Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
A constitution which was written for a very different society doesn't
need to change when the society changes? That does seem to be the >>originalist position.
There are two completely different and conflicting originalist positions, >which is part of the problem. People call themselves "originalists" and >think they agree with one another when they do not.
The first position is that once the Supreme Court has interpreted the >constitution (or any other law) that this interpretation is set in stone
and that it's the job and the obligation of the people to add amendments
to the constitution to change it. They do not believe that the constitution >is fixed, only that the process by which it should be changing is not through >common law but written law. A number of the founding fathers took this
tack and it may have seemed like a good one at the time but it has been >problematic over the years because the difficulty of amending the >constitution has increased exponentially as the number of states have grown.
The second position is that once the Supreme Court has interpreted the >constitution (or any other law) that this interpretation is set in stone
and should never be changed because society should never change. These >people believe that somehow if the law remains the same that society will >also remain the same. These people are completely misguided and attempts
to keep society static through legal means cause citizens to lose respect
for laws rather than actually reducing change.
Don't judges and politicians swear to uphold the constitution and see
that the laws are faithfully executed?
But that constitution and those laws do change with time, and should
have been changed rather more.
It's that second half of that sentence that people debate about.
--scott
The choice of deity isn't yours anyway. It gets burned into
you from a young age from the environment into which you
happen to be born. Every religion claims to be the only right
one and they all promise doom to unbelievers. Some religions
will help their gods by doing the dooming for him. Those are
the worst.
Jeroen Belleman wrote:
The choice of deity isn't yours anyway. It gets burned into
you from a young age from the environment into which you
happen to be born. Every religion claims to be the only right
one and they all promise doom to unbelievers. Some religions
will help their gods by doing the dooming for him. Those are
the worst.
According to you then it is impossible for moslems to convert to
christians, christians to hindi, shinto/buddhist to christian,
etc.
Anyone claiming otherwise is a liar.
It's an evasion anyway. You're brain is locked because you've
denied yourself that most precious of human assets--empathy.
'I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible that
you may be mistaken.'
On 30/03/2024 8:59 pm, Governor Swill wrote:
On Sat, 30 Mar 2024 16:11:52 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
New York wasn't the only destination for Irish people escaping the
potato famine.
Australia got 4000 female Irish orphans
Did you know that Ireland still has less population than it had in 1840?
No. It doesn't surprise me - the potato famine produced a lot of
starvation. About a million people died in Ireland and about as many >emigrated at the time, and an another million left over the next few years.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Famine_(Ireland)
It was very much a failure of government. British administrations in
Ireland and India didn't have a habit of intervening to prevent deaths
by starvation in subject populations.
On 31/03/2024 11:36 pm, Governor Swill wrote:
On Sun, 31 Mar 2024 16:52:59 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 31/03/2024 12:15 pm, John Larkin wrote:
On 31 Mar 2024 01:06:13 -0000, kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
John Larkin <xx@yy.com> wrote:
Hundreds of years ago, 80% of the world population wasNo, but the other side of the coin is global warming, which at the core >>>>> is really just a matter of overpopulation.
hunter-gatherers or farmers, and both lived on the edge of starvation. >>>>>> Now the US has about 2% farmers and there's tons of cheap food. Enough >>>>>> to export or turn into auto fuel.
Malthusian starvation and the idiotic "Population Bomb" didn't happen. >>>>>
--scott
CO2 and warming are both good,
They aren't, but John Larkin is a gullible sucker for climate change
denial propaganda.
and the population will most likely
peak and slowly decline.
That's the prediction.
The catastrophists are always wrong.
They have been so far. A proper catastrophe gets rid of both the
catastrophists and the people who are sceptical of their predictions, so >>> there isn't anybody around to mention that a catastrophist finally got
it right.
But if their warnings are taken seriously and acted upon?
The global cooling climate change proponents of the nineteen sixties and seventies saw
government act to remove from their exhausts those chemicals and particulates that caused
planetary cooling.
There were no global cooling climate change proponents.
The campaign to put SO2 scrubbers in power station smoke stacks was
aimed at eliminating acid rain. which was killing conifer forests. That
the SO2 was also creating droplets of sulphuric acid in the stratosphere >which scatted some sunlight, causing a bit of global cooling wasn't >appreciated at the time. Dealing with the ozone hole was similarly
climate neutral.
The by product has been CO2 which causes warming.
Wrong. CO2 does cause warming, but nothing done to deal with acid rain
or the ozone hole has introduced any extra CO2 into the atmosphere.
Stopping acid rain let conifer forests take a bit more CO2 out.
Every solution brings with it a new problem.
Not in this particular case.
On Thu, 28 Mar 2024 23:21:41 -0700, Siri Cruise
<chine.bleu@www.yahoo.com> wrote:
Bill Sloman wrote:
America is remarkably religious for an advanced industrial
country. If
religious mania is a heritable defect, the US might have got an
excessive proportion of that kind of lunatic in its migrant
intake.
It was, from its earliest days, the place where religious
zealots went to avoid
persecution.
Or, to put it another way, the place where the florid zealots went
when they decided that they couldn't find a way of being tolerably
non-conformist.
USA is overly religious because nonconformists fled intolerable
English religious conformity?
Iran is overly religious. The USA is not.
On 1/04/2024 2:23 am, John Larkin wrote:
On Sun, 31 Mar 2024 08:36:18 -0400, Governor Swill <governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 31 Mar 2024 16:52:59 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 31/03/2024 12:15 pm, John Larkin wrote:
On 31 Mar 2024 01:06:13 -0000, kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote: >>>>>> John Larkin <xx@yy.com> wrote:
<snip>
Every solution brings with it a new problem.
Every neurosis is an opportunity for power and money.
There's nothing neurotic about understanding that climate change is real
and should be slowed down.
Failing to appreciate that the propaganda that claims that it is not >happening comes from the people who make money out of digging up fossil >carbon and selling it as fuel is gullible stupidity.
The people who are pushing the propaganda see it as an opportunity to
keep on making money and having power for a bit longer.
Gullible stupidity is a mental health problem, but it does not seem to
be responsive to therapy.
On Sun, 31 Mar 2024 08:32:44 -0400, Governor Swill
<governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, 30 Mar 2024 18:15:51 -0700, John Larkin <jl@997PotHill.com> wrote:
CO2 and warming are both good
If you don't live in New York, Sydney, Marseilles or one of a zillion other places on the
planet that are directly adjacent to a lovely beach.
Swill
Is the West Side Highway under water yet? I haven't lived in NYC in a
while now.
https://images.adsttc.com/media/images/5938/0481/e58e/ce61/4200/01bd/large_jpg/Screen_Shot_2017-06-07_at_6.32.20_AM.jpg?1496843385
On 31 Mar 2024 14:48:35 -0000, kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
A constitution which was written for a very different society doesn't
need to change when the society changes? That does seem to be the
originalist position.
There is a third position. The SCOTUS should not interpret but enforce.
Don't judges and politicians swear to uphold the constitution and see
that the laws are faithfully executed?
But that constitution and those laws do change with time, and should
have been changed rather more.
It's that second half of that sentence that people debate about.
On Mon, 1 Apr 2024 00:11:47 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 30/03/2024 8:59 pm, Governor Swill wrote:
On Sat, 30 Mar 2024 16:11:52 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
New York wasn't the only destination for Irish people escaping the
potato famine.
Australia got 4000 female Irish orphans
Did you know that Ireland still has less population than it had in 1840?
No. It doesn't surprise me - the potato famine produced a lot of
starvation. About a million people died in Ireland and about as many
emigrated at the time, and an another million left over the next few years. >>
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Famine_(Ireland)
It was very much a failure of government. British administrations in
Ireland and India didn't have a habit of intervening to prevent deaths
by starvation in subject populations.
The failure wasn't by omission but by commission. The Corn Laws made it illegal for the
Irish to consume grains they grew - they were earmarked for export. Potatoes, not being
grain, could be grown for domestic consumption. The problem came when potatoes, and
especially one particularly easy variety to grow in Ireland's rocky soil, got sick. The
potato blight spread from sea to sea and because eating grain was illegal, the populace
starved.
This is a simplistic explanation but the basic fact is that the Corn Laws were what brought
about the conditions under which the famine could take place.
On Sat, 30 Mar 2024 05:51:13 -0400, Governor Swill <governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 29 Mar 2024 20:37:06 -0700, John Larkin <jl@997PotHill.com> wrote:
On Fri, 29 Mar 2024 22:33:36 -0400, Governor Swill >>><governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 29 Mar 2024 08:15:08 -0700, John Larkin <jl@997PotHill.com> wrote: >>>>
Our Constition is based on Judeao-Christian principles but is not >>>>>specifically religious.
Really?
Exactly what biblical principles is the Constitution based on?
Swill
The Ten Commandments was a good start.
Show me the Ten Commandments in the US Constitution.
(waiting)
Swill
On 3/30/2024 10:42 AM, John Larkin wrote:
On Thu, 28 Mar 2024 23:21:41 -0700, Siri Cruise
<chine.bleu@www.yahoo.com> wrote:
Bill Sloman wrote:
America is remarkably religious for an advanced industrial
country. If
religious mania is a heritable defect, the US might have got an
excessive proportion of that kind of lunatic in its migrant
intake.
It was, from its earliest days, the place where religious
zealots went to avoid
persecution.
Or, to put it another way, the place where the florid zealots went
when they decided that they couldn't find a way of being tolerably
non-conformist.
USA is overly religious because nonconformists fled intolerable
English religious conformity?
Iran is overly religious. The USA is not.
The USA absolutely is excessively religious and religion plays far too big a >role in our politics. The fact we're not as bad as Iran doesn't mean the >situation isn't still very bad here. It is very bad here.
On Mon, 1 Apr 2024 00:25:14 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 31/03/2024 11:36 pm, Governor Swill wrote:
On Sun, 31 Mar 2024 16:52:59 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 31/03/2024 12:15 pm, John Larkin wrote:
On 31 Mar 2024 01:06:13 -0000, kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote: >>>>>
John Larkin <xx@yy.com> wrote:
Hundreds of years ago, 80% of the world population wasNo, but the other side of the coin is global warming, which at the core >>>>>> is really just a matter of overpopulation.
hunter-gatherers or farmers, and both lived on the edge of starvation. >>>>>>> Now the US has about 2% farmers and there's tons of cheap food. Enough >>>>>>> to export or turn into auto fuel.
Malthusian starvation and the idiotic "Population Bomb" didn't happen. >>>>>>
--scott
CO2 and warming are both good,
They aren't, but John Larkin is a gullible sucker for climate change
denial propaganda.
and the population will most likely
peak and slowly decline.
That's the prediction.
The catastrophists are always wrong.
They have been so far. A proper catastrophe gets rid of both the
catastrophists and the people who are sceptical of their predictions, so >>>> there isn't anybody around to mention that a catastrophist finally got >>>> it right.
But if their warnings are taken seriously and acted upon?
The global cooling climate change proponents of the nineteen sixties and seventies saw
government act to remove from their exhausts those chemicals and particulates that caused
planetary cooling.
There were no global cooling climate change proponents.
Yes. There were.
"On April 28, 1975, Newsweek published an article called, “The Cooling World,” in which
writer and science editor, Peter Gwynne, described a significant chilling of the world’s
climate, with evidence “accumulating so massively that meteorologists are hard-pressed to
keep up with it.”" <https://fox59.com/news/national-world/what-climate-scientists-were-predicting-in-the-1970s/>
This prediction turned out to be baseless. Nevertheless, reducing sulphur in auto and
coal plant emissions as well as reducing particulates has allowed more solar heating of
the surface. Are there no effects from the change in oxides of nitrogen emissions?
On Sun, 31 Mar 2024 08:27:07 -0700, John Larkin <jl@997PotHill.com> wrote:
On Sun, 31 Mar 2024 08:32:44 -0400, Governor Swill >><governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, 30 Mar 2024 18:15:51 -0700, John Larkin <jl@997PotHill.com> wrote: >>>
CO2 and warming are both good
If you don't live in New York, Sydney, Marseilles or one of a zillion other places on the
planet that are directly adjacent to a lovely beach.
Swill
Is the West Side Highway under water yet? I haven't lived in NYC in a
while now.
No, but in all my seventy years I never heard of a hurricane flooding the NCY subway
system and washing away sections of Long Island either. ><https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hurricane_Sandy>
https://images.adsttc.com/media/images/5938/0481/e58e/ce61/4200/01bd/large_jpg/Screen_Shot_2017-06-07_at_6.32.20_AM.jpg?1496843385
You're presenting a photoshopped image as proof that sea level rise will never occur?
On Mon, 01 Apr 2024 08:57:12 -0400, Governor Swill
<governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, 30 Mar 2024 05:51:13 -0400, Governor Swill <governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 29 Mar 2024 20:37:06 -0700, John Larkin <jl@997PotHill.com> wrote: >>>
On Fri, 29 Mar 2024 22:33:36 -0400, Governor Swill
<governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 29 Mar 2024 08:15:08 -0700, John Larkin <jl@997PotHill.com> wrote:
Our Constition is based on Judeao-Christian principles but is not
specifically religious.
Really?
Exactly what biblical principles is the Constitution based on?
Swill
The Ten Commandments was a good start.
Show me the Ten Commandments in the US Constitution.
(waiting)
Swill
It's pretty obvious that the Bill of Rights is based on
judeao-christian principles. No, the authors didn't plagiarize the commandments.
The 6th amendment for example evolves from the 9th commandment.
Namely, we get a fair trial, and consequently perjury is a crime.
This is the idea:
https://www.breitbart.com/europe/2024/04/01/athiest-richard-dawkins-says-he-would-choose-christianity-over-islam-every-single-time/
Dawkins, an avid atheist, prefers Christian principles, as did some of
the atheist signers of the constitution.
I wonder if Dawkins is getting religious in his final years.
Iran is overly religious. The USA is not.
Both Iran and the US are overly religious. Americans think that their >irrational religiosity is perfectly normal, because they are used to it.
Nobody else makes that mistake.
On 31 Mar 2024 14:48:35 -0000, kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
There are two completely different and conflicting originalist positions, >>which is part of the problem. People call themselves "originalists" and >>think they agree with one another when they do not.
The first position is that once the Supreme Court has interpreted the >>constitution (or any other law) that this interpretation is set in stone >>and that it's the job and the obligation of the people to add amendments
to the constitution to change it. They do not believe that the constitution >>is fixed, only that the process by which it should be changing is not through >>common law but written law. A number of the founding fathers took this >>tack and it may have seemed like a good one at the time but it has been >>problematic over the years because the difficulty of amending the >>constitution has increased exponentially as the number of states have grown. >>
The second position is that once the Supreme Court has interpreted the >>constitution (or any other law) that this interpretation is set in stone >>and should never be changed because society should never change. These >>people believe that somehow if the law remains the same that society will >>also remain the same. These people are completely misguided and attempts >>to keep society static through legal means cause citizens to lose respect >>for laws rather than actually reducing change.
There is a third position. The SCOTUS should not interpret but enforce.
On 4/1/24 16:54, John Larkin wrote:
On Mon, 01 Apr 2024 08:57:12 -0400, Governor Swill
<governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, 30 Mar 2024 05:51:13 -0400, Governor Swill <governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 29 Mar 2024 20:37:06 -0700, John Larkin <jl@997PotHill.com> wrote: >>>>
On Fri, 29 Mar 2024 22:33:36 -0400, Governor Swill
<governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 29 Mar 2024 08:15:08 -0700, John Larkin <jl@997PotHill.com> wrote:
Our Constition is based on Judeao-Christian principles but is not >>>>>>> specifically religious.
Really?
Exactly what biblical principles is the Constitution based on?
Swill
The Ten Commandments was a good start.
Show me the Ten Commandments in the US Constitution.
(waiting)
Swill
It's pretty obvious that the Bill of Rights is based on
judeao-christian principles. No, the authors didn't plagiarize the
commandments.
The 6th amendment for example evolves from the 9th commandment.
Namely, we get a fair trial, and consequently perjury is a crime.
This is the idea:
https://www.breitbart.com/europe/2024/04/01/athiest-richard-dawkins-says-he-would-choose-christianity-over-islam-every-single-time/
Dawkins, an avid atheist, prefers Christian principles, as did some of
the atheist signers of the constitution.
I wonder if Dawkins is getting religious in his final years.
Not likely.
That said, there is no denying that the christian faith, even if
deluded, is more benign currently than some factions of islam, at
least from our western viewpoint. Muslims, especially in countries
that were affected by American-made wars, probably hold a different
opinion. They have a tendency to confuse religion and politics. They
mostly don't know any better. How could they?
Jeroen Belleman
On Mon, 01 Apr 2024 08:57:12 -0400, Governor Swill
<governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, 30 Mar 2024 05:51:13 -0400, Governor Swill <governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 29 Mar 2024 20:37:06 -0700, John Larkin <jl@997PotHill.com> wrote: >>>
On Fri, 29 Mar 2024 22:33:36 -0400, Governor Swill
<governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 29 Mar 2024 08:15:08 -0700, John Larkin <jl@997PotHill.com> wrote:
Our Constition is based on Judeao-Christian principles but is not
specifically religious.
Really?
Exactly what biblical principles is the Constitution based on?
Swill
The Ten Commandments was a good start.
Show me the Ten Commandments in the US Constitution.
(waiting)
Swill
It's pretty obvious that the Bill of Rights is based on
judeao-christian principles. No, the authors didn't plagiarize the commandments.
The 6th amendment for example evolves from the 9th commandment.
Namely, we get a fair trial, and consequently perjury is a crime.
This is the idea:
https://www.breitbart.com/europe/2024/04/01/athiest-richard-dawkins-says-he-would-choose-christianity-over-islam-every-single-time/
Dawkins, an avid atheist, prefers Christian principles, as did some of
the atheist signers of the constitution.
I wonder if Dawkins is getting religious in his final years.
On Mon, 1 Apr 2024 20:42:44 +0200, Jeroen Belleman <jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:
On 4/1/24 16:54, John Larkin wrote:
On Mon, 01 Apr 2024 08:57:12 -0400, Governor Swill <governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, 30 Mar 2024 05:51:13 -0400, Governor Swill <governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote:It's pretty obvious that the Bill of Rights is based on
On Fri, 29 Mar 2024 20:37:06 -0700, John Larkin <jl@997PotHill.com> wrote:
On Fri, 29 Mar 2024 22:33:36 -0400, Governor Swill <governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 29 Mar 2024 08:15:08 -0700, John Larkin <jl@997PotHill.com> wrote:
Our Constition is based on Judeao-Christian principles but is not >>>>>>>> specifically religious.
Really?
Exactly what biblical principles is the Constitution based on?
The Ten Commandments was a good start.
Show me the Ten Commandments in the US Constitution.
(waiting)
judeao-christian principles. No, the authors didn't plagiarize the
commandments.
The 6th amendment for example evolves from the 9th commandment.
Namely, we get a fair trial, and consequently perjury is a crime.
This is the idea:
https://www.breitbart.com/europe/2024/04/01/athiest-richard-dawkins-says-he-would-choose-christianity-over-islam-every-single-time/
Dawkins, an avid atheist, prefers Christian principles, as did some of
the atheist signers of the constitution.
I wonder if Dawkins is getting religious in his final years.
Not likely.
That said, there is no denying that the christian faith, even if
deluded, is more benign currently than some factions of islam, at
least from our western viewpoint. Muslims, especially in countries
that were affected by American-made wars, probably hold a different
opinion. They have a tendency to confuse religion and politics. They
mostly don't know any better. How could they?
Western religions have converged to peaceful co-existence. Muslim
factions sure haven't.
"Christianity is the religion of life, and Islam is the religion of
death."
On Mon, 1 Apr 2024 02:59:01 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 1/04/2024 2:16 am, John Larkin wrote:
On Sun, 31 Mar 2024 08:27:31 -0400, Governor Swill
<governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 31 Mar 2024 16:01:22 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 31/03/2024 4:42 am, John Larkin wrote:
On Thu, 28 Mar 2024 23:21:41 -0700, Siri Cruise
<chine.bleu@www.yahoo.com> wrote:
Bill Sloman wrote:
America is remarkably religious for an advanced industrial >>>>>>>>>> country. If
religious mania is a heritable defect, the US might have got an >>>>>>>>>> excessive proportion of that kind of lunatic in its migrant >>>>>>>>>> intake.
It was, from its earliest days, the place where religious
zealots went to avoid
persecution.
Or, to put it another way, the place where the florid zealots went >>>>>>>> when they decided that they couldn't find a way of being tolerably >>>>>>>> non-conformist.
USA is overly religious because nonconformists fled intolerable
English religious conformity?
Iran is overly religious. The USA is not.
Both Iran and the US are overly religious. Americans think that their >>>>> irrational religiosity is perfectly normal, because they are used to it. >>>>>
Nobody else makes that mistake.
Except Iran and every other overly religious group.
Insulting the Prophet, or not dressing modestly, or having a beer,
will get you killed in Iran.
Only if you run into a particularly psychopathic member of the
Revolutionary Guard.
The risk is about the same as that of running into an American gun nut
who has gone postal - lots of Americans do have religious feelings about
the right to bear arms. and tolerate the regular human sacrifices this
entails.
Not so. The morality police keep their eyes open. You can see modern and especially,
young women, frequently adjusting their head scarves to ensure they're within the letter
of the law.
That said, in some ways society has got a bit looser. Iranian voters have been wont to
vote down more conservative parties in recent decades and, life being tough in a country
under international sanctions for decades, the people and the government have a bit more
to worry about than whether or not dad's sleeves are too short.
On Mon, 1 Apr 2024 06:27:30 -0700, Jack Carlson <j_carlson@gmx.com>
wrote:
On 3/30/2024 10:42 AM, John Larkin wrote:
On Thu, 28 Mar 2024 23:21:41 -0700, Siri Cruise
<chine.bleu@www.yahoo.com> wrote:
Bill Sloman wrote:
America is remarkably religious for an advanced industrial
country. If
religious mania is a heritable defect, the US might have got an
excessive proportion of that kind of lunatic in its migrant
intake.
