China has issued new national guidelines that will phase out U.S. Intel
and AMD chips from government computers and servers. The guidelines will also include Microsoft Windows operating systems.
The new guidelines require government agencies above the local level to include criteria that require "secure and reliable" processors and
operating systems when making purchases, which they say does not include American processors. The new guidelines mean that chips from Intel and
AMD, for example, will no longer be considered secure in China, according
to the Financial Times.
The guidelines also restrict the use of Microsoft's Windows and other foreign operating systems. Apple, for example, has already been banned
from several Chinese government agencies and state-owned enterprises.
China's Ministry of Industry issued a statement in late December with
three separate lists of processors, operating systems and central
databases that are considered "secure" for three years from the date of publication. All were from Chinese companies, Reuters reports. Among other things, China has built computers with its own Loongson 3A6000 chip, which is said to be at least as good as Intel's.
https://dailystormer.in/china-government-starts-phasing-out-american-processors-operating-systems-on-government-computers/
China: Government Starts Phasing Out American Processors, Operating Systems >on Government Computers
Snake Baker
March 26, 2024
China has been moving towards digital independence for a while now, with it >having been stated as a main goal of the country.
It looks like they're finally making big steps to phase out American
software and hardware, for the sake of their own security.
It was never safe for the Chinese to rely on Western tech companies for
their survival.
Nordic Times: >https://nordictimes.com/tech/china-bans-us-chips-in-government-computers/
China has issued new national guidelines that will phase out U.S. Intel
and AMD chips from government computers and servers. The guidelines will also include Microsoft Windows operating systems.
The new guidelines require government agencies above the local level to include criteria that require "secure and reliable" processors and operating systems when making purchases, which they say does not include American processors. The new guidelines mean that chips from Intel and
AMD, for example, will no longer be considered secure in China, according to the Financial Times.
The guidelines also restrict the use of Microsoft's Windows and other foreign operating systems. Apple, for example, has already been banned
from several Chinese government agencies and state-owned enterprises.
China's Ministry of Industry issued a statement in late December with
three separate lists of processors, operating systems and central
databases that are considered "secure" for three years from the date of publication. All were from Chinese companies, Reuters reports. Among other things, China has built computers with its own Loongson 3A6000 chip, which is said to be at least as good as Intel's.
The chips work.
They will end up being better than Western chips. After all, the Western >companies that make the chips are really all Chinese companies, based much >more in Taiwan than in California.
Intel is supposedly expanding American production. But it's with money from >the government, so it's a virtual certainty that it is all going to hiring >blacks and training whites that they are evil. There will also, of course,
be pronoun lessons.
Diversity is not cheap. With a mere $8.5 billion, it's unlikely they will >actually get around to making any chips.
publication. All were from Chinese companies, Reuters reports. Among other >> > things, China has built computers with its own Loongson 3A6000 chip, which >> > is said to be at least as good as Intel's.
It's a MIPS machine, another "Chinese Copy." Three guesses for what
the OS will look like.
Why don't they steal something more modern, like RISC-V?
They will end up being better than Western chips. After all, the Western >>companies that make the chips are really all Chinese companies, based much >>more in Taiwan than in California.
TSMC fabs what people design. Using mostly western fab equipment.
Are there asian sources for lithography machines? GigaPhoton tried to
compete with Cymer/ASML and mostly failed.
John Larkin <xx@yy.com> wrote:
publication. All were from Chinese companies, Reuters reports. Among other
things, China has built computers with its own Loongson 3A6000 chip, which
is said to be at least as good as Intel's.
It's a MIPS machine, another "Chinese Copy." Three guesses for what
the OS will look like.
Why don't they steal something more modern, like RISC-V?
The Loongson and Sunway processors were developed from Western risc >processors well over a decade ago and a whole lot of engineering have
gone into making them fast. Tha latest Loongson has specmarks nearly
as good as the fastest Intel processor, while being designed on a
process that is two generations behind what Intel is using.
The Chinese are compensating for poorer process engineering by using
better architectural engineering, which is something we could be doing
as well if it was possible to sell non-X86 systems into the US market.
Intel has repeatedly attempted to introduce high performance non-X86
systems over the years with the i860 and i960 (the Itanium2 was not
really Intel's fault as much as HPs but it should get an E for effort),
but they have never been able to get enough sales for the things in
order to afford to be able to put enough engineering into them to get
them up to top speed.
On 27 Mar 2024 15:28:42 -0000, kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
Intel has repeatedly attempted to introduce high performance non-X86 >>systems over the years with the i860 and i960 (the Itanium2 was not
really Intel's fault as much as HPs but it should get an E for effort),
but they have never been able to get enough sales for the things in
order to afford to be able to put enough engineering into them to get
them up to top speed.
Intel had an ARM license once too. I think their mindset is fixated on
the klunky 8008 architecture. They used to make it competitive with
advanced fab, but flubbed that too.
Computing gets ever cheaper, and we don't need unlimited compute power >forever. China is totally driven by The Party, and politicians make
bad technical decisions.
John Larkin <xx@yy.com> wrote:
TSMC fabs what people design. Using mostly western fab equipment.
Are there asian sources for lithography machines? GigaPhoton tried to >>compete with Cymer/ASML and mostly failed.
Yes, but not with anywhere near the resolution. Chinese fab is a couple 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.
In a practical sense an important factor for semiconductor fabs has^^^^^
always been yeild - how many failed chips they get in a batch.
In comp.misc Scott Dorsey <kludge@panix.com> wrote:
John Larkin <xx@yy.com> wrote:
TSMC fabs what people design. Using mostly western fab equipment.
Are there asian sources for lithography machines? GigaPhoton tried to >>>compete with Cymer/ASML and mostly failed.
Yes, but not with anywhere near the resolution. Chinese fab is a couple
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.
