Which is more likely? * A team of Russian hackers successfully accomplishes X * A team of Georgian hackers successfully accomplishes X
Considering the fact that Russia and Georgia are in a state of enmity that broke out in a shooting war last year, and the 'X' in question is shutting down a blogger who advocates independence for a breakaway region of Georgia, I think I'd go with the latter.
None of the basic premises of capitalism has been proven faulty or unworkable by the economic realities over the last couple of years. If anything, insane monetary policy, reckless spending and the blatant corruption of regulatory bodies has demonstrated the utter failure of big central government as an institution. Perhaps your definition varies, but I don't consider "hiring people to lobby the government for favors" to be a valid business model in a capitalistic system. Capitalism is based on the means of genuine production, not money printing, paper shuffling, government spending and a system of bailouts to a select few. Suppose that we broaden the definition of capitalism to include activities like fractional reserve banking, stock trading and real estate specualtion. Even though nothing is being produced by "capital", businesses that make bad decisions fail, go bankrupt, and get replaced by smarter healthier businesses. I don't know what you call an economic system based on government stealing money from its citizens and using it for bailouts of a politically well connected elite, but it certainly is NOT "capitalism".
Tell that to all of the A$$holes who suddenly feel the need to accelerate as you try to pass them! Maybe it's just an unconscious competitive thing for some people, but it happens all too frequently. These are definitely not the types of jerks who increase the flow of traffic. I've got my cruise control on, and am steadily approaching the car in front of me at a relative speed of 5-10 mph. I change lanes to pass and all of a sudden the relative rate of speed drops to '0'? Maybe my cruise control just stops working in the center or left lanes?
The first argument is a very interesting point. Well said. I'm going to reflect on that at length when I have some free time.
As for your example, it's ridiculous to argue that a political philosophy is somehow fundamentally broken because s specific implementation might not guarantee a utopian outcome. e.g. Are you willing to throw out The U.S. Constitution and the phlosophical ideas of democracy and republic just because the criminals who perpetrated the 9/11 attacks were able to do so within our system of government? That makes so sense. By that rationale, every political philosophy ever invented likewise "doesn't work".
"Actually, I think it IS a horrible and dangerous attitude when a kid says something like that. "
Did you notice the part about the kid being a teary-eyed little girl who had been the victim of a bully? What about the bully's attitude? The really screwed up person is the bully, and the parent who, through abuse or neglect allowed their kid to become a sadistic little bastard that would enjoy torturing smaller and weaker people.
". . . kids with this sort of behaviour should be detected, taken aside, and taught a wiser approach to life."
Kids shouldn't be subjected to the sort of abuse that would trigger the described emotional response! You're talking about "fundamental aspects of education" and you tacitly endorse brainwashing the VICTIM to develop "coping skills" for abuse? In a taxpayer funded institutional environment no less?
The HEALTHY response to the ignorance and injustice of bullying is violent, but non-lethal reprisal. The way to "cope" with injustice and threats to your safety is to FIGHT BACK. A child "needs to know" that there are evil people in our society, and you've got to take responsibility for your own well being. Negative feedbackis the only thing a bully understands. If I could re-live my childhood years from age 6 onward, I'd carry a baseball bat and beat the living $#!T out of the (bigger and older) morons that I had to deal with.
Bullying is a vastly under-recognized problem in our society, and our schools in particular. We take normal healthy kids, allow them to be subjected to 10 years of regular physical and emotional abuse, and then blame guns, video games and music when they finally reach their breaking point.
Do a little public service and inform your fellow citizens about jury nullification. This is a vastly UNDER-utilized tool that the citizens can use to protect themselves from tyranny and idiocy in the law.
" . . . if a pattern of identical verdicts develops in response to repeated attempts to prosecute a statutory offense, it can have the practical effect of invalidating statute . . . Jury nullification is thus a means for the public to express opposition to an unwanted legislative enactment."
The jury can do what THEY think is right and fair and ignore "orders" from the judge. As an aside, I've always wondered why the hell we have to treat judges as if they were royalty. You have to rise when they enter the courtroom, and they sit on a throne in their black robes looking down at everyone. WTF? They're nothing more than appointed government officials, and these procedures serve to reinforce their image as an authority figure to the jurors. If a law is idiotic and un-just, I think it's the DUTY of the jury to toss the case. Of course every case is unique, but I'd be inclined to nullify any offense related to piracy without profit, minor drug possession, civil disobedience or other victimless "crimes".
