, but I'm not fooled into thinking that it's a healthy 'market', or that it's good for me in any way in the long run.
There is no free market, and to try to fake one, pisses me off as a conservative. It's a utility already, and access to it needs to be 'owned', in the physical sense, by the government, or the people. Cities should probably administer it at a municipal level; Co-Ops are great for more rural areas. Maybe county, or even state. Whatever works best for for your locality as a voter, with as much right to internet access, as the right to have power and running water to your house.
The only hesitation that I have, is that it's early, and standardizing on something like fiber optic might be like Edison jumping on DC too early. Plus, the existing infrastructures would have to be bought out; the government can preeminent domain take something to a point, but the takee has to be paid. The moment such a law passed, but long before unprepared municipalities would be ready; investment money would flee the space instantly, resulting in chaos. The opponents would use that to their advantage, and would probably win.
Still, I can't wait for ISPs to be taken over by the people, and the term replaced with lowercase 'isp', an anachronism referring to a particular type of hookup to the internet.
"The problem is that any waste-burning reactors will still have to pay their way by generating electricity at an affordable price even with an offset for the value of destroying some waste."
I disagree. If they never make a dime we still need them; we have too much of this high level waste, and apparently nowhere to bury it. And I'm not sure that's such a bad thing. Not if it's going to be hot for 10,000 years. We have no choice now, but to burn this stuff up.
"not many folks pouring concrete and bending metal. It's the same with proponents of small modular and thorium molten-salt reactors. The financial costs of licencing, building, operating and eventaully decommissioning"
The actual costs; pouring concrete, bending metal, paying scientists to design it properly... they are not that much, and might have been cheaper than dealing with this stuff all this time. (how much was spent on Yucca Mt?) Most of the cost is due to the government, licensing, etc. Now obviously, a nuke license should be somewhat harder to get than a driver's license. But not as hard as it is now.
I will agree with you on the decommissioning part, by saying that we should never again build another reactor that creates waste products that are hot longer than a few hundred years. (A few hundred years is still pushing it, but it is conceivable that we could plant a caution sign that would last that long.)
"The CIA actively funded, trained and supplied death squads in SA."
I see what you're doing, I wonder if you even do though. It's not just peaceful farmers and hippies down there, practicing love and understanding, until the mean old CIA comes along.
The "squads" were already there, although I don't think they call themselves death squads. And there are good guys and bad guys in the power vacuums created by the cesspool of SA politics. And Russia has people there, as does China, and God knows who else. Well, you really don't know, until you send somebody down there to find out.
There's a saying in politics (forgive me if I butcher it): You can say that you're not playing ball, but then you're just playing ball badly. We don't get to opt out. Still, as I said, I'm skeptical that we can possibly do any real good in the jungles of SA.
As a side note, ever wonder why foreign intelligence services don't fund death squads in the backwoods here in the US? Or in Britain? Or Australia even, remote as some of it is? Or a number of other countries. Ozark National Forest in the deep Arkansas woods of the US would be a perfect place. Actually, they could come there, and camp in one spot, for up to two weeks, before they have to move on. And if the paperwork on their legal firearms are in order, they would be... free to go. Unless they shot somebody, at which point all hell comes down, until they're caught and tried for murder.
Because we're not corrupt. There's no power vacuum here. SA gets the politics it deserves. The shit that goes on in their jungles is their fault, not ours. Not enough of them of them are ready to stand up for the greater good. Standing up, meaning willing to die for it. Things are stirring in Venezuela; very exciting. I wish them the best. You just need to quit being corrupt, quit taking bribes, and obey the law, even when nobody is looking. That's part of standing up for the greater good. And it helps to have a George Washington.
We already helped them with the internet. It's like an anti-dictatorship spray or something. It seeks them out and destroys them. They can't monopolize information into propaganda anymore. (Which is why the NSA corrupting it is so very bad.)
" They did that in Iraq also including giving them the means to create and use the chemical weapons they dropped on the Kurds. So yes I can."
Oh, I thought we were talking about current events; you're going back to Reagan. Yes, in hindsight, helping Saddam against Iran may have been a mistake. But we didn't gas those Kurds, and he would have fucked them up in some way, using our shit or not.
Only, there wouldn't have been a Saddam by that time, because Iran would have absolutely beaten Iraq in their war, if we hadn't made sure they didn't. And after taking Iraq, how big of an army did Saudi have in the early 80s? The whole peninsula was theirs after taking Iraq. And with the authority of the Ayatollah at the time, most of the conquered would have been happy about it, or at least not overly rebellious.
Then the 3rd most powerful nation in the world would have been about 10 miles from Israel's nukes. And they're not overly fond of the Israelis in the first place, if memory serves. I wonder what could have happened there?
That's scary even now. I wonder if that was one of the real reasons we went into Iraq; to hurt Iran. And then Afghanistan. It's surrounded. All we have to do is hang on, and prevent Iran from forming the next Caliphate, until democracy takes hold. And finally at the last moment, in Egypt, it does. Yay. And Obama has played Egypt pretty well; I will give him credit.
Anyway, it's easy now to Monday morning quarterback, but any mistakes you find, are just that; mistakes. And for now, I'm going to believe the NSA supporters are mistaken, and not evil. For now...
I said that; resentful. And I know they also lied about some shit.
But Bush really thought Saddam was up to something. He was truly disappointed when they didn't find any WMDs. And it doesn't matter what Rumsfeld or Cheney did or said; Bush was President, no one else.
