At
what scale is freedom of association overridden by your claim that
people have a fundamental right to enter any country to "seek a better
life"?
Can anyone enter your family's property to "seek a better
life"? Can anyone force an adoption by your family so they can
"seek a better life"?
How about when a group of families together own a larger piece
of land with covenants governing their association? Does someone who
"seeks a better life" have a right to hold those convenants in contempt
because they are "xenophobic"?
Is a body of law, such as the Constitution, invalid because it
gives the association the right to exclude, for
whatever reason they see fit, people who attempt to enter the association's land "seeking a better life"?
There is a huge difference between arguing that its good to expand immigration and arguing that immigration is a fundamental human right. You do
the latter -- and have done so repeatedly.
At what scale is freedom of association overridden by your claim that people have a fundamental life to enter any country to "seek a better life"?
Can just anyone enter your family's property to "seek a better life"? Can just anyone force an adoption by your family so they can "seek a better life"?
How about when a group of families together own a larger piece of land with covenants governing their association? Does someone who "seeks a better life" have a right to hold those convenants in contempt because they are "xenophobic"?
Is a body of law, such as the Constitution, invalid because it gives those associating under its covenants the right to exclude, for whatever reason they see fit, people who "seek a better life"?
There is a huge difference between arguing that immigration is good and arguing that immigration is a fundamental human right. You do the latter -- and have done so repeatedly.
According to the study, an hour of time spent using the Internet reduces face-to-face contact with friends, co-workers and family
This is most likely because after multiple generations of mass media cutting into the inter-generational transfer of values, we often find our face-to-face relationships dominated by values determined by those thousands of miles away from alien culures. Naturally we are alienated from those most intimate with us. So, before we can resolve our alienation from those most intimate with us, we must all escape the central and alien points of control over our culture and values. We can then discover who we are and reestablish real relationships with those with whom we should be most intimate.
There is no reason to be such a totalitarian about violating the most fundamental human right of all: freedom of association -- unless you are morally bankrupt and benefitting from such violations.
Why are you so much in favor of denying people their most fundamental right?
All government is a mutual insurance company, voluntarily agreed upon by the parties to it, for the protection of their rights against wrong-doers.
I think he's basically correct.
Now, do you think in these terms -- of legitimate government as mutual insurnce company -- then major asset protected is the land of the government's territory. If you presume to say anyone outside the association has a right to join the association, and take up residence on the land, then you are violating the voluntary nature of the association.
Freedom of association is, in fact, the fundamental human right -- the right upon which all other rights -- including property rights -- are founded.
You've heard of "The American Experiment"? Well what good scientist would allow contamination into or out of his experiment?
This sort of originated in the Enlightenment around debates between whether nature or theology should be the arbitrater of truth. The "nature" advocates, otherwise known as scientists came up with the idea that separation of experimental conditions from surrounding conditions was a really really good idea for discovering truth.
Imagine the position of these people -- they can be kept over there until they die by the brass if the brass has any reason to believe they would be a problem if sent home. They are of course "guaranteed" anonymity during the poll taking process and -- amazingly -- they all say exactly what they need to say to avoid being categorized as a problem. Who knows... they may even get to the point where they believe the answers themselves so long as it maximizes their likelihood of survival.
Guys like you are what make the electoral process in the US what it is.
If the so-called "homeland security" policies were doing their job, rather than trying to take more and civil liberties from US citizens, they'd:
Totally seal the borders
Confiscate and auction off the properties of all employers of illegal aliens to pay the expenses of
sending illegals home
back taxes and
social service costs of supporting illegals to date
provide huge prize incentives for commercial development of alternatives to the fragile air transportation infrastructure
provide huge prize incentives for commercial development of small-capitalization self-sufficiency systems so that small communities if not individual households could provide their basic necessities without reliance on centralized structures
tear down the prison system as unfit for human habitation and construct a new one in which none of
prisoner rape or other violence
hepatitis C or
AIDS
was a substantial risk and
make sure that when national guardsmen come home from Iraq, trained in urban warfare and all pissed off at having been abused by the government, they at least have a job.
I know, I know... This is all way too sane for the scum who have occupied the positions of trust and authority within the de facto government of the US.
"My analysis of Hilbert's mutilated proofs therefore cannot prove that Einstein copied from Hilbert," he says. "It proves less, which is that it cannot be proved that Einstein could not have copied from Hilbert. But it proves that Hilbert had not copied from Einstein, as it has been insinuated following the paper by Corry, Renn and Stachel."
