Okay you're really an idiot. It is one of the two active ingredients in agent orange. Jesus fucking christ people are stupid... it is half of agent orange... you don't even produce evidence that water is one of the ingredients of agent orange, you just speculate to make your joke. And you call this fucking hype? Seriously?
Nothing I said was about the content of their argument, but rather just the presentation of the argument. The article explains NOTHING about how dangerous 2,3,4-T is, and simply replies upon "it's a part of Agent Orange" to assert the harmfulness of the chemical.
If the article had included any of what you included as information (that it's one of two chemicals in Agent Orange, and that it breaks down into TCDD which is crazy harmful when heated) then there would have been no issue at all with the article.
This is not a substance argument, it is a FORM argument, and thus attacking me with "but it really is dangerous!" is completely beside the point, because that's not what I was arguing. I knew 2,3,4-T was harmful, the point was that the article doesn't establish WHY it is harmful in its own right.
But 2,4,5-T is one of only two active ingredients.
Which the article never says.
Dihydrogen monoxide is not an active ingredient.
Not the point that it's an inactive ingredient. The article never explained by 2,3,4-T alone is dangerous.
Both active ingredients, on their own, are harmful.
I already noted that, but "harmful" is a gradient. Things can be more harmful than others. There is no explanation in the article about why 2,3,4-T is so harmful on its own. It's just "it's a chemical in Agent Orange!"
The entire suit is about ingredients being manufactured specifically for use in Agent Orange. It is perfectly reasonable, and contextually accurate, to refer to it as an Agent Orange Chemical.
I agree, it's totally poignant to mention that it was one of the two active ingredients in Agent Orange, and that when it breaks down under heat it turns into TCDD, which is many times more toxic than either of the two intentional active ingredients.... But the article didn't explain any of this. It just says "It's a chemical from Agent Orange!" Which is just emotional rhetoric.
As I've already explained in the comment you replied to: my issue is not with their argument being counterfactual, but rather that the presentation is uninformative, and meaningless rhetoric.
In fact, to leave out that fact would be somewhat misleading, since the actions that spawned the lawsuit had little to do with herbicides, and lots to do with chemical warfare.
Agent Orange was not chemical warfare. It was a defoliant, which we even occasionally sprayed it on our own troops, because we didn't expect it to be as dangerous as it turns out it was. If Agent Orange were a chemical weapon, then we would not have ever used it where it could expose our troops to harm.
While mentioning Agent Orange here is a certainly an emotional appeal, it's not entirely inappropriate. Agent Orange was a mixture of two herbicides, used as an herbicide. It caused health problems in people. Here, one of the two herbicides that made up Agent Orange is being used as an herbicide. It's the one that was, more or less, responsible for Agent Orange's health problems. The lawsuit is about health problems as a result of the use of this chemical. The comparison to Agent Orange is apt.
After reading a bit, it would be reasonable to say "2,3,4-T is one of the two herbicides of Agent Orange, and that when heated it can produce TCDD, which is extremely toxic." However, no one actually says that they, just kind of say the vague "it's a chemical in Agent Orange!" Which again, gives no background or information about how dangerous it is in its own right.
Nothing about my statement required 2,3,4-T to be safe and inert or even anything less than the most dangerous chemical of Agent Orange. Rather, I was simply noting that saying "it was a part of Agent Orange!" is done for rhetorical effect, and devoid of any meaningful information.
If I have to pull up Wikipedia, and read about it in order to have any idea of how toxic it is, why it's usually even more toxic than the chemical all by itself, the article isn't providing any useful information about why I should care about 2,3,4-T, beyond rhetoric, and that's simply unconvincing to any skeptical person. All it takes is a sentence to explain why 2,3,4-T is so bad, (and then a parenthetical aside as to why that made Agent Orange so bad).
It's like someone was trying to come up with the most perverted way to make a letter represent something as different as possible from what it does in most European languages
No, seriously... go look at Irish Gaelic spelling. You will be amazed at how much more unpredictable the system works, and how incredibly variant the letters are from the way that they're used by everyone else.
