Dude, they're allowed to collide in the atmosphere because no one is watching there. They're not allowed to collide in a lab because then someone might see the higgs boson. Higgs bosons only make sounds in the forest when no one is around to hear them.
You need some means of force of violence to protect even the most trivial property rights. Libertarianism is as undesirable as Somalia and everyone else just disagrees on the scope of government intervention.
yeah but then you start talking about what property means and you end up in the weeds.
If I park my car on the street in front of your house is it still mine? What if I park it in your driveway. What if I leave it there for a year and point my gun at the tow truck driver whenever he drives down the street?
What if I have one car parked in your driveway leaking oil onto your yard for a year while I periodically siphon gas from your car while you're not looking and then get a new car and park it if front of my house? Is it conceivable that you have a right to the new car because my old car deprived you of the use and value of your property? If there's no state to enforce property rights can yo do it on your own?
You can look at it the other way too. If all those first world countries with their fancy navies had stopped their ships from abusing Somali water we might still have fishermen instead of pirates.
I'm a little fuzzy on who you put in power once the warlords are out. And even if you find someone how they're supposed to maintain control without resorting to warlord tactics.
I'm not pretending to have a solution, but glib pronouncements on the evils of piracy and warlordship doesn't offer anything either.
they don't give a hoot about "their country." Their country doesn't exist. They care about eating a couple times a week, and eventually finding a mate. Presumably they realize that the people closest to them will occasionally lend supplies if they ever have an excess, and they do likewise. The only things that Somalia has in excess are AK-47s and landmines, and the only growth industry is piracy.
They don't want to revolt against the warlords, because the local warlord is the guy who promises not to let the warlord down the road kill you. What's more he usually delivers. On the occasions that they do turn their guns on warlords you have what is commonly known as civil war, which really isn't a whole lot more desirable than piracy.
Go faster, go around, or surrender and pay the ransom.
In other words, exactly what they're doing now. Shipping is big business - people with more and better data then slashdot have done the cost/benefit analysis, and what we're seeing are the results.
They're armed with Chinese made AKs because the CIA didn't want it to be blindingly obvious to the Russians that the mujaheddin were a US proxy force - at the beginning it was somewhat plausible that Pakistan was arming them unilaterally (also a made in China AK is a lot cheaper than a M-16.) As time wore on we didn't care as much and started sending them Stinger missiles and sniper rifles. Also, the Saudis helped arm the Afgans - a lot.
You accuse me of venerating violence. I blame you for singling out Islam for special criticism when all traditions are equally guilty. I offer no defense for contemporary islamists who attack non-military targets. Modern islamism is an accident of history, a strange breed of anti-colonial separatism couched in religious language. First, Wahabbism was raised to undue influence with the discovery of oil in Saudi Arabia, then the Muslim Brotherhood and similar groups were shepherded through the cold war by the CIA, (Pakistani) ISI, and Saudi intelligence because of their anti-communist beliefs. They were battle hardened in Afghanistan, and now we have a problem. Islamic history is not one of violence. The Ottoman caliphate was no more violent than contemporary Western European powers (probably less violent considering the religiously rationalized 30 years war.) The proselytizing expansion of Christianity during the colonial period was at least as bloody as Muhammad's expansion (and that's not even getting into the crusades and the inquisition.)
Each and every important expansionist political leader has blood on his hands. That includes Muhammad, Emperor Constantine, Thomas Jefferson, Joshua, etc. Jesus is a different animal because he was never a political leader. The number of cultures that do not venerate a military leader is vanishingly small and almost entirely eastern and non-national. Manifest Destiny is critical to the American psyche and would be impossible without the trail of tears and the forced migration of America's native people from lush pastureland to dusty reservations.
No, native American's didn't sign up to be relocated as soon as we asked. Yes, their tribal history could be bloody (the kind of tribal history I pointed out in my first post that you said didn't exist.) But your cultural superiority is shocking. From a tribal Muslim's perspective, all you would have to do to avoid being conquered was to adapt and accept that there is no god but god and that Muhammad is his prophet (and pay a tax) - they way you think the good native Americans should have accepted western culture. Hey, if a rival Bedouin resisted - no matter how ineptly, I guess he should have expected to be killed. If you don't blame the Europeans for responding with superior force, why do you blame Muhammad's army? Could it be cultural bias?
Muslims believe that their cultural superiority is self-evident because of their military victories. It's begging the question in the same way that you feel your culture is superior to that of native americans and slaveowning southerners felt superior to their slaves. It's self justifying bullshit.
