Climate models suck - It's the programming
in [Cobol]
|
From: Pete Dashwood on 29 Jan 2010 09:10 Pete Dashwood wrote: > Tony Harding wrote: >> On 01/21/10 17:45, Pete Dashwood wrote: >> >> <snip> > All of us could be dead within the next 10 minutes... it is only > probabilities. > > I wrote an article about this for a magazine column called "The Sharp > Point" here a few months back. It was intended to help people dealing > with loss and I had some very nice emails about it from people I > never met. It just so happens that the Webmistress (her term, not mine... :-)) of the Magazine (Bravado), decided she would put up a sample of my column, and guess which one she chose? :-) Go to www.bravado.co.nz ..click "About us" then click on my profile. The latest edition has an article about "Keeping up with the Joneses" which is the first "funny" one I've tried. Being amusing in print is really not easy. If any of you are into art and literature, you might enjoy Bravado. It costs around $35 a year (3 issues, probably moving to 4 soon) and we will mail world wide. You can subscribe through the Web Site (Pay Pal) and we really need the money:-) It is a non-profit organization and just as well, because it is certainly turning out that way. Without funding from Creative New Zealand (like all the similar publications in NZ) we couldn't survive. Pete. -- "I used to write COBOL...now I can do anything."
From: Anonymous on 29 Jan 2010 10:57 In article <cab0c90e-17c2-4dff-bcc9-2e181877c8c5(a)m25g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>, Alistair <alistair(a)ld50macca.demon.co.uk> wrote: >On Jan 28, 7:34?pm, docdw...(a)panix.com () wrote: >> In article <834dc8a3-4800-4324-beb3-b87bc998c...(a)b9g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>, >> >> >> Alistair ?<alist...(a)ld50macca.demon.co.uk> wrote: >> >On Jan 25, 1:35?pm, docdw...(a)panix.com () wrote: >> >> In article >> ><f8a8a0a3-d02a-4ff8-b4be-a80dbb68e...(a)a22g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>, >> >> >> Alistair ?<alist...(a)ld50macca.demon.co.uk> wrote: >> >> >On Jan 23, 2:42?am, "Pete Dashwood" >> >> ><dashw...(a)removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote: >> >> >> Alistair wrote: >> >> >> > On Jan 22, 1:44 pm, "Pete Dashwood" >> >> >> > <dashw...(a)removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote: >> >> >> [snip] >> >> >> >> Maybe some people have religion so deeply ingrained in them that no amont of >> >> >> education will get them thinking for themselves. >> >> >> >My fundamentalist friend whenever we have arguments (about the age of >> >> >the earth, etc.) asks for citations and says "that depends upon what >> >> >you mean by...". >> >> >> This is one of the Very Good Reasons for beginning with agreed-upon >> >> Definitions, Postulates and Common Notions before one begins to construct >> >> Propositions for proof/disproof. >> >> >Second time around for me on this and the thought occured to me: if >> >there is an omnipotent god then there can be no fundamental agreeable >> >definitions as a god would have the power to change the definition at >> >any moment. >> >> As it seems there can be no ratio established between 'having all powers' >> and 'having limited powers' - as 'all powers' can readily conclude powers >> which are not part of the subset of 'the limited' - then any attempt to >> reconcile an omnipotent being with a limited one can readily be concluded >> to be an attempt to deal with an irrationality. >> >> At least... I believe that this is part of how English As She Is Spoke >> works. > >DD, you should know, better than most, that English is an evolving >language and is spoken in many different ways around the globe. I was >quite surprised when I looked up Wiki to see exactly how many dialects >there are, even in the UK. I am not only willing to admit to the limitations of my learning... by my postings here it might be concluded that I'm willing to demonstrate it, as well. To the best of my knowledge the 'ir-' prefix (as derived from the Latin 'in-' prefix) has been used to indicate negation or the absence of a quality for a goodly number of centuries and the specific I used ('irrational') can be traced to the early-mid 15th century. This may be seen as a rather sound precedent... but, of course, if anyone has citings indicating otherwise then, by all means, bring them forward so that something might be learned from the analysis and discussion thereof. DD
From: Anonymous on 29 Jan 2010 11:11 In article <v72dnS-yWLGzmv_WnZ2dnUVZ_u6dnZ2d(a)earthlink.com>, HeyBub <heybub(a)NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote: >Howard Brazee wrote: >> >> Again, that's how virgins are created... >> >> How about, ignoring the Constitution for suspected terrorists is like >> destroying the village in order to save it? > >Gotta stamp this out every time I see it. > >The Constitution offers only minimal protection to terrorists. The active >phrases in the Constitution are things like "In all criminal >prosecutions..." or "No person shall answer for a ... crime..." > >Unlawful enemy combatants are not criminals. They do not have a >Constitutional right to a lawyer, trial by jury, indictment by a grand jury, >remain silent, or any of the other "rights" accorded violators of the >criminal law. Is it a custom in certain parts of the country to ignore the black-letter law of the Constitution? Amendment V clearly states 'No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger'; these 'unlawful combatants', in no uniform and not in the service of any sovereign state, do not seem to fit these exceptions. >What protections they DO have are found under Article II where >the President is blessed as Commander in Chief of the armed forces. The >president may do with unlawful enemy combatants whatever he chooses and his >decision cannot be gainsaid by anyone; not the Congress, not the courts. The President, to the best of my knowledge, has powers enumerated by the Constitution and none of these include abrogation of Amdnement VI protections, ie 'In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed...' [snip] >All this doesn't mean a terrorist can't be treated as a criminal, just that >whether he goes into the criminal justice system bucket or the military >tribunal bucket is often a discretionary decision. Not according to the Constitution, as cited above. If you can find a contrary citation please present it. [snip] >Point is, a terrorist does NOT get, nor is he entitled to, constitutional >protections when he is outside the criminal justice system. The Constitution clearly describes the treatment of those who are made to answer for capital or otherwise infamous crimes and the rights of the accused, as noted. DD