Playing Exalted, I get a head-explosion every time someone talks about "geis" as/giz/ rather than as/geS/... (I am at least understanding of their inability to pronounce/J\/ properly, as I don't think I have any experience producing it properly either.)
Can you explain why any word in french is pronounced the way it is? It seems like they have different rules for what letters to pronounce for every word.
Actually, French orthography guarantees that if you know how something is spelled, then you can pronounce it, but if you only know how it is pronounced, then you cannot know how to spell it.
So, while it might be difficult for some people learning the language, it is at least consistent in spelling to pronunciation (unlike English).
Can you concisely explain why the English word "psyche" is pronounced the way it is to a non-native speaker of the language?
The word being originally from Greek and pronounced/psyxe/ was transliterated and taken into English. English phonology does not allow for a word to start with/ps/, and so the rules change that to a/s/. English phonology does not allow for a/x/, and so the rules change that to a "k". English phonology does not allow for a word to end with/e/, and so the rules change that to either a/ej/ or an/i/, but more more commonly/i/ (e.g. Japanese "sake" is typically pronounced/saki/). All that is left is the/y/ which also cannot occur in English phonology, and thus the rules treat it as if it were orthographically an "i", and then apply phonological rules based on this. Since the "i" would be long (CVCe rule) it is pronounced/aj/.
Thus, after a whole bunch of interference from English phonology/psyxe/ comes out as/sajki/.
Oh, you wanted a concise answer: "Because English can't pronounce 'psyche' properly, and fuck it up." The same way "keyboard" becomes "kiiboodo" in Japanese, and "Merry Christmas" becomes "Mele Kalikimaka" in Hawai'ian.
If it is a 16 bit standard, how can it be unlimited? It can support at the most 2^16, or 65,536 characters. Where does it get planes from?
UTF-16 is NOT a naive 16-bit encoding, and has a set of surrogate pairs that allow one to construct codepoints of up to 20-bits in a UTF-16 stream. Subtract out the 16-bits per plane, and you're left with 4-bits, which is 16.
I misquoted 14 in my post, the Unicode standard only defines 14 planes, and 2 private use areas.
I thought unicode was unlimited? The coding methods might each have a limit, but the standard is unlimited.
The limit is mostly purely arbitrary as newer encodings allow for much more expanded coding sequences. However, due to the way UTF-16 encodes values above UTF+0xFFFF it is limited to expressing at most a 20-bit codepoint, meaning that the Unicode standard is basically limited practically to 16 pages of 65536 values. So, short of breaking changes to the UTF-16 standards you're basically SOL.
To clarify, I don't think that the herbicide 2,4,5-T is safe, or not dangerous. The point is that calling it "an ingredient in Agent Orange" is designed for emotional rhetoric, not reasonable inquiry.
Forget that it was used in Agent Orange, which was an unhealthy mix of numerous toxic chemicals, and rather, focus on the specific effects of 2,4,5-T itself... like "the herbcide 2,4,5-T, which is a known carcinogen".
This avoids hype and emotional rhetoric, while at the same time educates the person about how the substance is dangerous in its own right, without resorting to mentioning that it was just one part of a large concoction of toxic chemicals.... and now that I've explained my joke, it's no longer funny...
But sitting behind a student doodling is not as near distracting as sitting behind a student playing WoW or watching porn (I've seen both).
I haven't done either of those, but while in a class, I did boot up my macbook pro, which made the wonderful apple startup noise, and disrupted the whole class... everyone stared at me, and I was all, "oops!"
ASCII leaves off a lot of English punctuation, and accents that are, in fact, used in English (sure, in words of foreign origin, but they are still used.)
Some that aren't foreign as well. "Coöperate" is an archaic spelling. Basically, any prefix that ends in "o" that is attached to a word that starts with an "o" can archaically be spelled with a diaeresis, in the French/Dutch method of "this vowel should be pronounced separately, and not as part of a diphthong".
English also has the second-worst spelling system on the planet (only outdone by Japanese).
??? WTF are _YOU_ on about? English does not have the worst spelling system on the planet, and Japanese certainly doesn't qualify as the worst. "But they have three different scripts: two syllabaries, and an ideographic set" but...
