Climate models suck - It's the programming
in [Cobol]
|
From: Pete Dashwood on 2 Feb 2010 23:29 Tony Harding wrote: > On 01/29/10 09:10, Pete Dashwood wrote: >> 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. > > Just read your article, Pete, and enjoyed it. Re: good & bad and who > "cares" about something, I was reminded of something I heard years ago > re: evolution: Nature's not bad, just indifferent. Yes, I think if you read Richard Dawking he comes across like that. Everyone has their own stance on religion and spirituality and, as all of the data isn't in yet :-), it is hard to draw conclusions. I hold the views I do (confirmed Atheist) based on the research I did and my life experience. I have many friends who don't share my views and, over a bottle of wine or Jack Daniels, the conversations can become enthusiastic. :-) So far, I have lost no friends by discussing religion(or politics for that matter) probably because I know there can be more than one valid position on these topics, and I'm not out to Evangelize my position on it to anyone else. I am always a little bit humbled, and touched, by friends who may be devout Christians and actually fear for my mortal soul. (Some of them genuinely care and don't want to see me suffering the torments of Hell throughout Eternity.) "What if you're wrong, Pete? What if you find yourself before God and have to account? " They are very fair questions and I have given them some thought. (I have my defence well prepared, but if I lose, then I guess I'll cheerfully go to Hell... :-)) I remember as a child and, knowing my Dad could die any time, being concerned about what would happen to him. I asked him if he would go to Heaven or Hell and he smiled and said: "Son, I have friends in both places." Thanks for reading the article, Tony, and for your kind words. Glad you enjoyed it. Pete. -- "I used to write COBOL...now I can do anything."
From: Alistair on 3 Feb 2010 07:25 On Feb 3, 4:12 am, "Pete Dashwood" <dashw...(a)removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote: > Alistair wrote: > > On Feb 2, 12:18 am, "Pete Dashwood" > > <dashw...(a)removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote: > >> Alistair wrote: > >>> On Jan 31, 10:35 pm, "Pete Dashwood" > >>> <dashw...(a)removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote: > >>>> Alistair wrote: > >>>>> On Jan 30, 1:40 pm, "Pete Dashwood" > >>>>> <dashw...(a)removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote: > >>>>>> A little needle in the back of the hand (a firing squad equates > >>>>>> them with soldiers, and that is an insult to anyone who has ever > >>>>>> been a soldier...) would save the courts, taxpayers, and bleeding > >>>>>> hearts a heap of time and money, and let us get on with the task > >>>>>> of finding (and needling) the rest of them... > > >>>>> A little needle in the back of the hand is directly opposite to > >>>>> your previous stances on crime and capital punishment. > > >>>> No it isn't. I do NOT support capital punishment and I live in a > >>>> country that doesn't. I do believe in rehabilition if there is the > >>>> remotest chance of that working and have seen success in this area, > >>>> right here in my own country. BUT, I have ALWAYS believed there are > >>>> certian crimes which are so "beyond the pale" that the best we can > >>>> do is simply remove the perpetrators. A little needle is the most > >>>> humane way to do it. > > >>>> I hope this clarifies my position and if you can show it > >>>> contradicts anything I have previously said (taken in full > >>>> context) then I apologize. > > >>> Having once gone back through the archives to prove you wrong and > >>> found that it was a futile effort, I shall take your word for it on > >>> this one. > > >> Thank you Alistair, I appreciate your graciousness. > > >> I promise you I am not vacillating here. It is complex, and > >> discussions in the past have been about crime and punishment. I > >> don't see this in those terms. Inhumanity is beyond crime in my book. > > >>>>> As to forcing the defeated enemy to wear loud shirts, that would > >>>>> condstitute a cruel and unusual punishment and would not be > >>>>> permitted under the USA constitution. > > >>>> So would making them conform to OUR system. > > >>>> Why not try them under Islamic law and then stone them to death? > > >>> Islamic law would find them innocent as their actions were those of > >>> Jihadis and therefore within the pale of Islamic law. > > >> I guess that is getting to the nub of the thread. If the enemy is > >> completely opposed to everything we hold dear, and they despise and > >> vow to bring down our system, all of that can be seen as a clash of > >> two cultures and may provide a reason to go to war. We would rather > >> it didn't come to that, but with some people, there is no option. > >> That is a sad reality and has been throughout history. However, when > >> they prosecute that war by means that are so awful, cowardly and > >> despicable that it outrages humanity, then I believe we don't need > >> to afford them consideration that we would to people who did not > >> resort to such means. > > >> If we don't draw a line, then there is no point in having rights for > >> ANYBODY. We should just revert to the guy with the biggest spear > >> calling the tune... > > > I watched a documentary last night following a squad of Taliban in one > > of the northern provinces of Afghanistan. I was struck by a number of > > points: > > > 1. The apparent support for the Taliban from the locals. > > 2. The incompetence of the Taliban (it took them three attempts to > > ambush a tank transporter and all they succeeded in doing was wasting > > one rpg (it missed) and detonating their roadside bomb after the event > > because it failed to go off when the target approached). > > 3. The lies that the Taliban told their commander. They said they had > > destroyed the tank and the 6-7 men escorting it. In fact they had > > missed all targets. Further, they had claimed to have destroyed 6 > > tanks on the road in question but there was only evidence for the > > destruction of one trailer or BMP (left over from the Russian > > occupation). > > 4. The local police said that there were no Taliban in the area. This > > despite the fact that the Taliban had been filmed shopping in the > > local petrol station 2 days before the police visited the same shop. > > 5. That the Taliban had imposed local (sharia) law on the area > > occupied and that they had become the de facto government because the > > locals paid their taxes to the Taliban. > > > AND > > > 6. One of the Taliban said (roughly): One thing that the US and > > English should know is that when we have won the war in Afghanistan we > > will come to Britain and Europe to impose Islam there. > > Great, isn't it? > > Pete. > > -- > "I used to write COBOL...now I can do anything."- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - I have my sniper rifle ordered already. ;-)
From: Anonymous on 3 Feb 2010 09:16 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)?' 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.' DD
From: Anonymous on 3 Feb 2010 09:19 In article <7sruelF8opU1(a)mid.individual.net>, Pete Dashwood <dashwood(a)removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote: [snip] >I've seen documentaries suggesting that the raid on Pearl Harbour was known >about by the Americans several days in advance of the attacks, but the >people concerned didn't give credence to the reports, or simply couldn't >believe it was possible or likely. The rationale I was taught was that at the time there was a very strong American Isolationist movement and something... truly horrid had to happen, or be allowed to happen, to get folks behind the War Machine. DD
From: Anonymous on 3 Feb 2010 10:02
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'? [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 |