I think that all of contemporary human society works against the process of evolution. We're already close to the bottom of the slope, and I doubt that DNA screening will force us down further. The first 15 minutes of the film "Idiocracy" explains it rather well. People who are intelligent, responsible and self sufficient have fewer children because they appreciate the long term implications of their actions, while idiots breed with reckless disregard for their actions. It would be cruel to simply let their unwanted offspring die off, and therefore, we have public institutions to redistribute wealth from the responsible self sufficient people to the morons who can't take care of themselves or their children. It doesn't exactly fit in with the idea of "survival of the fittest", at least on a generational time scale.
" . ..if you can't communicate complex ideas to interested parties outside your field then you don't properly understand your field."
I think it depends what field you're in, and the background of who you're trying to communicate with. An engineer talking to another engineer or scientist in a different field is one thing, an engineer talking to a dental hygienist is something else entirely.
Try explaining transient noise analysis, the hot electron effect or negative bias temperature instability in integrated circuits to a non-technical audience. Even if you start out with an "interested party", they'll turn into an expressionless zombie before you've finished.
It's not always a simple matter of communication skills. Some ideas require a foundation of knowledge, without which, the idea is nearly impossible to conceptualize.
I'm NEVER going to get any biometric or RF enabled ID, and I'm sure as hell not going to allow them to fingerprint me at the border.
Guess I'll be staying home until we decide it's time to restore our civil liberties. No more hockey games or concerts at The Bell Center, and missing The Montreal Film Festival is totally going to suck.
Oh well, anything for the illusion of a little temporary safety.
Just out of curiosity, where do YOU get your news and information? CNN? Fox?
Alex Jones is every bit as credible as Wolf Blitzer, Bill O'Reilly or any of the other MSM puppets. You may question his conclusions, but if you actually read/listen to what he says with an open mind, he's got some valid points backed up by genuine evidence.
When Jones was talking about plans for the "North American Union" and the "Amero" back in 2004/2005, people dismissed that as just another nutty conspiracy theory. This morning, I see 77.1M hits for that phrase on Google. Tell me, is it still a "conspiracy theory" when it turns out to be the truth?
"The culture that brought us the April 15th "tea party" "protests". Whatever it's called. Illiteracy I think?"
Try "patriotism". You should be encouraging rather than disparaging the political activism of your fellow citiznes. Quit listening to the mainstream media and their divisive BS.
The people at the tea party protests were sufficiently literate to realize that tripling the annual budget deficit of the Federal government, and doubling the national debt over the next 10 years isn't the best way to get the country out of a depression that was a direct result of massive debt and loose monetary policy. It's not exactly fair to the next generation of taxpayers either. Where are all the "think of the children" people when it comes to saddling the children with debt?
If the people in the U.S. were actually PAYING for the gross excesses of the Federal government through their taxes, I would hope that there would be 10X as many people at these protests. If you're a U.S. citizen and taxpayer, how would you like to see all Federal taxes increased by around 60%? The Federal government is stealing our wealth, and the wealth of the children to pay for wars and bank bailouts, and they're working full time to undermine our civil liberties. If you're OK with that, stay home, watch MSM propaganda and make snide remarks about your fellow citizens who are actually trying to do something about it.
"A mere 400 years is not enough time for significant evolutionary changes."
That all depends on your definition of "significant", and how much politically correct Kool-Aid you've consumed. Assuming you're talking about Homo Sapiens, I think that 8-10 generations of selective breeding to promote the idiot gene is more than enough to have major effects on the population.
"Fitzgerald indicted Libby on five counts: one count of obstruction of justice two counts of making false statements when interviewed by agents of the FBI, and two counts of perjury in his testimony before the grand jury."
I always wondered why it wasn't a crime to reveal the identity of an undercover CIA agent on active duty. If it IS a crime, why wasn't Libby or anyone else ever charged with that offense?
EXCELLENT point dude. There's a lot of good advice in these comments, but it is damned HARD to put this into practice when the guy with a badge, a gun and an attitude is in your face. The cop has done it before, so you're already at a disadvantage. Physiologically speaking, ANY level of excitation in your brain (fear, anger, confusion) also works against you in the fight to keep your mouth shut. Your brain is screaming at you to spill your guts.