Look, perhaps I better just demonstrate to you what a real bad spelling system looks like; go look at Irish.
They have 14 planes of ~65,536 characters... even after including massive syllabaries, and the unified CJK ideographs, they still had really only used the first plane. Now they're presented with only using about 7% of the space available, and so they started chucking just about every pictograph that they could possibly come up with into it...
I'm sorry, but while I'm down for having every script that is actually used, and every script that has been decoded, I don't see why we should have all of these pictographs, before we have something like tengwar, and cirth. Sure, tengwar and cirth are made up fantasy scripts, but they're more widely used than Linear B...
We never and still don't have a cure for Small Pox, we have a vaccine. And, while I'm not an expert, saying that we have a "cure" for Scurvy is just silly. I'm not really supporting the GP here, I don't really know, but your examples aren't much better.
Oh, I totally agree that we don't have cures for Polio and Small Pox... but if the GP asserts that we have cured Polio, then we have cured Small Pox. (From a generic population as an organism sense, by vaccinating the population we have cured the population of that disease.)
However, while Pellagra and Scurvy are both malnourishment conditions, their cure is the missing nutrient. If anything, they're the best example of a cure. You have an disease, you are treated with the cure, and you are cured of the disease. The fact that the cure are simple nutrients instead of complicated drugs is basically moot.
In the same way, the antidote for 4-Hydroxycoumarins rat poison is just vitamin K... does that make it not an antidote? You know, because it's just a nutritional supplement instead of an actual opposing drug?
Given that its far from established that a man-made object in the sea can be the sole territory of a sovereign state, I think the Gay and Lesbian Kingdom of the Coral Sea Islands has a better claim, having actual undisputed natural land over which it asserts a claim.
Given that the GLKCSI was founded on territory of Australia, and subject to Australia's jurisdiction, the international law position of "you cannot construct your sovereignty on territory of another sovereignty without its permission" kind of applies. Plus, they seem like a defunct micronation now anyways (at least their webpage is).
It certainly asserted its sovereignty, but "constructed" sort of begs the question.
I am aware that the words carry some connotations with them. But the only difference between a nation asserting its sovereignty and anyone else recognizing them, is that someone else recognizes them. That does not mean that Sealand did not construct its sovereignty.
Even if the UK military came in and reasserted Sealand as their territory, from the perspective of Sealand, it would have annexed or invaded the territory, violating their sovereign rights, and an illegal aggression. The fact that no one would care and come to their aide or agree with them is trivial.
Sealand has de facto sovereignty... this much is a clear fact. As long as Britain keeps ignoring them, and they continue to assert their sovereignty, then they continue to have de facto sovereignty.
". It's a needle in a haystack to find the correct point at which to break the debugger.."
You're not doing it right.
Should never tale you more then 8 attempts to find the precise place. 12 if you are a Jr. Level
Right, ok, so binary traversal for the Jr. level... but you don't have a long list of instructions like you do with other programs, you have an enormous jump table that you go through. So, put a break point on the code block that executes "xorl eax, eax", and you'll get 8 thousand breakpoint matches a second. Voila, debugger use becomes intractable.
I already stated that debuggers are good for the general case, but it's not an omni-tool... specifically it is a poor way to handle emulators and virtualizers.
The fact that so few poeple know the basic bit of applied logic to do that is for me both worrisome and profitable... and seldom understand mathematics.
What's more worrisome to me, is that some people fail to understand extraordinary circumstances, and attempt to apply generic tools to problems that need special tools.
Polio is the ONLY named disease for which medicine has ever proceeded to effect a ' CURE'.
What? Polio is still around, while small pox has been eradicated in the wild. Plus, we have cures for Pellagra, Scurvy, and all sorts of other named disease...
I don't understand the people that think Sealand is some magical law-free zone.
I don't think Sealand is a law-free zone at all. Even by it's own account, it is a sovereign state with its own constitution, and royal decrees declaring laws. Sealand is no more a law-free zone than Afghanistan is.
The fact that anyone could easily invade it and usurp any government in place does not make it any less of a sovereign state, much like how the US invasion of Iraq didn't make Iraq not a sovereign state prior to our invasion.