But _are_ they made in mainland China? Another mainly state-funded
Chinese company is making x86 CPUs and they've usually been made by
TSMC:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zhaoxin
However they're not saying where the latest model is being made: >https://www.anandtech.com/show/21189/zhaoxin-unveils-kx7000-cpus-eight-x86-cores-at-up-to-370-ghz
As for Loongson, the Wikipedia page says plainly that their chips
are made by STMicroelectronics: >https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loongson#History
With this fairly recent reference (though not from a very relevent
source):
"STMicroelectronics, a French-Italian multinational electronics
manufacturer, fabricates and markets Loongson's chips, which
is fabless."
https://www.verdict.co.uk/china-backed-chip-company-files-for-shanghai-ipo/
ST aren't known for making cutting-edge PC CPUs, but they don't
have fabs in China (or Taiwan) either. >https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/STMicroelectronics
In a practical sense an important factor for semiconductor fabs has
always been yeild - how many failed chips they get in a batch. At
some point before the PRC can produce such chips competitively with >western/Taiwanese manufacturers, they'll probably be able to
produce them at a lower yeild, but for a price that their
government is willing to pay for the security of having full
control over their production, and just to keep their fabs
going/improving. In the mean time foreign fabs can be used to make
the chips commercially for normal consumer products.
In comp.misc Computer Nerd Kev <not@telling.you.invalid> wrote:
In a practical sense an important factor for semiconductor fabs has^^^^^
always been yeild - how many failed chips they get in a batch.
I mean yield of course. I meant to spell-check that before posting
but got distracted.
Yes, but not with anywhere near the resolution. Chinese fab is a coupleBut_are_ they made in mainland China? Another mainly state-funded
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.
Chinese company is making x86 CPUs and they've usually been made by
TSMC:
Computer Nerd Kev wrote:
Yes, but not with anywhere near the resolution. Chinese fab is a couple >>> 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.
But_are_ they made in mainland China? Another mainly state-funded
Chinese company is making x86 CPUs and they've usually been made by
TSMC:
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.
They've got them. They haven't got the competent man[a]gers you find
in Europe and Taiwan -
Computer Nerd Kev wrote:
In comp.misc Computer Nerd Kev <not@telling.you.invalid> wrote:
In a practical sense an important factor for semiconductor fabs has^^^^^
always been yeild - how many failed chips they get in a batch.
I mean yield of course. I meant to spell-check that before posting
but got distracted.
How boaring to have only one way to spell un mot.
Computer Nerd Kev wrote:
Yes, but not with anywhere near the resolution. Chinese fab is a couple >>> 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.But_are_ they made in mainland China? Another mainly state-funded
Chinese company is making x86 CPUs and they've usually been made by
TSMC:
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.
On Thu, 28 Mar 2024 07:22:14 -0700, John Larkin <jl@997PotHill.com> wrote:
On Wed, 27 Mar 2024 21:45:00 -0700, Siri Cruise
<chine.bleu@www.yahoo.com> wrote:
Computer Nerd Kev wrote:
In comp.misc Computer Nerd Kev <not@telling.you.invalid> wrote:
In a practical sense an important factor for semiconductor fabs has^^^^^
always been yeild - how many failed chips they get in a batch.
I mean yield of course. I meant to spell-check that before posting
but got distracted.
How boaring to have only one way to spell un mot.
Rigid spelling rules are a fairly new concept. People used to write >>anything that sounded about right. Looking at old correspondence, it
was common to have the same word spelled different ways in a single
letter.
Early versions of American documents used "f" in place of "s".
Swill
On Thu, 28 Mar 2024 11:22:31 -0400, Governor Swill
<governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 28 Mar 2024 07:22:14 -0700, John Larkin <jl@997PotHill.com> wrote: >>
On Wed, 27 Mar 2024 21:45:00 -0700, Siri Cruise
<chine.bleu@www.yahoo.com> wrote:
Computer Nerd Kev wrote:
In comp.misc Computer Nerd Kev <not@telling.you.invalid> wrote:
In a practical sense an important factor for semiconductor fabs has >>>>>> always been yeild - how many failed chips they get in a batch.^^^^^
I mean yield of course. I meant to spell-check that before posting
but got distracted.
How boaring to have only one way to spell un mot.
Rigid spelling rules are a fairly new concept. People used to write
anything that sounded about right. Looking at old correspondence, it
was common to have the same word spelled different ways in a single
letter.
Early versions of American documents used "f" in place of "s".
Swill
Fancy used to be phancy. American spellings often simplified the
British versions.
On Thu, 28 Mar 2024 07:22:14 -0700, John Larkin <jl@997PotHill.com> wrote:
On Wed, 27 Mar 2024 21:45:00 -0700, Siri Cruise
<chine.bleu@www.yahoo.com> wrote:
Computer Nerd Kev wrote:
In comp.misc Computer Nerd Kev <not@telling.you.invalid> wrote:
In a practical sense an important factor for semiconductor fabs has^^^^^
always been yeild - how many failed chips they get in a batch.
I mean yield of course. I meant to spell-check that before posting
but got distracted.
How boaring to have only one way to spell un mot.
Rigid spelling rules are a fairly new concept. People used to write >>anything that sounded about right. Looking at old correspondence, it
was common to have the same word spelled different ways in a single
letter.
Early versions of American documents used "f" in place of "s".
Computer Nerd Kev wrote:
Yes, but not with anywhere near the resolution. Chinese fab is a couple >>> 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.But_are_ they made in mainland China? Another mainly state-funded
Chinese company is making x86 CPUs and they've usually been made by
TSMC:
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.
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?
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 couple >>>>> generations behind the highest resolution available in Taiwan. This givesBut_are_ they made in mainland China? Another mainly state-funded
them a lot of motivation into trying to get the best speed possible out of
what they have, through architectual optimization.
Chinese company is making x86 CPUs and they've usually been made by
TSMC:
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.
