Climate models suck - It's the programming
in [Cobol]
|
From: Howard Brazee on 4 Feb 2010 12:46 On Thu, 4 Feb 2010 16:30:35 +0000 (UTC), docdwarf(a)panix.com () wrote: >>>>My son claims he never stopped believing in the Tooth Fairy, even >>>>though he's paying out for his kids. If he loses a tooth, he wants >>>>the money. >>> >>>If he needs the cash that badly tell him to find a bar-room brawl and make >>>sure to be on the losing side. >> >>It's not about money, it's an amusing illustration of Pascal's wager. > >If it isn't about the money then the statement 'he wants the money' seems >absurd... then again, a lot of things about money seem to work that way. Good point. I like the pro athlete making $90 million who gets dissed when someone else gets $91 million. I don't really believe my son makes that claim because he wants nor expects that money - but if I gave it to him, he would take it, why not. Personally, the idea of everlasting heaven is as bad as everlasting hell - if I were offered a choice between everlasting heaven or a week of being tortured then dying for good, I'd pick the latter. And you're the King of England. -- "In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found, than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace to the legislature, and not to the executive department." - James Madison
From: Pete Dashwood on 4 Feb 2010 20:20 docdwarf(a)panix.com wrote: > In article <7srr82FphmU1(a)mid.individual.net>, > Pete Dashwood <dashwood(a)removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote: >> docdwarf(a)panix.com wrote: >>> In article <7spacnFd4nU1(a)mid.individual.net>, >>> Pete Dashwood <dashwood(a)removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote: >>>> docdwarf(a)panix.com wrote: >>>>> In article <4KOdnbXYY6vHw_7WnZ2dnUVZ_oSdnZ2d(a)earthlink.com>, >>>>> HeyBub <heybub(a)NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> docdwarf(a)panix.com wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>> [snip] >>>>> >>>>>> Pay attention to the point: A terrorist is NOT automatically a >>>>>> criminal. >>>>> >>>>> Pay attention to the point: the Constitution states, black-letter, >>>>> that people have rights. Such a denial of humanity has not, to >>>>> the best of my knowledge, been legally codified. >>>> >>>> You are right, it hasn't been. >>> >>> We agree? Quick, somebody mark the calendar. >>> >>>> >>>> My arguments here are predicated on it being axiomatic that inhuman >>>> behaviour CAN be used to "deny humanity", and hence application of >>>> Human Rights. >>>> >>>> I know it is heresy, but it is certainly worth exploring. >>> >>> If one's enemy's inhuman behavior causes one to choose to act >>> inhumanly then one is acting in the manner of one's enemy... and if >>> a oal of the enemy is 'to have around only People Who Act Like Us' >>> then one has become one's enemy. >>> >>> 'When fighting monsters one must take care not to become one'... or >>> something like that. >>> >> >> "Two wrongs don't make a right", huh? > > No, but three lefts do... sorry, cheap shot. If an enemy is defined > by a set of activities and one performs said set of activities then > it becomes difficult, if not impossible, to determine - based on > activities performed - one from one's enemy. > >> >> Sound logically, but I still can't buy it... :-) >> >> Monsters ned to be stopped and if they break the rules then they >> exclude themselves from having the protection of those rules. > > 'The rules'? I wonder from which edition of the game. The simple > formulation of my point is '(group) is considered to be our enemy > because they (activity)... so we will (activity), too!' Where's the > difference between the groups? > >> >> I guess there is a bit of monster in me somewhere because it doesn't >> bother my conscience one jot or tittle to write this. :-) > > Writing about it is one thing, Mr Dashwood... *doing* is another. A > favorite tactic I've seen employed is 'Well, what if you have an enemy > prisoner whom you know to have information that will lead to deaths > unless you perform (horrid action)?' I think I would argue that the 'horrid action' solution is only one of a number, limited by imagination. If my conscience forbade me to employ that action, then I'd have to find another solution or leave it, as you noted, to people more experienced in these matters. (That is really such a cop out, it would bother me a lot - I should not expect others to take action I wouldn't take myself...) > > My response is 'I try to live my life so as not to find myself in > such a situation... and were it to happen I would seek the aid and > experience of those more skilled in such behaviors than I.' I s'pose at this point I should reiterate that at no time in this discussion have I advocated "horrid action" against the enemy. Neither have I suggested we should do what THEY do, or become like them in any way. I am advocating they should not enjoy rights and priveleges that we might extend to people who have NOT done "inhuman" things. That is all. Pete. -- "I used to write COBOL...now I can do anything."