Seriously, the two scenarios that you present could be played out with all but maybe two or three countries around the world to nearly similar effect. (Iraq had something like the third largest military in the world, and we squashed it like a bug.) So, this makes Sealand nothing special in that regard.
To invade (which is what any storm of the structure would be) would be an overt act of war, even if it's against a single man armed with a.22 rifle. He is still, literally, master of all he surveys.
True, but no one else would see it as an invasion, because no one recognizes the sovereignty of Sealand. Other countries recognizing your sovereignty basically means that they agree that you should be treated the same as them.
Every country's perspective is that It's not invasion for the UK to land on a rogue steel structure within their territorial waters and seize control of the facility. It's only Sealand that would disagree...
True, there are a lot of grey areas in international law; I just don't think Sealand is anywhere near one of these grey areas. Under every legitimate theory I am aware of Sealand is the property of the UK.
Pretty much there with you... but as far as micronations go, Sealand has the best arguments. And really, the only thing that Sealand has going for it is possible inertia, in that it constructed its sovereignty before international law made it impossible. So, there is an argument that you can't just dissolve a sovereignty without its permission, so Sealand still has a right to its own sovereignty.
But, the only question that matters is: would anyone care? And unfortunately for Sealand, the answer is "highly unlikely".
Debuggers work fine if you can run your code repeatedly. However, if you have a massive existing workflow that you're also supporting the tools for, then you want as extensive logging as is possible. This is also "debug by print". The big difference though, is that I can let it run all the time, and when something goes wrong, I can then pull up the log, and figure out what went wrong without having to start up a debugger, or redo the process at all... which is very important for intermittent bugs.
All that said, while I tend to eschew debuggers, and use "debug by print", both do not accurately describe the way I debug. I white-box debug code. That is I read the code and understand how it works. Sometimes, I need to know which path was taken or not, and I add debug printing lines. Why do I do things like that? Because I tend to work with virtualization and emulation, where in for example, I had a bug with an emulator that only manifest its behavior a second after the bad opcode was executed. With a ~4 MHz processor being emulated, that means that about 1 million opcodes had executed (~4 cycles per opcode) prior to the the behavior manifesting itself. The behavior also only demonstrated itself at least about 4 million opcodes in. It's a needle in a haystack to find the correct point at which to break the debugger, and intractable to step through the debugger.
Using a debugger is simply not always the best choice. It is commonly the best choice, but it certainly is not an omni-tool.
Or, more likely, that it brought the abandoned structure that was formerly outside of UK territorial waters within it.
Meh, different words for the exact same action. Like when the US blockaded Cuba, which is an act of war... oh wait, no, we did exactly the same thing as a blockade, but we were QUARANTINING Cuba, so it was no longer an act of war.
Much of everything can be seen through many lenses. From Sealand's point of view, the UK will be annexing their territory, but from the UK's point of view, they're likely to say what you said... either way, it's the exact same action, just different words, and viewpoints.
While otherwise considered a fallacy, appeal to force is a fairly traditional method of settling disputes over the the legality of claims of sovereignty
It's basically because fallacies only matter within logical arguments. Those have little bearing on natural law (as an example: "the guy with the most force wins." We cannot change this law: it is a fundamental fact of reality.)
Dealing between sovereign nations is basically a complicated dance... if I break a treaty, who will hold me accountable to it? You? You and your friends? How will you hold me accountable? Anything short of forcing me to do so means more or less nothing... So, everything is done by getting the other side to consent to doing what you want them to do, whether by force, coercion or rational agreement of mutual best interest. Unfortunately, while the later is the one we all attempt to argue is the only reasonable way to settle anything, it cannot make someone do something that they do not consent to... no matter HOW good an argument is made.
It's almost like the rules of the playground, or the Lord of the Flies... telling the bully who is hitting you that it's not acceptable for him to hit you won't ever solve anything.
Slashdot Mirror
Okay you're really an idiot. It is one of the two active ingredients in agent orange. Jesus fucking christ people are stupid ... it is half of agent orange ... you don't even produce evidence that water is one of the ingredients of agent orange, you just speculate to make your joke. And you call this fucking hype? Seriously?
