Climate models suck - It's the programming
in [Cobol]
|
From: Pete Dashwood on 10 Feb 2010 19:21 docdwarf(a)panix.com wrote: > In article <7tekgnF8hhU1(a)mid.individual.net>, > Pete Dashwood <dashwood(a)removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote: >> docdwarf(a)panix.com wrote: >>> In article <7t94ddFhujU1(a)mid.individual.net>, >>> Pete Dashwood <dashwood(a)removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote: >>>> Howard Brazee wrote: >>>>> On Sat, 6 Feb 2010 11:37:18 +1300, "Pete Dashwood" >>>>> <dashwood(a)removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote: >>>>> > >> >> I have nothing further to add to this discussion. > > THEN WHY DIDN'T YOU SHOW THE SMALL COURTSY OF TRIMMING THE POST?!? > > (Sorry... I've passed through too many postings where the (n) pages of > quoted mateial, nothing new, on to the next reflex has kicked in, the > annoyance sometimes leaks out. Sheesh! Get a grip... I usually DO trim posts, although there is always the risk of offending someone when this is done. Given that it is pretty easy to differentiate new comments from old ones (by chevrons or colour), I don't think it is critical enough to start shouting about. And I DO (generally) try to be courteous in my posts here. Pete. -- "I used to write COBOL...now I can do anything."
From: Anonymous on 11 Feb 2010 12:07 In article <7th0ssFu6fU1(a)mid.individual.net>, Pete Dashwood <dashwood(a)removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote: >docdwarf(a)panix.com wrote: >> In article <7tekgnF8hhU1(a)mid.individual.net>, >> Pete Dashwood <dashwood(a)removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote: >>> docdwarf(a)panix.com wrote: >>>> In article <7t94ddFhujU1(a)mid.individual.net>, >>>> Pete Dashwood <dashwood(a)removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote: >>>>> Howard Brazee wrote: >>>>>> On Sat, 6 Feb 2010 11:37:18 +1300, "Pete Dashwood" >>>>>> <dashwood(a)removethis.enternet.co.nz> wrote: >>>>>> > >> >>> >>> I have nothing further to add to this discussion. >> >> THEN WHY DIDN'T YOU SHOW THE SMALL COURTSY OF TRIMMING THE POST?!? >> >> (Sorry... I've passed through too many postings where the (n) pages of >> quoted mateial, nothing new, on to the next reflex has kicked in, the >> annoyance sometimes leaks out. > >Sheesh! Get a grip... The restraint demonstrated might be cause for conclusion that a 'grip' is already had, Mr Dashwood, right along with the immediate apology. DD
From: HeyBub on 12 Feb 2010 11:43 docdwarf(a)panix.com wrote: > In article <FIqdnaFCRL4Icu_WnZ2dnUVZ_uednZ2d(a)earthlink.com>, > HeyBub <heybub(a)NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote: >> docdwarf(a)panix.com wrote: >>>> >>>> Had you taken such a course you would know that it doesn't matter >>>> what the Constitution says. The only thing that counts is what the >>>> Constitution means. And what the Constitution means is solely >>>> determined by the courts. >>> >>> If taking such a course would make me appear to be completely and >>> utterly ignorant of the black-letter imperatives of Article III, >>> Section 2, then one's education might have been the better for >>> having missed it. >>> >>> 'In all other cases before mentioned (ed. note.: including 'all >>> cases, arising in law and equity, arising under this Constitution') >>> he Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law >>> and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the >>> Congress shall make.' >>> >>> So... what regulation, applicable to Amendments V and VI, has the >>> Congress made which renders a human being a non-person? >>> >> >> Congress was not involved. The 5th and 6th Amendments (in the main) >> apply to CRIMINAL prosecutions. > > The Vth stats, clearly and unambiguously, how 'No person' shall be > treated, the VIth states what 'the accused' will enjoy. Final > request, what regulations do you believe render a human being a > non-person? The 5th says: "No person shall be held to answer for a capital or otherwise infamous CRIME..." The 6th says: "In all CRIMINAL prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy..." There are no regulations that render a human being a non-person. > >> >> I'll say it again: People designated as enemy combatants are not >> subject to the criminal law. > > Repetition adds no veracity. As the laws apply to all people they > only do not apply to non-persons; indicate where or how, in law, ths > status of non-person can be made to apply and you might have made > your point. I wish you'd give up on this person/non-person silliness. Your thesis seems to be that all "persons" have 5th and 6th Amendment rights and that when I claim someone doesn't have these rights I am simultaneously asserting they are "non-persons." That is simply not the case. I am asserting that some "persons" do NOT have 5th & 6th Amendment rights simply because they are not accused of violating a criminal law. On has to be accused of violating a criminal statute to be entitled to the constitutional rights reserved primarily for the CRIMINAL justice system. > > [snip] > >> For the life of me, I can't understand why you are having such a >> hard time grasping this simple concept. > > It is uite simple. The Constitution is Law and Law is (outside of > those arriving on tablets from mountainsides or out of the mouths of > prophets) are written by humans for humans. You claim that doing > something You Don't Like takes away the status of humanity and I say > that as far as I understand United States Law there is no such thing. I never said any such thing. Let me agree with you: Persons are (mostly - ignoring corporations) humans. Humans are persons. Enemy combatants are humans but they are not