Swill
On Thu, 28 Mar 2024 11:22:31 -0400, Governor Swill
<governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 28 Mar 2024 07:22:14 -0700, John Larkin <jl@997PotHill.com> wrote: >>
On Wed, 27 Mar 2024 21:45:00 -0700, Siri Cruise
<chine.bleu@www.yahoo.com> wrote:
Computer Nerd Kev wrote:
In comp.misc Computer Nerd Kev <not@telling.you.invalid> wrote:
In a practical sense an important factor for semiconductor fabs has >>>>>> always been yeild - how many failed chips they get in a batch.^^^^^
I mean yield of course. I meant to spell-check that before posting
but got distracted.
How boaring to have only one way to spell un mot.
Rigid spelling rules are a fairly new concept. People used to write
anything that sounded about right. Looking at old correspondence, it
was common to have the same word spelled different ways in a single
letter.
Early versions of American documents used "f" in place of "s".
Swill
Fancy used to be phancy. American spellings often simplified the
British versions.
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.
What's a classic statist behavior is dangerous products and
infrastructure with criticism and deaths suppressed. Tofu dreg.
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 couple >>>> 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.But_are_ they made in mainland China? Another mainly state-funded
Chinese company is making x86 CPUs and they've usually been made by
TSMC:
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.
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 couple >>>>>> generations behind the highest resolution available in Taiwan. This givesBut_are_ they made in mainland China? Another mainly state-funded
them a lot of motivation into trying to get the best speed possible out of
what they have, through architectual optimization.
Chinese company is making x86 CPUs and they've usually been made by
TSMC:
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.
The US has long been the condensate of the smart, the rebellious, the ambitious, and sometimes the criminal fractions of other countries.
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.
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.
The US has long been the condensate of the smart, the rebellious, the
ambitious, and sometimes the criminal fractions of other countries.
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.
Smart suffers from religious mania don't feel the same need emigrate as
their less subtle colleagues.
On Thu, 28 Mar 2024 17:33:50 -0700, John Larkin <jl@997PotHill.com> wrote:
I think Putin is happy to get rid of the troublemakers who think. He
wants the population to be dumb and patriotic and loyal.
Modern Republicans, especially the hard line rightists, seem to have the same view.
The US has long been the condensate of the smart, the rebellious, the
ambitious, and sometimes the criminal fractions of other countries.
Which is why we succeed over the long haul - we get these folks via immigration. They are
the cream of the global crop.
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.
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.
On Fri, 29 Mar 2024 16:55:12 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
Which is why we succeed over the long haul - we get these folks via immigration. They are
the cream of the global crop.
Actually the noisy, attention-getting scum that make themselves obvious.
They do over-value their own contributions, which is what American
exceptionalism is all about.
Mm . . . no. Don't agree. Only those with the most gumption come here. That kind of
ambition yields its own rewards. Because the US, or at least, the idea of America draws
so many, we end up with what from the other end is brain drain.
The strongest survive and they tend to come here and to Europe. This places Asian and other strongman states at a
disadvantage. Their people are always trying to get somewhere else.
On Do 28 Mär 2024 at 11:22, Governor Swill <governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 28 Mar 2024 07:22:14 -0700, John Larkin <jl@997PotHill.com> wrote: >>
On Wed, 27 Mar 2024 21:45:00 -0700, Siri Cruise >>><chine.bleu@www.yahoo.com> wrote:
Computer Nerd Kev wrote:
In comp.misc Computer Nerd Kev <not@telling.you.invalid> wrote:
In a practical sense an important factor for semiconductor fabs has >>>>>> always been yeild - how many failed chips they get in a batch.^^^^^
I mean yield of course. I meant to spell-check that before posting
but got distracted.
How boaring to have only one way to spell un mot.
Rigid spelling rules are a fairly new concept. People used to write >>>anything that sounded about right. Looking at old correspondence, it
was common to have the same word spelled different ways in a single >>>letter.
Early versions of American documents used "f" in place of "s".
That was in all probability not an "f"m but a "long s".
'AndreasI hate it that a shameless call for genocide is
--
ceterum censeo redmondinem esse delendam
I have a 19th century Dover book of Heuring orgelbouw.
The f and s in this book use the same character.
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.
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?
On Fri, 29 Mar 2024 13:49:12 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
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.
Point well taken.
Swill
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.
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?
Makes sense to be. They wanted to be tolerated but didn't want to tolerate anybody else.
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?
On Fri, 29 Mar 2024 16:55:12 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
Which is why we succeed over the long haul - we get these folks via immigration. They are
the cream of the global crop.
Actually the noisy, attention-getting scum that make themselves obvious.
They do over-value their own contributions, which is what American >>exceptionalism is all about.
Mm . . . no. Don't agree. Only those with the most gumption come here. That kind of
ambition yields its own rewards. Because the US, or at least, the idea of America draws
so many, we end up with what from the other end is brain drain. The strongest survive and
they tend to come here and to Europe. This places Asian and other strongman states at a
disadvantage. Their people are always trying to get somewhere else.
Swill
On Thu, 28 Mar 2024 17:33:50 -0700, John Larkin <jl@997PotHill.com> wrote:
I think Putin is happy to get rid of the troublemakers who think. He
wants the population to be dumb and patriotic and loyal.
Modern Republicans, especially the hard line rightists, seem to have the same view.
The US has long been the condensate of the smart, the rebellious, the >>ambitious, and sometimes the criminal fractions of other countries.
Which is why we succeed over the long haul - we get these folks via immigration. They are
the cream of the global crop.
On Fri, 29 Mar 2024 00:03:09 -0400, Governor Swill
<governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 28 Mar 2024 17:33:50 -0700, John Larkin <jl@997PotHill.com> wrote: >>
I think Putin is happy to get rid of the troublemakers who think. He
wants the population to be dumb and patriotic and loyal.
Modern Republicans, especially the hard line rightists, seem to have the same view.
"Seem to" to you. The internet will confirm whatever prejudices that
you like.