It was, from its earliest days, the place where religious
zealots went to avoid
persecution.
Or, to put it another way, the place where the florid zealots went
when they decided that they couldn't find a way of being tolerably
non-conformist.
USA is overly religious because nonconformists fled intolerable
English religious conformity?
Iran is overly religious. The USA is not.
The USA absolutely is excessively religious and religion plays far too big a >> role in our politics. The fact we're not as bad as Iran doesn't mean the
situation isn't still very bad here. It is very bad here.
You seem intolerant of people who have different religious orientation
than you do. Do you disapprove of the First Amendment?
Why is it very bad here? People of all religions, or of none, get
along fine. We don't slaughter people who have different
interpretations of holy books, as some cultures still do.
Sleep in on Sunday if you want, but let other people believe as they
wish.
I think the basic principle of enlightment, and of a successful
society, is "people are different."
On Mon, 1 Apr 2024 03:06:13 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 1/04/2024 2:19 am, John Larkin wrote:
On Sun, 31 Mar 2024 08:28:58 -0400, Governor Swill <governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 31 Mar 2024 16:13:01 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 31/03/2024 11:14 am, John Larkin wrote:
On Sat, 30 Mar 2024 15:37:20 -0700, Dave Yeo <dave.r.yeo@gmail.com wrote:
John Larkin wrote:
On Sat, 30 Mar 2024 05:53:34 -0400, Governor Swill <governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, 30 Mar 2024 15:56:28 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:The Constitution is like the fundamental conservation principles of >>>>>>>> physics, or the axioms of mathematics.
The US adopted the first modern political constitution, and have been
slow to modernise it, which leaves them behind the game too, if not >>>>>>>>>> quite as far.
If it aint broke, don't fix it.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident..."
is brilliant.
The Constitution does include mechanisms to revise itself; they are >>>>>>>> calibrated about right.
It is mostly modified by the Supreme Court, which can be a bit of a >>>>>>> loose cannon. Consider how much the 1st and 2nd amendments, both very >>>>>>> simple, have been modified.
Dave
We need strict originalists, or the constitution, and the subsequent >>>>>> laws, and our rights, are meaningless.
A constitution which was written for a very different society doesn't >>>>> need to change when the society changes? That does seem to be the
originalist position.
Don't judges and politicians swear to uphold the constitution and see >>>>>> that the laws are faithfully executed?
But that constitution and those laws do change with time, and should >>>>> have been changed rather more.
That's why an amendment process was specified. Unfortunately, it requires, effectively,
75% agreement and that is virtually unobtainable.
But we have passed 17 amendments to the constitution after the first
10. The threshold is about right.
If you are far right. The conservative attitude to change is to deny
that it is happening, and do the bare minimum to adapt to it.
Otoh, it prevents the more liberal minded from amending it every Friday.
On Fri, 29 Mar 2024 00:05:02 -0400, Governor Swill
<governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 29 Mar 2024 14:18:14 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 29/03/2024 11:33 am, John Larkin wrote:
On Thu, 28 Mar 2024 19:15:48 -0400, Governor Swill
<governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 28 Mar 2024 07:38:14 -0700, John Larkin <jl@997PotHill.com> wrote:
On Wed, 27 Mar 2024 21:42:43 -0700, Siri Cruise
<chine.bleu@www.yahoo.com> wrote:
Computer Nerd Kev wrote:
Yes, but not with anywhere near the resolution. Chinese fab is a coupleBut_are_ they made in mainland China? Another mainly state-funded >>>>>>>> Chinese company is making x86 CPUs and they've usually been made by >>>>>>>> TSMC:
generations behind the highest resolution available in Taiwan. This gives
them a lot of motivation into trying to get the best speed possible out of
what they have, through architectual optimization.
What is PRC's intent? If they want to compete with US designed and >>>>>>> Taiwan made processors, they are going to need engineers as good >>>>>>> as America and Taiwan.
We got to the moon and back with computers that would embarrass a >>>>>>> watch. If all PRC wants is a source of non-embargoable processors, >>>>>>> the only thing blocking them is their own crippling corruption.
They can get download Linux. If they just want basic program
loaders and IO drivers, that's not that hard. Just copy old DOS.
The near-trillionaires in the USA started as amateurs. Gates, Jobs, >>>>>> Zuck, Bezos, Musk, Buffett, Brin. I don't think commie countries breed >>>>>> people like that and, if they had some and they get too powerful, they >>>>>> tend to disappear or fall out of windows. The Party can't permit
anyone else to have power. And The Party doesn't invent things.
Of the 10 richest people in the world, 9 are Americans. And they
didn't start with capital, they started with ideas.
This is why we the failure of dictators like Putin and Xi against us is inevitable. They
kill or exile their smart people when they fail the loyalty test.
I think Putin is happy to get rid of the troublemakers who think. He
wants the population to be dumb and patriotic and loyal.
Even Putin isn't that stupid.
Yes, actually, he is. He completed his most recent military and governmental purge only a
couple of years before the 2022 invasion.
He's happy to be the dictator-for-life of a poor, patriotic, ignorant population.
The intolerance isn't of people who have a different religious
orientation - it's of people who insist on imposing their opinions
on other people.
On Sat, 30 Mar 2024 15:56:28 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
The US adopted the first modern political constitution, and have been
slow to modernise it, which leaves them behind the game too, if not
quite as far.
If it aint broke, don't fix it.
On 30/03/2024 8:53 pm, Governor Swill wrote:
On Sat, 30 Mar 2024 15:56:28 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
The US adopted the first modern political constitution, and have been
slow to modernise it, which leaves them behind the game too, if not
quite as far.
If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
Trump is pretty clear evidence that it needs fixing urgently.
On Sat, 30 Mar 2024 05:53:34 -0400, Governor Swill
<governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, 30 Mar 2024 15:56:28 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
The US adopted the first modern political constitution, and have been
slow to modernise it, which leaves them behind the game too, if not
quite as far.
If it aint broke, don't fix it.
Swill
The Constitution is like the fundamental conservation principles of
physics, or the axioms of mathematics.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident..."
is brilliant.
On Sat, 30 Mar 2024 11:58:21 +0100, Jeroen Belleman
<jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:
On 3/30/24 05:18, Siri Cruise wrote:
Bill Sloman wrote:[....]
You do have to be motivated to emigrate. Only the most obnoxious
religious zealots got that motivated.
Since you don't understand how motivating religion can be, you're
ascribing emotions you can't understand. Do consider some Catholics were >>> motivated enough to let themselves be burned alive.
It never ceases to amaze me how tenaciously people can maintain
religious beliefs that were drilled into them from a young age.
Jeroen Belleman
(Coming out of such a mold myself, I also wonder how I became
an atheist...)
Some people have spiritual feelings. Every known human society has
some sort of religion, and apparently has for 100,000 years or so.
The two great commonalities of human society are religion and warfare.
The two great commonalities of human society are religion and
warfare.
Both of which are objectively bad and wrong.
On Mon, 01 Apr 2024 09:44:32 -0400, Governor Swill
<governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 31 Mar 2024 08:27:07 -0700, John Larkin <jl@997PotHill.com> wrote: >>
On Sun, 31 Mar 2024 08:32:44 -0400, Governor Swill
<governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, 30 Mar 2024 18:15:51 -0700, John Larkin <jl@997PotHill.com> wrote: >>>>
CO2 and warming are both good
If you don't live in New York, Sydney, Marseilles or one of a zillion other places on the
planet that are directly adjacent to a lovely beach.
Swill
Is the West Side Highway under water yet? I haven't lived in NYC in a
while now.
No, but in all my seventy years I never heard of a hurricane flooding the NCY subway
system and washing away sections of Long Island either.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hurricane_Sandy>
You youngsters don't remember 1938.
https://images.adsttc.com/media/images/5938/0481/e58e/ce61/4200/01bd/large_jpg/Screen_Shot_2017-06-07_at_6.32.20_AM.jpg?1496843385
You're presenting a photoshopped image as proof that sea level rise will never occur?
I'm presenting it to show how crazy the catastrophists are. The New
York Times says "Trump" or "Climate Change" on every page now, usually
both.
Bill Sloman wrote:
The intolerance isn't of people who have a different religious
orientation - it's of people who insist on imposing their opinions on
other people.
Thank Eris we have exemplars of tolerance like you to show us how.
On 2/04/2024 4:24 pm, Siri Cruise wrote:
Bill Sloman wrote:
The intolerance isn't of people who have a different religious
orientation - it's of people who insist on imposing their
opinions on other people.
Thank Eris we have exemplars of tolerance like you to show us how.
Since you snipped my specific example of people of a particular
religious orientation imposing their opinion on other people, you
don't really seem to have understood what I was saying.
Since you didn't mark the snip in any way, you don't seem to
understand how rational argument is supposed to work.
Text-chopping isn't part of the legitimate repertoire.
On 3/30/2024 2:53 AM, Governor Swill wrote:
On Sat, 30 Mar 2024 15:56:28 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
The US adopted the first modern political constitution, and have been
slow to modernise it, which leaves them behind the game too, if not
quite as far.
If it aint broke, don't fix it.
There are *lots* of serious defects in the US Constitution. It *is* broke and >requires fixing.
On 3/30/2024 10:52 AM, John Larkin wrote:
On Sat, 30 Mar 2024 11:58:21 +0100, Jeroen Belleman
<jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:
On 3/30/24 05:18, Siri Cruise wrote:
Bill Sloman wrote:[....]
You do have to be motivated to emigrate. Only the most obnoxious
religious zealots got that motivated.
Since you don't understand how motivating religion can be, you're
ascribing emotions you can't understand. Do consider some Catholics were >>>> motivated enough to let themselves be burned alive.
It never ceases to amaze me how tenaciously people can maintain
religious beliefs that were drilled into them from a young age.
Jeroen Belleman
(Coming out of such a mold myself, I also wonder how I became
an atheist...)
Some people have spiritual feelings. Every known human society has
some sort of religion, and apparently has for 100,000 years or so.
The two great commonalities of human society are religion and warfare.
Both of which are objectively bad and wrong.
On Mon, 1 Apr 2024 23:46:36 -0700, Jack Carlson <j_carlson@gmx.com>
wrote:
On 3/30/2024 10:52 AM, John Larkin wrote:
On Sat, 30 Mar 2024 11:58:21 +0100, Jeroen Belleman
<jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:
On 3/30/24 05:18, Siri Cruise wrote:
Bill Sloman wrote:[....]
You do have to be motivated to emigrate. Only the most obnoxious
religious zealots got that motivated.
Since you don't understand how motivating religion can be, you're
ascribing emotions you can't understand. Do consider some Catholics were >>>>> motivated enough to let themselves be burned alive.
It never ceases to amaze me how tenaciously people can maintain
religious beliefs that were drilled into them from a young age.
Jeroen Belleman
(Coming out of such a mold myself, I also wonder how I became
an atheist...)
Some people have spiritual feelings. Every known human society has
some sort of religion, and apparently has for 100,000 years or so.
The two great commonalities of human society are religion and warfare.
Both of which are objectively bad and wrong.
From a genetic standpoint, natural selection and all that, they have advantages. Which is why they exist.
On Mon, 1 Apr 2024 22:34:02 -0700, pyotr filipivich <pyotrpeckerhead@mindspring.com> wrote:
On 3/30/2024 2:53 AM, Governor Swill wrote:
On Sat, 30 Mar 2024 15:56:28 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
The US adopted the first modern political constitution, and have been
slow to modernise it, which leaves them behind the game too, if not
quite as far.
If it aint broke, don't fix it.
There are *lots* of serious defects in the US Constitution. It *is* broke and
requires fixing.
So introduce an amendment. That's provided for.
All you need to do is make a convincing case.
On 31 Mar 2024 01:06:13 -0000, kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
John Larkin <xx@yy.com> wrote:
Hundreds of years ago, 80% of the world population was
hunter-gatherers or farmers, and both lived on the edge of starvation.
Now the US has about 2% farmers and there's tons of cheap food. Enough
to export or turn into auto fuel.
Malthusian starvation and the idiotic "Population Bomb" didn't happen.
No, but the other side of the coin is global warming, which at the core
is really just a matter of overpopulation.
--scott
CO2 and warming are both good
The two great commonalities of human society are religion and
warfare.
Both of which are objectively bad and wrong.
 From a genetic standpoint, natural selection and all that, they
have
advantages. Which is why they exist.
Bullshit.
John Larkin <xx@yy.com> wrote:
Hundreds of years ago, 80% of the world population was
hunter-gatherers or farmers, and both lived on the edge of starvation.
Now the US has about 2% farmers and there's tons of cheap food. Enough
to export or turn into auto fuel.
Malthusian starvation and the idiotic "Population Bomb" didn't happen.
No, but the other side of the coin is global warming, which at the core
is really just a matter of overpopulation.
On 4/2/2024 7:55 AM, John Larkin wrote:
On Mon, 1 Apr 2024 22:34:02 -0700, pyotr filipivich
<pyotrpeckerhead@mindspring.com> wrote:
On 3/30/2024 2:53 AM, Governor Swill wrote:
On Sat, 30 Mar 2024 15:56:28 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
The US adopted the first modern political constitution, and have been >>>>> slow to modernise it, which leaves them behind the game too, if not
quite as far.
If it aint broke, don't fix it.
There are *lots* of serious defects in the US Constitution. It *is* broke and
requires fixing.
So introduce an amendment. That's provided for.
All you need to do is make a convincing case.
That's your way of admitting you can't coherently criticize the criticisms of >the Constitution.
Jack Carlson wrote:
The two great commonalities of human society are religion and
warfare.
Both of which are objectively bad and wrong.
From a genetic standpoint, natural selection and all that, they
have
advantages. Which is why they exist.
Bullshit.
Natural selection has selected us for empathy. We are the most
empathetic apes and primates. We have selected to cooperate rather
than conflict.
On 3/30/2024 6:15 PM, John Larkin wrote:
On 31 Mar 2024 01:06:13 -0000, kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
John Larkin <xx@yy.com> wrote:
Hundreds of years ago, 80% of the world population was
hunter-gatherers or farmers, and both lived on the edge of starvation. >>>> Now the US has about 2% farmers and there's tons of cheap food. Enough >>>> to export or turn into auto fuel.
Malthusian starvation and the idiotic "Population Bomb" didn't happen.
No, but the other side of the coin is global warming, which at the core
is really just a matter of overpopulation.
--scott
CO2 and warming are both good
No, they are not.
Jack Carlson wrote:
The two great commonalities of human society are religion and
warfare.
Both of which are objectively bad and wrong.
 From a genetic standpoint, natural selection and all that, they
have
advantages. Which is why they exist.
Bullshit.
Natural selection has selected us for empathy. We are the most
empathetic apes and primates. We have selected to cooperate rather
than conflict.
Siri Cruise <chine.bleu@www.yahoo.com> wrote in news:uuhfc8$3b7pa$1@dont- email.me:
Jack Carlson wrote:
The two great commonalities of human society are religion and
warfare.
Both of which are objectively bad and wrong.
Ă‚Â From a genetic standpoint, natural selection and all that, they
have
advantages. Which is why they exist.
Bullshit.
Natural selection has selected us for empathy. We are the most
empathetic apes and primates. We have selected to cooperate rather
than conflict.
True. And in large part because
the scarcity of resources (i.e water)
forced humans to band together to
irrigate fields in dry climates
(Persia, Egypt, China, India) if
they were to squeeze any food out of
the soil. Co-operation driven by
necessity, the collective is a
greater good, resources and labor
must be shared, great empires were
born.
On Tue, 2 Apr 2024 09:31:02 -0700, pyotr filipivich <pyotrpeckerhead@mindspring.com> wrote:
On 4/2/2024 7:55 AM, John Larkin wrote:
On Mon, 1 Apr 2024 22:34:02 -0700, pyotr filipivich
<pyotrpeckerhead@mindspring.com> wrote:
On 3/30/2024 2:53 AM, Governor Swill wrote:
On Sat, 30 Mar 2024 15:56:28 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
The US adopted the first modern political constitution, and have been >>>>>> slow to modernise it, which leaves them behind the game too, if not >>>>>> quite as far.
If it aint broke, don't fix it.
There are *lots* of serious defects in the US Constitution. It *is* broke and
requires fixing.
So introduce an amendment. That's provided for.
All you need to do is make a convincing case.
That's your way of admitting you can't coherently criticize the criticisms of
the Constitution.
Any time you want to start being rational,
On Tue, 2 Apr 2024 10:18:50 -0700, Jack Carlson <j_carlson@gmx.com>
wrote:
On 3/30/2024 6:15 PM, John Larkin wrote:
On 31 Mar 2024 01:06:13 -0000, kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
John Larkin <xx@yy.com> wrote:
Hundreds of years ago, 80% of the world population wasNo, but the other side of the coin is global warming, which at the core >>>> is really just a matter of overpopulation.
hunter-gatherers or farmers, and both lived on the edge of starvation. >>>>> Now the US has about 2% farmers and there's tons of cheap food. Enough >>>>> to export or turn into auto fuel.
Malthusian starvation and the idiotic "Population Bomb" didn't happen. >>>>
--scott
CO2 and warming are both good
No, they are not.
CO2 is greening the earth.
Warm is less deadly than cold,
Siri Cruise <chine.bleu@www.yahoo.com> wrote in news:uuhfc8$3b7pa$1@dont- >email.me:
Jack Carlson wrote:
The two great commonalities of human society are religion and
warfare.
Both of which are objectively bad and wrong.
 From a genetic standpoint, natural selection and all that, they
have
advantages. Which is why they exist.
Bullshit.
Natural selection has selected us for empathy. We are the most
empathetic apes and primates. We have selected to cooperate rather
than conflict.
True. And in large part because
the scarcity of resources (i.e water)
forced humans to band together to
irrigate fields in dry climates
(Persia, Egypt, China, India) if
they were to squeeze any food out of
the soil. Co-operation driven by
necessity, the collective is a
greater good, resources and labor
must be shared, great empires were
born.
Mitchell Holman wrote:
Siri Cruise <chine.bleu@www.yahoo.com> wrote in news:uuhfc8$3b7pa$1@dont-
email.me:
Jack Carlson wrote:
The two great commonalities of human society are religion and
warfare.
Both of which are objectively bad and wrong.
 From a genetic standpoint, natural selection and all that, they
have
advantages. Which is why they exist.
Bullshit.
Natural selection has selected us for empathy. We are the most
empathetic apes and primates. We have selected to cooperate rather
than conflict.
True. And in large part because
the scarcity of resources (i.e water)
forced humans to band together to
irrigate fields in dry climates
(Persia, Egypt, China, India) if
they were to squeeze any food out of
the soil. Co-operation driven by
necessity, the collective is a
greater good, resources and labor
must be shared, great empires were
born.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirror_neuron
Mirror neurons depend on observation. With modern media, we can
mirror what we see someone on the other side of the world feels
and does.
On 4/2/2024 11:15 AM, john larkin wrote:
On Tue, 2 Apr 2024 10:18:50 -0700, Jack Carlson <j_carlson@gmx.com>
wrote:
On 3/30/2024 6:15 PM, John Larkin wrote:
On 31 Mar 2024 01:06:13 -0000, kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
John Larkin <xx@yy.com> wrote:
Hundreds of years ago, 80% of the world population wasNo, but the other side of the coin is global warming, which at the core >>>>> is really just a matter of overpopulation.
hunter-gatherers or farmers, and both lived on the edge of starvation. >>>>>> Now the US has about 2% farmers and there's tons of cheap food. Enough >>>>>> to export or turn into auto fuel.
Malthusian starvation and the idiotic "Population Bomb" didn't happen. >>>>>
--scott
CO2 and warming are both good
No, they are not.
CO2 is greening the earth.
No, it's not. It's destroying arability and making formerly inhabitable locales
uninhabitable.
Warm is less deadly than cold,
So why not heat our houses to 125° F?
You're an idiot.
On Tue, 2 Apr 2024 12:25:08 -0700, Jack Carlson <j_carlson@gmx.com>
wrote:
On 4/2/2024 11:15 AM, john larkin wrote:
On Tue, 2 Apr 2024 10:18:50 -0700, Jack Carlson <j_carlson@gmx.com>
wrote:
On 3/30/2024 6:15 PM, John Larkin wrote:
On 31 Mar 2024 01:06:13 -0000, kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote: >>>>>
John Larkin <xx@yy.com> wrote:
Hundreds of years ago, 80% of the world population wasNo, but the other side of the coin is global warming, which at the core >>>>>> is really just a matter of overpopulation.
hunter-gatherers or farmers, and both lived on the edge of starvation. >>>>>>> Now the US has about 2% farmers and there's tons of cheap food. Enough >>>>>>> to export or turn into auto fuel.
Malthusian starvation and the idiotic "Population Bomb" didn't happen. >>>>>>
--scott
CO2 and warming are both good
No, they are not.
CO2 is greening the earth.
No, it's not. It's destroying arability and making formerly inhabitable locales
uninhabitable.
Warm is less deadly than cold,
So why not heat our houses to 125° F?
You're an idiot.
Try thinking now and then.
On 4/2/2024 11:15 AM, john larkin wrote:
On Tue, 2 Apr 2024 10:18:50 -0700, Jack Carlson <j_carlson@gmx.com>
wrote:
On 3/30/2024 6:15 PM, John Larkin wrote:
On 31 Mar 2024 01:06:13 -0000, kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
John Larkin <xx@yy.com> wrote:
Hundreds of years ago, 80% of the world population was
hunter-gatherers or farmers, and both lived on the edge of
starvation.
Now the US has about 2% farmers and there's tons of cheap food.
Enough
to export or turn into auto fuel.
Malthusian starvation and the idiotic "Population Bomb" didn't
happen.
No, but the other side of the coin is global warming, which at the
core
is really just a matter of overpopulation.
--scott
CO2 and warming are both good
No, they are not.
CO2 is greening the earth.
No, it's not. It's destroying arability and making formerly inhabitable locales uninhabitable.
Warm is less deadly than cold,
So why not heat our houses to 125° F?
You're an idiot.