Now I might be wrong, but I believe that Saddam was a fairly smart man, who slightly overplayed his hand; and Bush is really about as ignorant as he appears.
If Saddam had only realized that subtle international games were simply out of Bush's (and team's) league, he would have dealt with the UN, and let those inspectors go thru his underwear drawer. He didn't have anything to hide; thus he was playing games. If he had done that, even Britain wouldn't have been on our side, and Bush couldn't have done shit. The fact that his administration was itching for war is irrelevant, except perhaps to illustrate Bush's poor judgement in picking a team.
My original post, which apparently was poor, was an attempt to disconnect those points that falsely constructed a larger boogey man.
The real fight here is not torture in the US or Gitmo or all that other crap. The NSA (and our government) can no longer be trusted to snoop this kind of data. At least not while the Patriot Act exists. And probably never again, although that may be a debate worth having. I do want them to catch the nuke in the trunk of a car in Manhattan before it goes off. But I won't sell my freedom for it. Or yours.
"If you are seriously arguing that blowing up an entire wedding with women and children to kill one guy is ok (regardless if he is there or not) then you are an evil shitbag. "
I said it was "shit", and that we should stop. I see you cut that out of your reply.
So, of course not, and it should make no difference home or abroad; US citizen or no. The citizen part might make a difference in the kind of trial you get, (and I'd like to hear the reasoning on that), but otherwise it should make no difference.
So now I've said the obvious out loud, when before I was simply quickly commenting on those points, and my post was long enough.
How stupid is it to even have to say something so obvious as the above? But that was your goal wasn't it, to take the discussion away from ideas, and attack somebody.
So you're the evil shitbag for even saying something like that in the first place. You're the reason why we can't have nice things anymore, especially in politics.
"By itself, our dual party system (and the way they shut out 3rd parties) is cause for serious complaint."
It just moves the action to the primaries is all. You do get out and vote in the primaries, don't you? And looking at Washington, are you sure a dozen parties would be better than two? And those multiple parties have to form coalitions, which the people did not get to vote for. One could make the case; that a two party system is cleaner, more transparent, and more accountable to the voters.
If your state locks you out of one of the primaries because of party affiliation, than I agree that's a problem, and we should get that fixed.
You had me up until "NSA's primary functions is squashing political dissent and corporate espionage". I mean, that's not really their primary function; stick to facts man. But they have done those things, so let's look at your examples:
- Manipulations in places such as South America resulting in countless deaths. No, you can't blame them for the countless deaths. You assume they are the dominant players in sleazy corrupt South American politics. That's just silly. I will say I'm skeptical about our national interests being served in any way by getting ourselves dirty down there, if that helps.
- Presidential writs for assassination You mean like Bin-Laden? I guess you can disagree with the last 2 Presidents, and a lot of people on that. *IF* we do have to go out and kill somebody like that, then I definitely want the President to have to sign off on it, and not the Undersecretary of Defense or some such. But regardless, everybody knew about it; nothing to do with this NSA issue. And I think he was an international criminal, wanted in lots of places.
- Lying about WMD in Iraq Saddam lied about WMD in Iraq, and tricked George Bush. Saddam wanted the same deal North Korea got. North Korea started messing around with centrifuges and yellowcake and WMDs; and Clinton gave them a reactor, and I think some gas and food too, so they would stop. (And they did for a minute.) Saddam moves around some aluminum tubes so our satellites see it, and plants some guy in Niger trying to buy uranium; but he didn't count on: George Bush was just ignorant enough to fall for it, resentful for his daddy enough to never want to make a deal, and cowboy enough to go and get him.
I feel like that just happened, have people forgotten already? And yes, they found somebody way after the fact, in all those hearings, that lied about something. We're all shocked.
- Drone attacks on civilians We're all against that. They say they thought the guy was there, but it was a wedding. Oops. You can believe that shit or not, idk.
But Obama pulls that trigger, not the NSA. And he's supposedly killing Al-Qaeda. I do agree we should stop pulling that trigger. ButI think we're about to bring them all home though.
- State authorised torture You talking about the 3 guys that got waterboarded at Guantanamo? How long ago was that? The press covered that pretty good though, don't you think? Not really all that scary.
- Mass surveillance Yes, that's the thing, and why we're all here talking, and why I want to build a statue of Edward Snowden in my backyard.
- etc etc Which etc? Jumping on board early with Ukraine? Easy going, pretty much hands off with Egypt, but slightly protecting them from others as they go through their shit? We still do some good things. The US is not all evil just yet.
If I may refocus us: It's not so much the NSA knowing these things. They knew these things before, and we didn't care.
What changed was George Bush and the Congress that passed the Patriot Act. Those firewalls and barriers between agencies were there for a reason. I get that we want to break those barriers for something like 9/11. We went way too far.
And it's slowing down. This issue will be hot in the next election. I almost want to predict the Patriot Act will be repealed, but they will probably trick me on that one, and water it down a bit.
"... a death must occur before any tax on the deceased's assets can be realized... the tax rate is determined by the value of the deceased's assets rather than the amount each inheritor receives. Neither the number of inheritors nor the size of each inheritor's portion factors into the calculations for rate of the Estate Tax..."
The tax was levied because the person died. 'Death tax' seems like a proper description.
It was a preemptive answer to a question in case you asked it to save some time.
Cool. And I'm all about saving time. And I don't mean to have a semantic argument; these are real ideas I'm trying to express. In that spirit, I'll just lay it out as concisely as I can.