Total silence isn't going to work. "Am I required by law to answer your question" and "Am I free to go" are the correct things to say. Just pretend you're a robot and stick to those statements. Keep your mind focused on the most boring thing you can possibly think of in the interim . . . My strategy is to do the multiplication tables to keep my S$it together.
"...you do realize that "faster" is RARELY related directly to clock cycles, right?"
I realize that "performance" of a system isn't always directly proportional to the clock speed of the CPU, what with other bottlenecks in the overall architecture, but the OP said "faster" without qualifying the term. When you say "speed" in the context of "Intel vs. Power" I think the association to "clock speed" is only natural.
" . ..if it does 1 op per cycle, a 4.7GHz chip will be smoked by a, say, 2.3GHz chip that will do 64 ops per cycle."
How do you make a chip perform 64 operations in a cycle? i.e. unless you're talking about 64 2.3GHz cores vs. one 4.7GHz core, which obviously isn't a valid comparison. The processor instruction sets I'm familiar with take one cycle per operation (RISC) or an integer number of cycles per operation (CISC).
Gay marriage? Abortion? Gun control? They differ. Agreed. Don't forget flag burning.
>>Tax rates on the wealthy? They differ. Red herring. The "wealthy" earn much more on capital gains than on wages. Raising the "INCOME" tax rates of top earners is hardly a major policy shift.
>>Amount of regulation for the markets? They differ. HA! Don't confuse what they SAY with what they DO. They're working hand in hand to sell out the U.S. citizens to wealthy corporate interests.
>>Torture of key terrorists? They differ. TBD. One credit to Obama is that he actually released some documentation about torture. He's still pleading "state secrets" all too frequently however. And what does it matter if they "differ" when justice isn't being served?
>>Most foreign policy matters? They differ. Bullshit. They both supported the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, and with a few exceptions have consistently voted to continue funding them. Then there's NATO expansion, military interventionism/imperialism, middle east policy" and trade policy.
>>Stem cell research? They differ. Big friggin deal. #1734 on the list of important issues facing the U.S. citizenry
>>Universal health care? They differ. Yeah, Republicans want private inductry to handle health care, Democrats want private industry to handle health care with the American people picking up the bill.
>>Immigration reform? They differ. Sure. Republicans want open borders so that the corporations can hire cheap labor. Democrats want open borders because they see a flood of poor laborers as a potential voting block to support them.
And BOTH parties are hell bent on eroding our civil liberties at every possible opportunity, and seem intent on spending our nation into insurmountable debt.
I had ZERO hope that the Obama administration would do anything positive with regard to civil liberties, but I thought we might at least get a short breather. Instead, the all-out assault continues, and is even accelerating. Remember that a treaty only needs ratification by the U.S. Senate. The government is trying to do an end-run around The Constitution with this "ACTA" treaty. They're trying to do the exact same thing to get back door gun control established with "CIFTA"(some Spanish acronym about weapons trafficking). We have a Democratic Representative and a dozen co-sponsors suggesting that we criminalize blog postings. The DOHS is calling anyone who is (correctly) concerned about gun control or Federal power grabs a "rightwing extremist racist terrorist". The FTC wants to step in and impose restrictions on peer to peer networks, etc. etc.
Sheesh! I'm very politically active compared to my friends and colleagues, but I can only focus on one or two issues at a time!
It's obvious that the government is trying to make so many laws and treaties so fast that the Constitution dies from suffocation, and all U.S. citizens are instant criminals of one sort or another. If you actually care about individual freedom, you WON'T be voting for Republicans or Democrats in the next election.
The "ACLU" should be named the AFSCS (American Federation for the Separation of Church and State) or something like that. It seems to me that they're only interested in committing serious time and energy to supporting the Establishment clause. I definitely applaud them for that effort, but the organization shouldn't pretend to be a global "Civil Liberties" organization when they cherry pick the civil liberties they want to protect(or narrow the definition of "liberties" if you prefer).
Slashdot Mirror
Which is more likely?
* A team of Russian hackers successfully accomplishes X
* A team of Georgian hackers successfully accomplishes X
Considering the fact that Russia and Georgia are in a state of enmity that broke out in a shooting war last year, and the 'X' in question is shutting down a blogger who advocates independence for a breakaway region of Georgia, I think I'd go with the latter.
Sorry, couldn't resist that bait.