B612 Foundation is an example of what I've called earth shielding entities that will exploit earth-approaching asteroidal materials before they can be used as celestial weapons of mass destruction against earth:
Before growing far toward being heliocentric, the first biorb will
need to begin the defense of Earth against celestial attacks.
Kinetic energy asteroidal weapons are the most likely technology to represent the greatest threat to Earth
as a result of the growing solar biorb. Once asteroid mining
begins in earnest, as it will once life becomes heliocentric, asteroids
can be redirected via carefully planned celestial mechanics.
Within a matter of decades, a malicious interest could send a swarm of
tiny asteroids toward Earth at speeds comparable to that of the Swift Tuttle comet
-- a popular candidate for global disaster scenarios. Since
kinetic energy goes up as the square of velocity, the important thing
is to find small asteroids with the right trajectories. This
would most likely be carried out on the basis of a fairly complete
atlas of the trajectories of small asteroids, searching for some large
number of them that could be manipulated to converge on Earth with
maximum relative velocity over a fairly narrow window of time.
The
most economic defense will likely be the preemptive survey, cataloging
and monitoring of all celestial objects (comets as well as asteroids)
large enough to survive high speed passage through Earth's atmostphere
with little loss due to ablation. This means the initial
prospecting for asteroidal resources will be carried out by Earth
shielding entities. It is difficult to second guess the
technologies that would be available for this task so far in the
future, but candidate technologies are already upon us and surveys are already being done.
Perhaps
the most positive aspect of this situation is that when an asteroid is
identified as a threat, it is also identified as a particularly
attractive source of "fuel" for space transportation. Any
asteroid that has a high velocity relative to Earth, or can be easily
made to have such a velocity, and which has an orbit that can be made
to come near Earth, can be used as reaction mass to navigate the inner
solar system. Each time this is done, however, the threat
represented by such asteroids diminishes. It's as though someone
had discovered a way to burn nuclear fuel in jets without
pollution. The bombs would get burned up due to economic demand.
Additional
global threats to Earth are most likely decreased by removing
technological civilization from its biosphere.
In truth, it does not matter who was first. As with the lightning rod, the light bulb, radio -- and so many other innovations before and after -- it suffices to say it was in the aether, it was inevitable, its time was come.
These things aren't at all inevitable.
First, the 20 year delay between Lilienfeld and the realization of the transistor should be evidence alone of the fact that something more than "the inevitable" was going on with the transistor. Additional evidence is that the inventors of the transistor did their work against orders from Bell Labs management to stop work. they actually had to hide their work on a roller-cart which they hid in a closet until their management was gone when they would roll it out and continue their work. It could easily have been 20 more years -- or more -- if they hadn't risked their jobs to do what Bell Labs management tried to stop them from doing.
Secondly, all you need to do to observer that "ripe" technological advances are not inevitable is just look at what NASA has done to kill the spirit of enterprise in launch vehicles for the last 30 years or more. You can kill almost any technology by simply creating a government bureaucracy chartered to develop it which continues to get money to "solve" the problem so long as the problem remains unsolved. They'll have billions per year to make sure it never happens -- and when it comes to lowering the price per lb to low earth orbit they have succeeded in that task beyond anyone's wildest expectations.
In preparation for the end of civilization as we know it, a Foundation must be set up preserving the most crucial knowledge acquired by civilization. We can't afford to leave this to chance, of course, so it must be redundantly encoded the world over and, if budget allows, even off world -- and in a variety of forms. This means we cannot afford to encode everything but must limit ourselves to the following 2 messages:
White, heterosexual, non-Jewish, non-Hispanic males are bad and evil -- especially the blond ones.
Everyone else is a victim and pretty good.
Oh wait -- Hollywood and has already put that on DVDs and VHS.
For once, total consumption of a non-renewable resource will be a *good* thing...
And it won't be the only time. From the Disperse Life scenario:
Earth Shield
Before growing far toward being heliocentric, the first biorb will need to begin the defense of Earth against celestial attacks.
Kinetic energy asteroidal weapons are the most likely technology to represent the greatest threat to Earth as a result of the growing solar biorb. Once asteroid mining begins in earnest, as it will once life becomes heliocentric, asteroids can be redirected via carefully planned celestial mechanics. Within a matter of decades, a malicious interest could send a swarm of tiny asteroids toward Earth at speeds comparable to that of the Swift Tuttle comet -- a popular candidate for global disaster scenarios. Since kinetic energy goes up as the square of velocity, the important thing is to find small asteroids with the right trajectories. This would most likely be carried out on the basis of a fairly complete atlas of the trajectories of small asteroids, searching for some large number of them that could be manipulated to converge on Earth with maximum relative velocity over a fairly narrow window of time.