The US has long been the condensate of the smart, the rebellious, the
ambitious, and sometimes the criminal fractions of other countries.
Which is why we succeed over the long haul - we get these folks via immigration. They are
the cream of the global crop.
Yes. We have a lot of company founders and Nobel Prize winners that
were born elsewhere. We poach the best. And many talents are genetic.
[...]
On Thu, 28 Mar 2024 17:25:28 -0700, John Larkin <jl@997PotHill.com> 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.
Thus Japan took over the US auto market.
On 3/29/24 16:23, John Larkin wrote:
On Fri, 29 Mar 2024 00:03:09 -0400, Governor Swill
<governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 28 Mar 2024 17:33:50 -0700, John Larkin <jl@997PotHill.com> wrote: >>>
I think Putin is happy to get rid of the troublemakers who think. He
wants the population to be dumb and patriotic and loyal.
Modern Republicans, especially the hard line rightists, seem to have the same view.
"Seem to" to you. The internet will confirm whatever prejudices that
you like.
The US has long been the condensate of the smart, the rebellious, the
ambitious, and sometimes the criminal fractions of other countries.
Which is why we succeed over the long haul - we get these folks via immigration. They are
the cream of the global crop.
Yes. We have a lot of company founders and Nobel Prize winners that
were born elsewhere. We poach the best. And many talents are genetic.
[...]
Despite having a lot of Nobel prize winners of foreign origin,
you're still only 15th on the list of prize winners normalized
to population size. What does that suggest for the indigenous
smarts?
Jeroen Belleman
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
You do have to be motivated to emigrate. Only the most obnoxious
religious zealots got that motivated.
It took a certain amount of enterprise to get themselves onto a
boat, but sensible an well-adjusted people didn't need to bother.
Quite a few sensible and well adjusted people saw potential
economic advantages in emigrating - my various grandparents and
great grandparents came to Australia on that basis, but none of
them needed to evade religious persecution.
Australia hasn't got an anomalously large group of believers.
The US picked up a lot of immigrants earlier, and has.
The strongest survive and they tend to come here and to Europe.
This places Asian and other strongman states at a
disadvantage. Their people are always trying to get somewhere
else.
Enterprising people are always trying to get someplace where they
can earn more money. That was pre-eminently the US for a quite a
while, but it isn't any longer.
Yes. We have a lot of company founders and Nobel Prize winners that
were born elsewhere. We poach the best. And many talents are genetic.
Men and women from all over the world concentrate in US universities
and tech centers and marry and make babies. My next-door neighbors are
from Bulgaria and Rumania and met as Google employees. Their kid is
gorgeous and feisty.
On Fri, 29 Mar 2024 00:00:13 -0400, Governor Swill
<governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 29 Mar 2024 13:49:12 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
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.
Point well taken.
The recent Boeing issues haven't been lethal. I'm sure that Airbus
planes have the occasional hydraulic fluid leak or blown tire.
A "limited number of rich people" is sure better than a country with
one supreme ruler for life.
Honda, Raytheon and Lockheed. We have choices.
The richest people in the US started with no capital and an idea. They invented things. Many were college dropouts.
The US is a good place for unfunded startups with radical ideas. I
don't see a lot of smallish exotic-electronics companies in other
countries. England seems to have some.
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.
On Fri, 29 Mar 2024 00:22:22 -0400, Anonymous <anon@anon.net> 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.
They have influence, but have to compete for even that. They will be
punished for murder or for littering.
US antitrust law does work to damp the monopoly positive-feedback
effects.
The only real monopoly in the US is the Federal government.
On Fri, 29 Mar 2024 00:00:43 -0400, Governor Swill
<governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 28 Mar 2024 17:25:28 -0700, John Larkin <jl@997PotHill.com> 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.
Thus Japan took over the US auto market.
Ballpark 32% now, down from a peak around 40%.
On Fri, 29 Mar 2024 05:02:08 -0400, Governor Swill
<governor.swill@gmail.com> 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?
Makes sense to be. They wanted to be tolerated but didn't want to tolerate anybody else.
Read the First Amendment to the US Constitution. It wasn't written by religious bigots.
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. He has to keep them that way.
The Russian language and alphabet contribute to their tribalism, but I
see a lot of English signage in Street View type pics. The isolation
really can't last.
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?
On Fri, 29 Mar 2024 05:05:25 -0400, Governor Swill
<governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 29 Mar 2024 16:55:12 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
Which is why we succeed over the long haul - we get these folks via immigration. They are
the cream of the global crop.
Actually the noisy, attention-getting scum that make themselves obvious. >>>
They do over-value their own contributions, which is what American
exceptionalism is all about.
Mm . . . no. Don't agree. Only those with the most gumption come here. That kind of
ambition yields its own rewards. Because the US, or at least, the idea of America draws
so many, we end up with what from the other end is brain drain. The strongest survive and
they tend to come here and to Europe. This places Asian and other strongman states at a
disadvantage. Their people are always trying to get somewhere else.
Swill
Read this:
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/031656480X
On Fri, 29 Mar 2024 00:03:09 -0400, Governor Swill
<governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 28 Mar 2024 17:33:50 -0700, John Larkin <jl@997PotHill.com> wrote: >>
I think Putin is happy to get rid of the troublemakers who think. He
wants the population to be dumb and patriotic and loyal.
Modern Republicans, especially the hard line rightists, seem to have the same view.
"Seem to" to you. The internet will confirm whatever prejudices that
you like.
The US has long been the condensate of the smart, the rebellious, the
ambitious, and sometimes the criminal fractions of other countries.
Which is why we succeed over the long haul - we get these folks via immigration. They are
the cream of the global crop.
Yes. We have a lot of company founders and Nobel Prize winners that
were born elsewhere. We poach the best. And many talents are genetic.
Men and women from all over the world concentrate in US universities
and tech centers and marry and make babies. My next-door neighbors are
from Bulgaria and Rumania and met as Google employees. Their kid is
gorgeous and feisty.