None of the basic premises of capitalism has been proven faulty or unworkable by the economic realities over the last couple of years. If anything, insane monetary policy, reckless spending and the blatant corruption of regulatory bodies has demonstrated the utter failure of big central government as an institution. Perhaps your definition varies, but I don't consider "hiring people to lobby the government for favors" to be a valid business model in a capitalistic system. Capitalism is based on the means of genuine production, not money printing, paper shuffling, government spending and a system of bailouts to a select few. Suppose that we broaden the definition of capitalism to include activities like fractional reserve banking, stock trading and real estate specualtion. Even though nothing is being produced by "capital", businesses that make bad decisions fail, go bankrupt, and get replaced by smarter healthier businesses. I don't know what you call an economic system based on government stealing money from its citizens and using it for bailouts of a politically well connected elite, but it certainly is NOT "capitalism".
Oh, gee. Sorry to hold you up for the 20 seconds it takes to pass someone driving 5mph slower than I am when I'm in my car with a 4-cylinder engine.
Tell that to all of the A$$holes who suddenly feel the need to accelerate as you try to pass them! Maybe it's just an unconscious competitive thing for some people, but it happens all too frequently. These are definitely not the types of jerks who increase the flow of traffic. I've got my cruise control on, and am steadily approaching the car in front of me at a relative speed of 5-10 mph. I change lanes to pass and all of a sudden the relative rate of speed drops to '0'? Maybe my cruise control just stops working in the center or left lanes?
I thought this was going to be a story about looking around for women while you're drunk.
The first argument is a very interesting point. Well said. I'm going to reflect on that at length when I have some free time.
As for your example, it's ridiculous to argue that a political philosophy is somehow fundamentally broken because s specific implementation might not guarantee a utopian outcome. e.g. Are you willing to throw out The U.S. Constitution and the phlosophical ideas of democracy and republic just because the criminals who perpetrated the 9/11 attacks were able to do so within our system of government? That makes so sense. By that rationale, every political philosophy ever invented likewise "doesn't work".
"Actually, I think it IS a horrible and dangerous attitude when a kid says something like that. "
Did you notice the part about the kid being a teary-eyed little girl who had been the victim of a bully? What about the bully's attitude? The really screwed up person is the bully, and the parent who, through abuse or neglect allowed their kid to become a sadistic little bastard that would enjoy torturing smaller and weaker people.
". . . kids with this sort of behaviour should be detected, taken aside, and taught a wiser approach to life."
Kids shouldn't be subjected to the sort of abuse that would trigger the described emotional response! You're talking about "fundamental aspects of education" and you tacitly endorse brainwashing the VICTIM to develop "coping skills" for abuse? In a taxpayer funded institutional environment no less?
The HEALTHY response to the ignorance and injustice of bullying is violent, but non-lethal reprisal. The way to "cope" with injustice and threats to your safety is to FIGHT BACK. A child "needs to know" that there are evil people in our society, and you've got to take responsibility for your own well being. Negative feedbackis the only thing a bully understands. If I could re-live my childhood years from age 6 onward, I'd carry a baseball bat and beat the living $#!T out of the (bigger and older) morons that I had to deal with.
Bullying is a vastly under-recognized problem in our society, and our schools in particular. We take normal healthy kids, allow them to be subjected to 10 years of regular physical and emotional abuse, and then blame guns, video games and music when they finally reach their breaking point.
Do a little public service and inform your fellow citizens about jury nullification. This is a vastly UNDER-utilized tool that the citizens can use to protect themselves from tyranny and idiocy in the law.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_Nullification
" . . . if a pattern of identical verdicts develops in response to repeated attempts to prosecute a statutory offense, it can have the practical effect of invalidating statute . . . Jury nullification is thus a means for the public to express opposition to an unwanted legislative enactment."
The jury can do what THEY think is right and fair and ignore "orders" from the judge. As an aside, I've always wondered why the hell we have to treat judges as if they were royalty. You have to rise when they enter the courtroom, and they sit on a throne in their black robes looking down at everyone. WTF? They're nothing more than appointed government officials, and these procedures serve to reinforce their image as an authority figure to the jurors. If a law is idiotic and un-just, I think it's the DUTY of the jury to toss the case. Of course every case is unique, but I'd be inclined to nullify any offense related to piracy without profit, minor drug possession, civil disobedience or other victimless "crimes".