The most economic defense will likely be the preemptive survey, cataloging and monitoring of all celestial objects (comets as well as asteroids) large enough to survive high speed passage through Earth's atmostphere with little loss due to ablation. This means the initial prospecting for asteroidal resources will be carried out by Earth shielding entities. It is difficult to second guess the technologies that would be available for this task so far in the future, but candidate technologies are already upon us and surveys are already being done.
Perhaps the most positive aspect of this situation is that when an asteroid is identified as a threat, it is also identified as a particularly attractive source of "fuel" for space transportation. Any asteroid that has a high velocity relative to Earth, or can be easily made to have such a velocity, and which has an orbit that can be made to come near Earth, can be used as reaction mass to navigate the inner solar system. Each time this is done, however, the threat represented by such asteroids diminishes. It's as though someone had discovered a way to burn nuclear fuel in jets without pollution. The bombs would get burned up due to economic demand.
Additional global threats to Earth are most likely decreased by removing technological civilization from its biosphere.
The important thing about this asteroid is value as construction material. It should be possible to mine it for everything from raw reaction mass to oxygen to space habitat construction materials.
It is a lot better than lunar materials because of the low gravity hold on its own mass. It is also a lot better than asteroidal belt material because of the short round-trip times possible, which goes straight to the bottom line in terms of rate of return.
Ah, an anonymous coward dimwit...
on
Revising the GPL
·
· Score: 1
Small organizations cannot afford internal programming staff precisely because for them the meaning of "use it internally" is very different than for a huge organization.
The skills you need to understand this are at the level of development where you learned to count.
Re:The RPL Already Solves the Fundamental Problem
on
Revising the GPL
·
· Score: 1
Actually, ANY company can modify and internally distribute GPL'd code without giving it back to the open source community, not just large ones.
But only large organizations can afford the internal software development staff to exploit that loop hole.
All the bureaucracies have to do under the RPL is the same thing small businesses must do under the GPL:
Open source their mods.
The RPL Already Solves the Fundamental Problem
on
Revising the GPL
·
· Score: 1, Insightful
The GPL favors huge organizations over small organizations. If you are a Hewlett-Packard or Defense Department, you can modify and internally distribute code to your heart's content without ever reciprocating the open source community.
If this Subcommittee hears no other message through the barrage of studies, projections and policy recommendations, it must hear this message. A reformed space policy focused on opening the space frontier through commercial incentives will make all the difference to our future as a world, a nation and as individuals.
Let's hope NASA gets the idea before its too late.
Figures from space.com, $140 million and 50,000 lbs, allow one to estimate the cost/lb to LEO of the Delta IV at $2800/lb when the payload bay is packed to the gills.
A neural network is set up to control a audio-visual environment. You dynamically measure IQ via the proxy of the (highly correlated) evoked potential response of the subject and backpropagate an error signal through the multimedia neural net inversely proportional to the dynamic IQ of the subject.
Simple in concept. With a little luck we'd have people whose brains had been stimulated to a high IQ state without ending up with something like the lawnmowerman taking over slashdot.
Slashdot Mirror
At what scale is freedom of association overridden by your claim that people have a fundamental right to enter any country to "seek a better life"?
Can anyone enter your family's property to "seek a better life"? Can anyone force an adoption by your family so they can "seek a better life"?
How about when a group of families together own a larger piece of land with covenants governing their association? Does someone who "seeks a better life" have a right to hold those convenants in contempt because they are "xenophobic"?
Is a body of law, such as the Constitution, invalid because it gives the association the right to exclude, for whatever reason they see fit, people who attempt to enter the association's land "seeking a better life"?
There is a huge difference between arguing that its good to expand immigration and arguing that immigration is a fundamental human right. You do the latter -- and have done so repeatedly.
Can just anyone enter your family's property to "seek a better life"? Can just anyone force an adoption by your family so they can "seek a better life"?
How about when a group of families together own a larger piece of land with covenants governing their association? Does someone who "seeks a better life" have a right to hold those convenants in contempt because they are "xenophobic"?
Is a body of law, such as the Constitution, invalid because it gives those associating under its covenants the right to exclude, for whatever reason they see fit, people who "seek a better life"?
There is a huge difference between arguing that immigration is good and arguing that immigration is a fundamental human right. You do the latter -- and have done so repeatedly.