There was a Creator; it's the only way I can account for the existence of truth. There's also the problem of the origin of the big bang. But I don't believe in magic, so where does that leave me? I believe the creation of the universe was hard work, with no magic involved, probably a truly supreme and ultimate effort, and those raw materials and energy came from somewhere. The only plausible explanation I can come up with, is that it came from God himself. In other words, we live in, and are made out of, the body of God, so to speak.
It logically follows then, that God is dead, and has been for some time. 'Dead' not being entirely accurate, as the universe is alive, and we are alive within it, and I doubt we are the only ones. So, a metamorphosis, as the conversation above explored, is a possible description. Why though? Why would you do such a thing to yourself?
Profit. The only reasonable explanation is that it is an investment. As his 'children' (we are actually child particles of the big bang, and also consider the one common thread of all religions over the history of man; we are the creator's children) the implication is, we are going to grow up someday to be just like him. I guess that means united in love and harmony, with enlightenment and understanding of all things. At which point, you have God, a trillion fold. Or whatever the population of the universe is at the time. *That*, would be worth it.
And that implies to me a few things. First off, it could fail. The whole thing is a gamble. If we kill each other, and don't grow into our potential before the heat death of the universe, then it was kind of all for nothing, and God committed suicide. Also, we are kind of on our own at this point, so the atheists are right in a way. You can't just pray your way out of cause and effect. God is not in a position to help us, even if he can be defined as still existing. Not that he should help us if he could. If he did, then we would simply be kept pets in an aquarium. You can't grow that way; you have to actually be free. Actually it's probably us that are more in a position to help Him (or Them). We would do that, by getting on with the journey, and growing up. We may have until that final entropic event to get it right, but I don't think we have to take that long if we don't want to.:)
Nope, I am just concerned for the field of science.
Really? You just have to go for the ad hominem a second time? Sort of makes me regret taking the time to respond. But there are others here that don't mind tossing around ideas, even if it's just for fun.
Actually, I find the big bang to be rather convenient, almost religious, in fact; and would not be surprised to see mainstream theory swing back someday to a steady state universe. Of course, a lot of new science would have to happen first.
"Yes love and truth are real. They are abstract concepts with physical manifestations."
I'm going to disagree that an abstract concept is a real thing, so I have to take your answer as no, they are not real. And that's an answer, and may very well turn out to be the correct one. As I said, all I have is observation; I can't think of a falsifiable theory or experimental test.
"Are you sure you're a scientist?"
If I'm not, does that make it easier to dismiss the question out of hand? Does the truth of a statement depend on the ignorance level of the speaker? Or does that truth stand on it's own, regardless of who says it?
That's a pretty safe position, knowing that, logically, there can never be rational proof of a creator. If there was a creator, and it created the universe, then he/she/they created 4 dimensional space time, and all the mass/energy in it. Obviously, that means that they exist outside of that 4 dimensional spacetime, and thus, any photons striking your retina, will be unable to provide proof of something they never had a chance to reflect from.
As a scientist, I can accept, as much as my limited intellect will allow, an existence outside the known manifold of our 4 dimensions. Hell, string theorists say there's eleven, even though they look a lot more like dry math than anything that can be visualized.
What I can't accept, though, is a violation of the conservation of energy and mass. Everything comes from something and somewhere, ie; there is no such thing as magic. Even outside of our 4 dimensions, whatever that means; strings or whatever, there is no free lunch.
So now I ask: Is love real? Perhaps you haven't lived long enough to give a good answer to that one; what about truth? Is the truth real? Did I make it up, or was it made up by men long ago? Or is it, rather, a real thing? Whether anyone knows them or not, are there truths out there, waiting, perhaps, to be discovered?
Based on a lifetime of empirical observation, I believe love and truth (among other things) are real. And yet, there is no particle in the standard model for them. There's no ray or wavelength to detect. Very difficult to form a falsifiable hypothesis on things undetectable in 4 dimensional space time. And yet here those things are, right smack in the middle of our universe. They are made out of something, and they came from somewhere, which apparently exists outside, and therefore, 'before', the universe.
As far as weird shit people have said, especially regarding religion, I really can't help you with that.:)
"98% of all marine species went extinct during the Great Dying due to high levels of C02 turning the ocean acidic."
You state that like it's a fact, but it's somewhere between theory and conjecture; it's an assumption based on evidence we just learned how to interpret, that is millions of years old. Based on what we've got to date, yes; it's the best theory going.
But is it enough to tax the fuck out of me, or create artificial carbon credit markets so the government or the rich profit even more off our emissions? I think not. What about the billions of brown people that were just about to get their chance at the energy rich civilization that we take for granted? Not in a million years would we have the moral authority to hold them back like that.
Yes, everything comes down to politics. We could have all the clean electricity we want, and then some, with modern nuclear. That's the only other source of energy stored in the Earth's crust*. I'm talking modern nuclear that can't melt down, with the worst waste being pipes and crap, that are hot for about 300 years, tops.
You're thinking long term? What about the tons of super radioactive waste we have now? It's not going under Yucca Mountain, and no doubt that's for the best. There's only one thing to be done with it: Burn it up in a nuclear reactor. We need a handful of those, and whole bunch of the little safe ones.
Point being, if you love the planet, and hate carbon, then you support (modern) nuclear. If instead, you're just turning your attention to limiting what others can do, then it's likely that you're being tricked and seduced by the socialists. If you're thinking long term, there's no future in socialism either.