From: Pete Dashwood on 4 Feb 2010 20:47 Howard Brazee wrote: > On Wed, 3 Feb 2010 13:31:15 +1300, "Pete Dashwood" > <dashwood(a)removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote: > >> Like I said before, Terrorism sucks even worse than War does. > > How so? Because terrorism strikes in a cowardly and despicable way at UNSUSPECTING civilian populations who are totally unprepared and unequpped to protect themselves. At least in war, people get a chance to make the necessary physical and mental adjustments to try and cope with it. Certainly atrocities and crimes against Humanity can and do occur in war. But when Terrorists do that to civilian populations, in my book at least, that is worse. I can see people in war going nuts and doing outrageous things; I can't see someone tending sheep one minute and flying a plane (or forcing someone else to) into a building the next. That's just wrong at so many levels I can't begin to enumerate them. There was a time when men faced each other and had to stick bits of metal in each other face to face to settle disputes. It wasn't pretty and there were still grieving mothers and sweethearts, but at least it had an honesty about it and, on some occasions, it brought out attributes of courage and honour that we marvel at even thousands of years later. Terrorism does no such thing. It comes as a thief in the night, without honour, without decency, without even human pity. It strangles you in your sleep, without remorse, and feeds its blood lust on your children and your family. It is the last resort of cowards and assassins who know there is no way they will attain their goals by any means of due process, because nobody else agrees with them. So they seek to destroy the society they cannot be a part of. People who can't and won't "live and let live". People who believe their way is the only way and will destroy anyone who disagrees, not by facing them, honestly and squarely, with respect, but by back-stabbing and stealth. That's why it sucks even worse than War. Pete. -- "I used to write COBOL...now I can do anything."
From: Pete Dashwood on 4 Feb 2010 20:55 docdwarf(a)panix.com wrote: > In article <7srvmtFe1pU1(a)mid.individual.net>, > Pete Dashwood <dashwood(a)removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote: >> docdwarf(a)panix.com wrote: >>> In article <-9mdnUwGTKMj-fXWnZ2dnUVZ_v6dnZ2d(a)earthlink.com>, >>> HeyBub <heybub(a)NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote: > > [snip] > >>>> It wasn't until July of that year that >>>> Congress got around to "legalizing" the president's actions. The >>>> Prize Cases affirmed that the president has the inherent authority >>>> to do as he thinks best in times of belligerency or insurrection, >>>> without regard to constitutional niceties. >>> >>> The Prize Cases decision had to do with naval blockades and seized >>> ships. not with the declaring of human beings to be >>> other-than-human. The relevance to the question of non-citizens >>> being considered 'persons' seems to be negligible >> >> Um...presumably there were people on the seized ships? Their rights >> were overridden by the President. > > That may be, Mr Dashwood... but the case was about the seizure of > ships and piracy, not seizure of people and press-ganging. See > http://www.oyez.org/cases/1851-1900/1862/1862_0/ for details. > >>> If the situation involved in the deliberate murders which occurred >>> on Septermber 11 are not considered 'criminal' than it seems you are >>> dealing with a set of definitions which are completely outside those >>> usually employed by American jurisprudence and further establishment >>> of definitions relevant to the case at hand need be established >>> before discussion is to continue. >> >> In my view they are BEYOND criminal. > > Sad - or perhaps very fortunate - to say, Mr Dashwood, corpus of law > does not seem to be in accord with your view. Might you be able to > locate a set of codified conditions which constitute 'BEYOND (caps > original) criminal'? Nope. I can't. I am advocating that there SHOULD be such a codex. Based on two things: 1. Modern technology