Western religions have converged to peaceful co-existence. Muslim
factions sure haven't.
On 3/30/2024 2:53 AM, Governor Swill wrote:
On Sat, 30 Mar 2024 15:56:28 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
The US adopted the first modern political constitution, and have been
slow to modernise it, which leaves them behind the game too, if not
quite as far.
If it aint broke, don't fix it.
There are *lots* of serious defects in the US Constitution. It *is* broke and >requires fixing.
john larkin <jl@650pot.com> wrote:
Western religions have converged to peaceful co-existence. Muslim
factions sure haven't.
As someone who grew up getting Christmas cards from my (orange) Grandparents >telling me that I was going to hell because my father married a Catholic,
I rather disagree on that first point.
--scott
On 4/2/2024 1:01 PM, john larkin wrote:
On Tue, 2 Apr 2024 12:25:08 -0700, Jack Carlson <j_carlson@gmx.com>
wrote:
On 4/2/2024 11:15 AM, john larkin wrote:
On Tue, 2 Apr 2024 10:18:50 -0700, Jack Carlson <j_carlson@gmx.com>
wrote:
On 3/30/2024 6:15 PM, John Larkin wrote:
On 31 Mar 2024 01:06:13 -0000, kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote: >>>>>>
John Larkin <xx@yy.com> wrote:
Hundreds of years ago, 80% of the world population wasNo, but the other side of the coin is global warming, which at the core >>>>>>> is really just a matter of overpopulation.
hunter-gatherers or farmers, and both lived on the edge of starvation. >>>>>>>> Now the US has about 2% farmers and there's tons of cheap food. Enough >>>>>>>> to export or turn into auto fuel.
Malthusian starvation and the idiotic "Population Bomb" didn't happen. >>>>>>>
--scott
CO2 and warming are both good
No, they are not.
CO2 is greening the earth.
No, it's not. It's destroying arability and making formerly inhabitable locales
uninhabitable.
Warm is less deadly than cold,
So why not heat our houses to 125° F?
You're an idiot.
Try thinking now and then.
Your concession of defeat is noted and celebrated.
On 2 Apr 2024 22:11:28 -0000, kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
john larkin <jl@650pot.com> wrote:
Western religions have converged to peaceful co-existence. Muslim >>>factions sure haven't.
As someone who grew up getting Christmas cards from my (orange) Grandparents >>telling me that I was going to hell because my father married a Catholic, >>I rather disagree on that first point.
Christmas cards are not suicide bombers.
The thing to celebrate is how much better things are getting for
plants and for people. I think CO2 helps, and the things that generate
CO2 certainly help.
Do you design electronics?
On 2 Apr 2024 22:11:28 -0000, kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
john larkin <jl@650pot.com> wrote:
Western religions have converged to peaceful co-existence. Muslim
factions sure haven't.
As someone who grew up getting Christmas cards from my (orange) Grandparents >> telling me that I was going to hell because my father married a Catholic,
I rather disagree on that first point.
--scott
Christmas cards are not suicide bombers.
On Tue, 2 Apr 2024 13:05:07 -0700, Jack Carlson <j_carlson@gmx.com>
wrote:
On 4/2/2024 1:01 PM, john larkin wrote:
On Tue, 2 Apr 2024 12:25:08 -0700, Jack Carlson <j_carlson@gmx.com>
wrote:
On 4/2/2024 11:15 AM, john larkin wrote:
On Tue, 2 Apr 2024 10:18:50 -0700, Jack Carlson <j_carlson@gmx.com>
wrote:
On 3/30/2024 6:15 PM, John Larkin wrote:
On 31 Mar 2024 01:06:13 -0000, kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote: >>>>>>>
John Larkin <xx@yy.com> wrote:
Hundreds of years ago, 80% of the world population was
hunter-gatherers or farmers, and both lived on the edge of starvation.
Now the US has about 2% farmers and there's tons of cheap food. Enough
to export or turn into auto fuel.
Malthusian starvation and the idiotic "Population Bomb" didn't happen.
No, but the other side of the coin is global warming, which at the core
is really just a matter of overpopulation.
--scott
CO2 and warming are both good
No, they are not.
CO2 is greening the earth.
No, it's not. It's destroying arability and making formerly inhabitable locales
uninhabitable.
Warm is less deadly than cold,
So why not heat our houses to 125° F?
You're an idiot.
Try thinking now and then.
Your concession of defeat is noted and celebrated.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/blftlyn0lomvymf/Climate_Deaths.jpg?raw=1
https://www.dropbox.com/s/mebwcus72nmr16p/Leaf_Area_NASA.jpg?raw=1
https://extension.entm.purdue.edu/newsletters/pestandcrop/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2020/04/fig1.jpeg
https://thebreakthrough.org/issues/energy/human-deaths-from-hot-and-cold-temperatures-and-implications-for-climate-change
The thing to celebrate is how much better things are getting for
plants and for people.
It's pretty obvious that the Bill of Rights is based on
judeao-christian principles.
The 6th amendment for example evolves from the 9th commandment.
Namely, we get a fair trial, and consequently perjury is a crime.
This is the idea:
https://www.breitbart.com/europe/2024/04/01/athiest-richard-dawkins-says-he-would-choose-christianity-over-islam-every-single-time/
On 2/04/2024 7:05 am, john larkin wrote:
On Mon, 1 Apr 2024 20:42:44 +0200, Jeroen Belleman <jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:
On 4/1/24 16:54, John Larkin wrote:
On Mon, 01 Apr 2024 08:57:12 -0400, Governor Swill <governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, 30 Mar 2024 05:51:13 -0400, Governor Swill <governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote:It's pretty obvious that the Bill of Rights is based on
On Fri, 29 Mar 2024 20:37:06 -0700, John Larkin <jl@997PotHill.com> wrote:
On Fri, 29 Mar 2024 22:33:36 -0400, Governor Swill <governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 29 Mar 2024 08:15:08 -0700, John Larkin <jl@997PotHill.com> wrote:
Our Constition is based on Judeao-Christian principles but is not >>>>>>>>> specifically religious.
Really?
Exactly what biblical principles is the Constitution based on?
The Ten Commandments was a good start.
Show me the Ten Commandments in the US Constitution.
(waiting)
judeao-christian principles. No, the authors didn't plagiarize the
commandments.
The 6th amendment for example evolves from the 9th commandment.
Namely, we get a fair trial, and consequently perjury is a crime.
This is the idea:
https://www.breitbart.com/europe/2024/04/01/athiest-richard-dawkins-says-he-would-choose-christianity-over-islam-every-single-time/
Dawkins, an avid atheist, prefers Christian principles, as did some of >>>> the atheist signers of the constitution.
I wonder if Dawkins is getting religious in his final years.
Not likely.
That said, there is no denying that the christian faith, even if
deluded, is more benign currently than some factions of islam, at
least from our western viewpoint. Muslims, especially in countries
that were affected by American-made wars, probably hold a different
opinion. They have a tendency to confuse religion and politics. They
mostly don't know any better. How could they?
Western religions have converged to peaceful co-existence. Muslim
factions sure haven't.
Western religions aren't fighting wars of religion any more but they
have killed off some 20% of the population of Europe. The thirty years
war - 1618 to 1648 - was essentially catholics versus protestants.
"Christianity is the religion of life, and Islam is the religion of
death."
Not a distinction drawn by a theologian.
On 2/04/2024 12:02 am, Governor Swill wrote:
On Mon, 1 Apr 2024 02:59:01 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote: >>
On 1/04/2024 2:16 am, John Larkin wrote:
On Sun, 31 Mar 2024 08:27:31 -0400, Governor Swill
<governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 31 Mar 2024 16:01:22 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 31/03/2024 4:42 am, John Larkin wrote:
On Thu, 28 Mar 2024 23:21:41 -0700, Siri Cruise
<chine.bleu@www.yahoo.com> wrote:
Bill Sloman wrote:
America is remarkably religious for an advanced industrial >>>>>>>>>>> country. If
religious mania is a heritable defect, the US might have got an >>>>>>>>>>> excessive proportion of that kind of lunatic in its migrant >>>>>>>>>>> intake.
It was, from its earliest days, the place where religious
zealots went to avoid
persecution.
Or, to put it another way, the place where the florid zealots went >>>>>>>>> when they decided that they couldn't find a way of being tolerably >>>>>>>>> non-conformist.
USA is overly religious because nonconformists fled intolerable >>>>>>>> English religious conformity?
Iran is overly religious. The USA is not.
Both Iran and the US are overly religious. Americans think that their >>>>>> irrational religiosity is perfectly normal, because they are used to it. >>>>>>
Nobody else makes that mistake.
Except Iran and every other overly religious group.
Insulting the Prophet, or not dressing modestly, or having a beer,
will get you killed in Iran.
Only if you run into a particularly psychopathic member of the
Revolutionary Guard.
The risk is about the same as that of running into an American gun nut
who has gone postal - lots of Americans do have religious feelings about >>> the right to bear arms. and tolerate the regular human sacrifices this
entails.
Not so. The morality police keep their eyes open. You can see modern and especially,
young women, frequently adjusting their head scarves to ensure they're within the letter
of the law.
But they aren't doing it on pain of death. The sanctions on people who
do attract the attention of the morality police are real enough, but are >rarely lethal, and lethal sanctions are discouraged by the morality
police as a whole.
That said, in some ways society has got a bit looser. Iranian voters have been wont to
vote down more conservative parties in recent decades and, life being tough in a country
under international sanctions for decades, the people and the government have a bit more
to worry about than whether or not dad's sleeves are too short.
Religious nutters aren't all that rational, and eventually get squeezed
out over a couple of generations
On 2/04/2024 12:07 am, Governor Swill wrote:
On Mon, 1 Apr 2024 03:06:13 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote: >>
On 1/04/2024 2:19 am, John Larkin wrote:
On Sun, 31 Mar 2024 08:28:58 -0400, Governor Swill <governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 31 Mar 2024 16:13:01 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 31/03/2024 11:14 am, John Larkin wrote:
On Sat, 30 Mar 2024 15:37:20 -0700, Dave Yeo <dave.r.yeo@gmail.com wrote:
John Larkin wrote:
On Sat, 30 Mar 2024 05:53:34 -0400, Governor Swill <governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, 30 Mar 2024 15:56:28 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:The Constitution is like the fundamental conservation principles of >>>>>>>>> physics, or the axioms of mathematics.
The US adopted the first modern political constitution, and have been
slow to modernise it, which leaves them behind the game too, if not >>>>>>>>>>> quite as far.
If it aint broke, don't fix it.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident..."
is brilliant.
The Constitution does include mechanisms to revise itself; they are >>>>>>>>> calibrated about right.
It is mostly modified by the Supreme Court, which can be a bit of a >>>>>>>> loose cannon. Consider how much the 1st and 2nd amendments, both very >>>>>>>> simple, have been modified.
Dave
We need strict originalists, or the constitution, and the subsequent >>>>>>> laws, and our rights, are meaningless.
A constitution which was written for a very different society doesn't >>>>>> need to change when the society changes? That does seem to be the
originalist position.
Don't judges and politicians swear to uphold the constitution and see >>>>>>> that the laws are faithfully executed?
But that constitution and those laws do change with time, and should >>>>>> have been changed rather more.
That's why an amendment process was specified. Unfortunately, it requires, effectively,
75% agreement and that is virtually unobtainable.
But we have passed 17 amendments to the constitution after the first
10. The threshold is about right.
If you are far right. The conservative attitude to change is to deny
that it is happening, and do the bare minimum to adapt to it.
Otoh, it prevents the more liberal minded from amending it every Friday.
Not that anybody would.
Conservatives do think that everybody else is
just as stupid as they are, and they don't actually understand most of
the matters being discussed, hearing the discussion as meaningless noise.
<snip>
On Mon, 01 Apr 2024 08:57:12 -0400, Governor Swill
<governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, 30 Mar 2024 05:51:13 -0400, Governor Swill <governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 29 Mar 2024 20:37:06 -0700, John Larkin <jl@997PotHill.com> wrote: >>>
On Fri, 29 Mar 2024 22:33:36 -0400, Governor Swill
<governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 29 Mar 2024 08:15:08 -0700, John Larkin <jl@997PotHill.com> wrote:
Our Constition is based on Judeao-Christian principles but is not
specifically religious.
Really?
Exactly what biblical principles is the Constitution based on?
Swill
The Ten Commandments was a good start.
Show me the Ten Commandments in the US Constitution.
(waiting)
Swill
It's pretty obvious that the Bill of Rights is based on
judeao-christian principles.
The 6th amendment for example evolves from the 9th commandment.
Namely, we get a fair trial, and consequently perjury is a crime.
This is the idea:
https://www.breitbart.com/
On Tue, 2 Apr 2024 10:18:50 -0700, Jack Carlson <j_carlson@gmx.com>
wrote:
On 3/30/2024 6:15 PM, John Larkin wrote:
On 31 Mar 2024 01:06:13 -0000, kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
John Larkin <xx@yy.com> wrote:
Hundreds of years ago, 80% of the world population wasNo, but the other side of the coin is global warming, which at the core >>>> is really just a matter of overpopulation.
hunter-gatherers or farmers, and both lived on the edge of starvation. >>>>> Now the US has about 2% farmers and there's tons of cheap food. Enough >>>>> to export or turn into auto fuel.
Malthusian starvation and the idiotic "Population Bomb" didn't happen. >>>>
--scott
CO2 and warming are both good
No, they are not.
CO2 is greening the earth. Warm is less deadly than cold, by about
10:1.
Look it up.
On Tue, 2 Apr 2024 12:25:08 -0700, Jack Carlson <j_carlson@gmx.com>
wrote:
On 4/2/2024 11:15 AM, john larkin wrote:
On Tue, 2 Apr 2024 10:18:50 -0700, Jack Carlson <j_carlson@gmx.com>
wrote:
On 3/30/2024 6:15 PM, John Larkin wrote:
On 31 Mar 2024 01:06:13 -0000, kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote: >>>>>
John Larkin <xx@yy.com> wrote:
Hundreds of years ago, 80% of the world population wasNo, but the other side of the coin is global warming, which at the core >>>>>> is really just a matter of overpopulation.
hunter-gatherers or farmers, and both lived on the edge of starvation. >>>>>>> Now the US has about 2% farmers and there's tons of cheap food. Enough >>>>>>> to export or turn into auto fuel.
Malthusian starvation and the idiotic "Population Bomb" didn't happen. >>>>>>
--scott
CO2 and warming are both good
No, they are not.
CO2 is greening the earth.
No, it's not. It's destroying arability and making formerly inhabitable locales
uninhabitable.
Warm is less deadly than cold,
So why not heat our houses to 125° F?
You're an idiot.
Try thinking now and then. You might come to eventually enjoy it.
On Tue, 2 Apr 2024 13:05:07 -0700, Jack Carlson <j_carlson@gmx.com>
wrote:
On 4/2/2024 1:01 PM, john larkin wrote:
On Tue, 2 Apr 2024 12:25:08 -0700, Jack Carlson <j_carlson@gmx.com>
wrote:
On 4/2/2024 11:15 AM, john larkin wrote:
On Tue, 2 Apr 2024 10:18:50 -0700, Jack Carlson <j_carlson@gmx.com>
wrote:
On 3/30/2024 6:15 PM, John Larkin wrote:
On 31 Mar 2024 01:06:13 -0000, kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote: >>>>>>>
John Larkin <xx@yy.com> wrote:
Hundreds of years ago, 80% of the world population was
hunter-gatherers or farmers, and both lived on the edge of starvation.
Now the US has about 2% farmers and there's tons of cheap food. Enough
to export or turn into auto fuel.
Malthusian starvation and the idiotic "Population Bomb" didn't happen.
No, but the other side of the coin is global warming, which at the core
is really just a matter of overpopulation.
--scott
CO2 and warming are both good
No, they are not.
CO2 is greening the earth.
No, it's not. It's destroying arability and making formerly inhabitable locales
uninhabitable.
Warm is less deadly than cold,
So why not heat our houses to 125° F?
You're an idiot.
Try thinking now and then.
Your concession of defeat is noted and celebrated.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/blftlyn0lomvymf/Climate_Deaths.jpg?raw=1
https://www.dropbox.com/s/mebwcus72nmr16p/Leaf_Area_NASA.jpg?raw=1
https://extension.entm.purdue.edu/newsletters/pestandcrop/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2020/04/fig1.jpeg
https://thebreakthrough.org/issues/energy/human-deaths-from-hot-and-cold-temperatures-and-implications-for-climate-change
The thing to celebrate is how much better things are getting for
plants and for people. I think CO2 helps, and the things that generate
CO2 certainly help.
Do you design electronics?
On Tue, 02 Apr 2024 18:22:28 +0000, Mitchell Holman <noemail@verizon.net> wrote:
Siri Cruise <chine.bleu@www.yahoo.com> wrote in news:uuhfc8$3b7pa$1@dont email.me:
Jack Carlson wrote:
The two great commonalities of human society are religion and
warfare.
Both of which are objectively bad and wrong.
From a genetic standpoint, natural selection and all that, they
have advantages. Which is why they exist.
Bullshit.
Natural selection has selected us for empathy. We are the most
empathetic apes and primates. We have selected to cooperate rather
than conflict.
True. And in large part because
the scarcity of resources (i.e water)
forced humans to band together to
irrigate fields in dry climates
(Persia, Egypt, China, India) if
they were to squeeze any food out of
the soil. Co-operation driven by
necessity, the collective is a
greater good, resources and labor
must be shared, great empires were
born.
And they have to kill the neighboring tribes for those fields.
On Tue, 2 Apr 2024 15:38:46 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 2/04/2024 12:02 am, Governor Swill wrote:
On Mon, 1 Apr 2024 02:59:01 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 1/04/2024 2:16 am, John Larkin wrote:
On Sun, 31 Mar 2024 08:27:31 -0400, Governor Swill <governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 31 Mar 2024 16:01:22 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 31/03/2024 4:42 am, John Larkin wrote:
On Thu, 28 Mar 2024 23:21:41 -0700, Siri Cruise <chine.bleu@www.yahoo.com> wrote:
Bill Sloman wrote:
Religious nutters aren't all that rational, and eventually get squeezed
out over a couple of generations
Recently heard yet another Christian going on about the "end times". In the sixties, my
mom was so brainwashed she thought we'd be raptured before I made it to high school. There
have been groups throughout history predicting the end times and the rapture. Hell, the
disciples expected to be raptured! How surprised were they?
On 30/03/2024 3:40 pm, Anonymous wrote:
Bill Sloman wrote:
On 29/03/2024 3:22 pm, Anonymous wrote:
Bill Sloman wrote:
On 29/03/2024 11:25 am, John Larkin wrote:
On Thu, 28 Mar 2024 11:24:31 -0400, Governor Swill
<governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 28 Mar 2024 16:24:46 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> >>>>>>> wrote:
There are different ways of being corrupt - Trump cheats different from
Chairman Xi - but the aim of creating a good appearance rather than a >>>>>>>> good product is always lethal.
A classic American behavior. If it looks good, it's ok for production.
Who cares if it
works?
People talk about bad products. There are reviews.
State monopolies on products and information prevent competition.
But China doesn't have that. The only monopoly the Chinese Communist Party
is interested in is it's own monopoly on political power.
Once you have absolute political power you can monetarise it, but the other
politicians are likely to notice and object.
What's a classic statist behavior is dangerous products and
infrastructure with criticism and deaths suppressed. Tofu dreg.
Nobody in the US is making much fuss about the lethal consequences of >>>>> Boeing's recent quality control disasters. A limited number of rich people
controlling country isn't - technically speaking - state control, but it >>>>> has the same defects.
Rich people don't rule anything.
Dream on. In the US they don't have any explicit right to rule, but the US >>> Supreme Court is dedicated to the idea that they should be allowed to spend
as much as they like on buying influence by contributing to politicians >>> electoral expenses.
Think about why the US hasn't got universal health care.
Merchants by their nature can't coordinate their varied and conflicting
interests into a singular political force. Without the government, any
group of merchants who form a cartel will find themselves defected upon
by any one or more members of that cartel, and will cease to be a cartel.
Not a credible prediction. Merchants are people, and people have lots of different ways of resolving and reconciling their various interests.
A cartel is a kind of government and its members have a shared interest in controlling their market and keeping outsiders from exploiting it.
On Mon, 01 Apr 2024 07:54:32 -0700, John Larkin <jl@997PotHill.com> wrote:
The 6th amendment for example evolves from the 9th commandment.
Namely, we get a fair trial, and consequently perjury is a crime.
This is the idea:
https://www.breitbart.com/europe/2024/04/01/athiest-richard-dawkins-says-he-would-choose-christianity-over-islam-every-single-time/
What a load of dingoes kidneys! No wonder your ideas are so twisted. You read
Breitbart.lies
Swill
On 4/1/2024 7:54 AM, John Larkin wrote:
On Mon, 01 Apr 2024 08:57:12 -0400, Governor Swill
<governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, 30 Mar 2024 05:51:13 -0400, Governor Swill <governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 29 Mar 2024 20:37:06 -0700, John Larkin <jl@997PotHill.com> wrote: >>>>
On Fri, 29 Mar 2024 22:33:36 -0400, Governor Swill
<governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 29 Mar 2024 08:15:08 -0700, John Larkin <jl@997PotHill.com> wrote:
Our Constition is based on Judeao-Christian principles but is not >>>>>>> specifically religious.
Really?
Exactly what biblical principles is the Constitution based on?
Swill
The Ten Commandments was a good start.
Show me the Ten Commandments in the US Constitution.
(waiting)
Swill
It's pretty obvious that the Bill of Rights is based on
judeao-christian principles.
No, that's not obvious in the least. In fact, it's nonsense.
The 6th amendment for example evolves from the 9th commandment.
Complete garbage. The sixth amendment is purely procedural.
Namely, we get a fair trial, and consequently perjury is a crime.
This is the idea:
https://www.breitbart.com/
Breitbart is a garbage site.
john larkin wrote:
The thing to celebrate is how much better things are getting for
plants and for people. I think CO2 helps, and the things that generate
CO2 certainly help.