In this vertical white space to the left, they could put ads there, and get their money grubbing corporate freak on, and not run us all off.
-- Right here; this inch wide strip.
Or. Maybe they were never interested in running the news for nerds web site in the first place. There's not really a whole lot of nerds, and we're not rich.
So they are going to take it mainstream. There would be no reason to load 300 or 1000 comments; most people are not going to read those, and follow a lengthy discussion, like only we do.
Yet, most of the money doesn't get to stay in pocket. The tower-tester thing actually has to be built. So most of that money is going to wages of construction workers, a good many of whom are black, if that helps. The few crappy low paying jobs they quit to take these 2 year construction gigs now have to raise wages to get decent replacements. Eventually, somebody who couldn't find work before, is now working.
So it does somewhat help the plight of the poor; a good amount while while under construction, some small amount ongoing (assuming they can rent-sell-use it). Real jobs are better than welfare, are they not? At least this federal spending is about 1:1, as far as putting money back into the economy (or as close as you'll get). And injecting the majority of it this way, as wages at the working man's level, well; Democrats should love that.
I've been a deficit hawk for years, and am as conservative as they come. And yet, if given the King's power to axe this one pork program out of thousands, I would hesitate. In just about the poorest part of the country, these are good paying jobs, and they are building something of value, even if NASA doesn't want it anymore. And they did already start it, didn't they?
I'm just saying, that in the sea of wasteful federal spending, this is far from the worst thing going on. But yeah, it's a small part of the overall problem. The only way to get all the pork in line is with leadership, which we haven't had for many years.
Road Rash on N64 was far superior to the PS1. I don't think Goldeneye could have even been done on the PS1. I had both, and the N64 was a lot beefier. Playing the same game on both, the N64 was "better'". True that PS1 had a lot more games, and was overall more successful.
If I was Nintendo, and wanted to stay in this business, I'd go back to the development of the N64, and try to recapture that. Do it right this time, don't be late, only be slightly more expensive than the competition, while being noticeably more powerful. That may turn out to be too hard or expensive to do.
The other choice is to follow Sega. That would make me sad, but were I in charge, I would have to consider carefully throwing all my money into trying to beat today's Sony at building a game console.
"Is it vengeance or is that we simply want these people out of our lives permanently."
Man, this far into the thread and still...
It's deterrence. And that's all.
A victim can be made whole in most crimes. Property and money can be replaced. Even injuries can heal. These sorts of things can, and must, be accepted in a society on some level. Wayward youth, the hungry, the poor, the desperate; they will sometimes commit these acts. It is in society's interest, not to mention simple virtues, such as charity, forgiveness, redemption; to help these people, as we both punish and deter them. Rehabilitation and assistance towards any criminal that shows the slightest inclination for redemption are a couple of the hallmarks of an advanced civilization, to be sure.
But we're not talking about anything like that. There's no hunger, no desperation, no need. There's a predator, who enjoys the suffering of other humans. One who just ignores the primary pact of our civilization: You can't kill us. Not even for good reason. And especially to wait, until we are all engaged, and our backs are turned, and then find the most helpless and vulnerable of us, all alone, and inflict suffering, torture, rape, and kill us; simply because it makes you feel good, makes your dick hard, and you can, because you're bigger and stronger and meaner...
That is unacceptable.
Did you hear what I said? That is *unacceptable*, on any level. There is no restitution, there is no fitting punishment, there is nothing; it is done. That human, along with all their hopes and dreams, all they could have grown into, all the good they could have done, all the love that could have been had; gone forever. All we can do is try our best to prevent, as in, deter, cold blooded predatory murders like that in the first place. But how do you deter a real deal monster? Prison is a deterrent for good people that are tempted to do bad things. A monster is unlikely to be deterred by a prison, especially one where you can get your law degree and have your own private doctor, among other perks.
We really have only one thing over this guy. If you commit this unacceptable crime, then you can't be a part of our society any longer, in prison or anywhere else. That's what unacceptable means. And if you can accept this kind of behavior from predators, content with simply depriving them of their right to go to the mall and movie theaters (actually, you can watch movies in prison), then you're a monster too.
Slashdot Mirror
The creators of Battlestar Galactica must have known this, with their 50,000ish population.
Yes, I read about Carter. It appears to be a gross overreaction by the Texas authorities. Although technically, he did threaten to shoot kindergartners and other violence. He's had a restraining order against him before.
A Canadian reported him. He was not caught by surveillance. Your example is bogus.
You can't go to jail in the US just for illegal use of the internet. You can for looking at kiddie porn, or threatening somebody, but those things were illegal before we had an internet. You can freely read about Marxism, Nazism, Al-Qaeda musings... with no fear. If they caught you being part of Al-Qaeda through the internet, they would have caught you before, through the telephone, post, or surveillance. Ed Snowden has shown us that lately the NSA goes too far in surveillance, but that's not the same thing (yet), as a Cuba and the like.
Nobody is in jail here for reading or posting political views.
The imprisonment badge on the US is BS, and was the whole purpose of making this political statement of a silly map.
Not to argue, but it's not just our agenda. Freedom is the agenda of mankind.
Yes, 'free market' is abused quite often. Let's look at the term.
'Free', as in the freedom to buy a thing, or not buy a thing; the freedom to pick and choose among various styles and vendors of that thing...