Nothing I said was about the content of their argument, but rather just the presentation of the argument. The article explains NOTHING about how dangerous 2,3,4-T is, and simply replies upon "it's a part of Agent Orange" to assert the harmfulness of the chemical.
If the article had included any of what you included as information (that it's one of two chemicals in Agent Orange, and that it breaks down into TCDD which is crazy harmful when heated) then there would have been no issue at all with the article.
This is not a substance argument, it is a FORM argument, and thus attacking me with "but it really is dangerous!" is completely beside the point, because that's not what I was arguing. I knew 2,3,4-T was harmful, the point was that the article doesn't establish WHY it is harmful in its own right.
But 2,4,5-T is one of only two active ingredients.
Which the article never says.
Dihydrogen monoxide is not an active ingredient.
Not the point that it's an inactive ingredient. The article never explained by 2,3,4-T alone is dangerous.
Both active ingredients, on their own, are harmful.
I already noted that, but "harmful" is a gradient. Things can be more harmful than others. There is no explanation in the article about why 2,3,4-T is so harmful on its own. It's just "it's a chemical in Agent Orange!"
The entire suit is about ingredients being manufactured specifically for use in Agent Orange. It is perfectly reasonable, and contextually accurate, to refer to it as an Agent Orange Chemical.
I agree, it's totally poignant to mention that it was one of the two active ingredients in Agent Orange, and that when it breaks down under heat it turns into TCDD, which is many times more toxic than either of the two intentional active ingredients. ... But the article didn't explain any of this. It just says "It's a chemical from Agent Orange!" Which is just emotional rhetoric.
As I've already explained in the comment you replied to: my issue is not with their argument being counterfactual, but rather that the presentation is uninformative, and meaningless rhetoric.
In fact, to leave out that fact would be somewhat misleading, since the actions that spawned the lawsuit had little to do with herbicides, and lots to do with chemical warfare.
Agent Orange was not chemical warfare. It was a defoliant, which we even occasionally sprayed it on our own troops, because we didn't expect it to be as dangerous as it turns out it was. If Agent Orange were a chemical weapon, then we would not have ever used it where it could expose our troops to harm.
While mentioning Agent Orange here is a certainly an emotional appeal, it's not entirely inappropriate. Agent Orange was a mixture of two herbicides, used as an herbicide. It caused health problems in people. Here, one of the two herbicides that made up Agent Orange is being used as an herbicide. It's the one that was, more or less, responsible for Agent Orange's health problems. The lawsuit is about health problems as a result of the use of this chemical. The comparison to Agent Orange is apt.
After reading a bit, it would be reasonable to say "2,3,4-T is one of the two herbicides of Agent Orange, and that when heated it can produce TCDD, which is extremely toxic." However, no one actually says that they, just kind of say the vague "it's a chemical in Agent Orange!" Which again, gives no background or information about how dangerous it is in its own right.
Nothing about my statement required 2,3,4-T to be safe and inert or even anything less than the most dangerous chemical of Agent Orange. Rather, I was simply noting that saying "it was a part of Agent Orange!" is done for rhetorical effect, and devoid of any meaningful information.
If I have to pull up Wikipedia, and read about it in order to have any idea of how toxic it is, why it's usually even more toxic than the chemical all by itself, the article isn't providing any useful information about why I should care about 2,3,4-T, beyond rhetoric, and that's simply unconvincing to any skeptical person. All it takes is a sentence to explain why 2,3,4-T is so bad, (and then a parenthetical aside as to why that made Agent Orange so bad).
Yes they made herbicides too but production was done here with the specific intent to make chemical weapons.
Huh, WHAT?! The suit is only about a herbicide, and Agent Orange is AN HERBICIDE, was not intended as a chemical weapon.
It's like someone was trying to come up with the most perverted way to make a letter represent something as different as possible from what it does in most European languages
No, seriously... go look at Irish Gaelic spelling. You will be amazed at how much more unpredictable the system works, and how incredibly variant the letters are from the way that they're used by everyone else.