Do you design electronics?
Carbon dioxide is a poison.
On 4/2/2024 4:32 PM, john larkin wrote:
On Tue, 2 Apr 2024 13:05:07 -0700, Jack Carlson <j_carlson@gmx.com>
wrote:
On 4/2/2024 1:01 PM, john larkin wrote:
On Tue, 2 Apr 2024 12:25:08 -0700, Jack Carlson <j_carlson@gmx.com>
wrote:
On 4/2/2024 11:15 AM, john larkin wrote:
On Tue, 2 Apr 2024 10:18:50 -0700, Jack Carlson <j_carlson@gmx.com> >>>>>> wrote:
On 3/30/2024 6:15 PM, John Larkin wrote:
On 31 Mar 2024 01:06:13 -0000, kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote: >>>>>>>>
John Larkin <xx@yy.com> wrote:
Hundreds of years ago, 80% of the world population was
hunter-gatherers or farmers, and both lived on the edge of starvation.
Now the US has about 2% farmers and there's tons of cheap food. Enough
to export or turn into auto fuel.
Malthusian starvation and the idiotic "Population Bomb" didn't happen.
No, but the other side of the coin is global warming, which at the core
is really just a matter of overpopulation.
--scott
CO2 and warming are both good
No, they are not.
CO2 is greening the earth.
No, it's not. It's destroying arability and making formerly inhabitable locales
uninhabitable.
Warm is less deadly than cold,
So why not heat our houses to 125° F?
You're an idiot.
Try thinking now and then.
Your concession of defeat is noted and celebrated.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/blftlyn0lomvymf/Climate_Deaths.jpg?raw=1
No.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/mebwcus72nmr16p/Leaf_Area_NASA.jpg?raw=1
No.
https://extension.entm.purdue.edu/newsletters/pestandcrop/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2020/04/fig1.jpeg
No.
https://thebreakthrough.org/issues/energy/human-deaths-from-hot-and-cold-temperatures-and-implications-for-climate-change
No.
The thing to celebrate is how much better things are getting for
plants and for people.
They aren't. Global warming is harming people.
On 3/30/2024 6:06 PM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
John Larkin <xx@yy.com> wrote:
Hundreds of years ago, 80% of the world population was
hunter-gatherers or farmers, and both lived on the edge of starvation.
Now the US has about 2% farmers and there's tons of cheap food. Enough
to export or turn into auto fuel.
Malthusian starvation and the idiotic "Population Bomb" didn't happen.
No, but the other side of the coin is global warming, which at the core
is really just a matter of overpopulation.
That's only partly right. The bigger issue than overpopulation is a classic >public good problem ("tragedy of the commons"). Property rights are >insufficiently specified. There are externalities caused by people's economic >activity that they have no incentive to internalize.
It is false to say that "more CO2 is better." More CO2 *might* be better, but >only up to a point, and we have passed the point of optimality.
is going to have more downside than any conceivable upside. CO2 is necessary for
plant growth, but too much CO2 will reduce yields. It would be like applying 50
kg of fertilizer to one rose bush: that will kill the plant. In addition, even
if a little more CO2 at ground level would encourage plant growth and higher >yields, the effect of global warming on arability will more than negate that. >And that, of course, doesn't even take into consideration the effect of global
warming on the inhabitability of places that already have large populations. --- Synchronet 3.20a-Linux NewsLink 1.114
On 3/04/2024 7:01 am, john larkin wrote:
On Tue, 2 Apr 2024 12:25:08 -0700, Jack Carlson <j_carlson@gmx.com>
wrote:
On 4/2/2024 11:15 AM, john larkin wrote:
On Tue, 2 Apr 2024 10:18:50 -0700, Jack Carlson <j_carlson@gmx.com>
wrote:
On 3/30/2024 6:15 PM, John Larkin wrote:
On 31 Mar 2024 01:06:13 -0000, kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote: >>>>>>
John Larkin <xx@yy.com> wrote:
Hundreds of years ago, 80% of the world population wasNo, but the other side of the coin is global warming, which at the core >>>>>>> is really just a matter of overpopulation.
hunter-gatherers or farmers, and both lived on the edge of starvation. >>>>>>>> Now the US has about 2% farmers and there's tons of cheap food. Enough >>>>>>>> to export or turn into auto fuel.
Malthusian starvation and the idiotic "Population Bomb" didn't happen. >>>>>>>
--scott
CO2 and warming are both good
No, they are not.
CO2 is greening the earth.
No, it's not. It's destroying arability and making formerly inhabitable locales
uninhabitable.
Warm is less deadly than cold,
So why not heat our houses to 125° F?
You're an idiot.
Try thinking now and then. You might come to eventually enjoy it.
I wonder how John Larkin thinks he knows that?
On Tue, 2 Apr 2024 19:03:28 -0700, Jack Carlson <j_carlson@gmx.com>
wrote:
On 4/1/2024 7:54 AM, John Larkin wrote:
On Mon, 01 Apr 2024 08:57:12 -0400, Governor Swill
<governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, 30 Mar 2024 05:51:13 -0400, Governor Swill <governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 29 Mar 2024 20:37:06 -0700, John Larkin <jl@997PotHill.com> wrote:
On Fri, 29 Mar 2024 22:33:36 -0400, Governor Swill
<governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 29 Mar 2024 08:15:08 -0700, John Larkin <jl@997PotHill.com> wrote:
Our Constition is based on Judeao-Christian principles but is not >>>>>>>> specifically religious.
Really?
Exactly what biblical principles is the Constitution based on?
Swill
The Ten Commandments was a good start.
Show me the Ten Commandments in the US Constitution.
(waiting)
Swill
It's pretty obvious that the Bill of Rights is based on
judeao-christian principles.
No, that's not obvious in the least. In fact, it's nonsense.
The 6th amendment for example evolves from the 9th commandment.
Complete garbage. The sixth amendment is purely procedural.
Namely, we get a fair trial, and consequently perjury is a crime.
This is the idea:
https://www.breitbart.com/
Breitbart is a garbage site.
Why bother to think, when you can simply deny anything posted on
Brietbart?
On Tue, 2 Apr 2024 10:58:50 -0700, Jack Carlson <j_carlson@gmx.com>
wrote:
On 3/30/2024 6:06 PM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
John Larkin <xx@yy.com> wrote:
Hundreds of years ago, 80% of the world population was
hunter-gatherers or farmers, and both lived on the edge of starvation. >>>> Now the US has about 2% farmers and there's tons of cheap food. Enough >>>> to export or turn into auto fuel.
Malthusian starvation and the idiotic "Population Bomb" didn't happen.
No, but the other side of the coin is global warming, which at the core
is really just a matter of overpopulation.
That's only partly right. The bigger issue than overpopulation is a classic >> public good problem ("tragedy of the commons"). Property rights are
insufficiently specified. There are externalities caused by people's economic
activity that they have no incentive to internalize.
It is false to say that "more CO2 is better." More CO2 *might* be better, but
only up to a point, and we have passed the point of optimality.
Life flourished on earth when CO2 was 6000 PPM.
I'm guessing that 800 would be good.
More CO2 *now*
is going to have more downside than any conceivable upside. CO2 is necessary for
plant growth, but too much CO2 will reduce yields. It would be like applying 50
kg of fertilizer to one rose bush: that will kill the plant. In addition, even
if a little more CO2 at ground level would encourage plant growth and higher >> yields, the effect of global warming on arability will more than negate that.
And that, of course, doesn't even take into consideration the effect of global
warming on the inhabitability of places that already have large populations.
Bill Sloman wrote:
On 30/03/2024 3:40 pm, Anonymous wrote:
Bill Sloman wrote:
On 29/03/2024 3:22 pm, Anonymous wrote:
Bill Sloman wrote:
On 29/03/2024 11:25 am, John Larkin wrote:
On Thu, 28 Mar 2024 11:24:31 -0400, Governor SwillBut China doesn't have that. The only monopoly the Chinese
<governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 28 Mar 2024 16:24:46 +1100, Bill Sloman
<bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
There are different ways of being corrupt - Trump cheats
different from
Chairman Xi - but the aim of creating a good appearance rather >>>>>>>>> than a
good product is always lethal.
A classic American behavior. If it looks good, it's ok for
production. Who cares if it
works?
People talk about bad products. There are reviews.
State monopolies on products and information prevent competition. >>>>>>
Communist Party is interested in is it's own monopoly on political >>>>>> power.
Once you have absolute political power you can monetarise it, but >>>>>> the other politicians are likely to notice and object.
What's a classic statist behavior is dangerous products and
infrastructure with criticism and deaths suppressed. Tofu dreg.
Nobody in the US is making much fuss about the lethal consequences >>>>>> of Boeing's recent quality control disasters. A limited number of >>>>>> rich people controlling country isn't - technically speaking -
state control, but it has the same defects.
Rich people don't rule anything.
Dream on. In the US they don't have any explicit right to rule, but
the US Supreme Court is dedicated to the idea that they should be
allowed to spend as much as they like on buying influence by
contributing to politicians electoral expenses.
Think about why the US hasn't got universal health care.
Merchants by their nature can't coordinate their varied and conflicting
interests into a singular political force. Without the government, any
group of merchants who form a cartel will find themselves defected upon
by any one or more members of that cartel, and will cease to be a
cartel.
Not a credible prediction. Merchants are people, and people have lots
of different ways of resolving and reconciling their various interests.
Show us a cartel that existed for any long length of time without
some form of government backing.
A cartel is a kind of government and its members have a shared
interest in controlling their market and keeping outsiders from
exploiting it.
A cartel is not a kind of government.
On Tue, 2 Apr 2024 19:03:28 -0700, Jack Carlson <j_carlson@gmx.com>
wrote:
On 4/1/2024 7:54 AM, John Larkin wrote:
On Mon, 01 Apr 2024 08:57:12 -0400, Governor Swill
<governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, 30 Mar 2024 05:51:13 -0400, Governor Swill <governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 29 Mar 2024 20:37:06 -0700, John Larkin <jl@997PotHill.com> wrote:
On Fri, 29 Mar 2024 22:33:36 -0400, Governor Swill
<governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 29 Mar 2024 08:15:08 -0700, John Larkin <jl@997PotHill.com> wrote:
Our Constition is based on Judeao-Christian principles but is not >>>>>>>> specifically religious.
Really?
Exactly what biblical principles is the Constitution based on?
The Ten Commandments was a good start.
Show me the Ten Commandments in the US Constitution.
(waiting)
Swill
It's pretty obvious that the Bill of Rights is based on
judeao-christian principles.
No, that's not obvious in the least. In fact, it's nonsense.
The 6th amendment for example evolves from the 9th commandment.
Complete garbage. The sixth amendment is purely procedural.
Namely, we get a fair trial, and consequently perjury is a crime.
This is the idea:
https://www.breitbart.com/
Breitbart is a garbage site.
Why bother to think, when you can simply deny anything posted on
Breitbart?
On 3/04/2024 2:37 pm, John Larkin wrote:
On Tue, 2 Apr 2024 19:03:28 -0700, Jack Carlson <j_carlson@gmx.com>
wrote:
On 4/1/2024 7:54 AM, John Larkin wrote:
On Mon, 01 Apr 2024 08:57:12 -0400, Governor Swill
<governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, 30 Mar 2024 05:51:13 -0400, Governor Swill
<governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 29 Mar 2024 20:37:06 -0700, John Larkin <jl@997PotHill.com> wrote:
On Fri, 29 Mar 2024 22:33:36 -0400, Governor Swill
<governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 29 Mar 2024 08:15:08 -0700, John Larkin <jl@997PotHill.com> wrote:
Our Constition is based on Judeao-Christian principles but is not >>>>>>>>> specifically religious.
Really?
Exactly what biblical principles is the Constitution based on? >>>>>>>>
The Ten Commandments was a good start.
Show me the Ten Commandments in the US Constitution.
(waiting)
Swill
It's pretty obvious that the Bill of Rights is based on
judeao-christian principles.
No, that's not obvious in the least. In fact, it's nonsense.
The 6th amendment for example evolves from the 9th commandment.
Complete garbage. The sixth amendment is purely procedural.
Namely, we get a fair trial, and consequently perjury is a crime.
This is the idea:
https://www.breitbart.com/
Breitbart is a garbage site.
Why bother to think, when you can simply deny anything posted on
Breitbart?
It's a pretty reliable strategy - Breitbart does publish a lot of right-wing nonsense.
It's certainly not a place I'd go for reliable or comprehensive information about Richard Dawkins.
On Tue, 2 Apr 2024 10:58:50 -0700, Jack Carlson <j_carlson@gmx.com>
wrote:
On 3/30/2024 6:06 PM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
John Larkin <xx@yy.com> wrote:
Hundreds of years ago, 80% of the world population was
hunter-gatherers or farmers, and both lived on the edge of starvation. >>>> Now the US has about 2% farmers and there's tons of cheap food. Enough >>>> to export or turn into auto fuel.
Malthusian starvation and the idiotic "Population Bomb" didn't happen.
No, but the other side of the coin is global warming, which at the core
is really just a matter of overpopulation.
That's only partly right. The bigger issue than overpopulation is a classic >> public good problem ("tragedy of the commons"). Property rights are
insufficiently specified. There are externalities caused by people's economic
activity that they have no incentive to internalize.
It is false to say that "more CO2 is better." More CO2 *might* be better, but
only up to a point, and we have passed the point of optimality.
Life flourished on earth when CO2 was 6000 PPM. Greenhouses run 1000
or so.
I'm guessing that 800 would be good. Unfortunately, we are unlikely to
get up to there.
On 4/2/2024 8:51 PM, John Larkin wrote:
On Tue, 2 Apr 2024 10:58:50 -0700, Jack Carlson <j_carlson@gmx.com>
wrote:
On 3/30/2024 6:06 PM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
John Larkin <xx@yy.com> wrote:
Hundreds of years ago, 80% of the world population wasNo, but the other side of the coin is global warming, which at the core >>>> is really just a matter of overpopulation.
hunter-gatherers or farmers, and both lived on the edge of starvation. >>>>> Now the US has about 2% farmers and there's tons of cheap food. Enough >>>>> to export or turn into auto fuel.
Malthusian starvation and the idiotic "Population Bomb" didn't happen. >>>>
That's only partly right. The bigger issue than overpopulation is a classic >>> public good problem ("tragedy of the commons"). Property rights are
insufficiently specified. There are externalities caused by people's economic
activity that they have no incentive to internalize.
It is false to say that "more CO2 is better." More CO2 *might* be better, but
only up to a point, and we have passed the point of optimality.
Life flourished on earth when CO2 was 6000 PPM.
No support, so we know it's a lie.
I'm guessing that 800 would be good.
You don't know a thing about it...nor about electronics design.
On 4/2/2024 8:37 PM, John Larkin wrote:
On Tue, 2 Apr 2024 19:03:28 -0700, Jack Carlson <j_carlson@gmx.com>
wrote:
On 4/1/2024 7:54 AM, John Larkin wrote:
On Mon, 01 Apr 2024 08:57:12 -0400, Governor Swill
<governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, 30 Mar 2024 05:51:13 -0400, Governor Swill <governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 29 Mar 2024 20:37:06 -0700, John Larkin <jl@997PotHill.com> wrote:
On Fri, 29 Mar 2024 22:33:36 -0400, Governor Swill
<governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 29 Mar 2024 08:15:08 -0700, John Larkin <jl@997PotHill.com> wrote:
Our Constition is based on Judeao-Christian principles but is not >>>>>>>>> specifically religious.
Really?
Exactly what biblical principles is the Constitution based on? >>>>>>>>
Swill
The Ten Commandments was a good start.
Show me the Ten Commandments in the US Constitution.
(waiting)
Swill
It's pretty obvious that the Bill of Rights is based on
judeao-christian principles.
No, that's not obvious in the least. In fact, it's nonsense.
The 6th amendment for example evolves from the 9th commandment.
Complete garbage. The sixth amendment is purely procedural.
Namely, we get a fair trial, and consequently perjury is a crime.
This is the idea:
https://www.breitbart.com/
Breitbart is a garbage site.
Why bother to think, when you can simply deny anything posted on
Brietbart?
You can't even spell the name of your favorite lie site correctly. It's >*Breitbart*, not "Brietbart."
Breitbart publishes disinformation. It's a lie site.
On Tue, 2 Apr 2024 22:37:42 -0700, Jack Carlson <j_carlson@gmx.com>
wrote:
On 4/2/2024 8:51 PM, John Larkin wrote:
On Tue, 2 Apr 2024 10:58:50 -0700, Jack Carlson <j_carlson@gmx.com>
wrote:
On 3/30/2024 6:06 PM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
John Larkin <xx@yy.com> wrote:
Hundreds of years ago, 80% of the world population wasNo, but the other side of the coin is global warming, which at the core >>>>> is really just a matter of overpopulation.
hunter-gatherers or farmers, and both lived on the edge of starvation. >>>>>> Now the US has about 2% farmers and there's tons of cheap food. Enough >>>>>> to export or turn into auto fuel.
Malthusian starvation and the idiotic "Population Bomb" didn't happen. >>>>>
That's only partly right. The bigger issue than overpopulation is a classic
public good problem ("tragedy of the commons"). Property rights are
insufficiently specified. There are externalities caused by people's economic
activity that they have no incentive to internalize.
It is false to say that "more CO2 is better." More CO2 *might* be better, but
only up to a point, and we have passed the point of optimality.
Life flourished on earth when CO2 was 6000 PPM.
No support, so we know it's a lie.
Good grief, google it.
I'm guessing that 800 would be good.
You don't know a thing about it...nor about electronics design.
http://www.highlandtechnology.com/company/testimonials.shtml
Do you design electronics?
One reason that usenet is dying is that it attracts people like you.
On Tue, 2 Apr 2024 22:33:57 -0700, Jack Carlson <j_carlson@gmx.com>
wrote:
On 4/2/2024 8:37 PM, John Larkin wrote:
On Tue, 2 Apr 2024 19:03:28 -0700, Jack Carlson <j_carlson@gmx.com>
wrote:
On 4/1/2024 7:54 AM, John Larkin wrote:
On Mon, 01 Apr 2024 08:57:12 -0400, Governor Swill
<governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, 30 Mar 2024 05:51:13 -0400, Governor Swill <governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 29 Mar 2024 20:37:06 -0700, John Larkin <jl@997PotHill.com> wrote:
On Fri, 29 Mar 2024 22:33:36 -0400, Governor Swill
<governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 29 Mar 2024 08:15:08 -0700, John Larkin <jl@997PotHill.com> wrote:
Our Constition is based on Judeao-Christian principles but is not >>>>>>>>>> specifically religious.
Really?
Exactly what biblical principles is the Constitution based on? >>>>>>>>>
Swill
The Ten Commandments was a good start.
Show me the Ten Commandments in the US Constitution.
(waiting)
Swill
It's pretty obvious that the Bill of Rights is based on
judeao-christian principles.
No, that's not obvious in the least. In fact, it's nonsense.
The 6th amendment for example evolves from the 9th commandment.
Complete garbage. The sixth amendment is purely procedural.
Namely, we get a fair trial, and consequently perjury is a crime.
This is the idea:
https://www.breitbart.com/
Breitbart is a garbage site.
Why bother to think, when you can simply deny anything posted on
Brietbart?
You can't even spell the name of your favorite lie site correctly. It's
*Breitbart*, not "Brietbart."
Sorry if you didn't understand what site I named. I assume that you
think the bridge failure in Baltimore was a lie, since B linked to it.
I get the print versions of the San Francisco Chronicle and the Sunday
New York Times. I visit all sorts of web sites, from the BBC to
Arabnews to the Jerusalem Post to UPI. And lots of electronics sites.
If a subject looks interesting, I research it further.
Breitbart publishes disinformation. It's a lie site.
What would you if Breitbart and The Guardian linked to the same story?
On 4/3/2024 7:50 AM, John Larkin wrote:
On Tue, 2 Apr 2024 22:37:42 -0700, Jack Carlson <j_carlson@gmx.com>
wrote:
On 4/2/2024 8:51 PM, John Larkin wrote:
On Tue, 2 Apr 2024 10:58:50 -0700, Jack Carlson <j_carlson@gmx.com>
wrote:
On 3/30/2024 6:06 PM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
John Larkin <xx@yy.com> wrote:
Hundreds of years ago, 80% of the world population wasNo, but the other side of the coin is global warming, which at the core >>>>>> is really just a matter of overpopulation.
hunter-gatherers or farmers, and both lived on the edge of starvation. >>>>>>> Now the US has about 2% farmers and there's tons of cheap food. Enough >>>>>>> to export or turn into auto fuel.
Malthusian starvation and the idiotic "Population Bomb" didn't happen. >>>>>>
That's only partly right. The bigger issue than overpopulation is a classic
public good problem ("tragedy of the commons"). Property rights are
insufficiently specified. There are externalities caused by people's economic
activity that they have no incentive to internalize.
It is false to say that "more CO2 is better." More CO2 *might* be better, but
only up to a point, and we have passed the point of optimality.
Life flourished on earth when CO2 was 6000 PPM.
No humans then.
No support, so we know it's a lie.
Good grief, google it.
Inability to support your claims, and impermissible burden shifting, noted.
I'm guessing that 800 would be good.
You don't know a thing about it...nor about electronics design.
http://www.highlandtechnology.com/company/testimonials.shtml
The name "Larkin" does not appear at that page.
On 3/04/2024 2:51 pm, John Larkin wrote:
On Tue, 2 Apr 2024 10:58:50 -0700, Jack Carlson <j_carlson@gmx.com>
wrote:
On 3/30/2024 6:06 PM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
John Larkin <xx@yy.com> wrote:
Hundreds of years ago, 80% of the world population wasNo, but the other side of the coin is global warming, which at the core >>>> is really just a matter of overpopulation.
hunter-gatherers or farmers, and both lived on the edge of starvation. >>>>> Now the US has about 2% farmers and there's tons of cheap food. Enough >>>>> to export or turn into auto fuel.