I think that all of contemporary human society works against the process of evolution. We're already close to the bottom of the slope, and I doubt that DNA screening will force us down further. The first 15 minutes of the film "Idiocracy" explains it rather well. People who are intelligent, responsible and self sufficient have fewer children because they appreciate the long term implications of their actions, while idiots breed with reckless disregard for their actions. It would be cruel to simply let their unwanted offspring die off, and therefore, we have public institutions to redistribute wealth from the responsible self sufficient people to the morons who can't take care of themselves or their children. It doesn't exactly fit in with the idea of "survival of the fittest", at least on a generational time scale.
If lawyers are the new priesthood in the cult of money worship, bankers must be the deities and demi-gods.
Old American Dream: Rugged self reliance, hard work and innovation lead to success and propserity.
New American Dream: Have the government take care of you while you attempt to win a lawsuit or the lottery.
" . . .if you can't communicate complex ideas to interested parties outside your field then you don't properly understand your field."
I think it depends what field you're in, and the background of who you're trying to communicate with. An engineer talking to another engineer or scientist in a different field is one thing, an engineer talking to a dental hygienist is something else entirely.
Try explaining transient noise analysis, the hot electron effect or negative bias temperature instability in integrated circuits to a non-technical audience. Even if you start out with an "interested party", they'll turn into an expressionless zombie before you've finished.
It's not always a simple matter of communication skills. Some ideas require a foundation of knowledge, without which, the idea is nearly impossible to conceptualize.
I'm NEVER going to get any biometric or RF enabled ID, and I'm sure as hell not going to allow them to fingerprint me at the border.
Guess I'll be staying home until we decide it's time to restore our civil liberties. No more hockey games or concerts at The Bell Center, and missing The Montreal Film Festival is totally going to suck.
Oh well, anything for the illusion of a little temporary safety.
"Wow, great, your sources keep getting better."
Just out of curiosity, where do YOU get your news and information? CNN? Fox?
Alex Jones is every bit as credible as Wolf Blitzer, Bill O'Reilly or any of the other MSM puppets. You may question his conclusions, but if you actually read/listen to what he says with an open mind, he's got some valid points backed up by genuine evidence.
When Jones was talking about plans for the "North American Union" and the "Amero" back in 2004/2005, people dismissed that as just another nutty conspiracy theory. This morning, I see 77.1M hits for that phrase on Google. Tell me, is it still a "conspiracy theory" when it turns out to be the truth?
"The culture that brought us the April 15th "tea party" "protests". Whatever it's called. Illiteracy I think?"
Try "patriotism". You should be encouraging rather than disparaging the political activism of your fellow citiznes. Quit listening to the mainstream media and their divisive BS.
The people at the tea party protests were sufficiently literate to realize that tripling the annual budget deficit of the Federal government, and doubling the national debt over the next 10 years isn't the best way to get the country out of a depression that was a direct result of massive debt and loose monetary policy. It's not exactly fair to the next generation of taxpayers either. Where are all the "think of the children" people when it comes to saddling the children with debt?
If the people in the U.S. were actually PAYING for the gross excesses of the Federal government through their taxes, I would hope that there would be 10X as many people at these protests. If you're a U.S. citizen and taxpayer, how would you like to see all Federal taxes increased by around 60%? The Federal government is stealing our wealth, and the wealth of the children to pay for wars and bank bailouts, and they're working full time to undermine our civil liberties. If you're OK with that, stay home, watch MSM propaganda and make snide remarks about your fellow citizens who are actually trying to do something about it.
"A mere 400 years is not enough time for significant evolutionary changes."
That all depends on your definition of "significant", and how much politically correct Kool-Aid you've consumed. Assuming you're talking about Homo Sapiens, I think that 8-10 generations of selective breeding to promote the idiot gene is more than enough to have major effects on the population.
"Fitzgerald indicted Libby on five counts: one count of obstruction of justice two counts of making false statements when interviewed by agents of the FBI, and two counts of perjury in his testimony before the grand jury."
I always wondered why it wasn't a crime to reveal the identity of an undercover CIA agent on active duty. If it IS a crime, why wasn't Libby or anyone else ever charged with that offense?
"It's not easy. "
EXCELLENT point dude. There's a lot of good advice in these comments, but it is damned HARD to put this into practice when the guy with a badge, a gun and an attitude is in your face. The cop has done it before, so you're already at a disadvantage. Physiologically speaking, ANY level of excitation in your brain (fear, anger, confusion) also works against you in the fight to keep your mouth shut. Your brain is screaming at you to spill your guts.