On Fri, 29 Mar 2024 17:06:18 +0100, Jeroen Belleman
<jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:
On 3/29/24 16:23, John Larkin wrote:
On Fri, 29 Mar 2024 00:03:09 -0400, Governor Swill
<governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 28 Mar 2024 17:33:50 -0700, John Larkin <jl@997PotHill.com> wrote: >>>>
I think Putin is happy to get rid of the troublemakers who think. He >>>>> wants the population to be dumb and patriotic and loyal.
Modern Republicans, especially the hard line rightists, seem to have the same view.
"Seem to" to you. The internet will confirm whatever prejudices that
you like.
The US has long been the condensate of the smart, the rebellious, the >>>>> ambitious, and sometimes the criminal fractions of other countries.
Which is why we succeed over the long haul - we get these folks via immigration. They are
the cream of the global crop.
Yes. We have a lot of company founders and Nobel Prize winners that
were born elsewhere. We poach the best. And many talents are genetic.
[...]
Despite having a lot of Nobel prize winners of foreign origin,
you're still only 15th on the list of prize winners normalized
to population size. What does that suggest for the indigenous
smarts?
We have lots of rural farmers and lots of immigrants who don't win
Nobels. We do have a lot of tech industry. We did invent tubes and transistors and ICs.
The US is a good place for unfunded startups with radical ideas.
I don't see a lot of smallish exotic-electronics companies in other countries. England seems to have some.
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.
Alexander Graham Bell didn't invent the telephone
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.
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.
On Thu, 28 Mar 2024 07:22:14 -0700, John Larkin <jl@997PotHill.com> wrote:
On Wed, 27 Mar 2024 21:45:00 -0700, Siri Cruise
<chine.bleu@www.yahoo.com> wrote:
Computer Nerd Kev wrote:
In comp.misc Computer Nerd Kev <not@telling.you.invalid> wrote:
In a practical sense an important factor for semiconductor fabs has^^^^^
always been yeild - how many failed chips they get in a batch.
I mean yield of course. I meant to spell-check that before posting
but got distracted.
How boaring to have only one way to spell un mot.
Rigid spelling rules are a fairly new concept. People used to write >>anything that sounded about right. Looking at old correspondence, it
was common to have the same word spelled different ways in a single
letter.
Early versions of American documents used "f" in place of "s".
On Sat, 30 Mar 2024 15:30:22 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 30/03/2024 1:57 am, John Larkin wrote:
On Fri, 29 Mar 2024 00:00:13 -0400, Governor Swill
<governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 29 Mar 2024 13:49:12 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
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.
Point well taken.
The recent Boeing issues haven't been lethal. I'm sure that Airbus
planes have the occasional hydraulic fluid leak or blown tire.
https://ny1.com/nyc/all-boroughs/transportation/2024/03/04/faa-finds-boeing-did-not-comply-with-quality-assurance-protocols
Leaving out bolts is a bit more serious than a hydraulic fluid leak or a
blown tire.
A "limited number of rich people" is sure better than a country with
one supreme ruler for life.
China and Russia are both oligarchies - they don't have one supreme
ruler for life, even if it may look that way to the unsophisticated.
The American plutocracy is just one more oligarchy.
> We have Apple and Microsoft, Ford and
Honda, Raytheon and Lockheed. We have choices.
Not all that many.
The richest people in the US started with no capital and an idea. They
invented things. Many were college dropouts.
Musk started off with an inherited fortune, and he doesn't seem to have
invented anything yet. He has picked up other people's speculative
ideas, which isn't invention.
Sounds like a lot of sour grapes to me.
As has every inventor throughout human history. You think Edison invented his devices
entirely out of whole cloth? He, as they say, stood on the shoulders of giants.
Musk is no different.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elon_Musk
On Sat, 30 Mar 2024 15:40:41 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 30/03/2024 2:01 am, John Larkin wrote:
On Fri, 29 Mar 2024 00:22:22 -0400, Anonymous <anon@anon.net> 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:
Bell Labs used to be. Dismantling their monopoly didn't improve the service.
Yes, actually, it did. I didn't have a wireless, cordless phone in my pocket with free
long distance for $15 a month in 1975. What I had was a plastic box chained to the wall
that would let me talk 'for free' with people up to fifty miles away for $150 a month. Any
further than that and there were extra charges stacked on top.
Microsoft is effectively a monopoly. Linux has subverted it, but in a
non-commercial way.
Isn't Apple the biggest market cap on the planet?
Natural monopolies are best managed as an aspect of government, with
democratic checks and balances to restrain their natural tendency to
authoritarian behaviour - as the Victorians had worked by about 1900.
Regulated monopolies have their place. Competition has its place. Sometimes they can
complement each other.
Free market fundamentalists think they know better,
Unfettered capitalism is no better than unfettered communism.
and the Enron example hasn't changed whatever it is they use instead of minds.
Bitter much?
Free markets are better than single point control though absolutes are abhorrent.
On Sat, 30 Mar 2024 15:45:21 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 30/03/2024 2:17 am, John Larkin wrote:
On Fri, 29 Mar 2024 05:02:08 -0400, Governor Swill
<governor.swill@gmail.com> 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?
Makes sense to be. They wanted to be tolerated but didn't want to tolerate anybody else.
Read the First Amendment to the US Constitution. It wasn't written by
religious bigots.
Actually, it was but they were of diverse religions, and wanted a level
playing field.
Actually it wasn't. While they typically shared a belief in God, few of them were notably
religious. Church was, and still is, far more a social organ than a philosophical one.
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.
On 3/30/24 04:37, John Larkin 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.
Far too religious. I think one simple rule suffices: Don't
do to others what you wouldn't want them to do to you.
Jeroen Belleman
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 took a certain amount of enterprise to get themselves onto a boat,
but sensible an well-adjusted people didn't need to bother.