From: SkippyPB on 29 Jan 2010 13:15 On Thu, 28 Jan 2010 15:52:45 -0600, "HeyBub" <heybub(a)NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote: >Howard Brazee wrote: >> >> Again, that's how virgins are created... >> >> How about, ignoring the Constitution for suspected terrorists is like >> destroying the village in order to save it? > >Gotta stamp this out every time I see it. > >The Constitution offers only minimal protection to terrorists. The active >phrases in the Constitution are things like "In all criminal >prosecutions..." or "No person shall answer for a ... crime..." > >Unlawful enemy combatants are not criminals. They do not have a >Constitutional right to a lawyer, trial by jury, indictment by a grand jury, >remain silent, or any of the other "rights" accorded violators of the >criminal law. What protections they DO have are found under Article II where >the President is blessed as Commander in Chief of the armed forces. The >president may do with unlawful enemy combatants whatever he chooses and his >decision cannot be gainsaid by anyone; not the Congress, not the courts. > >A "lawful enemy combatant" is one who: 1) Wears a distinctive uniform or >insignia, 2) Carries arms openly, 3) Adheres to a defined chain of command, >and 4) Conforms to the usual rules of war. By extension, a combatant not >fulfilling all these attributes is an "unlawful" enemy combatant. This >designation includes saboteurs, spys, guerrillas, fifth-columnists, >resistance fighters, and the like, plus those assisting. > >The usual way of dealing with these folks, since time immemorial, is to kill >them out of hand. > >All this doesn't mean a terrorist can't be treated as a criminal, just that >whether he goes into the criminal justice system bucket or the military >tribunal bucket is often a discretionary decision. The Christmas bomber >could go either way; someone captured on the battlefield in Afghanistan >could, reasonably, be directed only to the military tribunal bucket (after >all, what U.S. criminal law has he broken?). > >Point is, a terrorist does NOT get, nor is he entitled to, constitutional >protections when he is outside the criminal justice system. Another >significant point is that the citizenship of the terrorist is immaterial. >During WW2, we had, literally, hundreds of thousands of German and Italian >POWs in the U.S. (Texas alone had over 100 POW camps). A significant number >were U.S. citizens (think dual citizenship). Not a single prisoner ever had >a day in court for any reason (except for courts martial for offenses >committed while a POW). > "Enemy Combatants"....a phrase created to ignore the constitution. If we go to war to defend our Constitution then those we go to war against should be held accountable to it and under it, not be ignored by it. Regards, -- //// (o o) -oOO--(_)--OOo- "Every time I walk into a singles bar I can hear Mom's wise words: "Don't pick that up, you don't know where it's been."" -- Unknown ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Remove nospam to email me. Steve
From: HeyBub on 29 Jan 2010 17:16
docdwarf(a)panix.com wrote: > > The President, to the best of my knowledge, has powers enumerated by > the Constitution and none of these include abrogation of Amdnement VI > protections, ie 'In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall > enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of > the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed...' Your knowledge is incomplete. As CinC, he has all the powers normally vested in a military leader according to the usual rules of war. Further, our Supreme Court validated this proposition in the "Prize Cases" (67 US 635) in 1862. The 6th Amendment, as you point out, begins: "In all criminal prosecutions..." A terrorist need not be considered a criminal and in some cases cannot be. For example, if a terrorist kills a bunch of American tourists in Cairo, the United States has NO criminal jurisdiction over the actors. > > [snip] > >> All this doesn't mean a terrorist can't be treated as a criminal, >> just that whether he goes into the criminal justice system bucket or >> the military tribunal bucket is often a discretionary decision. > > Not according to the Constitution, as cited above. If you can find a > contrary citation please present it. I just did. The president, or his designee, can denote someone as an (unlawful) enemy combatant - this is in accordance with the usual rules of war as codified in the Hague and Geneva protocols. When that happens, its the end of the story. This feature has made it up to one appellate court which said that if the president's action is unacceptable, the people can replace him at the next election, but that was the only recourse. > > [snip] > >> Point is, a terrorist does NOT get, nor is he entitled to, >> constitutional protections when he is outside the criminal justice >> system. > > The Constitution clearly describes the treatment of those who are > made to answer for capital or otherwise infamous crimes and the > rights of the accused, as noted. > Pay attention to the point: A terrorist is NOT automatically a criminal. Look at the discussion regarding the Christmas bomber; several are advocating dismissing the criminal charges against him (although that's not really necessary) and handing him over to the military. As things stand now, this dude WAS originally charged by the military tribunals, but as soon as the Justice Department got involved, the charges were dismissed without prejudice, meaning they can be reinstated at the drop of a hat. |