There's no freedom here; I have to have internet access to my house, on just about the same level as I need power and water. Going without it is not an option. And as far as the kind of internet access I need, there's really just one of those too; and it's called 'Fast Enough'.
'Market', as in more than one store to buy something at. There's no market here; I have to buy that internet access from whatever cable comes to by house, regardless of what they call themselves this week. I will give you that where FIOS has overlapped cable, you have a market of 2. (I won't count DSL) And yes, we see temporary price wars, but I'm not fooled into thinking that it's a healthy 'market', or that it's good for me in any way in the long run.
There is no free market, and to try to fake one, pisses me off as a conservative. It's a utility already, and access to it needs to be 'owned', in the physical sense, by the government, or the people. Cities should probably administer it at a municipal level; Co-Ops are great for more rural areas. Maybe county, or even state. Whatever works best for for your locality as a voter, with as much right to internet access, as the right to have power and running water to your house.
The only hesitation that I have, is that it's early, and standardizing on something like fiber optic might be like Edison jumping on DC too early. Plus, the existing infrastructures would have to be bought out; the government can preeminent domain take something to a point, but the takee has to be paid. The moment such a law passed, but long before unprepared municipalities would be ready; investment money would flee the space instantly, resulting in chaos. The opponents would use that to their advantage, and would probably win.
Still, I can't wait for ISPs to be taken over by the people, and the term replaced with lowercase 'isp', an anachronism referring to a particular type of hookup to the internet.
Everyone dies alone.
"The problem is that any waste-burning reactors will still have to pay their way by generating electricity at an affordable price even with an offset for the value of destroying some waste."
I disagree. If they never make a dime we still need them; we have too much of this high level waste, and apparently nowhere to bury it. And I'm not sure that's such a bad thing. Not if it's going to be hot for 10,000 years. We have no choice now, but to burn this stuff up.
"not many folks pouring concrete and bending metal. It's the same with proponents of small modular and thorium molten-salt reactors. The financial costs of licencing, building, operating and eventaully decommissioning"
The actual costs; pouring concrete, bending metal, paying scientists to design it properly... they are not that much, and might have been cheaper than dealing with this stuff all this time. (how much was spent on Yucca Mt?) Most of the cost is due to the government, licensing, etc. Now obviously, a nuke license should be somewhat harder to get than a driver's license. But not as hard as it is now.
I will agree with you on the decommissioning part, by saying that we should never again build another reactor that creates waste products that are hot longer than a few hundred years. (A few hundred years is still pushing it, but it is conceivable that we could plant a caution sign that would last that long.)
"... so they're more difficult to use in fuel rods ..."
You're right. The old style reactors pretty much can't use a lot of it (or it's a major pita), as you say.
We need new reactors specifically designed to burn this stuff.
BitZtream has it right.
The only real thing to do with this waste is to burn it up in nuclear reactors.
I got a little more in me...
"The CIA actively funded, trained and supplied death squads in SA."
I see what you're doing, I wonder if you even do though. It's not just peaceful farmers and hippies down there, practicing love and understanding, until the mean old CIA comes along.
The "squads" were already there, although I don't think they call themselves death squads. And there are good guys and bad guys in the power vacuums created by the cesspool of SA politics. And Russia has people there, as does China, and God knows who else. Well, you really don't know, until you send somebody down there to find out.
There's a saying in politics (forgive me if I butcher it): You can say that you're not playing ball, but then you're just playing ball badly. We don't get to opt out. Still, as I said, I'm skeptical that we can possibly do any real good in the jungles of SA.
As a side note, ever wonder why foreign intelligence services don't fund death squads in the backwoods here in the US? Or in Britain? Or Australia even, remote as some of it is? Or a number of other countries. Ozark National Forest in the deep Arkansas woods of the US would be a perfect place. Actually, they could come there, and camp in one spot, for up to two weeks, before they have to move on. And if the paperwork on their legal firearms are in order, they would be... free to go. Unless they shot somebody, at which point all hell comes down, until they're caught and tried for murder.
Because we're not corrupt. There's no power vacuum here. SA gets the politics it deserves. The shit that goes on in their jungles is their fault, not ours. Not enough of them of them are ready to stand up for the greater good. Standing up, meaning willing to die for it. Things are stirring in Venezuela; very exciting. I wish them the best. You just need to quit being corrupt, quit taking bribes, and obey the law, even when nobody is looking. That's part of standing up for the greater good. And it helps to have a George Washington.
We already helped them with the internet. It's like an anti-dictatorship spray or something. It seeks them out and destroys them. They can't monopolize information into propaganda anymore. (Which is why the NSA corrupting it is so very bad.)
" They did that in Iraq also including giving them the means to create and use the chemical weapons they dropped on the Kurds.
So yes I can."
Oh, I thought we were talking about current events; you're going back to Reagan. Yes, in hindsight, helping Saddam against Iran may have been a mistake. But we didn't gas those Kurds, and he would have fucked them up in some way, using our shit or not.
Only, there wouldn't have been a Saddam by that time, because Iran would have absolutely beaten Iraq in their war, if we hadn't made sure they didn't. And after taking Iraq, how big of an army did Saudi have in the early 80s? The whole peninsula was theirs after taking Iraq. And with the authority of the Ayatollah at the time, most of the conquered would have been happy about it, or at least not overly rebellious.
Then the 3rd most powerful nation in the world would have been about 10 miles from Israel's nukes. And they're not overly fond of the Israelis in the first place, if memory serves. I wonder what could have happened there?