Malthusian starvation and the idiotic "Population Bomb" didn't happen. >>>>
That's only partly right. The bigger issue than overpopulation is a
classic
public good problem ("tragedy of the commons"). Property rights are
insufficiently specified. There are externalities caused by people's
economic
activity that they have no incentive to internalize.
It is false to say that "more CO2 is better." More CO2 *might* be
better, but
only up to a point, and we have passed the point of optimality.
Life flourished on earth when CO2 was 6000 PPM. Greenhouses run 1000
or so.
I'm guessing that 800 would be good. Unfortunately, we are unlikely to
get up to there.
800ppm CO2 in the atmosphere might be good for some plants, but the
warmer climate that comes with it probably means that it wouldn't be
good for the plants we rely on
John Larkin isn't actually guessing - he's being even sillier, in
relying on climate change denial propaganda which has the sole aim of
letting the fossil carbon extraction industry keep it's cash flow high
for a few more years.
6000ppm CO2 levels date back to a time when the sun was appreciably
smaller - it's surface was just as hot, but there was less of it, so it radiated less heat, and the earth needed a bigger greenhouse effect to
run at a plant friendly surface temperature.
On 4/3/2024 8:07 AM, John Larkin wrote:
On Tue, 2 Apr 2024 22:33:57 -0700, Jack Carlson <j_carlson@gmx.com>
wrote:
On 4/2/2024 8:37 PM, John Larkin wrote:
On Tue, 2 Apr 2024 19:03:28 -0700, Jack Carlson <j_carlson@gmx.com>
wrote:
On 4/1/2024 7:54 AM, John Larkin wrote:
On Mon, 01 Apr 2024 08:57:12 -0400, Governor Swill
<governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, 30 Mar 2024 05:51:13 -0400, Governor Swill <governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 29 Mar 2024 20:37:06 -0700, John Larkin <jl@997PotHill.com> wrote:
On Fri, 29 Mar 2024 22:33:36 -0400, Governor Swill
<governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 29 Mar 2024 08:15:08 -0700, John Larkin <jl@997PotHill.com> wrote:
Our Constition is based on Judeao-Christian principles but is not >>>>>>>>>>> specifically religious.
Really?
Exactly what biblical principles is the Constitution based on? >>>>>>>>>>
Swill
The Ten Commandments was a good start.
Show me the Ten Commandments in the US Constitution.
(waiting)
Swill
It's pretty obvious that the Bill of Rights is based on
judeao-christian principles.
No, that's not obvious in the least. In fact, it's nonsense.
The 6th amendment for example evolves from the 9th commandment.
Complete garbage. The sixth amendment is purely procedural.
Namely, we get a fair trial, and consequently perjury is a crime.
This is the idea:
https://www.breitbart.com/
Breitbart is a garbage site.
Why bother to think, when you can simply deny anything posted on
Brietbart?
You can't even spell the name of your favorite lie site correctly. It's
*Breitbart*, not "Brietbart."
Sorry if you didn't understand what site I named. I assume that you
think the bridge failure in Baltimore was a lie, since B linked to it.
Whatever Breitbart said about it is a lie.
I get the print versions of the San Francisco Chronicle and the Sunday
New York Times. I visit all sorts of web sites, from the BBC to
Arabnews to the Jerusalem Post to UPI. And lots of electronics sites.
If a subject looks interesting, I research it further.
You understand next to nothing of what you read.
Breitbart publishes disinformation. It's a lie site.
What would you if Breitbart and The Guardian linked to the same story?
They will say different things about it. The Guardian will report truthfully on
it, and Breitbart will lie about it. The Guardian's business model is predicated
on reporting the truth. Breitbart's model consists solely in pitching lies to >gullible right-wingnuts like you with no critical thinking ability whatsoever.
On Wed, 3 Apr 2024 08:13:38 -0700, Jack Carlson <j_carlson@gmx.com>
wrote:
On 4/3/2024 7:50 AM, John Larkin wrote:
On Tue, 2 Apr 2024 22:37:42 -0700, Jack Carlson <j_carlson@gmx.com>
wrote:
On 4/2/2024 8:51 PM, John Larkin wrote:
On Tue, 2 Apr 2024 10:58:50 -0700, Jack Carlson <j_carlson@gmx.com>
wrote:
On 3/30/2024 6:06 PM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
John Larkin <xx@yy.com> wrote:
Hundreds of years ago, 80% of the world population wasNo, but the other side of the coin is global warming, which at the core >>>>>>> is really just a matter of overpopulation.
hunter-gatherers or farmers, and both lived on the edge of starvation. >>>>>>>> Now the US has about 2% farmers and there's tons of cheap food. Enough >>>>>>>> to export or turn into auto fuel.
Malthusian starvation and the idiotic "Population Bomb" didn't happen. >>>>>>>
That's only partly right. The bigger issue than overpopulation is a classic
public good problem ("tragedy of the commons"). Property rights are >>>>>> insufficiently specified. There are externalities caused by people's economic
activity that they have no incentive to internalize.
It is false to say that "more CO2 is better." More CO2 *might* be better, but
only up to a point, and we have passed the point of optimality.
Life flourished on earth when CO2 was 6000 PPM.
No humans then.
No support, so we know it's a lie.
Good grief, google it.
Inability to support your claims, and impermissible burden shifting, noted. >>
I'm guessing that 800 would be good.
You don't know a thing about it...nor about electronics design.
http://www.highlandtechnology.com/company/testimonials.shtml
The name "Larkin" does not appear at that page.
https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0111046
On Wed, 3 Apr 2024 08:59:43 -0700, Jack Carlson <j_carlson@gmx.com>
wrote:
On 4/3/2024 8:07 AM, John Larkin wrote:
On Tue, 2 Apr 2024 22:33:57 -0700, Jack Carlson <j_carlson@gmx.com>
wrote:
On 4/2/2024 8:37 PM, John Larkin wrote:
On Tue, 2 Apr 2024 19:03:28 -0700, Jack Carlson <j_carlson@gmx.com>
wrote:
On 4/1/2024 7:54 AM, John Larkin wrote:
On Mon, 01 Apr 2024 08:57:12 -0400, Governor Swill
<governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, 30 Mar 2024 05:51:13 -0400, Governor Swill <governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 29 Mar 2024 20:37:06 -0700, John Larkin <jl@997PotHill.com> wrote:
On Fri, 29 Mar 2024 22:33:36 -0400, Governor Swill
<governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 29 Mar 2024 08:15:08 -0700, John Larkin <jl@997PotHill.com> wrote:
Our Constition is based on Judeao-Christian principles but is not >>>>>>>>>>>> specifically religious.
Really?
Exactly what biblical principles is the Constitution based on? >>>>>>>>>>>
Swill
The Ten Commandments was a good start.
Show me the Ten Commandments in the US Constitution.
(waiting)
Swill
It's pretty obvious that the Bill of Rights is based on
judeao-christian principles.
No, that's not obvious in the least. In fact, it's nonsense.
The 6th amendment for example evolves from the 9th commandment.
Complete garbage. The sixth amendment is purely procedural.
Namely, we get a fair trial, and consequently perjury is a crime. >>>>>>
This is the idea:
https://www.breitbart.com/
Breitbart is a garbage site.
Why bother to think, when you can simply deny anything posted on
Brietbart?
You can't even spell the name of your favorite lie site correctly. It's >>>> *Breitbart*, not "Brietbart."
Sorry if you didn't understand what site I named. I assume that you
think the bridge failure in Baltimore was a lie, since B linked to it.
Whatever Breitbart said about it is a lie.
OK, the bridge is still standing and the ship never hit it. All the
satellite pics are fake too.
I get the print versions of the San Francisco Chronicle and the Sunday
New York Times. I visit all sorts of web sites, from the BBC to
Arabnews to the Jerusalem Post to UPI. And lots of electronics sites.
If a subject looks interesting, I research it further.
You understand next to nothing of what you read.
Breitbart publishes disinformation. It's a lie site.
What would you if Breitbart and The Guardian linked to the same story?
They will say different things about it. The Guardian will report truthfully on
it, and Breitbart will lie about it. The Guardian's business model is predicated
on reporting the truth. Breitbart's model consists solely in pitching lies to
gullible right-wingnuts like you with no critical thinking ability whatsoever.
Wow. The Guardian is objective and always true. I'm impressed.
On 4/3/2024 9:07 AM, John Larkin wrote:
On Wed, 3 Apr 2024 08:13:38 -0700, Jack Carlson <j_carlson@gmx.com>
wrote:
On 4/3/2024 7:50 AM, John Larkin wrote:
On Tue, 2 Apr 2024 22:37:42 -0700, Jack Carlson <j_carlson@gmx.com>
wrote:
On 4/2/2024 8:51 PM, John Larkin wrote:
On Tue, 2 Apr 2024 10:58:50 -0700, Jack Carlson <j_carlson@gmx.com> >>>>>> wrote:
On 3/30/2024 6:06 PM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
John Larkin <xx@yy.com> wrote:
Hundreds of years ago, 80% of the world population was
hunter-gatherers or farmers, and both lived on the edge of starvation.
Now the US has about 2% farmers and there's tons of cheap food. Enough
to export or turn into auto fuel.
Malthusian starvation and the idiotic "Population Bomb" didn't happen.
No, but the other side of the coin is global warming, which at the core
is really just a matter of overpopulation.
That's only partly right. The bigger issue than overpopulation is a classic
public good problem ("tragedy of the commons"). Property rights are >>>>>>> insufficiently specified. There are externalities caused by people's economic
activity that they have no incentive to internalize.
It is false to say that "more CO2 is better." More CO2 *might* be better, but
only up to a point, and we have passed the point of optimality.
Life flourished on earth when CO2 was 6000 PPM.
No humans then.
<crickets>
No support, so we know it's a lie.
Good grief, google it.
Inability to support your claims, and impermissible burden shifting, noted. >>>
I'm guessing that 800 would be good.
You don't know a thing about it...nor about electronics design.
http://www.highlandtechnology.com/company/testimonials.shtml
The name "Larkin" does not appear at that page.
https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0111046
I'm not interested in a URL wild goose chase, thanks.
You're a little more articulate than the typical Breitbart-lie-gobbling >Trumpswabs, but your political thinking and understanding is not a whit higher
than theirs.
On Wed, 3 Apr 2024 09:55:49 -0700, Jack Carlson <j_carlson@gmx.com>
wrote:
On 4/3/2024 9:07 AM, John Larkin wrote:
On Wed, 3 Apr 2024 08:13:38 -0700, Jack Carlson <j_carlson@gmx.com>
wrote:
On 4/3/2024 7:50 AM, John Larkin wrote:
On Tue, 2 Apr 2024 22:37:42 -0700, Jack Carlson <j_carlson@gmx.com>
wrote:
On 4/2/2024 8:51 PM, John Larkin wrote:
On Tue, 2 Apr 2024 10:58:50 -0700, Jack Carlson <j_carlson@gmx.com> >>>>>>> wrote:
On 3/30/2024 6:06 PM, Scott Dorsey wrote:Life flourished on earth when CO2 was 6000 PPM.
John Larkin <xx@yy.com> wrote:
Hundreds of years ago, 80% of the world population was
hunter-gatherers or farmers, and both lived on the edge of starvation.
Now the US has about 2% farmers and there's tons of cheap food. Enough
to export or turn into auto fuel.
Malthusian starvation and the idiotic "Population Bomb" didn't happen.
No, but the other side of the coin is global warming, which at the core
is really just a matter of overpopulation.
That's only partly right. The bigger issue than overpopulation is a classic
public good problem ("tragedy of the commons"). Property rights are >>>>>>>> insufficiently specified. There are externalities caused by people's economic
activity that they have no incentive to internalize.
It is false to say that "more CO2 is better." More CO2 *might* be better, but
only up to a point, and we have passed the point of optimality. >>>>>>>
No humans then.
<crickets>
No support, so we know it's a lie.
Good grief, google it.
Inability to support your claims, and impermissible burden shifting, noted.
I'm guessing that 800 would be good.
You don't know a thing about it...nor about electronics design.
http://www.highlandtechnology.com/company/testimonials.shtml
The name "Larkin" does not appear at that page.
https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0111046
I'm not interested in a URL wild goose chase, thanks.
You are defined by the things that you are not interested in.
What do you do? There are occupations where mental rigidity is an
asset.
You're a little more articulate than the typical Breitbart-lie-gobbling
Trumpswabs, but your political thinking and understanding is not a whit higher
than theirs.
I'm not political at all.
I design electronics.
What do you do?
Breitbart publishes disinformation. It's a lie site.
What would you if Breitbart and The Guardian linked to the same story?
They will say different things about it. The Guardian will report >truthfully on it, and Breitbart will lie about it. The Guardian's
business model is predicated on reporting the truth. Breitbart's model >consists solely in pitching lies to gullible right-wingnuts like you with >no critical thinking ability whatsoever.
Wow. The Guardian is objective and always true. I'm impressed.
John Larkin <jl@997PotHill.com> wrote:
[...]
Breitbart publishes disinformation. It's a lie site.
What would you if Breitbart and The Guardian linked to the same story?
They will say different things about it. The Guardian will report
truthfully on it, and Breitbart will lie about it. The Guardian's
business model is predicated on reporting the truth. Breitbart's model
consists solely in pitching lies to gullible right-wingnuts like you with >> >no critical thinking ability whatsoever.
Wow. The Guardian is objective and always true. I'm impressed.
Of course that's correct, provided you are content with left-wing truth.
On 4/3/2024 10:30 AM, john larkin wrote:
On Wed, 3 Apr 2024 09:55:49 -0700, Jack Carlson <j_carlson@gmx.com>
wrote:
On 4/3/2024 9:07 AM, John Larkin wrote:
On Wed, 3 Apr 2024 08:13:38 -0700, Jack Carlson <j_carlson@gmx.com>
wrote:
On 4/3/2024 7:50 AM, John Larkin wrote:
On Tue, 2 Apr 2024 22:37:42 -0700, Jack Carlson <j_carlson@gmx.com> >>>>>> wrote:
On 4/2/2024 8:51 PM, John Larkin wrote:
On Tue, 2 Apr 2024 10:58:50 -0700, Jack Carlson <j_carlson@gmx.com> >>>>>>>> wrote:
On 3/30/2024 6:06 PM, Scott Dorsey wrote:Life flourished on earth when CO2 was 6000 PPM.
John Larkin <xx@yy.com> wrote:
Hundreds of years ago, 80% of the world population was
hunter-gatherers or farmers, and both lived on the edge of starvation.
Now the US has about 2% farmers and there's tons of cheap food. Enough
to export or turn into auto fuel.
Malthusian starvation and the idiotic "Population Bomb" didn't happen.
No, but the other side of the coin is global warming, which at the core
is really just a matter of overpopulation.
That's only partly right. The bigger issue than overpopulation is a classic
public good problem ("tragedy of the commons"). Property rights are >>>>>>>>> insufficiently specified. There are externalities caused by people's economic
activity that they have no incentive to internalize.
It is false to say that "more CO2 is better." More CO2 *might* be better, but
only up to a point, and we have passed the point of optimality. >>>>>>>>
No humans then.
<crickets>
No support, so we know it's a lie.
Good grief, google it.
Inability to support your claims, and impermissible burden shifting, noted.
I'm guessing that 800 would be good.
You don't know a thing about it...nor about electronics design.
http://www.highlandtechnology.com/company/testimonials.shtml
The name "Larkin" does not appear at that page.
https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0111046
I'm not interested in a URL wild goose chase, thanks.
You are defined by the things that you are not interested in.
That is in large part true. One obvious thing in which you have no interest is
the truth outside your narrow technical expertise.
What do you do? There are occupations where mental rigidity is an
asset.
Electronics design strikes me as one such.
You're a little more articulate than the typical Breitbart-lie-gobbling
Trumpswabs, but your political thinking and understanding is not a whit higher
than theirs.
I'm not political at all.
Ha ha ha! *HA HA HA HA HA*!
I design electronics.
Not here you don't. Here, you run your mouth about things far outside your field
of expertise.
What do you do?
What I do here is point out the fallacies and lies of extremists like you.
On Wed, 3 Apr 2024 20:40:22 +0100, snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) wrote:
John Larkin <jl@997PotHill.com> wrote:
[...]
They will say different things about it. The Guardian will reportBreitbart publishes disinformation. It's a lie site.
What would you if Breitbart and The Guardian linked to the same story? >>>>
truthfully on it, and Breitbart will lie about it. The Guardian's
business model is predicated on reporting the truth. Breitbart's model >>>> consists solely in pitching lies to gullible right-wingnuts like you with >>>> no critical thinking ability whatsoever.
Wow. The Guardian is objective and always true. I'm impressed.
Of course that's correct, provided you are content with left-wing truth.
I like the RealClear sites, because they alternate left/right links.
That can be amusing.
On Wed, 3 Apr 2024 11:00:49 -0700, Jack Carlson <j_carlson@gmx.com>
wrote:
On 4/3/2024 10:30 AM, john larkin wrote:
On Wed, 3 Apr 2024 09:55:49 -0700, Jack Carlson <j_carlson@gmx.com>
wrote:
On 4/3/2024 9:07 AM, John Larkin wrote:
On Wed, 3 Apr 2024 08:13:38 -0700, Jack Carlson <j_carlson@gmx.com>
wrote:
On 4/3/2024 7:50 AM, John Larkin wrote:
On Tue, 2 Apr 2024 22:37:42 -0700, Jack Carlson <j_carlson@gmx.com> >>>>>>> wrote:
On 4/2/2024 8:51 PM, John Larkin wrote:
On Tue, 2 Apr 2024 10:58:50 -0700, Jack Carlson <j_carlson@gmx.com> >>>>>>>>> wrote:
On 3/30/2024 6:06 PM, Scott Dorsey wrote:Life flourished on earth when CO2 was 6000 PPM.
John Larkin <xx@yy.com> wrote:
Hundreds of years ago, 80% of the world population was >>>>>>>>>>>> hunter-gatherers or farmers, and both lived on the edge of starvation.
Now the US has about 2% farmers and there's tons of cheap food. Enough
to export or turn into auto fuel.
Malthusian starvation and the idiotic "Population Bomb" didn't happen.
No, but the other side of the coin is global warming, which at the core
is really just a matter of overpopulation.
That's only partly right. The bigger issue than overpopulation is a classic
public good problem ("tragedy of the commons"). Property rights are >>>>>>>>>> insufficiently specified. There are externalities caused by people's economic
activity that they have no incentive to internalize.
It is false to say that "more CO2 is better." More CO2 *might* be better, but
only up to a point, and we have passed the point of optimality. >>>>>>>>>
No humans then.
<crickets>
No support, so we know it's a lie.
Good grief, google it.
Inability to support your claims, and impermissible burden shifting, noted.
http://www.highlandtechnology.com/company/testimonials.shtml
I'm guessing that 800 would be good.
You don't know a thing about it...nor about electronics design. >>>>>>>
The name "Larkin" does not appear at that page.
https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0111046
I'm not interested in a URL wild goose chase, thanks.
You are defined by the things that you are not interested in.
That is in large part true. One obvious thing in which you have no interest is
the truth outside your narrow technical expertise.
I am very interested in dynamic systems, because I am in the dynamics business.
What do you do? There are occupations where mental rigidity is an
asset.
Electronics design strikes me as one such.
Quite the opposite.
You're a little more articulate than the typical Breitbart-lie-gobbling >>>> Trumpswabs, but your political thinking and understanding is not a whit higher
than theirs.
I'm not political at all.
Ha ha ha! *HA HA HA HA HA*!
I design electronics.
Not here you don't. Here, you run your mouth about things far outside your field
of expertise.
What do you do?
What I do here is point out the fallacies and lies of extremists like you.
What do you do?
It's not important what I do professionally. I told you what I do here,
and I'm extremely talented at it.
On 4/3/2024 12:57 PM, john larkin wrote:
On Wed, 3 Apr 2024 11:00:49 -0700, Jack Carlson <j_carlson@gmx.com>
wrote:
On 4/3/2024 10:30 AM, john larkin wrote:
On Wed, 3 Apr 2024 09:55:49 -0700, Jack Carlson <j_carlson@gmx.com>
wrote:
On 4/3/2024 9:07 AM, John Larkin wrote:
On Wed, 3 Apr 2024 08:13:38 -0700, Jack Carlson <j_carlson@gmx.com> >>>>>> wrote:
On 4/3/2024 7:50 AM, John Larkin wrote:
On Tue, 2 Apr 2024 22:37:42 -0700, Jack Carlson <j_carlson@gmx.com> >>>>>>>> wrote:
On 4/2/2024 8:51 PM, John Larkin wrote:
On Tue, 2 Apr 2024 10:58:50 -0700, Jack Carlson <j_carlson@gmx.com> >>>>>>>>>> wrote:
On 3/30/2024 6:06 PM, Scott Dorsey wrote:Life flourished on earth when CO2 was 6000 PPM.
John Larkin <xx@yy.com> wrote:
Hundreds of years ago, 80% of the world population was >>>>>>>>>>>>> hunter-gatherers or farmers, and both lived on the edge of starvation.
Now the US has about 2% farmers and there's tons of cheap food. Enough
to export or turn into auto fuel.
Malthusian starvation and the idiotic "Population Bomb" didn't happen.
No, but the other side of the coin is global warming, which at the core
is really just a matter of overpopulation.
That's only partly right. The bigger issue than overpopulation is a classic
public good problem ("tragedy of the commons"). Property rights are >>>>>>>>>>> insufficiently specified. There are externalities caused by people's economic
activity that they have no incentive to internalize.
It is false to say that "more CO2 is better." More CO2 *might* be better, but
only up to a point, and we have passed the point of optimality. >>>>>>>>>>
No humans then.
<crickets>
No support, so we know it's a lie.
Good grief, google it.
Inability to support your claims, and impermissible burden shifting, noted.
http://www.highlandtechnology.com/company/testimonials.shtml
I'm guessing that 800 would be good.
You don't know a thing about it...nor about electronics design. >>>>>>>>
The name "Larkin" does not appear at that page.
https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0111046
I'm not interested in a URL wild goose chase, thanks.
You are defined by the things that you are not interested in.