You are *shocked* that Muhammad took an underage bride. Do you feel the same way about Mary and Joseph? The age difference was similar, and Mary had as much say in the matter as Muhammad's wife. Even if we grant the virgin birth, Joseph certainly didn't intend Mary to stay a virgin - and she too was about 14. Is Jesus' earthly father a pedophile, or are there evolving cultural norms?
You know what, Charlemagne might not hold the same stature in western culture as Muhammad, but we have plenty more violent national heroes than Muslims do. Again, Jefferson, Jackson, Custer, Sherman, Knox, etc. etc. etc. A modern non-radical Muslim is just as capable as acknowledging that portions of the prophet's military campaigns are as morally unacceptable as a modern American is of acknowledging the troubling aspects of Sherman's march to the sea. And if you think that the papacy with all it's violent faults isn't revered by most modern Catholics, or the conquistadors aren't held in high esteem by dominionist christians, you're delusional.
Your problem is that you see every instance of violence by a muslim as islamic violence, yet you don't see every aspect of violence perpetrated by a christian as christian violence. Point me to a state that you think is above the fray, doesn't have a violent past, or hasn't used it's cultural superiority to justify it's violent acts (or vice versa.) Until then, onward christian soldiers!
I'm not justifying anything. I'm pointing out that history is bloody no matter what part of the world you come from and to blame modern Muslims for the sins of tribal Arabs is to blame modern Hindus the sins of the Vedics (Hanibal didn't invent the war elephant.) And if you think that the Han Chinese came to dominate interior china without ethnic based war and rape, you're mistaken.
I've read a bit of tribal history. The Aja sold war captives to white slave traders. Traditional headhunting and cannibalism in the Guinea highlands. I already touched on the fact that the Jewish holy texts espouse cultural superiority as proven by success in battle. Japan didn't develop a warrior culture because they have always been peaceful rice farmers.
You're clearly delusional about history. Cesar's goal wasn't peace. It was power and tribute. Same for every conqueror. While peace lasted it was great, but no empire was ever built by mutual consent. Various Caesars massacred all manner of slaves, barbarians, dispersed the jews and all other manner of atrocities. Here's one of Charlemagne massacres. I'll call bullshit on Jew's "forgetting" their history. Hanukkah celebrates a military victory, passover the death of all first born Egyptians (which even if they didn't *do* it - they prayed for it and revel in the death of other innocents.)
Jesus didn't build a nation. The popes built the closest thing to a christian nation, and they gave us the crusades. Hare Krishna, isn't a person, it's 45 year old movement (among other things this proves you don't know what you're talking about.) There has never been a Buddhist nation. Bushido venerates combat, and the naturalistic Japanese Shinto have waged war more or less continuously against the Koreans and Manchurians.
Yes there are muslims perpetrating unspeakable horrors in Sudan, but for every Darfur, there's a Rawanda, where the unspeakable horrors are committed on behalf of other nationalized tribal groups. With 1.6 billion Muslims - some conflicts are bound to contain them.
I'm feeding a troll here, but not only are you biased, you use your bias to draw a conclusion before examining the evidence. Not only do you not know your history, you can't tell the difference between arguing in favor of violence and pointing out that violence (and it's glorification) isn't uniquely Muslim. Are you American? How do you defend the genocide of America's native people? How do you defend slavery allowed America to emerge as the industrial power that it is today? If you're not American please, give me your country of origin (and religion if applicable) so I can tailor my questions to your country's history - I guarantee it's not spotless - and venerates some violent individuals.
FWIW I agree that Iceland is fucked, but imagine a non-welfare state suffering the kind of financial catastrophe they did. We'd literally be talking about riots in the street and probably a coup attempt or two.
Traditionally, a sovereign state "on the brink" is only concerned with unemployment insofar as it affects the chances of high ranking officials surviving through the year.
No one at the AP or Reuters is *ahem* creative enough to write script for Glen Beck. Besides, even when they do recite get their news from other sources, someone has to take it the RNC letterhead off the copy.
Ok, now go read the history of *any* tribal society. You'll invariably find they either raided, murdered and raped and were glorified by history, or were raided, murdered and raped - and surviving histories paint them as savages.
The more effective the murdering rapist, the bigger his cult of personality. Whatever society evolves from this primitive state is guaranteed to show undue deference to their forebears. Ask a Italian what they think of Cesar, a Macedonian what they think of Alexander, a Frank what they think of Charlemagne, a Swede what they think about Eric the Red, a Jew what they think of Joshua, a Mongol what they think of Genghis Khan etc. etc. etc.