criminals. Enemy combatants are persons but they are not criminals. The criminal law applies ONLY to criminal prosecutions. Constitutional protections afforded accused criminals only apply to, well, those accused of criminal offenses. Constitutional protections do not apply to those facing governmental sanctions outside the confines of the criminal law. Examples: * Someone incarcerated for civil contempt is NOT constitutionally entitled to a lawyer or a trial by jury. * A juvenile is NOT entitled to an indictment by a grand jury. * In a civil trial, one CAN BE compelled to give testimoy against himself. * An unlawful enemy combatant can be executed after the most perfunctory examination. > >> It's just as well, I suppose, that you never >> had a formal introduction to law - you'd have failed it miserably. > > Wrong on both counts... that might be the reason I've asked the one > simple question of 'when is a person not a human?' that you cannot > answer and that causes your argument to seem less legal and more > emotional. > A person is (almost) always a human, but that is irrelevant. Whether a human is a person or a human has no bearing on whether that person is a criminal or an enemy combatant. Further, the person's actions alone are not dispositive of which legal channel is appropriate. Even within the criminal law, the actions alone are not determinate. For example, in my state, when one human kills another, the situation may be any one of five possibilities. Consider two chaps out deer hunting and one shoots the other. The situation may develop into: * Murder (deliberate and intentional) * Manslaughter (drunk or heat of passion) * Negligent homicide (one shoots a moving bush concealing the other) * Justifiable homicide (shooter returns fire in self defense) * Excusable homicide (victim dressed in a deer costume) (the last two are not criminal offenses). The current controversy over where to try KSM is instructive. The administration wants a trial to be held in a criminal court in New York. Rational people want a military tribunal in Gitmo. Obviously, KSM could be considered as either a criminal or an enemy combatant. If the former, he gets all the constitutional protections other criminals get. If the latter, he gets hanged.
From: Howard Brazee on 12 Feb 2010 13:16 On Fri, 12 Feb 2010 10:43:55 -0600, "HeyBub" <heybub(a)NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote: >Let me agree with you: Persons are (mostly - ignoring corporations) humans. >Humans are persons. Enemy combatants are humans but they are not criminals. >Enemy combatants are persons but they are not criminals. The criminal law >applies ONLY to criminal prosecutions. Constitutional protections afforded >accused criminals only apply to, well, those accused of criminal offenses. >Constitutional protections do not apply to those facing governmental >sanctions outside the confines of the criminal law. Examples: The difficulty lies in someone who's suspected of being a terrorist, but who's not a recognized soldier of a nation we are at war with. Let's use Timothy McVeigh as an example. We used police procedures to find him and to find evidence that he was guilty. That evidence was made public, he was tried, found guilty of multiple murders, and executed. He happened to be an American Citizen, but foreigners who are charged with murder get the same rights. We have seen a long history of states being anxious to have a public accounting and punishment of crimes - so much so that they have convicted and punished innocent people. Rule of law helps make sure that we don't stop looking for the guilty because we have already punished the innocent. If someone sets off a bomb in an airplane, I want to make sure we get the guilty party. This applies if the guilty party was John Gilbert Graham or if the guilty party was some Islamic (or other) Terrorist. But governments are under pressure to get results - even if those results are wrong. Rule of law not only protects the innocent - it gives us more confidence that we actually did get the guilty. Blowing up an airplane is either a criminal act or an act of war. Trouble is, it's no longer obvious what enemy combatants are. They no longer wear the uniforms of states we have declared war with. So we don't seem to want to follow either the international rules of war nor criminal proceedings. I don't trust any state to work without rules. Make sure that we don't railroad innocent people and let the guilty free. -- "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: Anonymous on 12 Feb 2010 20:23
In article <wemdnV_WXarWGOjWnZ2dnUVZ_jCdnZ2d(a)earthlink.com>, HeyBub <heybub(a)NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote: >docdwarf(a)panix.com wrote: [snip] >> Final >> request, what regulations do you believe render a human being a >> non-person? [snip] >There are no regulations that render a human being a non-person. Thank you, finally, for a statement which follows Constitutional legal logic and demonstrations a fraction of intellectual honesty. It should not be too great a step, then, to realise that if 'no regulations () render a human being a non-person' might lead to the conclusion that 'there are no situations under which a human being be treated as a non-person, denied the rights, priveleges and procedures due to any person as so mandate by the Constitution of the United States of America.' [snip] >I wish you'd give up on this person/non-person silliness. So do many folks who believe in taking the Easy Way Out of crying 'They are not One of Us, They need not be treated as Human Beings'. The corpus of Constitutional Law is a long, slow and steady process which seems to curve to the antithesis of this. DD |