That is in large part true. One obvious thing in which you have no interest is
the truth outside your narrow technical expertise.
I am very interested in dynamic systems, because I am in the dynamics
business.
But unfortunately, you don't know your ass from your face about that outside >electronics.
What do you do? There are occupations where mental rigidity is an
asset.
Electronics design strikes me as one such.
Quite the opposite.
Bullshit. There's a right way and multiple wrong ways.
On Wed, 3 Apr 2024 13:20:42 -0700, Jack Carlson wrote:
It's not important what I do professionally. I told you what I do here,
and I'm extremely talented at it.
I seem to have missed that. What is your occupation?
My observation indicates you are a member of a liberal professional
debating team.
On Wed, 03 Apr 2024 22:59:12 +0200, jim whitby <mr.spock@spockmnail.net> wrote:
On Wed, 3 Apr 2024 13:20:42 -0700, Jack Carlson wrote:
It's not important what I do professionally. I told you what I do
here,
and I'm extremely talented at it.
I seem to have missed that. What is your occupation?
My observation indicates you are a member of a liberal professional >>debating team.
Does that pay well?
On 4/3/2024 12:47 PM, john larkin wrote:
On Wed, 3 Apr 2024 20:40:22 +0100, snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) wrote:
John Larkin <jl@997PotHill.com> wrote:
[...]
They will say different things about it. The Guardian will reportBreitbart publishes disinformation. It's a lie site.
What would you if Breitbart and The Guardian linked to the same story? >>>>>
truthfully on it, and Breitbart will lie about it. The Guardian's
business model is predicated on reporting the truth. Breitbart's model >>>>> consists solely in pitching lies to gullible right-wingnuts like you with >>>>> no critical thinking ability whatsoever.
Wow. The Guardian is objective and always true. I'm impressed.
Of course that's correct, provided you are content with left-wing truth.
I like the RealClear sites, because they alternate left/right links.
That can be amusing.
So, you *don't* only do electronics design, as you earlier lied.
On Wed, 3 Apr 2024 13:20:42 -0700, Jack Carlson <j_carlson@gmx.com>
wrote:
On 4/3/2024 12:57 PM, john larkin, plodding troll, lied::
On Wed, 3 Apr 2024 11:00:49 -0700, Jack Carlson <j_carlson@gmx.com>
wrote:
On 4/3/2024 10:30 AM, john larkin, plodding troll, lied::
On Wed, 3 Apr 2024 09:55:49 -0700, Jack Carlson <j_carlson@gmx.com>
wrote:
On 4/3/2024 9:07 AM, john larkin, plodding troll, lied::
On Wed, 3 Apr 2024 08:13:38 -0700, Jack Carlson <j_carlson@gmx.com> >>>>>>> wrote:
On 4/3/2024 7:50 AM, john larkin, plodding troll, lied::
On Tue, 2 Apr 2024 22:37:42 -0700, Jack Carlson <j_carlson@gmx.com> >>>>>>>>> wrote:
On 4/2/2024 8:51 PM, john larkin, plodding troll, lied::
On Tue, 2 Apr 2024 10:58:50 -0700, Jack Carlson <j_carlson@gmx.com> >>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
On 3/30/2024 6:06 PM, Scott Dorsey wrote:Life flourished on earth when CO2 was 6000 PPM.
John Larkin <xx@yy.com> wrote:
Hundreds of years ago, 80% of the world population was >>>>>>>>>>>>>> hunter-gatherers or farmers, and both lived on the edge of starvation.
Now the US has about 2% farmers and there's tons of cheap food. Enough
to export or turn into auto fuel.
Malthusian starvation and the idiotic "Population Bomb" didn't happen.
No, but the other side of the coin is global warming, which at the core
is really just a matter of overpopulation.
That's only partly right. The bigger issue than overpopulation is a classic
public good problem ("tragedy of the commons"). Property rights are
insufficiently specified. There are externalities caused by people's economic
activity that they have no incentive to internalize.
It is false to say that "more CO2 is better." More CO2 *might* be better, but
only up to a point, and we have passed the point of optimality. >>>>>>>>>>>
No humans then.
<crickets>
No support, so we know it's a lie.
Good grief, google it.
Inability to support your claims, and impermissible burden shifting, noted.
http://www.highlandtechnology.com/company/testimonials.shtml
I'm guessing that 800 would be good.
You don't know a thing about it...nor about electronics design. >>>>>>>>>
The name "Larkin" does not appear at that page.
https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0111046
I'm not interested in a URL wild goose chase, thanks.
You are defined by the things that you are not interested in.
That is in large part true. One obvious thing in which you have no interest is
the truth outside your narrow technical expertise.
I am very interested in dynamic systems, because I am in the dynamics
business.
But unfortunately, you don't know your ass from your face about that outside >> electronics.
What do you do? There are occupations where mental rigidity is an
asset.
Electronics design strikes me as one such.
Quite the opposite.
Bullshit. There's a right way and multiple wrong ways.
There are zillions of right ways to do a complex electronic design.
What do you do? Is it fun?
On Wed, 3 Apr 2024 13:20:42 -0700, Jack Carlson wrote:
It's not important what I do professionally. I told you what I do here,
and I'm extremely talented at it.
I seem to have missed that.
What is your occupation?
Musk isn't an inventor. That's a fact, not sour grapes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elon_Musk
On Tue, 02 Apr 2024 21:39:07 -0400, Governor Swill
<governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 01 Apr 2024 07:54:32 -0700, John Larkin <jl@997PotHill.com> wrote:
The 6th amendment for example evolves from the 9th commandment.
Namely, we get a fair trial, and consequently perjury is a crime.
This is the idea:
https://www.breitbart.com/europe/2024/04/01/athiest-richard-dawkins-says-he-would-choose-christianity-over-islam-every-single-time/
What a load of dingoes kidneys! No wonder your ideas are so twisted. You read
Breitbart.lies
Swill
Are you saying that Dawkins words were fabricated? Because of the web
site that quoted him?
I suppose you consider this to be an AI fake:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=COHgEFUFWyg
Breitbart
BUT, it has a process to fix it, and although it is likely too difficult a >process, it still exists. You don't even hear debates about the ERA these >days, because the people who support it have given up any expectation of it >ever passing.
Do you design electronics?
On 3/04/2024 7:01 am, john larkin wrote:
Try thinking now and then. You might come to eventually enjoy it.
I wonder how John Larkin thinks he knows that?
Life flourished on earth when CO2 was 6000 PPM. Greenhouses run 1000
or so.
On 2024-03-30, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
Musk isn't an inventor. That's a fact, not sour grapes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elon_Musk
Oh he invents stuff all the time, in that he tells plenty of lies. Particualrly to his fans.
On 4/3/2024 1:59 PM, jim whitby wrote:
On Wed, 3 Apr 2024 13:20:42 -0700, Jack Carlson wrote:
It's not important what I do professionally. I told you what I do
here,
and I'm extremely talented at it.
I seem to have missed that.
You miss everything of importance.
What is your occupation?
That's not important here.
On Wed, 03 Apr 2024 08:07:58 -0700, John Larkin <jl@997PotHill.com> wrote:
Breitbart
The problem isn't that Breitbart published something true, it's that they do it so rarely
that anything the publish is immediately suspect.
Swill
On Tue, 02 Apr 2024 20:45:21 -0700, John Larkin <jl@997PotHill.com> wrote:
Do you design electronics?
I've been seeing your posts for only a few days but already I've seen that question a
dozen times.
That must mean you don't know what you're talking about, electronic or otherwise.
Swill
On 4/2/2024 4:32 PM, john larkin wrote:
On Tue, 2 Apr 2024 13:05:07 -0700, Jack Carlson <j_carlson@gmx.com>
wrote:
On 4/2/2024 1:01 PM, john larkin wrote:
On Tue, 2 Apr 2024 12:25:08 -0700, Jack Carlson <j_carlson@gmx.com>
wrote:
On 4/2/2024 11:15 AM, john larkin wrote:
On Tue, 2 Apr 2024 10:18:50 -0700, Jack Carlson <j_carlson@gmx.com> >>>>>> wrote:
On 3/30/2024 6:15 PM, John Larkin wrote:
On 31 Mar 2024 01:06:13 -0000, kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) >>>>>>>> wrote:
John Larkin <xx@yy.com> wrote:
Hundreds of years ago, 80% of the world population was
hunter-gatherers or farmers, and both lived on the edge of >>>>>>>>>> starvation.
Now the US has about 2% farmers and there's tons of cheap food. >>>>>>>>>> Enough to export or turn into auto fuel.
Malthusian starvation and the idiotic "Population Bomb" didn't >>>>>>>>>> happen.
No, but the other side of the coin is global warming, which at >>>>>>>>> the core is really just a matter of overpopulation.
--scott
CO2 and warming are both good
No, they are not.
CO2 is greening the earth.
No, it's not. It's destroying arability and making formerly
inhabitable locales uninhabitable.
Warm is less deadly than cold,
So why not heat our houses to 125° F?
You're an idiot.
Try thinking now and then.
Your concession of defeat is noted and celebrated.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/blftlyn0lomvymf/Climate_Deaths.jpg?raw=1
No.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/mebwcus72nmr16p/Leaf_Area_NASA.jpg?raw=1
No.
https://extension.entm.purdue.edu/newsletters/pestandcrop/wp-content/ uploads/sites/2/2020/04/fig1.jpeg
No.
https://thebreakthrough.org/issues/energy/human-deaths-from-hot-and- cold-temperatures-and-implications-for-climate-change
No.
The thing to celebrate is how much better things are getting for plants
and for people.
They aren't. Global warming is harming people.
On Wed, 3 Apr 2024 08:59:43 -0700, Jack Carlson <j_carlson@gmx.com> wrote
On 4/3/2024 8:07 AM, John Larkin wrote:
On Tue, 2 Apr 2024 22:33:57 -0700, Jack Carlson <j_carlson@gmx.com> wrote: >>>> On 4/2/2024 8:37 PM, John Larkin wrote:
On Tue, 2 Apr 2024 19:03:28 -0700, Jack Carlson <j_carlson@gmx.com> wrote:
On 4/1/2024 7:54 AM, John Larkin wrote:
On Mon, 01 Apr 2024 08:57:12 -0400, Governor Swill <governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, 30 Mar 2024 05:51:13 -0400, Governor Swill <governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 29 Mar 2024 20:37:06 -0700, John Larkin <jl@997PotHill.com> wrote:
On Fri, 29 Mar 2024 22:33:36 -0400, Governor Swill <governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 29 Mar 2024 08:15:08 -0700, John Larkin <jl@997PotHill.com> wrote:
They will say different things about it. The Guardian will report truthfully on
it, and Breitbart will lie about it. The Guardian's business model is predicated
on reporting the truth. Breitbart's model consists solely in pitching lies to
gullible right-wingnuts like you with no critical thinking ability whatsoever.
Wow. The Guardian is objective and always true. I'm impressed.
John Larkin <jl@997PotHill.com> wrote:
[...]
Breitbart publishes disinformation. It's a lie site.
What would you if Breitbart and The Guardian linked to the same story?
They will say different things about it. The Guardian will report
truthfully on it, and Breitbart will lie about it. The Guardian's
business model is predicated on reporting the truth. Breitbart's model
consists solely in pitching lies to gullible right-wingnuts like you with >>> no critical thinking ability whatsoever.
Wow. The Guardian is objective and always true. I'm impressed.
Of course that's correct, provided you are content with left-wing truth.
On Tue, 2 Apr 2024 22:37:42 -0700, Jack Carlson <j_carlson@gmx.com>
wrote:
On 4/2/2024 8:51 PM, John Larkin wrote:
On Tue, 2 Apr 2024 10:58:50 -0700, Jack Carlson <j_carlson@gmx.com>
wrote:
On 3/30/2024 6:06 PM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
John Larkin <xx@yy.com> wrote:
Hundreds of years ago, 80% of the world population wasNo, but the other side of the coin is global warming, which at the core >>>>> is really just a matter of overpopulation.
hunter-gatherers or farmers, and both lived on the edge of starvation. >>>>>> Now the US has about 2% farmers and there's tons of cheap food. Enough >>>>>> to export or turn into auto fuel.
Malthusian starvation and the idiotic "Population Bomb" didn't happen. >>>>>
That's only partly right. The bigger issue than overpopulation is a classic
public good problem ("tragedy of the commons"). Property rights are
insufficiently specified. There are externalities caused by people's economic
activity that they have no incentive to internalize.
It is false to say that "more CO2 is better." More CO2 *might* be better, but
only up to a point, and we have passed the point of optimality.
Life flourished on earth when CO2 was 6000 PPM.
No support, so we know it's a lie.
Good grief, google it.
I'm guessing that 800 would be good.
You don't know a thing about it...nor about electronics design.
http://www.highlandtechnology.com/company/testimonials.shtml
Do you design electronics?
One reason that usenet is dying is that it attracts people like you.
That's sad.
On 4/04/2024 6:40 am, Sn!pe wrote:
John Larkin <jl@997PotHill.com> wrote:
[...]
They will say different things about it. The Guardian will reportBreitbart publishes disinformation. It's a lie site.
What would you if Breitbart and The Guardian linked to the same story? >>>
truthfully on it, and Breitbart will lie about it. The Guardian's
business model is predicated on reporting the truth. Breitbart's model >>> consists solely in pitching lies to gullible right-wingnuts like you with >>> no critical thinking ability whatsoever.
Wow. The Guardian is objective and always true. I'm impressed.
Of course that's correct, provided you are content with left-wing truth.
The Guardian doesn't report "left wing truth". It aims for factual
accuracy. My experience was that the UK right-wing press ignored inconvenient facts, and The Guardian didn't.
It you want "left wing truth", read the Morning Star (once the Daily Worker).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morning_Star_(British_newspaper)
On Wed, 3 Apr 2024 15:31:40 -0700, Jack Carlson wrote:
On 4/3/2024 1:59 PM, jim whitby wrote:
On Wed, 3 Apr 2024 13:20:42 -0700, Jack Carlson wrote:
It's not important what I do professionally. I told you what I do
here,
and I'm extremely talented at it.
I seem to have missed that.
You miss everything of importance.
What is your occupation?
That's not important here.
Thanks for the confirmation.
On Wed, 3 Apr 2024 15:31:40 -0700, Jack Carlson wrote:
On 4/3/2024 1:59 PM, jim whitby wrote:
On Wed, 3 Apr 2024 13:20:42 -0700, Jack Carlson wrote:
It's not important what I do professionally. I told you what I do
here,
and I'm extremely talented at it.
I seem to have missed that.
You miss everything of importance.
What is your occupation?
That's not important here.
Thanks for the confirmation.
On Wed, 03 Apr 2024 19:59:12 -0400, Governor Swill
<governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 03 Apr 2024 08:07:58 -0700, John Larkin <jl@997PotHill.com> wrote: >>
Breitbart
The problem isn't that Breitbart published something true, it's that they do it so rarely
that anything the publish is immediately suspect.
Swill
That makes life a lot easier, not thinking.
On Wed, 03 Apr 2024 20:05:17 -0400, Governor Swill
<governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 02 Apr 2024 20:45:21 -0700, John Larkin <jl@997PotHill.com> wrote: >>
Do you design electronics?
I've been seeing your posts for only a few days but already I've seen that question a
dozen times.
A simple "yes" or "no" would settle the question.
This is being posted to sci.electronics.design, so the topic is
relevant.
That must mean you don't know what you're talking about, electronic or otherwise.
Swill
Do you design electronics?
On 2024-03-30, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
Musk isn't an inventor. That's a fact, not sour grapes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elon_Musk
Oh he invents stuff all the time, in that he tells plenty of lies. >Particualrly to his fans.
On Thu, 04 Apr 2024 03:57:30 +0200, jim whitby
<mr.spock@spockmnail.net> wrote:
On Wed, 3 Apr 2024 15:31:40 -0700, Jack Carlson wrote:
On 4/3/2024 1:59 PM, jim whitby wrote:
On Wed, 3 Apr 2024 13:20:42 -0700, Jack Carlson wrote:
It's not important what I do professionally. I told you what I do
here,
and I'm extremely talented at it.
I seem to have missed that.
You miss everything of importance.
What is your occupation?
That's not important here.
Thanks for the confirmation.
The appropriate treatment for proven jerks is to ignore them.
I don't know why they post to s.e.d., given they have no interest in electronics.
On Wed, 3 Apr 2024 22:52:46 -0000 (UTC), Jasen Betts <usenet@revmaps.no-ip.org> wrote:
On 2024-03-30, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
Musk isn't an inventor. That's a fact, not sour grapes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elon_Musk
Oh he invents stuff all the time, in that he tells plenty of lies.
Particualrly to his fans.
He made the first practical electric car and sells them in volume.
Space-x has crushed the big rocket companies. Landing and reusing
rockets is amazing.
His LEO comm satellite constellation is unique too.
On Wed, 3 Apr 2024 22:52:46 -0000 (UTC), Jasen Betts <usenet@revmaps.no-ip.org> wrote:
On 2024-03-30, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
Musk isn't an inventor. That's a fact, not sour grapes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elon_Musk
Oh he invents stuff all the time, in that he tells plenty of lies. >>Particualrly to his fans.
He made the first practical electric car and sells them in volume.
Space-x has crushed the big rocket companies. Landing and reusing
rockets is amazing.
His LEO comm satellite constellation is unique too.
john larkin <jl@650pot.com> wrote in >news:7utt0jpgrihvigmp1aauj4rn0bgbhshaad@4ax.com:
On Wed, 3 Apr 2024 22:52:46 -0000 (UTC), Jasen Betts
<usenet@revmaps.no-ip.org> wrote:
On 2024-03-30, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
Musk isn't an inventor. That's a fact, not sour grapes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elon_Musk
Oh he invents stuff all the time, in that he tells plenty of lies. >>>Particualrly to his fans.
He made the first practical electric car and sells them in volume.
That is to say, he bought an EV
car company and laid in millions in
advertising it. He personally invented
nothing.
Space-x has crushed the big rocket companies. Landing and reusing
rockets is amazing.
His LEO comm satellite constellation is unique too.
His satellite grid will be a
disaster. Radio astronomers all over
the world are bemoaning their expensive
equipment being overwhelmed by his
"flood all frequencies, drown out
everything else" proposal.
john larkin <jl@650pot.com> wrote in news:7utt0jpgrihvigmp1aauj4rn0bgbhshaad@4ax.com:
On Wed, 3 Apr 2024 22:52:46 -0000 (UTC), Jasen Betts
<usenet@revmaps.no-ip.org> wrote:
On 2024-03-30, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
Musk isn't an inventor. That's a fact, not sour grapes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elon_Musk
Oh he invents stuff all the time, in that he tells plenty of lies.
Particualrly to his fans.
He made the first practical electric car and sells them in volume.
That is to say, he bought an EV
car company and laid in millions in
advertising it. He personally invented
nothing.
Space-x has crushed the big rocket companies. Landing and reusing
rockets is amazing.
His LEO comm satellite constellation is unique too.
His satellite grid will be a
disaster. Radio astronomers all over
the world are bemoaning their expensive
equipment being overwhelmed by his
"flood all frequencies, drown out
everything else" proposal.
His satellite grid will be a
disaster. Radio astronomers all over
the world are bemoaning their expensive
equipment being overwhelmed by his
"flood all frequencies, drown out
everything else" proposal.
Mitchell Holman wrote:
His satellite grid will be a
disaster. Radio astronomers all over
the world are bemoaning their expensive
equipment being overwhelmed by his
"flood all frequencies, drown out
everything else" proposal.
It's a good thing. We need to figure out how to deorbit space junk
before it becomes impossible to leave earth. Musk junk will
provide the incentive to develop anti-spacejunk technology.
On 4/3/2024 7:08 PM, John Larkin wrote:
Do you design electronics?
Can you tie your own shoes, or do you give thanks daily for Velcro
fasteners?
On Thu, 04 Apr 2024 03:57:30 +0200, jim whitby <mr.spock@spockmnail.net> wrote:
On Wed, 3 Apr 2024 15:31:40 -0700, Jack Carlson wrote:
On 4/3/2024 1:59 PM, jim whitby wrote:
On Wed, 3 Apr 2024 13:20:42 -0700, Jack Carlson wrote:
It's not important what I do professionally. I told you what I do
here,
and I'm extremely talented at it.
I seem to have missed that.
You miss everything of importance.
What is your occupation?
That's not important here.
Thanks for the confirmation.
The appropriate treatment for proven jerks is to ignore them.
I don't know why they post to s.e.d., given they have no interest in electronics.
On 4/3/2024 6:57 PM, jim whitby wrote:
On Wed, 3 Apr 2024 15:31:40 -0700, Jack Carlson wrote:
On 4/3/2024 1:59 PM, jim whitby wrote:
On Wed, 3 Apr 2024 13:20:42 -0700, Jack Carlson wrote:
It's not important what I do professionally. I told you what I do
here,
and I'm extremely talented at it.
I seem to have missed that.
You miss everything of importance.
What is your occupation?
That's not important here.
Thanks for the confirmation.
<chortle> Sure thing.
On Wed, 03 Apr 2024 19:59:12 -0400, Governor Swill
<governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 03 Apr 2024 08:07:58 -0700, John Larkin <jl@997PotHill.com> wrote:
Breitbart
The problem isn't that Breitbart published something true, it's that they do it so rarely
that anything the publish is immediately suspect.
That makes life a lot easier, not thinking.
On Thu, 4 Apr 2024 09:26:26 -0700, Jack Carlson wrote:
On 4/3/2024 7:08 PM, John Larkin wrote:
<snip>
Do you design electronics?
Can you tie your own shoes, or do you give thanks daily for Velcro
fasteners?
Why do you avoid the answer?
On Thu, 04 Apr 2024 09:01:29 -0700, John Larkin wrote:
On Thu, 04 Apr 2024 03:57:30 +0200, jim whitby <mr.spock@spockmnail.net>
wrote:
On Wed, 3 Apr 2024 15:31:40 -0700, Jack Carlson wrote:
On 4/3/2024 1:59 PM, jim whitby wrote:
On Wed, 3 Apr 2024 13:20:42 -0700, Jack Carlson wrote:
It's not important what I do professionally. I told you what I do
here,
and I'm extremely talented at it.