Nevertheless many anti-anglican protestants and catholics did hire
boats. Speaking of how unwell-adjusted anti-anglican protestants could
be, one of them, Cromwell, relieved his king of his burdensome
well-adjusted and well-coifed head.
Quite a few sensible and well adjusted people saw potential economic
advantages in emigrating - my various grandparents and great
grandparents came to Australia on that basis, but none of them needed
to evade religious persecution.
By that time dissenting protestants were no longer outlawed. Even
catholicism was eventually legalised.
Australia hasn't got an anomalously large group of believers.
The US picked up a lot of immigrants earlier, and has.
As far as how well-adjusted Europe has become, they don't sound that interested in religion in polls. However as a large group of believers
moved in, they have reacted a bit. Moslem believers this time. We poorly adjusted Americans let Moslem women wear burqas, bikinis, blue gingham dresses, whatever they want. France outlawed any obvious religious
clothes. France is so much more well-adjusted and tolerant than
religious zealotry of USA.
Does Australia still run concentration camps on islands off its north
shore?
The strongest survive and they tend to come here and to Europe. This
places Asian and other strongman states at a
disadvantage. Their people are always trying to get somewhere else.
Hindus and Moslems come to the USA where they freely and openly practice their religion while being fully integrated into the economy rather
forced into impoverished ghettos outside the cities. As a result they
made themselves and the rest of USA richer.
Enterprising people are always trying to get someplace where they can
earn more money. That was pre-eminently the US for a quite a while,
but it isn't any longer.
As England oppressed dissenting protestants they eventually started
their own schools and economy. They were so successful they dragged the discriminatory Anglican government into the industrial revolution.
On Sat, 30 Mar 2024 16:27:09 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 30/03/2024 2:23 am, John Larkin wrote:
On Fri, 29 Mar 2024 00:03:09 -0400, Governor Swill <governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 28 Mar 2024 17:33:50 -0700, John Larkin <jl@997PotHill.com> wrote: >>>>
I think Putin is happy to get rid of the troublemakers who think. He >>>>> wants the population to be dumb and patriotic and loyal.
Modern Republicans, especially the hard line rightists, seem to have the same view.
"Seem to" to you. The internet will confirm whatever prejudices that
you like.
Less effectively if you can think more clearly than John Larkin.
Who is John Larkin?
On Sat, 30 Mar 2024 16:40:01 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 30/03/2024 6:54 am, john larkin wrote:
On Fri, 29 Mar 2024 17:06:18 +0100, Jeroen Belleman
<jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:
On 3/29/24 16:23, John Larkin wrote:
On Fri, 29 Mar 2024 00:03:09 -0400, Governor Swill
<governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 28 Mar 2024 17:33:50 -0700, John Larkin <jl@997PotHill.com> wrote:
I think Putin is happy to get rid of the troublemakers who think. He >>>>>>> wants the population to be dumb and patriotic and loyal.
Modern Republicans, especially the hard line rightists, seem to have the same view.
"Seem to" to you. The internet will confirm whatever prejudices that >>>>> you like.
The US has long been the condensate of the smart, the rebellious, the >>>>>>> ambitious, and sometimes the criminal fractions of other countries. >>>>>>Which is why we succeed over the long haul - we get these folks via immigration. They are
the cream of the global crop.
Yes. We have a lot of company founders and Nobel Prize winners that
were born elsewhere. We poach the best. And many talents are genetic. >>>>> [...]
Despite having a lot of Nobel prize winners of foreign origin,
you're still only 15th on the list of prize winners normalized
to population size. What does that suggest for the indigenous
smarts?
We have lots of rural farmers and lots of immigrants who don't win
Nobels. We do have a lot of tech industry. We did invent tubes and
transistors and ICs.
Edison invented the thermionic tube, but didn't do much with it.
Bell labs did invent the transistor,
Uh, yeah, they kinda did.
and Texas Instruments the integrated circuit,
Uh, yeah, they kinda did.
but Texas Instruments didn't have enough sense to
hire Bob Widlar or anybody like him and stayed big but dull for a very
long time.
The US is a good place for unfunded startups with radical ideas.
The US has venture capitalists, who can afford to back 19 losers and
stay in business until they find the winner who can pay off big enough
to cover the 19 losers.
They can afford this because?
Siri Cruise 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?
The Puritans were the direct ancestors of anglosphere Leftism and sought political power on the basis of being holier-than-thou.
They were to Christianity what the Pharisees were to the religion of the Old Testament.
They came to America and set up Harvard, from where they took over the
world.
King Charles II should have had them all killed.
On 3/30/24 04:37, John Larkin 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.
Far too religious. I think one simple rule suffices: Don't
do to others what you wouldn't want them to do to you.
Jeroen Belleman
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?
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
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...)
On Fri, 29 Mar 2024 08:26:02 -0700, John Larkin <jl@997PotHill.com> wrote:
On Fri, 29 Mar 2024 05:05:25 -0400, Governor Swill >><governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 29 Mar 2024 16:55:12 +1100, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
Which is why we succeed over the long haul - we get these folks via immigration. They are
the cream of the global crop.
Actually the noisy, attention-getting scum that make themselves obvious. >>>>
They do over-value their own contributions, which is what American >>>>exceptionalism is all about.
Mm . . . no. Don't agree. Only those with the most gumption come here. That kind of
ambition yields its own rewards. Because the US, or at least, the idea of America draws
so many, we end up with what from the other end is brain drain. The strongest survive and
they tend to come here and to Europe. This places Asian and other strongman states at a
disadvantage. Their people are always trying to get somewhere else.
Swill
Read this:
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/031656480X
Yeah, like I've got the time and money to read every book that gets recommended to me.
But, hey! We can discuss and share knowledge.
Swill
john larkin wrote:
The US is a good place for unfunded startups with radical ideas. I
don't see a lot of smallish exotic-electronics companies in other
countries. England seems to have some.