That's scary even now. I wonder if that was one of the real reasons we went into Iraq; to hurt Iran. And then Afghanistan. It's surrounded. All we have to do is hang on, and prevent Iran from forming the next Caliphate, until democracy takes hold. And finally at the last moment, in Egypt, it does. Yay. And Obama has played Egypt pretty well; I will give him credit.
Anyway, it's easy now to Monday morning quarterback, but any mistakes you find, are just that; mistakes. And for now, I'm going to believe the NSA supporters are mistaken, and not evil. For now...
"Bush and his friends badly wanted a war."
I said that; resentful. And I know they also lied about some shit.
But Bush really thought Saddam was up to something. He was truly disappointed when they didn't find any WMDs. And it doesn't matter what Rumsfeld or Cheney did or said; Bush was President, no one else.
Now I might be wrong, but I believe that Saddam was a fairly smart man, who slightly overplayed his hand; and Bush is really about as ignorant as he appears.
If Saddam had only realized that subtle international games were simply out of Bush's (and team's) league, he would have dealt with the UN, and let those inspectors go thru his underwear drawer. He didn't have anything to hide; thus he was playing games. If he had done that, even Britain wouldn't have been on our side, and Bush couldn't have done shit. The fact that his administration was itching for war is irrelevant, except perhaps to illustrate Bush's poor judgement in picking a team.
My original post, which apparently was poor, was an attempt to disconnect those points that falsely constructed a larger boogey man.
The real fight here is not torture in the US or Gitmo or all that other crap. The NSA (and our government) can no longer be trusted to snoop this kind of data. At least not while the Patriot Act exists. And probably never again, although that may be a debate worth having. I do want them to catch the nuke in the trunk of a car in Manhattan before it goes off. But I won't sell my freedom for it. Or yours.
"If you are seriously arguing that blowing up an entire wedding with women and children to kill one guy is ok (regardless if he is there or not) then you are an evil shitbag. "
I said it was "shit", and that we should stop. I see you cut that out of your reply.
So, of course not, and it should make no difference home or abroad; US citizen or no. The citizen part might make a difference in the kind of trial you get, (and I'd like to hear the reasoning on that), but otherwise it should make no difference.
So now I've said the obvious out loud, when before I was simply quickly commenting on those points, and my post was long enough.
How stupid is it to even have to say something so obvious as the above? But that was your goal wasn't it, to take the discussion away from ideas, and attack somebody.
So you're the evil shitbag for even saying something like that in the first place. You're the reason why we can't have nice things anymore, especially in politics.
"By itself, our dual party system (and the way they shut out 3rd parties) is cause for serious complaint."
It just moves the action to the primaries is all. You do get out and vote in the primaries, don't you? And looking at Washington, are you sure a dozen parties would be better than two? And those multiple parties have to form coalitions, which the people did not get to vote for. One could make the case; that a two party system is cleaner, more transparent, and more accountable to the voters.
If your state locks you out of one of the primaries because of party affiliation, than I agree that's a problem, and we should get that fixed.
You had me up until "NSA's primary functions is squashing political dissent and corporate espionage". I mean, that's not really their primary function; stick to facts man. But they have done those things, so let's look at your examples:
- Manipulations in places such as South America resulting in countless deaths.
No, you can't blame them for the countless deaths. You assume they are the dominant players in sleazy corrupt South American politics. That's just silly. I will say I'm skeptical about our national interests being served in any way by getting ourselves dirty down there, if that helps.
- Presidential writs for assassination
You mean like Bin-Laden? I guess you can disagree with the last 2 Presidents, and a lot of people on that. *IF* we do have to go out and kill somebody like that, then I definitely want the President to have to sign off on it, and not the Undersecretary of Defense or some such. But regardless, everybody knew about it; nothing to do with this NSA issue. And I think he was an international criminal, wanted in lots of places.
- Lying about WMD in Iraq
Saddam lied about WMD in Iraq, and tricked George Bush. Saddam wanted the same deal North Korea got. North Korea started messing around with centrifuges and yellowcake and WMDs; and Clinton gave them a reactor, and I think some gas and food too, so they would stop. (And they did for a minute.) Saddam moves around some aluminum tubes so our satellites see it, and plants some guy in Niger trying to buy uranium; but he didn't count on: George Bush was just ignorant enough to fall for it, resentful for his daddy enough to never want to make a deal, and cowboy enough to go and get him.
I feel like that just happened, have people forgotten already? And yes, they found somebody way after the fact, in all those hearings, that lied about something. We're all shocked.
- Drone attacks on civilians
We're all against that. They say they thought the guy was there, but it was a wedding. Oops. You can believe that shit or not, idk.
But Obama pulls that trigger, not the NSA. And he's supposedly killing Al-Qaeda. I do agree we should stop pulling that trigger. ButI think we're about to bring them all home though.
- State authorised torture
You talking about the 3 guys that got waterboarded at Guantanamo? How long ago was that? The press covered that pretty good though, don't you think? Not really all that scary.
- Mass surveillance
Yes, that's the thing, and why we're all here talking, and why I want to build a statue of Edward Snowden in my backyard.
- etc etc
Which etc? Jumping on board early with Ukraine? Easy going, pretty much hands off with Egypt, but slightly protecting them from others as they go through their shit? We still do some good things. The US is not all evil just yet.
If I may refocus us: It's not so much the NSA knowing these things. They knew these things before, and we didn't care.