I seem to have missed that.
You miss everything of importance.
What is your occupation?
That's not important here.
Thanks for the confirmation.
The appropriate treatment for proven jerks is to ignore them.
I don't know why they post to s.e.d., given they have no interest in
electronics.
I like exposing him(?) for what he(?) is.
On Thu, 4 Apr 2024 08:51:17 -0700, Jack Carlson wrote:
On 4/3/2024 6:57 PM, jim whitby wrote:
On Wed, 3 Apr 2024 15:31:40 -0700, Jack Carlson wrote:
On 4/3/2024 1:59 PM, jim whitby wrote:
On Wed, 3 Apr 2024 13:20:42 -0700, Jack Carlson wrote:
It's not important what I do professionally. I told you what I do
here,
and I'm extremely talented at it.
I seem to have missed that.
You miss everything of importance.
What is your occupation?
That's not important here.
Thanks for the confirmation.
<chortle> Sure thing.
Why do *you* cross post to Rush?
Its clear you aren't even close to conservative.
On 3/04/2024 2:34 pm, Anonymous wrote:
Bill Sloman wrote:
On 30/03/2024 3:40 pm, Anonymous wrote:
Bill Sloman wrote:Not a credible prediction. Merchants are people, and people have lots of >>> different ways of resolving and reconciling their various interests.
On 29/03/2024 3:22 pm, Anonymous wrote:
Bill Sloman wrote:
On 29/03/2024 11:25 am, John Larkin wrote:
On Thu, 28 Mar 2024 11:24:31 -0400, Governor SwillBut China doesn't have that. The only monopoly the Chinese Communist >>>>>>> Party is interested in is it's own monopoly on political power.
<governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 28 Mar 2024 16:24:46 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
There are different ways of being corrupt - Trump cheats different from
Chairman Xi - but the aim of creating a good appearance rather than a
good product is always lethal.
A classic American behavior. If it looks good, it's ok for production.
Who cares if it
works?
People talk about bad products. There are reviews.
State monopolies on products and information prevent competition. >>>>>>>
Once you have absolute political power you can monetarise it, but the >>>>>>> other politicians are likely to notice and object.
What's a classic statist behavior is dangerous products andNobody in the US is making much fuss about the lethal consequences of >>>>>>> Boeing's recent quality control disasters. A limited number of rich >>>>>>> people controlling country isn't - technically speaking - state control,
infrastructure with criticism and deaths suppressed. Tofu dreg. >>>>>>>
but it has the same defects.
Rich people don't rule anything.
Dream on. In the US they don't have any explicit right to rule, but the US
Supreme Court is dedicated to the idea that they should be allowed to spend
as much as they like on buying influence by contributing to politicians >>>>> electoral expenses.
Think about why the US hasn't got universal health care.
Merchants by their nature can't coordinate their varied and conflicting >>>> interests into a singular political force. Without the government, any >>>> group of merchants who form a cartel will find themselves defected upon >>>> by any one or more members of that cartel, and will cease to be a cartel. >>>
Show us a cartel that existed for any long length of time without
some form of government backing.
A cartel is a kind of government and its members have a shared interest in >>> controlling their market and keeping outsiders from exploiting it.
A cartel is not a kind of government.
A cartel most certainly aims to govern it market, mostly by setting prices, but
also by freezing out potential competitors.
"Govern" just means "control". If you understood "government" to mean the national administration, you were wrong.
On 4/4/2024 2:27 PM, jim whitby wrote:
On Thu, 4 Apr 2024 09:26:26 -0700, Jack Carlson wrote:
On 4/3/2024 7:08 PM, John Larkin wrote:
<snip>
Do you design electronics?
Can you tie your own shoes, or do you give thanks daily for Velcro
fasteners?
Why do you avoid the answer?
The question is puerile and merits no answer.
On Wed, 3 Apr 2024 22:52:46 -0000 (UTC), Jasen Betts <usenet@revmaps.no-ip.org> wrote:
On 2024-03-30, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
Musk isn't an inventor. That's a fact, not sour grapes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elon_Musk
Oh he invents stuff all the time, in that he tells plenty of lies.
Particualrly to his fans.
He made the first practical electric car and sells them in volume.
Space-x has crushed the big rocket companies. Landing and reusing
rockets is amazing.
His LEO comm satellite constellation is unique too.
Bill Sloman wrote:
On 3/04/2024 2:34 pm, Anonymous wrote:
Bill Sloman wrote:
On 30/03/2024 3:40 pm, Anonymous wrote:
Bill Sloman wrote:
On 29/03/2024 3:22 pm, Anonymous wrote:
Bill Sloman wrote:
On 29/03/2024 11:25 am, John Larkin wrote:
On Thu, 28 Mar 2024 11:24:31 -0400, Governor SwillBut China doesn't have that. The only monopoly the Chinese
<governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 28 Mar 2024 16:24:46 +1100, Bill Sloman
<bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
There are different ways of being corrupt - Trump cheats >>>>>>>>>>> different from
Chairman Xi - but the aim of creating a good appearance >>>>>>>>>>> rather than a
good product is always lethal.
A classic American behavior. If it looks good, it's ok for >>>>>>>>>> production. Who cares if it
works?
People talk about bad products. There are reviews.
State monopolies on products and information prevent competition. >>>>>>>>
Communist Party is interested in is it's own monopoly on
political power.
Once you have absolute political power you can monetarise it, >>>>>>>> but the other politicians are likely to notice and object.
What's a classic statist behavior is dangerous products andNobody in the US is making much fuss about the lethal
infrastructure with criticism and deaths suppressed. Tofu dreg. >>>>>>>>
consequences of Boeing's recent quality control disasters. A
limited number of rich people controlling country isn't -
technically speaking - state control, but it has the same defects. >>>>>>>>
Rich people don't rule anything.
Dream on. In the US they don't have any explicit right to rule,
but the US Supreme Court is dedicated to the idea that they should >>>>>> be allowed to spend as much as they like on buying influence by
contributing to politicians electoral expenses.
Think about why the US hasn't got universal health care.
Merchants by their nature can't coordinate their varied and
conflicting
interests into a singular political force. Without the government, any >>>>> group of merchants who form a cartel will find themselves defected
upon
by any one or more members of that cartel, and will cease to be a
cartel.
Not a credible prediction. Merchants are people, and people have
lots of different ways of resolving and reconciling their various
interests.
Show us a cartel that existed for any long length of time without
some form of government backing.
A cartel is a kind of government and its members have a shared
interest in controlling their market and keeping outsiders from
exploiting it.
A cartel is not a kind of government.
A cartel most certainly aims to govern it market, mostly by setting
prices, but also by freezing out potential competitors.
"Govern" just means "control". If you understood "government" to mean
the national administration, you were wrong.
You're using a non-standard definition of 'government'.
Bill Sloman wrote:
On 30/03/2024 3:40 pm, Anonymous wrote:
Bill Sloman wrote:Not a credible prediction. Merchants are people, and people have lots of
On 29/03/2024 3:22 pm, Anonymous wrote:
Bill Sloman wrote:
On 29/03/2024 11:25 am, John Larkin wrote:
On Thu, 28 Mar 2024 11:24:31 -0400, Governor SwillBut China doesn't have that. The only monopoly the Chinese Communist Party
<governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 28 Mar 2024 16:24:46 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
There are different ways of being corrupt - Trump cheats different from
Chairman Xi - but the aim of creating a good appearance rather than a >>>>>>>>> good product is always lethal.
A classic American behavior. If it looks good, it's ok for production.
Who cares if it
works?
People talk about bad products. There are reviews.
State monopolies on products and information prevent competition. >>>>>>
is interested in is it's own monopoly on political power.
Once you have absolute political power you can monetarise it, but the >>>>>> other politicians are likely to notice and object.
What's a classic statist behavior is dangerous products and
infrastructure with criticism and deaths suppressed. Tofu dreg.
Nobody in the US is making much fuss about the lethal consequences of >>>>>> Boeing's recent quality control disasters. A limited number of rich people
controlling country isn't - technically speaking - state control, but it
has the same defects.
Rich people don't rule anything.
Dream on. In the US they don't have any explicit right to rule, but the US
Supreme Court is dedicated to the idea that they should be allowed to spend
as much as they like on buying influence by contributing to politicians >>>> electoral expenses.
Think about why the US hasn't got universal health care.
Merchants by their nature can't coordinate their varied and conflicting
interests into a singular political force. Without the government, any
group of merchants who form a cartel will find themselves defected upon
by any one or more members of that cartel, and will cease to be a cartel. >>
different ways of resolving and reconciling their various interests.
Show us a cartel that existed for any long length of time without
some form of government backing.
A cartel is a kind of government and its members have a shared interest in >> controlling their market and keeping outsiders from exploiting it.
A cartel is not a kind of government.
On Tue, 2 Apr 2024 10:30:47 -0700, Siri Cruise
<chine.bleu@www.yahoo.com> wrote:
Jack Carlson wrote:
The two great commonalities of human society are religion and
warfare.
Both of which are objectively bad and wrong.
 From a genetic standpoint, natural selection and all that, they
have
advantages. Which is why they exist.
Bullshit.
Natural selection has selected us for empathy. We are the most
empathetic apes and primates. We have selected to cooperate rather
than conflict.
If a tribe finds that social cooperation, agriculture, settling down
in mating pairs, and organized government is to their advantage, some
others will cheat, rob, rape, and kill them because that is to *their* advantage. Why grow food when you can steal it?
So the peaceful tribe needs a way to identify the cheaters, and needs
some sort of defense.
Empathy is usually tribal. We like people who look and talk like us.
Hitler and Putin started wars to protect German and Russian speakers.
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/014303832X
On Tue, 2 Apr 2024 11:36:19 -0700, Siri Cruise <chine.bleu@www.yahoo.com> wrote:
Mitchell Holman wrote:
Siri Cruise <chine.bleu@www.yahoo.com> wrote in news:uuhfc8$3b7pa$1@dont email.me:
Jack Carlson wrote:
With the internet and multiple news sources, we can find tribes to
join, or to hate, all over the world.
The dynamics seems to favor creating two major competing tribes, and a
lot of minor ones.
On 4/2/2024 8:34 PM, Anonymous wrote:
Bill Sloman wrote:
On 30/03/2024 3:40 pm, Anonymous wrote:
Bill Sloman wrote:Not a credible prediction. Merchants are people, and people have lots of >>> different ways of resolving and reconciling their various interests.
On 29/03/2024 3:22 pm, Anonymous wrote:
Bill Sloman wrote:
On 29/03/2024 11:25 am, John Larkin wrote:
On Thu, 28 Mar 2024 11:24:31 -0400, Governor SwillBut China doesn't have that. The only monopoly the Chinese Communist >>>>>>> Party is interested in is it's own monopoly on political power.
<governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 28 Mar 2024 16:24:46 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
There are different ways of being corrupt - Trump cheats different from
Chairman Xi - but the aim of creating a good appearance rather than a
good product is always lethal.
A classic American behavior. If it looks good, it's ok for production.
Who cares if it
works?
People talk about bad products. There are reviews.
State monopolies on products and information prevent competition. >>>>>>>
Once you have absolute political power you can monetarise it, but the >>>>>>> other politicians are likely to notice and object.
What's a classic statist behavior is dangerous products andNobody in the US is making much fuss about the lethal consequences of >>>>>>> Boeing's recent quality control disasters. A limited number of rich >>>>>>> people controlling country isn't - technically speaking - state control,
infrastructure with criticism and deaths suppressed. Tofu dreg. >>>>>>>
but it has the same defects.
Rich people don't rule anything.
Dream on. In the US they don't have any explicit right to rule, but the US
Supreme Court is dedicated to the idea that they should be allowed to spend
as much as they like on buying influence by contributing to politicians >>>>> electoral expenses.
Think about why the US hasn't got universal health care.
Merchants by their nature can't coordinate their varied and conflicting >>>> interests into a singular political force. Without the government, any >>>> group of merchants who form a cartel will find themselves defected upon >>>> by any one or more members of that cartel, and will cease to be a cartel. >>>
Show us a cartel that existed for any long length of time without
some form of government backing.
A cartel is a kind of government and its members have a shared interest in >>> controlling their market and keeping outsiders from exploiting it.
A cartel is not a kind of government.
A cartel most certainly *is* a kind of government,
On 5/04/2024 12:18 pm, Anonymous wrote:
Bill Sloman wrote:
On 3/04/2024 2:34 pm, Anonymous wrote:
Bill Sloman wrote:
On 30/03/2024 3:40 pm, Anonymous wrote:
Bill Sloman wrote:
On 29/03/2024 3:22 pm, Anonymous wrote:
Bill Sloman wrote:
On 29/03/2024 11:25 am, John Larkin wrote:
On Thu, 28 Mar 2024 11:24:31 -0400, Governor SwillBut China doesn't have that. The only monopoly the Chinese Communist >>>>>>>>> Party is interested in is it's own monopoly on political power. >>>>>>>>> Once you have absolute political power you can monetarise it, but the
<governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 28 Mar 2024 16:24:46 +1100, Bill Sloman
<bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
There are different ways of being corrupt - Trump cheats different from
Chairman Xi - but the aim of creating a good appearance rather than a
good product is always lethal.
A classic American behavior. If it looks good, it's ok for >>>>>>>>>>> production. Who cares if it
works?
People talk about bad products. There are reviews.
State monopolies on products and information prevent competition. >>>>>>>>>
other politicians are likely to notice and object.
What's a classic statist behavior is dangerous products and >>>>>>>>>> infrastructure with criticism and deaths suppressed. Tofu dreg. >>>>>>>>>Nobody in the US is making much fuss about the lethal consequences of
Boeing's recent quality control disasters. A limited number of rich >>>>>>>>> people controlling country isn't - technically speaking - state >>>>>>>>> control, but it has the same defects.
Rich people don't rule anything.
Dream on. In the US they don't have any explicit right to rule, but the
US Supreme Court is dedicated to the idea that they should be allowed to
spend as much as they like on buying influence by contributing to >>>>>>> politicians electoral expenses.
Think about why the US hasn't got universal health care.
Merchants by their nature can't coordinate their varied and conflicting >>>>>> interests into a singular political force. Without the government, any >>>>>> group of merchants who form a cartel will find themselves defected upon >>>>>> by any one or more members of that cartel, and will cease to be a cartel.
Not a credible prediction. Merchants are people, and people have lots of >>>>> different ways of resolving and reconciling their various interests.
Show us a cartel that existed for any long length of time without
some form of government backing.
A cartel is a kind of government and its members have a shared interest in
controlling their market and keeping outsiders from exploiting it.
A cartel is not a kind of government.
A cartel most certainly aims to govern it market, mostly by setting prices,
but also by freezing out potential competitors.
"Govern" just means "control". If you understood "government" to mean the >>> national administration, you were wrong.
You're using a non-standard definition of 'government'.
My Complete Oxford Dictionary has eleven different meanings for the word govern,
and most of them are sub-divided. Which one are you nominating as the "standard
definition"?
https://www.oed.com/dictionary/govern_v
gives fifteen, and most of them are sub-divided too.
On Wed, 3 Apr 2024 22:52:46 -0000 (UTC), Jasen Betts
<usenet@revmaps.no-ip.org> wrote:
On 2024-03-30, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
Musk isn't an inventor. That's a fact, not sour grapes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elon_Musk
Oh he invents stuff all the time, in that he tells plenty of lies. >>Particualrly to his fans.
He made the first practical electric car and sells them in volume.
Space-x has crushed the big rocket companies. Landing and reusing
rockets is amazing.
His LEO comm satellite constellation is unique too.
On 4/5/24 12:51 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 5/04/2024 12:18 pm, Anonymous wrote:
Bill Sloman wrote:
On 3/04/2024 2:34 pm, Anonymous wrote:
Bill Sloman wrote:
On 30/03/2024 3:40 pm, Anonymous wrote:
Bill Sloman wrote:
On 29/03/2024 3:22 pm, Anonymous wrote:
Bill Sloman wrote:
On 29/03/2024 11:25 am, John Larkin wrote:
On Thu, 28 Mar 2024 11:24:31 -0400, Governor Swill
<governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 28 Mar 2024 16:24:46 +1100, Bill Sloman
<bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
There are different ways of being corrupt - Trump cheats >>>>>>>>>>>>> different from
Chairman Xi - but the aim of creating a good appearance >>>>>>>>>>>>> rather than a
good product is always lethal.
A classic American behavior. If it looks good, it's ok for >>>>>>>>>>>> production. Who cares if it
works?
People talk about bad products. There are reviews.
State monopolies on products and information prevent
competition.
But China doesn't have that. The only monopoly the Chinese >>>>>>>>>> Communist Party is interested in is it's own monopoly on
political power.
Once you have absolute political power you can monetarise it, >>>>>>>>>> but the other politicians are likely to notice and object. >>>>>>>>>>
What's a classic statist behavior is dangerous products and >>>>>>>>>>> infrastructure with criticism and deaths suppressed. Tofu dreg. >>>>>>>>>>Nobody in the US is making much fuss about the lethal
consequences of Boeing's recent quality control disasters. A >>>>>>>>>> limited number of rich people controlling country isn't - >>>>>>>>>> technically speaking - state control, but it has the same >>>>>>>>>> defects.
Rich people don't rule anything.
Dream on. In the US they don't have any explicit right to rule, >>>>>>>> but the US Supreme Court is dedicated to the idea that they
should be allowed to spend as much as they like on buying
influence by contributing to politicians electoral expenses.
Think about why the US hasn't got universal health care.
Merchants by their nature can't coordinate their varied and
conflicting
interests into a singular political force. Without the
government, any
group of merchants who form a cartel will find themselves
defected upon
by any one or more members of that cartel, and will cease to be a >>>>>>> cartel.
Not a credible prediction. Merchants are people, and people have
lots of different ways of resolving and reconciling their various >>>>>> interests.
Show us a cartel that existed for any long length of time without
some form of government backing.
A cartel is a kind of government and its members have a shared
interest in controlling their market and keeping outsiders from
exploiting it.
A cartel is not a kind of government.
A cartel most certainly aims to govern it market, mostly by setting
prices, but also by freezing out potential competitors.
"Govern" just means "control". If you understood "government" to
mean the national administration, you were wrong.
You're using a non-standard definition of 'government'.
My Complete Oxford Dictionary has eleven different meanings for the
word govern, and most of them are sub-divided. Which one are you
nominating as the "standard definition"?
https://www.oed.com/dictionary/govern_v
gives fifteen, and most of them are sub-divided too.
I said 'government'.
Jack Carlson wrote:
The two great commonalities of human society are religion and
warfare.
Both of which are objectively bad and wrong.
War is unnatural.
In practice moral principle compete and evolve - what works survives and >thrives. If a religion has latched onto the right one's it will do
better than a religion that got stuck with a poor choice.
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
On 2024-04-02, Siri Cruise <chine.bleu@www.yahoo.com> wrote:
Jack Carlson wrote:
The two great commonalities of human society are religion and
warfare.
Both of which are objectively bad and wrong.
War is unnatural.
War is natural. Peace donesn't spring forth from the ground
like grass; carefully maintained peace is synthetic, and
therefore unnatural. "Si vis pacem, para bellum"
Religion is supernatural.
On 6/04/2024 4:49 pm, Anonymous wrote:
On 4/5/24 12:51 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 5/04/2024 12:18 pm, Anonymous wrote:
Bill Sloman wrote:
A cartel most certainly aims to govern it market, mostly by setting >>>>> prices, but also by freezing out potential competitors.
"Govern" just means "control". If you understood "government" to
mean the national administration, you were wrong.
You're using a non-standard definition of 'government'.
My Complete Oxford Dictionary has eleven different meanings for the
word govern, and most of them are sub-divided. Which one are you
nominating as the "standard definition"?
https://www.oed.com/dictionary/govern_v
gives fifteen, and most of them are sub-divided too.
I said 'government'.
That doesn't let you off the hook.
On 4/5/24 1:17 AM, Richard Clayton Wieber wrote:
On 4/2/2024 8:34 PM, Anonymous wrote:
Bill Sloman wrote:
On 30/03/2024 3:40 pm, Anonymous wrote:
Bill Sloman wrote:Not a credible prediction. Merchants are people, and people have lots of >>>> different ways of resolving and reconciling their various interests.
On 29/03/2024 3:22 pm, Anonymous wrote:
Bill Sloman wrote:
On 29/03/2024 11:25 am, John Larkin wrote:
On Thu, 28 Mar 2024 11:24:31 -0400, Governor SwillBut China doesn't have that. The only monopoly the Chinese Communist >>>>>>>> Party is interested in is it's own monopoly on political power. >>>>>>>> Once you have absolute political power you can monetarise it, but the >>>>>>>> other politicians are likely to notice and object.
<governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 28 Mar 2024 16:24:46 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
There are different ways of being corrupt - Trump cheats different from
Chairman Xi - but the aim of creating a good appearance rather than a
good product is always lethal.
A classic American behavior. If it looks good, it's ok for >>>>>>>>>> production. Who cares if it
works?
People talk about bad products. There are reviews.
State monopolies on products and information prevent competition. >>>>>>>>
What's a classic statist behavior is dangerous products andNobody in the US is making much fuss about the lethal consequences of >>>>>>>> Boeing's recent quality control disasters. A limited number of rich >>>>>>>> people controlling country isn't - technically speaking - state control,
infrastructure with criticism and deaths suppressed. Tofu dreg. >>>>>>>>
but it has the same defects.
Rich people don't rule anything.
Dream on. In the US they don't have any explicit right to rule, but the US
Supreme Court is dedicated to the idea that they should be allowed to >>>>>> spend as much as they like on buying influence by contributing to >>>>>> politicians electoral expenses.
Think about why the US hasn't got universal health care.
Merchants by their nature can't coordinate their varied and conflicting >>>>> interests into a singular political force. Without the government, any >>>>> group of merchants who form a cartel will find themselves defected upon >>>>> by any one or more members of that cartel, and will cease to be a cartel. >>>>
Show us a cartel that existed for any long length of time without
some form of government backing.