It's as much time for the Muslims to take responsibility for their (father's) actions as it is all of humanity. By your standards, not only have we all blood on our hands, we glorify it.
Ready for a shocker? It continues TODAY. There isn't an active army in the field who hasn't killed and raped it's opponents. Usually not to the same scale as in history, but notalways - notice in those exceptions, it was Muslims who were raped and murdered.
If we've always been a fascist nation, and we're the sole remaining superpower, the whole welfare-welfare state thing has a pretty good track record, huh?
The only quibble I have is that corporate welfare really only came into vogue with Reagan after our ideological rival, the soviet union's fate was pretty much sealed. We should probably try to figure out if corporate pandering is good for an economy, like social safety nets are. Personally, I'm putting my money on bad - and think we should return to a single welfare state.
While you may be hard pressed to find a sushi restaurant that doesn't serve seafood, you would also be hard pressed to find one that doesn't have any cooked offerings. At a minimum most sell some sort of vegi roll. I personally really enjoy the smoked eel (unagi).
You also can buy sushi at most grocery stores nowadays (though I usually don't) sometimes they have raw salmon and tuna, but in my experience, most stuff is cooked.
More fun with statistics. Fairbanks has 1.75 times the national rate of violent crime... So maybe it's not as safe as you think.
You're about three times more likely to be murdered, marginally less likely to be robbed, twice as likely to be assaulted, and marginally more likely to be burgled than the national average.
So I take back what I said about the cold fairbanks has crime problems in spite of the weather. I guess even criminals adapt.
If you want to rob someone in particular, it's usually pretty trivial to figure out if they're home or not. For instance, if you know who you're robbing, you probably know or can find out where they work - simply placing a call to the office will let you know if they're home.
If you just want to rob someone. Drive down a street at 10:00am looking for empty driveways.
Slashdot Mirror
Dude, they're allowed to collide in the atmosphere because no one is watching there. They're not allowed to collide in a lab because then someone might see the higgs boson. Higgs bosons only make sounds in the forest when no one is around to hear them.
You need some means of force of violence to protect even the most trivial property rights. Libertarianism is as undesirable as Somalia and everyone else just disagrees on the scope of government intervention.
yeah but then you start talking about what property means and you end up in the weeds.
If I park my car on the street in front of your house is it still mine? What if I park it in your driveway. What if I leave it there for a year and point my gun at the tow truck driver whenever he drives down the street?
What if I have one car parked in your driveway leaking oil onto your yard for a year while I periodically siphon gas from your car while you're not looking and then get a new car and park it if front of my house? Is it conceivable that you have a right to the new car because my old car deprived you of the use and value of your property? If there's no state to enforce property rights can yo do it on your own?
You can look at it the other way too. If all those first world countries with their fancy navies had stopped their ships from abusing Somali water we might still have fishermen instead of pirates.
I'm a little fuzzy on who you put in power once the warlords are out. And even if you find someone how they're supposed to maintain control without resorting to warlord tactics.
I'm not pretending to have a solution, but glib pronouncements on the evils of piracy and warlordship doesn't offer anything either.
they don't give a hoot about "their country." Their country doesn't exist. They care about eating a couple times a week, and eventually finding a mate. Presumably they realize that the people closest to them will occasionally lend supplies if they ever have an excess, and they do likewise. The only things that Somalia has in excess are AK-47s and landmines, and the only growth industry is piracy.
They don't want to revolt against the warlords, because the local warlord is the guy who promises not to let the warlord down the road kill you. What's more he usually delivers. On the occasions that they do turn their guns on warlords you have what is commonly known as civil war, which really isn't a whole lot more desirable than piracy.
Go faster, go around, or surrender and pay the ransom.
In other words, exactly what they're doing now. Shipping is big business - people with more and better data then slashdot have done the cost/benefit analysis, and what we're seeing are the results.
They're armed with Chinese made AKs because the CIA didn't want it to be blindingly obvious to the Russians that the mujaheddin were a US proxy force - at the beginning it was somewhat plausible that Pakistan was arming them unilaterally (also a made in China AK is a lot cheaper than a M-16.) As time wore on we didn't care as much and started sending them Stinger missiles and sniper rifles. Also, the Saudis helped arm the Afgans - a lot.
which will generate a library of congress worth of data every ke.