What changed was George Bush and the Congress that passed the Patriot Act. Those firewalls and barriers between agencies were there for a reason. I get that we want to break those barriers for something like 9/11. We went way too far.
And it's slowing down. This issue will be hot in the next election. I almost want to predict the Patriot Act will be repealed, but they will probably trick me on that one, and water it down a bit.
And we need more super-powers, not less.
"... a death must occur before any tax on the deceased's assets can be realized ... the tax rate is determined by the value of the deceased's assets rather than the amount each inheritor receives. Neither the number of inheritors nor the size of each inheritor's portion factors into the calculations for rate of the Estate Tax..."
The tax was levied because the person died. 'Death tax' seems like a proper description.
No, actually, I didn't.
It was a preemptive answer to a question in case you asked it to save some time.
Cool. And I'm all about saving time. And I don't mean to have a semantic argument; these are real ideas I'm trying to express. In that spirit, I'll just lay it out as concisely as I can.
There was a Creator; it's the only way I can account for the existence of truth. There's also the problem of the origin of the big bang. But I don't believe in magic, so where does that leave me? I believe the creation of the universe was hard work, with no magic involved, probably a truly supreme and ultimate effort, and those raw materials and energy came from somewhere. The only plausible explanation I can come up with, is that it came from God himself. In other words, we live in, and are made out of, the body of God, so to speak.
It logically follows then, that God is dead, and has been for some time. 'Dead' not being entirely accurate, as the universe is alive, and we are alive within it, and I doubt we are the only ones. So, a metamorphosis, as the conversation above explored, is a possible description. Why though? Why would you do such a thing to yourself?
Profit. The only reasonable explanation is that it is an investment. As his 'children' (we are actually child particles of the big bang, and also consider the one common thread of all religions over the history of man; we are the creator's children) the implication is, we are going to grow up someday to be just like him. I guess that means united in love and harmony, with enlightenment and understanding of all things. At which point, you have God, a trillion fold. Or whatever the population of the universe is at the time. *That*, would be worth it.
And that implies to me a few things. First off, it could fail. The whole thing is a gamble. If we kill each other, and don't grow into our potential before the heat death of the universe, then it was kind of all for nothing, and God committed suicide. Also, we are kind of on our own at this point, so the atheists are right in a way. You can't just pray your way out of cause and effect. God is not in a position to help us, even if he can be defined as still existing. Not that he should help us if he could. If he did, then we would simply be kept pets in an aquarium. You can't grow that way; you have to actually be free. Actually it's probably us that are more in a position to help Him (or Them). We would do that, by getting on with the journey, and growing up. We may have until that final entropic event to get it right, but I don't think we have to take that long if we don't want to. :)
Nope, I am just concerned for the field of science.
Really? You just have to go for the ad hominem a second time? Sort of makes me regret taking the time to respond. But there are others here that don't mind tossing around ideas, even if it's just for fun.
"You say God is eternal? "
No, actually, I didn't.
"Well maybe the universe is eternal too."
Actually, I find the big bang to be rather convenient, almost religious, in fact; and would not be surprised to see mainstream theory swing back someday to a steady state universe. Of course, a lot of new science would have to happen first.
"Yes love and truth are real. They are abstract concepts with physical manifestations."
I'm going to disagree that an abstract concept is a real thing, so I have to take your answer as no, they are not real. And that's an answer, and may very well turn out to be the correct one. As I said, all I have is observation; I can't think of a falsifiable theory or experimental test.
"Are you sure you're a scientist?"
If I'm not, does that make it easier to dismiss the question out of hand? Does the truth of a statement depend on the ignorance level of the speaker? Or does that truth stand on it's own, regardless of who says it?
That's a pretty safe position, knowing that, logically, there can never be rational proof of a creator. If there was a creator, and it created the universe, then he/she/they created 4 dimensional space time, and all the mass/energy in it. Obviously, that means that they exist outside of that 4 dimensional spacetime, and thus, any photons striking your retina, will be unable to provide proof of something they never had a chance to reflect from.
As a scientist, I can accept, as much as my limited intellect will allow, an existence outside the known manifold of our 4 dimensions. Hell, string theorists say there's eleven, even though they look a lot more like dry math than anything that can be visualized.
What I can't accept, though, is a violation of the conservation of energy and mass. Everything comes from something and somewhere, ie; there is no such thing as magic. Even outside of our 4 dimensions, whatever that means; strings or whatever, there is no free lunch.
So now I ask: Is love real? Perhaps you haven't lived long enough to give a good answer to that one; what about truth? Is the truth real? Did I make it up, or was it made up by men long ago? Or is it, rather, a real thing? Whether anyone knows them or not, are there truths out there, waiting, perhaps, to be discovered?
Based on a lifetime of empirical observation, I believe love and truth (among other things) are real. And yet, there is no particle in the standard model for them. There's no ray or wavelength to detect. Very difficult to form a falsifiable hypothesis on things undetectable in 4 dimensional space time. And yet here those things are, right smack in the middle of our universe. They are made out of something, and they came from somewhere, which apparently exists outside, and therefore, 'before', the universe.
As far as weird shit people have said, especially regarding religion, I really can't help you with that. :)
"98% of all marine species went extinct during the Great Dying due to high levels of C02 turning the ocean acidic."
You state that like it's a fact, but it's somewhere between theory and conjecture; it's an assumption based on evidence we just learned how to interpret, that is millions of years old. Based on what we've got to date, yes; it's the best theory going.