A cartel is a kind of government and its members have a shared interest in
controlling their market and keeping outsiders from exploiting it.
A cartel is not a kind of government.
A cartel most certainly *is* a kind of government,
No it's
On Sat, 6 Apr 2024 12:43:07 -0000 (UTC), Jasen Betts <usenet@revmaps.no-ip.org> wrote:
On 2024-04-02, Siri Cruise <chine.bleu@www.yahoo.com> wrote:
Jack Carlson wrote:
The two great commonalities of human society are religion and
warfare.
Both of which are objectively bad and wrong.
War is unnatural.
War is natural. Peace donesn't spring forth from the ground
like grass; carefully maintained peace is synthetic, and
therefore unnatural. "Si vis pacem, para bellum"
Religion is supernatural.
Any morality is fundamentally supernatural.
War is natural. Peace donesn't spring forth from the ground
like grass; carefully maintained peace is synthetic, and
therefore unnatural. "Si vis pacem, para bellum"
Religion is supernatural.Any morality is fundamentally supernatural.
On Sat, 6 Apr 2024 12:43:07 -0000 (UTC), Jasen Betts <usenet@revmaps.no-ip.org> wrote:
On 2024-04-02, Siri Cruise <chine.bleu@www.yahoo.com> wrote:
Jack Carlson wrote:
The two great commonalities of human society are religion and
warfare.
Both of which are objectively bad and wrong.
War is unnatural.
War is natural. Peace donesn't spring forth from the ground
like grass; carefully maintained peace is synthetic, and
therefore unnatural. "Si vis pacem, para bellum"
Religion is supernatural.
Any morality is fundamentally supernatural.
Any society has to have a set of axiomatic, aspirational principles,
and religion is the most effective basis for those principles, because
you can skulk around in the dark and hide from the cops, but you can't
hide from God.
On Sat, 6 Apr 2024 12:43:07 -0000 (UTC), Jasen Betts <usenet@revmaps.no-ip.org> wrote:
On 2024-04-02, Siri Cruise <chine.bleu@www.yahoo.com> wrote:
Jack Carlson wrote:
The two great commonalities of human society are religion and
warfare.
Both of which are objectively bad and wrong.
War is unnatural.
War is natural. Peace donesn't spring forth from the ground
like grass; carefully maintained peace is synthetic, and
therefore unnatural. "Si vis pacem, para bellum"
Religion is supernatural.
Any morality is fundamentally supernatural.
Any society has to have a set of axiomatic, aspirational principles,
and religion is the most effective basis for those principles, because
you can skulk around in the dark and hide from the cops, but you can't
hide from God.
Wrong. The greatest good for the greatest number is a perfectly
rational principle, but you have to find weighing function that
works well enough to keep everybody tolerably happy. Absolute
weighing functions - just one or minus one - don't work all that
well.
Any society has to have a set of axiomatic, aspirational
principles,
Bill Sloman wrote:
Wrong. The greatest good for the greatest number is a perfectly
rational principle, but you have to find weighing function that works
well enough to keep everybody tolerably happy. Absolute weighing
functions - just one or minus one - don't work all that well.
It seems nature already did. There are no signs of conflicts between Cro-Magnon and Neanderthal where they overlapped. A hypothesis for the outcome is Cro-Magnon cooperative economics allowed Cro-Magnon to
exploit the same resources more efficiently such as trapping and eating large game instead of rabbits and mice. Our co-evolution with dogs may have been helped by empathising with them thus better exploiting them
and breeding dogs to enhance their empathy back to us.
Any society has to have a set of axiomatic, aspirational principles,
Math proofs work on discreet principles which is what Goedel exploits. Humans may work on continuous principle. Discreet sets are smaller than continuous.
Bill Sloman wrote:
Wrong. The greatest good for the greatest number is a perfectly
rational principle, but you have to find weighing function that
works well enough to keep everybody tolerably happy. Absolute
weighing functions - just one or minus one - don't work all that
well.
It seems nature already did. There are no signs of conflicts
between Cro-Magnon and Neanderthal where they overlapped.
hypothesis for the outcome is Cro-Magnon cooperative economics
allowed Cro-Magnon to exploit the same resources more efficiently
such as trapping and eating large game instead of rabbits and
mice. Our co-evolution with dogs may have been helped by
empathising with them thus better exploiting them and breeding
dogs to enhance their empathy back to us.
Any society has to have a set of axiomatic, aspirational
principles,
Math proofs work on discreet principles which is what Goedel
exploits. Humans may work on continuous principle. Discreet sets
are smaller than continuous.
On 7/04/2024 9:32 pm, Siri Cruise wrote:
Bill Sloman wrote:
Wrong. The greatest good for the greatest number is a perfectly
rational principle, but you have to find weighing function that
works well enough to keep everybody tolerably happy. Absolute
weighing functions - just one or minus one - don't work all
that well.
It seems nature already did. There are no signs of conflicts
between Cro-Magnon and Neanderthal where they overlapped. A
hypothesis for the outcome is Cro-Magnon cooperative economics
allowed Cro-Magnon to exploit the same resources more
efficiently such as trapping and eating large game instead of
rabbits and mice. Our co-evolution with dogs may have been
helped by empathising with them thus better exploiting them and
breeding dogs to enhance their empathy back to us.
Empathising is a strong word. We can detect some of dog's social
How Neanderthals and Cro-Magnon people interact is a total
mystery. We haven't found any evidence of conflicts, but we've
some interbreeding, and neither side may have been conscious that
they were different species.
Math proofs work on discreet principles which is what Goedel
exploits. Humans may work on continuous principle. Discreet sets
are smaller than continuous.
This is word salad. Maths work on continuous functions, and only
branched out into discrete function with when Boolean algebra and
set theory were invented. "Principles" in this context aren't
mathematical entities.
????Math proofs work on discreet principles which is what GoedelAny society has to have a set of axiomatic, aspirational
principles,
exploits. Humans may work on continuous principle. Discreet sets
are smaller than continuous.
The priciples are axiomatic, so there can't be proofs. Math has
unprovable axioms too. "Self-evident."
John Larkin wrote:
????Math proofs work on discreet principles which is what GoedelAny society has to have a set of axiomatic, aspirational
principles,
exploits. Humans may work on continuous principle. Discreet sets
are smaller than continuous.
The priciples are axiomatic, so there can't be proofs. Math has
unprovable axioms too. "Self-evident."
Either import continuity to computability or show no natural
process are continuous.
Bill Sloman wrote:
On 7/04/2024 9:32 pm, Siri Cruise wrote:
Bill Sloman wrote:
Wrong. The greatest good for the greatest number is a perfectly
rational principle, but you have to find weighing function that
works well enough to keep everybody tolerably happy. Absolute
weighing functions - just one or minus one - don't work all that well.
It seems nature already did. There are no signs of conflicts between
Cro-Magnon and Neanderthal where they overlapped. A hypothesis for
the outcome is Cro-Magnon cooperative economics allowed Cro-Magnon to
exploit the same resources more efficiently such as trapping and
eating large game instead of rabbits and mice. Our co-evolution with
dogs may have been helped by empathising with them thus better
exploiting them and breeding dogs to enhance their empathy back to us.
Empathising is a strong word. We can detect some of dog's social
Empathy means to feel what another feels.
How Neanderthals and Cro-Magnon people interact is a total mystery. We
haven't found any evidence of conflicts, but we've
After all we got all those smashed in skulls and skeleton marks from
sharp edged stones.
some interbreeding, and neither side may have been conscious that they
were different species.
You just have to find some excuse for your hate.
Math proofs work on discrete principles which is what Goedel
exploits. Humans may work on continuous principle. Discreet sets are
smaller than continuous.
This is word salad. Maths work on continuous functions, and only
branched out into discrete function with when Boolean algebra and set
theory were invented. "Principles" in this context aren't mathematical
entities.
'Principles' in this context is the claim human behaviour is a logic.
So describe what you mean by continuous computability.
On Sun, 7 Apr 2024 12:10:32 -0700, Siri Cruise
<chine.bleu@www.yahoo.com> wrote:
John Larkin wrote:
????Math proofs work on discreet principles which is what GoedelAny society has to have a set of axiomatic, aspirational
principles,
exploits. Humans may work on continuous principle. Discreet sets
are smaller than continuous.
The principles are axiomatic, so there can't be proofs. Math has
unprovable axioms too. "Self-evident."
Either import continuity to computability or show no natural
process are continuous.
Couldn't have said that better myself.
On 7/04/2024 2:26 am, John Larkin wrote:
On Sat, 6 Apr 2024 12:43:07 -0000 (UTC), Jasen Betts
<usenet@revmaps.no-ip.org> wrote:
On 2024-04-02, Siri Cruise <chine.bleu@www.yahoo.com> wrote:
Jack Carlson wrote:
The two great commonalities of human society are religion and
warfare.
Both of which are objectively bad and wrong.
War is unnatural.
War is natural. Peace donesn't spring forth from the ground
like grass; carefully maintained peace is synthetic, and
therefore unnatural. "Si vis pacem, para bellum"
Religion is supernatural.
Any morality is fundamentally supernatural.
Wrong. The greatest good for the greatest number is a perfectly rational >principle, but you have to find weighing function that works well enough
to keep everybody tolerably happy. Absolute weighing functions - just
one or minus one - don't work all that well.
Any society has to have a set of axiomatic, aspirational principles,
and religion is the most effective basis for those principles, because
you can skulk around in the dark and hide from the cops, but you can't
hide from God.
You may be able to imagine a set of axiomatic principles, but nobody has
yet found one that works, and there's no mathematical proof that one exists.
Holding truths to be self-evident is a rhetorical device. Nobody has
found such a set of truths.
Empathy implies that we have a
rough idea of what they are thinking, and we don't.
On Sun, 7 Apr 2024 04:32:32 -0700, Siri Cruise
<chine.bleu@www.yahoo.com> wrote:
Bill Sloman wrote:
Wrong. The greatest good for the greatest number is a perfectly
rational principle, but you have to find weighing function that
works well enough to keep everybody tolerably happy. Absolute
weighing functions - just one or minus one - don't work all that
well.
It seems nature already did. There are no signs of conflicts
between Cro-Magnon and Neanderthal where they overlapped.
Prehistoric and pre-colonial cultures were usually at war with their neighboring tribes. Skeletons commonly have skull damage and signs of
wounds, and embedded arrowheads and such.
A hypothesis for the outcome is Cro-Magnon cooperative economics
allowed Cro-Magnon to exploit the same resources more efficiently
such as trapping and eating large game instead of rabbits and
mice. Our co-evolution with dogs may have been helped by
empathising with them thus better exploiting them and breeding
dogs to enhance their empathy back to us.
The most useful things that dogs did was to warn and defend against
sneak attacks from other tribes.
Any society has to have a set of axiomatic, aspirational
principles,
Math proofs work on discreet principles which is what Goedel
exploits. Humans may work on continuous principle. Discreet sets
are smaller than continuous.
????
The priciples are axiomatic, so there can't be proofs. Math has
unprovable axioms too. "Self-evident."
John Larkin wrote:
????Math proofs work on discreet principles which is what GoedelAny society has to have a set of axiomatic, aspirational
principles,
exploits. Humans may work on continuous principle. Discreet sets
are smaller than continuous.
The priciples are axiomatic, so there can't be proofs. Math has
unprovable axioms too. "Self-evident."
Either import continuity to computability
or show no natural process are continuous.
On Sun, 7 Apr 2024 15:16:38 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 7/04/2024 2:26 am, John Larkin wrote:
On Sat, 6 Apr 2024 12:43:07 -0000 (UTC), Jasen Betts
<usenet@revmaps.no-ip.org> wrote:
On 2024-04-02, Siri Cruise <chine.bleu@www.yahoo.com> wrote:
Jack Carlson wrote:
The two great commonalities of human society are religion and
warfare.
Both of which are objectively bad and wrong.
War is unnatural.
War is natural. Peace donesn't spring forth from the ground
like grass; carefully maintained peace is synthetic, and
therefore unnatural. "Si vis pacem, para bellum"
Religion is supernatural.
Any morality is fundamentally supernatural.
Wrong. The greatest good for the greatest number is a perfectly rational
principle, but you have to find weighing function that works well enough
to keep everybody tolerably happy. Absolute weighing functions - just
one or minus one - don't work all that well.
Any society has to have a set of axiomatic, aspirational principles,
and religion is the most effective basis for those principles, because
you can skulk around in the dark and hide from the cops, but you can't
hide from God.
You may be able to imagine a set of axiomatic principles, but nobody has
yet found one that works, and there's no mathematical proof that one exists. >>
Holding truths to be self-evident is a rhetorical device. Nobody has
found such a set of truths.
There are no natural rights. Rights are what we construct and agree on.
Nature is built up of discrete atoms, so natural processes are
demonstrably all discontinuous. Atoms are numerous enough that
this rarely matters, but it can. Einstein's explanation of
Brownian motion is an example where it did.
On 2024-04-04, john larkin <jl@650pot.com> wrote:
On Wed, 3 Apr 2024 22:52:46 -0000 (UTC), Jasen Betts >><usenet@revmaps.no-ip.org> wrote:
On 2024-03-30, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
Musk isn't an inventor. That's a fact, not sour grapes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elon_Musk
Oh he invents stuff all the time, in that he tells plenty of lies. >>>Particualrly to his fans.
He made the first practical electric car and sells them in volume.
But he didn't invent it. He puchased the title of "Co-Founder" at the
already existing Tesla Motor Company some 5 years in.
Space-x has crushed the big rocket companies. Landing and reusing
rockets is amazing.
His LEO comm satellite constellation is unique too.
He has a lot of money, he buys a lot of toys. This seems to impress
week willed women, and you.
On 8/04/2024 1:15 pm, Governor Swill wrote:
On Sun, 7 Apr 2024 15:16:38 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote: >>
On 7/04/2024 2:26 am, John Larkin wrote:
On Sat, 6 Apr 2024 12:43:07 -0000 (UTC), Jasen Betts
<usenet@revmaps.no-ip.org> wrote:
On 2024-04-02, Siri Cruise <chine.bleu@www.yahoo.com> wrote:
Jack Carlson wrote:
The two great commonalities of human society are religion and
warfare.
Both of which are objectively bad and wrong.
War is unnatural.
War is natural. Peace donesn't spring forth from the ground
like grass; carefully maintained peace is synthetic, and
therefore unnatural. "Si vis pacem, para bellum"
Religion is supernatural.
Any morality is fundamentally supernatural.
Wrong. The greatest good for the greatest number is a perfectly rational >>> principle, but you have to find weighing function that works well enough >>> to keep everybody tolerably happy. Absolute weighing functions - just
one or minus one - don't work all that well.
Any society has to have a set of axiomatic, aspirational principles,
and religion is the most effective basis for those principles, because >>>> you can skulk around in the dark and hide from the cops, but you can't >>>> hide from God.
You may be able to imagine a set of axiomatic principles, but nobody has >>> yet found one that works, and there's no mathematical proof that one exists.
Holding truths to be self-evident is a rhetorical device. Nobody has
found such a set of truths.
There are no natural rights. Rights are what we construct and agree on.
We didn't construct them. Our ancestors did that - not all that well - and we've
been tinkering with them since long before humans invented written records.
"Some philosophers argue that natural rights do not exist and that legal rights
are the only rights; for instance, Jeremy Bentham called natural rights 'simple
nonsense."
I'm also sympathetic to that point of view.
Bill Sloman wrote:
On 8/04/2024 1:15 pm, Governor Swill wrote:
On Sun, 7 Apr 2024 15:16:38 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>We didn't construct them. Our ancestors did that - not all that well -
wrote:
On 7/04/2024 2:26 am, John Larkin wrote:
On Sat, 6 Apr 2024 12:43:07 -0000 (UTC), Jasen Betts
<usenet@revmaps.no-ip.org> wrote:
On 2024-04-02, Siri Cruise <chine.bleu@www.yahoo.com> wrote:
Jack Carlson wrote:
The two great commonalities of human society are religion and >>>>>>>>> warfare.
Both of which are objectively bad and wrong.
War is unnatural.
War is natural. Peace donesn't spring forth from the ground
like grass; carefully maintained peace is synthetic, and
therefore unnatural. "Si vis pacem, para bellum"
Religion is supernatural.
Any morality is fundamentally supernatural.
Wrong. The greatest good for the greatest number is a perfectly
rational
principle, but you have to find weighing function that works well
enough
to keep everybody tolerably happy. Absolute weighing functions - just
one or minus one - don't work all that well.
Any society has to have a set of axiomatic, aspirational principles, >>>>> and religion is the most effective basis for those principles, because >>>>> you can skulk around in the dark and hide from the cops, but you can't >>>>> hide from God.
You may be able to imagine a set of axiomatic principles, but nobody
has
yet found one that works, and there's no mathematical proof that one
exists.
Holding truths to be self-evident is a rhetorical device. Nobody has
found such a set of truths.
There are no natural rights. Rights are what we construct and agree on. >>
and we've been tinkering with them since long before humans invented
written records.
"Some philosophers argue that natural rights do not exist and that
legal rights are the only rights; for instance, Jeremy Bentham called
natural rights 'simple nonsense."
I'm also sympathetic to that point of view.
Me too. By the way, as per Rechtsverordnung 392740-2357, your legal right
to exist has been revoked. Report to Vernichtungskammer 5-A immediately!
On 9/04/2024 11:12 am, GLOBUS wrote:
Bill Sloman wrote:
On 8/04/2024 1:15 pm, Governor Swill wrote:
On Sun, 7 Apr 2024 15:16:38 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> >>>> wrote:We didn't construct them. Our ancestors did that - not all that well -
On 7/04/2024 2:26 am, John Larkin wrote:
On Sat, 6 Apr 2024 12:43:07 -0000 (UTC), Jasen Betts
<usenet@revmaps.no-ip.org> wrote:
On 2024-04-02, Siri Cruise <chine.bleu@www.yahoo.com> wrote:
Jack Carlson wrote:
The two great commonalities of human society are religion and >>>>>>>>>> warfare.
Both of which are objectively bad and wrong.
War is unnatural.
War is natural. Peace donesn't spring forth from the ground
like grass; carefully maintained peace is synthetic, and
therefore unnatural. "Si vis pacem, para bellum"
Religion is supernatural.
Any morality is fundamentally supernatural.
Wrong. The greatest good for the greatest number is a perfectly
rational
principle, but you have to find weighing function that works well
enough
to keep everybody tolerably happy. Absolute weighing functions - just >>>>> one or minus one - don't work all that well.
Any society has to have a set of axiomatic, aspirational principles, >>>>>> and religion is the most effective basis for those principles, because >>>>>> you can skulk around in the dark and hide from the cops, but you can't >>>>>> hide from God.
You may be able to imagine a set of axiomatic principles, but nobody >>>>> has
yet found one that works, and there's no mathematical proof that one >>>>> exists.
Holding truths to be self-evident is a rhetorical device. Nobody has >>>>> found such a set of truths.
There are no natural rights. Rights are what we construct and agree on. >>>
and we've been tinkering with them since long before humans invented
written records.
"Some philosophers argue that natural rights do not exist and that
legal rights are the only rights; for instance, Jeremy Bentham called
natural rights 'simple nonsense."
I'm also sympathetic to that point of view.
Me too. By the way, as per Rechtsverordnung 392740-2357, your legal right
to exist has been revoked. Report to Vernichtungskammer 5-A immediately!
Don't be silly, and being silly in German doesn't make it any less silly.
On Tue, 9 Apr 2024 16:35:55 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 9/04/2024 11:12 am, GLOBUS wrote:
Bill Sloman wrote:
On 8/04/2024 1:15 pm, Governor Swill wrote:
On Sun, 7 Apr 2024 15:16:38 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 7/04/2024 2:26 am, John Larkin wrote:
On Sat, 6 Apr 2024 12:43:07 -0000 (UTC), Jasen Betts <usenet@revmaps.no-ip.org> wrote:
On 2024-04-02, Siri Cruise <chine.bleu@www.yahoo.com> wrote:
Jack Carlson wrote:
"Some philosophers argue that natural rights do not exist and that
legal rights are the only rights; for instance, Jeremy Bentham called
natural rights 'simple nonsense."
I'm also sympathetic to that point of view.
Me too. By the way, as per Rechtsverordnung 392740-2357, your legal right >>> to exist has been revoked. Report to Vernichtungskammer 5-A immediately!
Backpfeifengesicht!
Don't be silly, and being silly in German doesn't make it any less silly.
But it does make it more fun!
Swill
On 10/04/2024 12:19 pm, Governor Swill wrote:
On Tue, 9 Apr 2024 16:35:55 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote: >>
On 9/04/2024 11:12 am, GLOBUS wrote:
Bill Sloman wrote:
On 8/04/2024 1:15 pm, Governor Swill wrote:
On Sun, 7 Apr 2024 15:16:38 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 7/04/2024 2:26 am, John Larkin wrote:
On Sat, 6 Apr 2024 12:43:07 -0000 (UTC), Jasen Betts <usenet@revmaps.no-ip.org> wrote:
On 2024-04-02, Siri Cruise <chine.bleu@www.yahoo.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> Jack Carlson wrote:
<snip>
Backpfeifengesicht!"Some philosophers argue that natural rights do not exist and that
legal rights are the only rights; for instance, Jeremy Bentham called >>>>> natural rights 'simple nonsense."
I'm also sympathetic to that point of view.
Me too. By the way, as per Rechtsverordnung 392740-2357, your legal right >>>> to exist has been revoked. Report to Vernichtungskammer 5-A immediately! >>
Don't be silly, and being silly in German doesn't make it any less silly. >>But it does make it more fun!
Implicit references to the gas chambers aren't any kind of fun.
| Sysop: | DaiTengu |
|---|---|
| Location: | Appleton, WI |
| Users: | 918 |
| Nodes: | 10 (1 / 9) |
| Uptime: | 40:19:46 |
| Calls: | 12,180 |
| Files: | 186,523 |
| Messages: | 2,235,897 |