You accuse me of venerating violence. I blame you for singling out Islam for special criticism when all traditions are equally guilty. I offer no defense for contemporary islamists who attack non-military targets. Modern islamism is an accident of history, a strange breed of anti-colonial separatism couched in religious language. First, Wahabbism was raised to undue influence with the discovery of oil in Saudi Arabia, then the Muslim Brotherhood and similar groups were shepherded through the cold war by the CIA, (Pakistani) ISI, and Saudi intelligence because of their anti-communist beliefs. They were battle hardened in Afghanistan, and now we have a problem. Islamic history is not one of violence. The Ottoman caliphate was no more violent than contemporary Western European powers (probably less violent considering the religiously rationalized 30 years war.) The proselytizing expansion of Christianity during the colonial period was at least as bloody as Muhammad's expansion (and that's not even getting into the crusades and the inquisition.)
Each and every important expansionist political leader has blood on his hands. That includes Muhammad, Emperor Constantine, Thomas Jefferson, Joshua, etc. Jesus is a different animal because he was never a political leader. The number of cultures that do not venerate a military leader is vanishingly small and almost entirely eastern and non-national. Manifest Destiny is critical to the American psyche and would be impossible without the trail of tears and the forced migration of America's native people from lush pastureland to dusty reservations.
No, native American's didn't sign up to be relocated as soon as we asked. Yes, their tribal history could be bloody (the kind of tribal history I pointed out in my first post that you said didn't exist.) But your cultural superiority is shocking. From a tribal Muslim's perspective, all you would have to do to avoid being conquered was to adapt and accept that there is no god but god and that Muhammad is his prophet (and pay a tax) - they way you think the good native Americans should have accepted western culture. Hey, if a rival Bedouin resisted - no matter how ineptly, I guess he should have expected to be killed. If you don't blame the Europeans for responding with superior force, why do you blame Muhammad's army? Could it be cultural bias?
Muslims believe that their cultural superiority is self-evident because of their military victories. It's begging the question in the same way that you feel your culture is superior to that of native americans and slaveowning southerners felt superior to their slaves. It's self justifying bullshit.
You are *shocked* that Muhammad took an underage bride. Do you feel the same way about Mary and Joseph? The age difference was similar, and Mary had as much say in the matter as Muhammad's wife. Even if we grant the virgin birth, Joseph certainly didn't intend Mary to stay a virgin - and she too was about 14. Is Jesus' earthly father a pedophile, or are there evolving cultural norms?
You know what, Charlemagne might not hold the same stature in western culture as Muhammad, but we have plenty more violent national heroes than Muslims do. Again, Jefferson, Jackson, Custer, Sherman, Knox, etc. etc. etc. A modern non-radical Muslim is just as capable as acknowledging that portions of the prophet's military campaigns are as morally unacceptable as a modern American is of acknowledging the troubling aspects of Sherman's march to the sea. And if you think that the papacy with all it's violent faults isn't revered by most modern Catholics, or the conquistadors aren't held in high esteem by dominionist christians, you're delusional.
Your problem is that you see every instance of violence by a muslim as islamic violence, yet you don't see every aspect of violence perpetrated by a christian as christian violence. Point me to a state that you think is above the fray, doesn't have a violent past, or hasn't used it's cultural superiority to justify it's violent acts (or vice versa.) Until then, onward christian soldiers!
I'm not justifying anything. I'm pointing out that history is bloody no matter what part of the world you come from and to blame modern Muslims for the sins of tribal Arabs is to blame modern Hindus the sins of the Vedics (Hanibal didn't invent the war elephant.) And if you think that the Han Chinese came to dominate interior china without ethnic based war and rape, you're mistaken.
I've read a bit of tribal history. The Aja sold war captives to white slave traders. Traditional headhunting and cannibalism in the Guinea highlands. I already touched on the fact that the Jewish holy texts espouse cultural superiority as proven by success in battle. Japan didn't develop a warrior culture because they have always been peaceful rice farmers.
You're clearly delusional about history. Cesar's goal wasn't peace. It was power and tribute. Same for every conqueror. While peace lasted it was great, but no empire was ever built by mutual consent. Various Caesars massacred all manner of slaves, barbarians, dispersed the jews and all other manner of atrocities. Here's one of Charlemagne massacres. I'll call bullshit on Jew's "forgetting" their history. Hanukkah celebrates a military victory, passover the death of all first born Egyptians (which even if they didn't *do* it - they prayed for it and revel in the death of other innocents.)
Jesus didn't build a nation. The popes built the closest thing to a christian nation, and they gave us the crusades. Hare Krishna, isn't a person, it's 45 year old movement (among other things this proves you don't know what you're talking about.) There has never been a Buddhist nation. Bushido venerates combat, and the naturalistic Japanese Shinto have waged war more or less continuously against the Koreans and Manchurians.