It's a good place for farmers to apply USDA research to make
themselves rich feeding the world.
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.
Jeroen Belleman wrote:
On 3/30/24 04:37, John Larkin 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.
Far too religious. I think one simple rule suffices: Don't
do to others what you wouldn't want them to do to you.
Jeroen Belleman
How about love the people around you?
On 30/03/2024 4:03 pm, Anonymous Reactionary wrote:
Siri Cruise wrote:
Bill Sloman wrote:
USA is overly religious because nonconformists fled intolerable EnglishAmerica is remarkably religious for an advanced industrial country. If >>>>>> religious mania is a heritable defect, the US might have got anIt was, from its earliest days, the place where religious zealots went to >>>>> avoid
excessive proportion of that kind of lunatic in its migrant intake. >>>>>
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. >>>
religious conformity?
The Puritans were the direct ancestors of anglosphere Leftism and sought
political power on the basis of being holier-than-thou.
There's no direct ancestry involved. Seeking political power on the basis of being holier than thou shows up in all societies.
Of course if you were actually better informed than the rest of the population,
it would make sense to let you run the country, but most of the people who are
convinced they are better informed are deceiving themselves.
Cursitor Doom and John Larkin are convinced they are better informed about anthropogenic global warming than the international scientific community.
They were to Christianity what the Pharisees were to the religion of the Old >> Testament.
The Pharisees emphasised appearance over performance. The Puritans wanted both
the appearance of virtue and virtuous performance as well.
They came to America and set up Harvard, from where they took over the
world.
The Harvard School of Business Administration has two unique features. It's Masters Degree is worth more than any other for new hires, and it's worth nothing after five years. Most post-graduate qualifications are associated with
higher salaries for new graduates, and the difference typically gets larger as
the graduates get more experience.
The Harvard MBA hasn't taken over the world - it has just created a lot of initial favorable impressions that faded fast.
King Charles II should have had them all killed.
He gave the Royal Society of London in the UK it's Royal Charter in 1662. Harvard was founded in 1636, when Charles II was six - a six year-old wouldn't
have been in a position to have anybody killed.
On 3/30/24 18:52, 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.
I can understand warfare as ruthless competition for scarce resources,
or maybe as a preemptive action for a perceived future threat. I don't >understand religion, despite having been brought up in that environment. >Where many people think they see the hand of some god, I see just
chance and a perfectly indifferent nature.
You also would see a lot of weird ligatures back then which are seldom
seen today. Some of that stuff didn't actually disappear until automated typesetting came along, as there are only so many keys on the linotype.
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
The US adopted the first modern political constitution, and have beenIf it aint broke, don't fix it.
slow to modernise it, which leaves them behind the game too, if not
quite as far.
Swill
physics, or the axioms of mathematics.
"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
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.
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
kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) writes:
You also would see a lot of weird ligatures back then which are seldom
seen today. Some of that stuff didn't actually disappear until automated >> typesetting came along, as there are only so many keys on the linotype.
...
The PDF author had used used the ff ligature from whatever $CURRENTLY-KEWL-CHARSET which was rendered readably. But the xpdf
author wasn't clueful enough to realize that no user ever enters a
ligature character code from the keyboard as a search target and write compensating translations into the source code.
I can understand warfare as ruthless competition for scarce
resources,
or maybe as a preemptive action for a perceived future threat. I
don't
understand religion, despite having been brought up in that
environment.
Where many people think they see the hand of some god, I see just
I cannot believe in a superbeing said to be benevolent, if he also
created pests, predators, parasites and pestilence.
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.
On Sat, 30 Mar 2024 11:02:19 -0700, John Larkin <jl@997PotHill.com> wrote:
Malthusian starvation and the idiotic "Population Bomb" didn't happen.
Sometimes being warned of things is enough to prevent them from happening.
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 Sat, 30 Mar 2024 12:05:28 +0100, Jeroen Belleman
<jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:
On 3/30/24 04:37, John Larkin 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.
Far too religious. I think one simple rule suffices: Don't
do to others what you wouldn't want them to do to you.
Earthlings were one tribal competitors, subsistence level, fighting and killing to defend their turf and their local gene pool.
Some part of the world took a path to a more peaceful and prosperous society, with
writing, science, laws, cows, antibiotics and electronics.
The path to the developed world included greek philosophy, roman government, judeao-christian rules, the reformation and the enlightenment,
constitutional government, and general happiness.
I think that the average feelings of a population make a peaceful
society possible. Some places obviously don't have that. Maybe it's
genetic.
Bill Sloman wrote:
On 30/03/2024 4:03 pm, Anonymous Reactionary wrote:
Siri Cruise wrote:
Bill Sloman wrote:
America is remarkably religious for an advanced industrialIt was, from its earliest days, the place where religious zealots
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. >>>>>>
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?
The Puritans were the direct ancestors of anglosphere Leftism and sought >>> political power on the basis of being holier-than-thou.
There's no direct ancestry involved. Seeking political power on the
basis of being holier than thou shows up in all societies.
Of course if you were actually better informed than the rest of the
population, it would make sense to let you run the country, but most
of the people who are convinced they are better informed are deceiving
themselves.
Cursitor Doom and John Larkin are convinced they are better informed
about anthropogenic global warming than the international scientific
community.
They were to Christianity what the Pharisees were to the religion of
the Old Testament.
The Pharisees emphasised appearance over performance. The Puritans
wanted both the appearance of virtue and virtuous performance as well.
They came to America and set up Harvard, from where they took over the
world.
The Harvard School of Business Administration has two unique features.
It's Masters Degree is worth more than any other for new hires, and
it's worth nothing after five years. Most post-graduate qualifications
are associated with higher salaries for new graduates, and the
difference typically gets larger as the graduates get more experience.
The Harvard MBA hasn't taken over the world - it has just created a
lot of initial favorable impressions that faded fast.
I'm talking about the entire university. There is essentially a revolving door between Harvard and the U.S. government.