Playing Exalted, I get a head-explosion every time someone talks about "geis" as /giz/ rather than as /geS/... (I am at least understanding of their inability to pronounce /J\/ properly, as I don't think I have any experience producing it properly either.)
Can you explain why any word in french is pronounced the way it is?
It seems like they have different rules for what letters to pronounce for every word.
Actually, French orthography guarantees that if you know how something is spelled, then you can pronounce it, but if you only know how it is pronounced, then you cannot know how to spell it.
So, while it might be difficult for some people learning the language, it is at least consistent in spelling to pronunciation (unlike English).
??? WTF are _YOU_ on about?
Can you concisely explain why the English word "psyche" is pronounced the way it is to a non-native speaker of the language?
The word being originally from Greek and pronounced /psyxe/ was transliterated and taken into English. English phonology does not allow for a word to start with /ps/, and so the rules change that to a /s/. English phonology does not allow for a /x/, and so the rules change that to a "k". English phonology does not allow for a word to end with /e/, and so the rules change that to either a /ej/ or an /i/, but more more commonly /i/ (e.g. Japanese "sake" is typically pronounced /saki/). All that is left is the /y/ which also cannot occur in English phonology, and thus the rules treat it as if it were orthographically an "i", and then apply phonological rules based on this. Since the "i" would be long (CVCe rule) it is pronounced /aj/.
Thus, after a whole bunch of interference from English phonology /psyxe/ comes out as /sajki/.
Oh, you wanted a concise answer: "Because English can't pronounce 'psyche' properly, and fuck it up." The same way "keyboard" becomes "kiiboodo" in Japanese, and "Merry Christmas" becomes "Mele Kalikimaka" in Hawai'ian.
If it is a 16 bit standard, how can it be unlimited? It can support at the most 2^16, or 65,536 characters. Where does it get planes from?
UTF-16 is NOT a naive 16-bit encoding, and has a set of surrogate pairs that allow one to construct codepoints of up to 20-bits in a UTF-16 stream. Subtract out the 16-bits per plane, and you're left with 4-bits, which is 16.
I misquoted 14 in my post, the Unicode standard only defines 14 planes, and 2 private use areas.
I thought unicode was unlimited? The coding methods might each have a limit, but the standard is unlimited.
The limit is mostly purely arbitrary as newer encodings allow for much more expanded coding sequences. However, due to the way UTF-16 encodes values above UTF+0xFFFF it is limited to expressing at most a 20-bit codepoint, meaning that the Unicode standard is basically limited practically to 16 pages of 65536 values. So, short of breaking changes to the UTF-16 standards you're basically SOL.
You're an idiot.
To clarify, I don't think that the herbicide 2,4,5-T is safe, or not dangerous. The point is that calling it "an ingredient in Agent Orange" is designed for emotional rhetoric, not reasonable inquiry.
Forget that it was used in Agent Orange, which was an unhealthy mix of numerous toxic chemicals, and rather, focus on the specific effects of 2,4,5-T itself... like "the herbcide 2,4,5-T, which is a known carcinogen".
This avoids hype and emotional rhetoric, while at the same time educates the person about how the substance is dangerous in its own right, without resorting to mentioning that it was just one part of a large concoction of toxic chemicals. ... and now that I've explained my joke, it's no longer funny...
But sitting behind a student doodling is not as near distracting as sitting behind a student playing WoW or watching porn (I've seen both).
I haven't done either of those, but while in a class, I did boot up my macbook pro, which made the wonderful apple startup noise, and disrupted the whole class... everyone stared at me, and I was all, "oops!"
Dihydrogen monoxide. They should really ban the stuff....
ASCII leaves off a lot of English punctuation, and accents that are, in fact, used in English (sure, in words of foreign origin, but they are still used.)
Some that aren't foreign as well. "Coöperate" is an archaic spelling. Basically, any prefix that ends in "o" that is attached to a word that starts with an "o" can archaically be spelled with a diaeresis, in the French/Dutch method of "this vowel should be pronounced separately, and not as part of a diphthong".
English also has the second-worst spelling system on the planet (only outdone by Japanese).