You're about to start thinking. Good for you.
This is most likely because after multiple generations of mass media cutting into the inter-generational transfer of values, we often find our face-to-face relationships dominated by values determined by those thousands of miles away from alien culures. Naturally we are alienated from those most intimate with us. So, before we can resolve our alienation from those most intimate with us, we must all escape the central and alien points of control over our culture and values. We can then discover who we are and reestablish real relationships with those with whom we should be most intimate.
Why are you so much in favor of denying people their most fundamental right?
Now, do you think in these terms -- of legitimate government as mutual insurnce company -- then major asset protected is the land of the government's territory. If you presume to say anyone outside the association has a right to join the association, and take up residence on the land, then you are violating the voluntary nature of the association.
Freedom of association is, in fact, the fundamental human right -- the right upon which all other rights -- including property rights -- are founded.
Never mind. The odds of you being a troll with a nym like that is approximately 1-1e-10
This sort of originated in the Enlightenment around debates between whether nature or theology should be the arbitrater of truth. The "nature" advocates, otherwise known as scientists came up with the idea that separation of experimental conditions from surrounding conditions was a really really good idea for discovering truth.
I think they were right.
Guys like you are what make the electoral process in the US what it is.
- Totally seal the borders
- Confiscate and auction off the properties of all employers of illegal aliens to pay the expenses of
- sending illegals home
- back taxes and
- social service costs of supporting illegals to date
- provide huge prize incentives for commercial development of alternatives to the fragile air transportation infrastructure
- provide huge prize incentives for commercial development of small-capitalization self-sufficiency systems so that small communities if not individual households could provide their basic necessities without reliance on centralized structures
- tear down the prison system as unfit for human habitation and construct a new one in which none of
- make sure that when national guardsmen come home from Iraq, trained in urban warfare and all pissed off at having been abused by the government, they at least have a job.
I know, I know... This is all way too sane for the scum who have occupied the positions of trust and authority within the de facto government of the US.- prisoner rape or other violence
- hepatitis C or
- AIDS
was a substantial risk andWinterbottom is one of my favorite directors.
The money quote:
The original paper by Prof. Winterbottom was published but a rebuttal to that paper by Corry, Renn and Stachel was not.
I think we're turning Bra Zil Yun I think we're turning Bra Zil Yun I really think so...
These things aren't at all inevitable.
First, the 20 year delay between Lilienfeld and the realization of the transistor should be evidence alone of the fact that something more than "the inevitable" was going on with the transistor. Additional evidence is that the inventors of the transistor did their work against orders from Bell Labs management to stop work. they actually had to hide their work on a roller-cart which they hid in a closet until their management was gone when they would roll it out and continue their work. It could easily have been 20 more years -- or more -- if they hadn't risked their jobs to do what Bell Labs management tried to stop them from doing.
Secondly, all you need to do to observer that "ripe" technological advances are not inevitable is just look at what NASA has done to kill the spirit of enterprise in launch vehicles for the last 30 years or more. You can kill almost any technology by simply creating a government bureaucracy chartered to develop it which continues to get money to "solve" the problem so long as the problem remains unsolved. They'll have billions per year to make sure it never happens -- and when it comes to lowering the price per lb to low earth orbit they have succeeded in that task beyond anyone's wildest expectations.
Oh wait -- Hollywood and has already put that on DVDs and VHS.
Nevermind.
And it won't be the only time. From the Disperse Life scenario:
It is a lot better than lunar materials because of the low gravity hold on its own mass. It is also a lot better than asteroidal belt material because of the short round-trip times possible, which goes straight to the bottom line in terms of rate of return.
The skills you need to understand this are at the level of development where you learned to count.
But only large organizations can afford the internal software development staff to exploit that loop hole.
Open source their mods.
The Reciprocal Public License doesn't let the bureaucrats get away with that.
I don't know why Stallman is such a sucker for huge bureaucracies. Maybe he is a red.
Figures from space.com, $140 million and 50,000 lbs, allow one to estimate the cost/lb to LEO of the Delta IV at $2800/lb when the payload bay is packed to the gills.
The way it would work is this:
A neural network is set up to control a audio-visual environment. You dynamically measure IQ via the proxy of the (highly correlated) evoked potential response of the subject and backpropagate an error signal through the multimedia neural net inversely proportional to the dynamic IQ of the subject.
Simple in concept. With a little luck we'd have people whose brains had been stimulated to a high IQ state without ending up with something like the lawnmowerman taking over slashdot.