But is it enough to tax the fuck out of me, or create artificial carbon credit markets so the government or the rich profit even more off our emissions? I think not. What about the billions of brown people that were just about to get their chance at the energy rich civilization that we take for granted? Not in a million years would we have the moral authority to hold them back like that.
Yes, everything comes down to politics. We could have all the clean electricity we want, and then some, with modern nuclear. That's the only other source of energy stored in the Earth's crust*. I'm talking modern nuclear that can't melt down, with the worst waste being pipes and crap, that are hot for about 300 years, tops.
You're thinking long term? What about the tons of super radioactive waste we have now? It's not going under Yucca Mountain, and no doubt that's for the best. There's only one thing to be done with it: Burn it up in a nuclear reactor. We need a handful of those, and whole bunch of the little safe ones.
Point being, if you love the planet, and hate carbon, then you support (modern) nuclear. If instead, you're just turning your attention to limiting what others can do, then it's likely that you're being tricked and seduced by the socialists. If you're thinking long term, there's no future in socialism either.
Ars has already fallen. Conde Nast, I think?
The quality of discussion there, is far worse than here, pretty much ever since they changed the discussion boards.
Sigh.
In this vertical white space to the left, they could put ads there, and get their money grubbing corporate freak on, and not run us all off.
-- Right here; this inch wide strip.
Or. Maybe they were never interested in running the news for nerds web site in the first place. There's not really a whole lot of nerds, and we're not rich.
So they are going to take it mainstream. There would be no reason to load 300 or 1000 comments; most people are not going to read those, and follow a lengthy discussion, like only we do.
Yet, most of the money doesn't get to stay in pocket. The tower-tester thing actually has to be built. So most of that money is going to wages of construction workers, a good many of whom are black, if that helps. The few crappy low paying jobs they quit to take these 2 year construction gigs now have to raise wages to get decent replacements. Eventually, somebody who couldn't find work before, is now working.
So it does somewhat help the plight of the poor; a good amount while while under construction, some small amount ongoing (assuming they can rent-sell-use it). Real jobs are better than welfare, are they not? At least this federal spending is about 1:1, as far as putting money back into the economy (or as close as you'll get). And injecting the majority of it this way, as wages at the working man's level, well; Democrats should love that.
I've been a deficit hawk for years, and am as conservative as they come. And yet, if given the King's power to axe this one pork program out of thousands, I would hesitate. In just about the poorest part of the country, these are good paying jobs, and they are building something of value, even if NASA doesn't want it anymore. And they did already start it, didn't they?
I'm just saying, that in the sea of wasteful federal spending, this is far from the worst thing going on. But yeah, it's a small part of the overall problem. The only way to get all the pork in line is with leadership, which we haven't had for many years.
Road Rash on N64 was far superior to the PS1. I don't think Goldeneye could have even been done on the PS1. I had both, and the N64 was a lot beefier. Playing the same game on both, the N64 was "better'". True that PS1 had a lot more games, and was overall more successful.
If I was Nintendo, and wanted to stay in this business, I'd go back to the development of the N64, and try to recapture that. Do it right this time, don't be late, only be slightly more expensive than the competition, while being noticeably more powerful. That may turn out to be too hard or expensive to do.
The other choice is to follow Sega. That would make me sad, but were I in charge, I would have to consider carefully throwing all my money into trying to beat today's Sony at building a game console.
"Is it vengeance or is that we simply want these people out of our lives permanently."
Man, this far into the thread and still...
It's deterrence. And that's all.
A victim can be made whole in most crimes. Property and money can be replaced. Even injuries can heal. These sorts of things can, and must, be accepted in a society on some level. Wayward youth, the hungry, the poor, the desperate; they will sometimes commit these acts. It is in society's interest, not to mention simple virtues, such as charity, forgiveness, redemption; to help these people, as we both punish and deter them. Rehabilitation and assistance towards any criminal that shows the slightest inclination for redemption are a couple of the hallmarks of an advanced civilization, to be sure.
But we're not talking about anything like that. There's no hunger, no desperation, no need. There's a predator, who enjoys the suffering of other humans. One who just ignores the primary pact of our civilization: You can't kill us. Not even for good reason. And especially to wait, until we are all engaged, and our backs are turned, and then find the most helpless and vulnerable of us, all alone, and inflict suffering, torture, rape, and kill us; simply because it makes you feel good, makes your dick hard, and you can, because you're bigger and stronger and meaner...
That is unacceptable.
Did you hear what I said? That is *unacceptable*, on any level. There is no restitution, there is no fitting punishment, there is nothing; it is done. That human, along with all their hopes and dreams, all they could have grown into, all the good they could have done, all the love that could have been had; gone forever. All we can do is try our best to prevent, as in, deter, cold blooded predatory murders like that in the first place. But how do you deter a real deal monster? Prison is a deterrent for good people that are tempted to do bad things. A monster is unlikely to be deterred by a prison, especially one where you can get your law degree and have your own private doctor, among other perks.
We really have only one thing over this guy. If you commit this unacceptable crime, then you can't be a part of our society any longer, in prison or anywhere else. That's what unacceptable means. And if you can accept this kind of behavior from predators, content with simply depriving them of their right to go to the mall and movie theaters (actually, you can watch movies in prison), then you're a monster too.
"I was lucky to escape the environment, ..."
What you just described wasn't luck.
What you just described, was hard work on the part of yourself and your parents.