??? WTF are _YOU_ on about? English does not have the worst spelling system on the planet, and Japanese certainly doesn't qualify as the worst. "But they have three different scripts: two syllabaries, and an ideographic set" but...
Look, perhaps I better just demonstrate to you what a real bad spelling system looks like; go look at Irish.
They have 14 planes of ~65,536 characters... even after including massive syllabaries, and the unified CJK ideographs, they still had really only used the first plane. Now they're presented with only using about 7% of the space available, and so they started chucking just about every pictograph that they could possibly come up with into it...
I'm sorry, but while I'm down for having every script that is actually used, and every script that has been decoded, I don't see why we should have all of these pictographs, before we have something like tengwar, and cirth. Sure, tengwar and cirth are made up fantasy scripts, but they're more widely used than Linear B...
We never and still don't have a cure for Small Pox, we have a vaccine. And, while I'm not an expert, saying that we have a "cure" for Scurvy is just silly. I'm not really supporting the GP here, I don't really know, but your examples aren't much better.
Oh, I totally agree that we don't have cures for Polio and Small Pox... but if the GP asserts that we have cured Polio, then we have cured Small Pox. (From a generic population as an organism sense, by vaccinating the population we have cured the population of that disease.)
However, while Pellagra and Scurvy are both malnourishment conditions, their cure is the missing nutrient. If anything, they're the best example of a cure. You have an disease, you are treated with the cure, and you are cured of the disease. The fact that the cure are simple nutrients instead of complicated drugs is basically moot.
In the same way, the antidote for 4-Hydroxycoumarins rat poison is just vitamin K... does that make it not an antidote? You know, because it's just a nutritional supplement instead of an actual opposing drug?
Given that its far from established that a man-made object in the sea can be the sole territory of a sovereign state, I think the Gay and Lesbian Kingdom of the Coral Sea Islands has a better claim, having actual undisputed natural land over which it asserts a claim.
Given that the GLKCSI was founded on territory of Australia, and subject to Australia's jurisdiction, the international law position of "you cannot construct your sovereignty on territory of another sovereignty without its permission" kind of applies. Plus, they seem like a defunct micronation now anyways (at least their webpage is).
It certainly asserted its sovereignty, but "constructed" sort of begs the question.
I am aware that the words carry some connotations with them. But the only difference between a nation asserting its sovereignty and anyone else recognizing them, is that someone else recognizes them. That does not mean that Sealand did not construct its sovereignty.
Even if the UK military came in and reasserted Sealand as their territory, from the perspective of Sealand, it would have annexed or invaded the territory, violating their sovereign rights, and an illegal aggression. The fact that no one would care and come to their aide or agree with them is trivial.
Sealand has de facto sovereignty... this much is a clear fact. As long as Britain keeps ignoring them, and they continue to assert their sovereignty, then they continue to have de facto sovereignty.
". It's a needle in a haystack to find the correct point at which to break the debugger.."
You're not doing it right.
Should never tale you more then 8 attempts to find the precise place. 12 if you are a Jr. Level
Right, ok, so binary traversal for the Jr. level... but you don't have a long list of instructions like you do with other programs, you have an enormous jump table that you go through. So, put a break point on the code block that executes "xorl eax, eax", and you'll get 8 thousand breakpoint matches a second. Voila, debugger use becomes intractable.
I already stated that debuggers are good for the general case, but it's not an omni-tool... specifically it is a poor way to handle emulators and virtualizers.
The fact that so few poeple know the basic bit of applied logic to do that is for me both worrisome and profitable... and seldom understand mathematics.
What's more worrisome to me, is that some people fail to understand extraordinary circumstances, and attempt to apply generic tools to problems that need special tools.
Polio is the ONLY named disease for which medicine has ever proceeded to effect a ' CURE'.
What? Polio is still around, while small pox has been eradicated in the wild. Plus, we have cures for Pellagra, Scurvy, and all sorts of other named disease...
Me thinks there be a troll here...
And little horseys, too?
U+1F40E ... no, seriously...
I don't understand the people that think Sealand is some magical law-free zone.
I don't think Sealand is a law-free zone at all. Even by it's own account, it is a sovereign state with its own constitution, and royal decrees declaring laws. Sealand is no more a law-free zone than Afghanistan is.