King Charles II should have had them all killed. >>He gave the Royal Society of London in the UK it's Royal Charter in
1662. Harvard was founded in 1636, when Charles II was six - a six
year-old wouldn't have been in a position to have anybody killed.
He could have had them executed any time after 1660.
In comp.misc Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> wrote:
The PDF author had used used the ff ligature from whatever
$CURRENTLY-KEWL-CHARSET which was rendered readably. But the xpdf
author wasn't clueful enough to realize that no user ever enters a
ligature character code from the keyboard as a search target and write
compensating translations into the source code.
It may not be xpdf's author's fault. If the pdf creator did not
provide a proper reverse map table from the code point used for the ff ligature to its actual character (or characters) then there's nothing a
pdf reader can do to fix the problem.
The problem is that the PDF specification allows for the PDF creator to create arbitrary mappings from byte values used in the PDF file to any
given glyph in a font file. But it makes optional the reverse mapping
table which would define to a PDF reader program that "byte value 0x32
in this portion of this PDF [1] represents the 'ff' litgature".
Without that reverse table, PDF is effectively a "write only medium".
It will print a perfect document, but you can't search, nor copy out, anything from it.
[1] 0x32 can be made to represent any number of different glyphs within
a single given PDF. In fact, if one were so devious as to do so, every
byte in the pdf representing a text character could be 0x32, and each
one could "print" to the electronic sheet of paper a different font
glyph.
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.
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.
The Constitution does include mechanisms to revise itself; they are calibrated about right.
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
The US adopted the first modern political constitution, and have been >>>>> slow to modernise it, which leaves them behind the game too, if notIf it aint broke, don't fix it.
quite as far.
Swill
physics, or the axioms of mathematics.
"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.
Don't judges and politicians swear to uphold the constitution and see
that the laws are faithfully executed?
On Fri, 29 Mar 2024 21:31:52 -0700, Siri Cruise
<chine.bleu@www.yahoo.com> wrote:
john larkin wrote:
The US is a good place for unfunded startups with radical ideas. I
don't see a lot of smallish exotic-electronics companies in other
countries. England seems to have some.
It's a good place for farmers to apply USDA research to make
themselves rich feeding the world.
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.
Bill Sloman 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.
I thought San Marino had the first modern constitution, back in 1600. https://www.oldest.org/politics/constitutions/
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,
and the population will most likely
peak and slowly decline.
The catastrophists are always wrong.
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.
(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.
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?
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.
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.
The by product has been CO2 which causes warming.
Every solution brings with it a new problem.
I understand the reasoning behind the existence of the
f-ligatures but not st, less so why it would be used in
an electronic doc.
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.
On 30 Mar 2024 18:36:47 -0300, Mike Spencer
<mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> wrote:
I understand the reasoning behind the existence of the
f-ligatures but not st, less so why it would be used in
an electronic doc.
Wild guess: if there are also 'nd', 'rd' and 'th' ligatures, it
is probably meant for constructs like
1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, ... etc.
Also, some of the ligatures could be used for "kerning".
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ligature_(writing)> ><https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kerning>
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
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
physics, or the axioms of mathematics.
"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.
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.
Swill
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.
The by product has been CO2 which causes warming.
Every solution brings with it a new problem.
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
On 30 Mar 2024 18:36:47 -0300, Mike Spencer
<mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> wrote:
I understand the reasoning behind the existence of the
f-ligatures but not st, less so why it would be used in
an electronic doc.
Wild guess: if there are also 'nd', 'rd' and 'th' ligatures, it
is probably meant for constructs like
1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, ... etc.
Also, some of the ligatures could be used for "kerning".
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ligature_(writing)> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kerning>
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.
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.
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:
Every solution brings with it a new problem.
Every neurosis is an opportunity for power and money.
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.
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
Jeroen Belleman wrote:
I can understand warfare as ruthless competition for scarce
resources, or maybe as a preemptive action for a perceived future
threat. I don't understand religion, despite having been brought up
in that environment. Where many people think they see the hand of
some god, I see just
Consider the horror that they might be correct.
with <uuam7l$1g988$1@dont-email.me> Siri Cruise wrote:
Jeroen Belleman wrote:
I can understand warfare as ruthless competition for scarce
resources, or maybe as a preemptive action for a perceived future
threat. I don't understand religion, despite having been brought up
in that environment. Where many people think they see the hand of
some god, I see just
Consider the horror that they might be correct.
Consider the horror that your choice of deity is wrong.
[...]
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.
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.
On 3/31/24 22:16, Siri Cruise wrote:
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.
Of course not, there are always converts, from any creed to any
other. But some of them risk their lives in doing so.
It's an evasion anyway. You're brain is locked because you've
denied yourself that most precious of human assets--empathy.
Nonsense. Religion doesn't have a monopoly on empathy. Moral
sentiments do not derive from religion. With or without it,
there are good people and bad people. However, rigid religious
convictions can push misguided good people to do evil. We've
seen plenty of examples of those.
Jeroen Belleman
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 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 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 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 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.
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 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 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 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 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 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 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."
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 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.
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.
The two great commonalities of human society are religion and
warfare.
Both of which are objectively bad and wrong.
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.
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.
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.
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 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 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 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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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,
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,
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.
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.
Western religions have converged to peaceful co-existence. Muslim
factions sure haven't.
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.
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.
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.
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 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, 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 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, 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 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 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 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.
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.
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?
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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 08:59:43 -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?
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 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 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.
It's not important what I do professionally. I told you what I do here,
and I'm extremely talented at it.
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?
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 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?
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?
Musk isn't an inventor. That's a fact, not sour grapes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elon_Musk
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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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.
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'.
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 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 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 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 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 >>>>>>>>> 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 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 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 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'.
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.
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 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.
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.
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 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 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
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 344 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 34:28:53 |
| Calls: | 7,524 |
| Files: | 12,713 |
| Messages: | 5,642,840 |