Yes there are muslims perpetrating unspeakable horrors in Sudan, but for every Darfur, there's a Rawanda, where the unspeakable horrors are committed on behalf of other nationalized tribal groups. With 1.6 billion Muslims - some conflicts are bound to contain them.
I'm feeding a troll here, but not only are you biased, you use your bias to draw a conclusion before examining the evidence. Not only do you not know your history, you can't tell the difference between arguing in favor of violence and pointing out that violence (and it's glorification) isn't uniquely Muslim. Are you American? How do you defend the genocide of America's native people? How do you defend slavery allowed America to emerge as the industrial power that it is today? If you're not American please, give me your country of origin (and religion if applicable) so I can tailor my questions to your country's history - I guarantee it's not spotless - and venerates some violent individuals.
FWIW I agree that Iceland is fucked, but imagine a non-welfare state suffering the kind of financial catastrophe they did. We'd literally be talking about riots in the street and probably a coup attempt or two.
Traditionally, a sovereign state "on the brink" is only concerned with unemployment insofar as it affects the chances of high ranking officials surviving through the year.
I guess the other option is to be like Italy, and always win by always losing.
oh come now, that's not true.
No one at the AP or Reuters is *ahem* creative enough to write script for Glen Beck. Besides, even when they do recite get their news from other sources, someone has to take it the RNC letterhead off the copy.
Ok, now go read the history of *any* tribal society. You'll invariably find they either raided, murdered and raped and were glorified by history, or were raided, murdered and raped - and surviving histories paint them as savages.
The more effective the murdering rapist, the bigger his cult of personality. Whatever society evolves from this primitive state is guaranteed to show undue deference to their forebears. Ask a Italian what they think of Cesar, a Macedonian what they think of Alexander, a Frank what they think of Charlemagne, a Swede what they think about Eric the Red, a Jew what they think of Joshua, a Mongol what they think of Genghis Khan etc. etc. etc.
It's as much time for the Muslims to take responsibility for their (father's) actions as it is all of humanity. By your standards, not only have we all blood on our hands, we glorify it.
Ready for a shocker? It continues TODAY. There isn't an active army in the field who hasn't killed and raped it's opponents. Usually not to the same scale as in history, but not always - notice in those exceptions, it was Muslims who were raped and murdered.
If we've always been a fascist nation, and we're the sole remaining superpower, the whole welfare-welfare state thing has a pretty good track record, huh?
The only quibble I have is that corporate welfare really only came into vogue with Reagan after our ideological rival, the soviet union's fate was pretty much sealed. We should probably try to figure out if corporate pandering is good for an economy, like social safety nets are. Personally, I'm putting my money on bad - and think we should return to a single welfare state.
While you may be hard pressed to find a sushi restaurant that doesn't serve seafood, you would also be hard pressed to find one that doesn't have any cooked offerings. At a minimum most sell some sort of vegi roll. I personally really enjoy the smoked eel (unagi).
You also can buy sushi at most grocery stores nowadays (though I usually don't) sometimes they have raw salmon and tuna, but in my experience, most stuff is cooked.
A pedant, apologizing for his insufficient pedantry?
Now I've seen everything.
That's not a false cognate. A false cognate is when one sound pattern evolved independently in two languages and means two different things.
A good example is that in english, mist is fine water droplets. In german, mist is manure.
You're talking about good old congates - which can diverge quite dramatically in different directions from the original root.
100psi?
The yield strength of crappy aluminum is in the ballpark of 40ksi. (1ksi = 1000 psi)
Fairbanks has a higher rate of violent crime than Los Angeles.
More fun with statistics. Fairbanks has 1.75 times the national rate of violent crime... So maybe it's not as safe as you think.
You're about three times more likely to be murdered, marginally less likely to be robbed, twice as likely to be assaulted, and marginally more likely to be burgled than the national average.
So I take back what I said about the cold fairbanks has crime problems in spite of the weather. I guess even criminals adapt.
Do you consider rape a violent crime? Fairbanks has 4.5 times the national rate of forcible rape.
That's what happens when it's cold almost all year round - less crime in the street, more in the bedroom.
If you want to rob someone in particular, it's usually pretty trivial to figure out if they're home or not. For instance, if you know who you're robbing, you probably know or can find out where they work - simply placing a call to the office will let you know if they're home.
If you just want to rob someone. Drive down a street at 10:00am looking for empty driveways.
the same place energy goes in any other predominantly inelastic collision.