The fact that anyone could easily invade it and usurp any government in place does not make it any less of a sovereign state, much like how the US invasion of Iraq didn't make Iraq not a sovereign state prior to our invasion.
Seriously, the two scenarios that you present could be played out with all but maybe two or three countries around the world to nearly similar effect. (Iraq had something like the third largest military in the world, and we squashed it like a bug.) So, this makes Sealand nothing special in that regard.
To invade (which is what any storm of the structure would be) would be an overt act of war, even if it's against a single man armed with a .22 rifle. He is still, literally, master of all he surveys.
True, but no one else would see it as an invasion, because no one recognizes the sovereignty of Sealand. Other countries recognizing your sovereignty basically means that they agree that you should be treated the same as them.
Every country's perspective is that It's not invasion for the UK to land on a rogue steel structure within their territorial waters and seize control of the facility. It's only Sealand that would disagree...
True, there are a lot of grey areas in international law; I just don't think Sealand is anywhere near one of these grey areas. Under every legitimate theory I am aware of Sealand is the property of the UK.
Pretty much there with you... but as far as micronations go, Sealand has the best arguments. And really, the only thing that Sealand has going for it is possible inertia, in that it constructed its sovereignty before international law made it impossible. So, there is an argument that you can't just dissolve a sovereignty without its permission, so Sealand still has a right to its own sovereignty.
But, the only question that matters is: would anyone care? And unfortunately for Sealand, the answer is "highly unlikely".
Debuggers work fine if you can run your code repeatedly. However, if you have a massive existing workflow that you're also supporting the tools for, then you want as extensive logging as is possible. This is also "debug by print". The big difference though, is that I can let it run all the time, and when something goes wrong, I can then pull up the log, and figure out what went wrong without having to start up a debugger, or redo the process at all... which is very important for intermittent bugs.
All that said, while I tend to eschew debuggers, and use "debug by print", both do not accurately describe the way I debug. I white-box debug code. That is I read the code and understand how it works. Sometimes, I need to know which path was taken or not, and I add debug printing lines. Why do I do things like that? Because I tend to work with virtualization and emulation, where in for example, I had a bug with an emulator that only manifest its behavior a second after the bad opcode was executed. With a ~4 MHz processor being emulated, that means that about 1 million opcodes had executed (~4 cycles per opcode) prior to the the behavior manifesting itself. The behavior also only demonstrated itself at least about 4 million opcodes in. It's a needle in a haystack to find the correct point at which to break the debugger, and intractable to step through the debugger.
Using a debugger is simply not always the best choice. It is commonly the best choice, but it certainly is not an omni-tool.
Or, more likely, that it brought the abandoned structure that was formerly outside of UK territorial waters within it.
Meh, different words for the exact same action. Like when the US blockaded Cuba, which is an act of war... oh wait, no, we did exactly the same thing as a blockade, but we were QUARANTINING Cuba, so it was no longer an act of war.
Much of everything can be seen through many lenses. From Sealand's point of view, the UK will be annexing their territory, but from the UK's point of view, they're likely to say what you said... either way, it's the exact same action, just different words, and viewpoints.
While otherwise considered a fallacy, appeal to force is a fairly traditional method of settling disputes over the the legality of claims of sovereignty
It's basically because fallacies only matter within logical arguments. Those have little bearing on natural law (as an example: "the guy with the most force wins." We cannot change this law: it is a fundamental fact of reality.)
Dealing between sovereign nations is basically a complicated dance... if I break a treaty, who will hold me accountable to it? You? You and your friends? How will you hold me accountable? Anything short of forcing me to do so means more or less nothing... So, everything is done by getting the other side to consent to doing what you want them to do, whether by force, coercion or rational agreement of mutual best interest. Unfortunately, while the later is the one we all attempt to argue is the only reasonable way to settle anything, it cannot make someone do something that they do not consent to... no matter HOW good an argument is made.
It's almost like the rules of the playground, or the Lord of the Flies... telling the bully who is hitting you that it's not acceptable for him to hit you won't ever solve anything.