has empowered Terrorists to use weapons and horrors that were unimaginable 200 years ago. 2. Terrorists are not only capable of doing these things, they are enthusiastic about it, and proud of the mayhem they create. There is no concept of "humanity" in these crimes so we need a new level of criminal justice to recognise this and deal with it appropriately. Covered in previous posts. > > [snip] > >>> Cite, please. Be so kind as to show where it has been determined by >>> the Supreme Court of the United States of America that the >>> Constitution is enforceable as the Supreme Law of the Land only >>> during such times as the President has seen fit, as 71 US 2 1866 (Ex >>> Parte Milligan) and 343 US 579 1952 (Youngstown Sheet Tube Co. v >>> Sawyer) appear to deny. Your interpretation would, it seems, change >>> the nature of a Constutional Republic and a Government of Laws into >>> a Whimful Despotism. >> >> Hmmm... it certainly would, except for two things: >> >> 1. The President can ONLY overrule the Constitution (and we have to >> believe, as he is sworn to uphold it, that it would not be the >> PREFERRED action), if he declares a state of emergency. > > Funny things about those states of emergency, Mr Dashwood... did you > know that in the United States one lasted from the 1950s to the > 1970s? Seems like nobody took it upon themselves to repeal it... and > it also seems that nobody took advantage of the extraordinary powers > such a state permits. > >> >> 2. The President will be held accountable for delaring a state of >> emergency after the crisis is over. > > Unless pardonned by a successor, that bit about President Nixon I > snipped. > >> >> Given those two constraints, the chance for despotism, with the >> President overruling the Constitution every 5 minutes to fullfil his >> own whims or fantasies, seems unlikely, and the Republic stays >> intact. > > Both constraints addressed, Mr Dashwood... and the slope of Imperial > Presidency is a slippery one down which I would not like to see my > President take steps. > > DD -- "I used to write COBOL...now I can do anything."
From: Pete Dashwood on 4 Feb 2010 21:19
Howard Brazee wrote: > On Wed, 3 Feb 2010 13:52:43 +1300, "Pete Dashwood" > <dashwood(a)removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote: > >> In my view they are BEYOND criminal. The criminal justice system is >> designed to deal with crimes in a society, not things that are >> unthinkable to normal human beings. This is what I mean when I say >> "Beyond the pale"... > > So when someone is accused of a crime "unthinkable to normal human > beings", he should not be accorded with due process. Not with CURRENT due process, no. The current processes need revision to recognise "SuperCrime". Particularly as there is now the wherewithal for someone to destroy the entire planet, which was not previously the case. I am not advocating that we become less moral or descend to the level of Terrorists. Merely that community service isn't going to cut it for someone who puts anthrax in the water supply... And affording them the same rights and priveleges we afford someone who DOESN'T put anthrax in the water supply just makes no sense to me. Let's have a clearly defined set of rules that decide WHAT rights and priveleges such people can have, where there is no doubt of guilt (cameras on the scene or uncoerced confession). Until such time as they get the little needle. > > I don't claim to be an expert on what is unthinkable to normal human > beings, but there is a wide variety of crimes committed that are > beyond what I could possibly consider. > > It is quite possible that I could be accused of such a crime. If > so, I would do everything I could do to prove my innocence. > Fortunately the legal system here allows me to defend myself. > > I am assuming that "beyond the pale" doesn't apply to people whose > skin isn't as pale as mine, but applies to that heinous crime that was > committed by the local businessman in his off-time as well. It isn't about "proving your innocence" and I covered that. Pete. -- "I used to write COBOL...now I can do anything." |