Total silence isn't going to work. "Am I required by law to answer your question" and "Am I free to go" are the correct things to say. Just pretend you're a robot and stick to those statements. Keep your mind focused on the most boring thing you can possibly think of in the interim . . . My strategy is to do the multiplication tables to keep my S$it together.
LOL +1 Friggin hilarious.
Thanks for making me choke on my coffee . . .
"...you do realize that "faster" is RARELY related directly to clock cycles, right?"
I realize that "performance" of a system isn't always directly proportional to the clock speed of the CPU, what with other bottlenecks in the overall architecture, but the OP said "faster" without qualifying the term. When you say "speed" in the context of "Intel vs. Power" I think the association to "clock speed" is only natural.
" . . .if it does 1 op per cycle, a 4.7GHz chip will be smoked by a, say, 2.3GHz chip that will do 64 ops per cycle."
How do you make a chip perform 64 operations in a cycle? i.e. unless you're talking about 64 2.3GHz cores vs. one 4.7GHz core, which obviously isn't a valid comparison. The processor instruction sets I'm familiar with take one cycle per operation (RISC) or an integer number of cycles per operation (CISC).
Gay marriage? Abortion? Gun control? They differ. Agreed. Don't forget flag burning.
>>Tax rates on the wealthy? They differ.
Red herring. The "wealthy" earn much more on capital gains than on wages. Raising the "INCOME" tax rates of top earners is hardly a major policy shift.
>>Amount of regulation for the markets? They differ.
HA! Don't confuse what they SAY with what they DO. They're working hand in hand to sell out the U.S. citizens to wealthy corporate interests.
>>Torture of key terrorists? They differ.
TBD. One credit to Obama is that he actually released some documentation about torture. He's still pleading "state secrets" all too frequently however. And what does it matter if they "differ" when justice isn't being served?
>>Most foreign policy matters? They differ.
Bullshit. They both supported the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, and with a few exceptions have consistently voted to continue funding them. Then there's NATO expansion, military interventionism/imperialism, middle east policy" and trade policy.
>>Stem cell research? They differ.
Big friggin deal. #1734 on the list of important issues facing the U.S. citizenry
>>Universal health care? They differ.
Yeah, Republicans want private inductry to handle health care, Democrats want private industry to handle health care with the American people picking up the bill.
>>Immigration reform? They differ.
Sure. Republicans want open borders so that the corporations can hire cheap labor. Democrats want open borders because they see a flood of poor laborers as a potential voting block to support them.
And BOTH parties are hell bent on eroding our civil liberties at every possible opportunity, and seem intent on spending our nation into insurmountable debt.
I had ZERO hope that the Obama administration would do anything positive with regard to civil liberties, but I thought we might at least get a short breather. Instead, the all-out assault continues, and is even accelerating. Remember that a treaty only needs ratification by the U.S. Senate. The government is trying to do an end-run around The Constitution with this "ACTA" treaty. They're trying to do the exact same thing to get back door gun control established with "CIFTA"(some Spanish acronym about weapons trafficking). We have a Democratic Representative and a dozen co-sponsors suggesting that we criminalize blog postings. The DOHS is calling anyone who is (correctly) concerned about gun control or Federal power grabs a "rightwing extremist racist terrorist". The FTC wants to step in and impose restrictions on peer to peer networks, etc. etc.
Sheesh! I'm very politically active compared to my friends and colleagues, but I can only focus on one or two issues at a time!
It's obvious that the government is trying to make so many laws and treaties so fast that the Constitution dies from suffocation, and all U.S. citizens are instant criminals of one sort or another. If you actually care about individual freedom, you WON'T be voting for Republicans or Democrats in the next election.
The "ACLU" should be named the AFSCS (American Federation for the Separation of Church and State) or something like that. It seems to me that they're only interested in committing serious time and energy to supporting the Establishment clause. I definitely applaud them for that effort, but the organization shouldn't pretend to be a global "Civil Liberties" organization when they cherry pick the civil liberties they want to protect(or narrow the definition of "liberties" if you prefer).
Even some drunken idiot living in a shack and working on large scale home science projects in an abandoned missile silo could invent it.
" . . .just read Guns, Germs, and Steel by Jared Diamond..."
That's like making your mind eat shit.