Discussion:
Freefall: radiation shielding
Add Reply
Lynn McGuire
2019-11-15 18:46:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Freefall: radiation shielding
http://freefall.purrsia.com/ff3400/fc03357.htm

I learned more about radiation than I ever wanted to learn.
Consequently, I have forgotten it all now.

And the ship's AI needs to be disciplined.

Lynn
Her Man
2019-11-15 20:15:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Lynn McGuire
Freefall: radiation shielding
http://freefall.purrsia.com/ff3400/fc03357.htm
I learned more about radiation than I ever wanted to learn.
Consequently, I have forgotten it all now.
And the ship's AI needs to be disciplined.
Lynn
Freefall: radiation shielding
http://freefall.purrsia.com/ff3400/fc03357.htm
I learned more about radiation than I ever wanted to learn.
Consequently, I have forgotten it all now.
And the ship's AI needs to be disciplined.
Lynn
Freefall: radiation shielding
http://freefall.purrsia.com/ff3400/fc03357.htm
I learned more about radiation than I ever wanted to learn.
Consequently, I have forgotten it all now.
And the ship's AI needs to be disciplined.
Lynn
Titus G
2019-11-16 02:33:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On 16/11/19 9:15 AM, Her Man wrote:


ECHOLALIA.

LALIA.

LIA.
Post by Lynn McGuire
Freefall: radiation shielding
http://freefall.purrsia.com/ff3400/fc03357.htm
I learned more about radiation than I ever wanted to learn.
Consequently, I have forgotten it all now.
And the ship's AI needs to be disciplined.
Lynn
Freefall: radiation shielding
http://freefall.purrsia.com/ff3400/fc03357.htm
I learned more about radiation than I ever wanted to learn.
Consequently, I have forgotten it all now.
And the ship's AI needs to be disciplined.
Lynn
Freefall: radiation shielding
http://freefall.purrsia.com/ff3400/fc03357.htm
I learned more about radiation than I ever wanted to learn.
Consequently, I have forgotten it all now.
And the ship's AI needs to be disciplined.
Lynn
Robert Woodward
2019-11-16 06:12:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Lynn McGuire
Freefall: radiation shielding
http://freefall.purrsia.com/ff3400/fc03357.htm
I learned more about radiation than I ever wanted to learn.
Consequently, I have forgotten it all now.
And the ship's AI needs to be disciplined.
Why? The AI is ignoring Sam; that is good.
--
"We have advanced to new and surprising levels of bafflement."
Imperial Auditor Miles Vorkosigan describes progress in _Komarr_.
—-----------------------------------------------------
Robert Woodward ***@drizzle.com
Lynn McGuire
2019-11-16 22:17:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Robert Woodward
Post by Lynn McGuire
Freefall: radiation shielding
http://freefall.purrsia.com/ff3400/fc03357.htm
I learned more about radiation than I ever wanted to learn.
Consequently, I have forgotten it all now.
And the ship's AI needs to be disciplined.
Why? The AI is ignoring Sam; that is good.
An AI ignoring the owner is bad news. Even if the owner did steal the
space ship that the AI is in.

Lynn
Jay E. Morris
2019-11-16 22:34:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Robert Woodward
Post by Lynn McGuire
Freefall: radiation shielding
     http://freefall.purrsia.com/ff3400/fc03357.htm
I learned more about radiation than I ever wanted to learn.
Consequently, I have forgotten it all now.
And the ship's AI needs to be disciplined.
Why? The AI is ignoring Sam; that is good.
An AI ignoring the owner is bad news.  Even if the owner did steal the
space ship that the AI is in.
Lynn
Because the AI is programmed to only consider humans as owner/captain
and possibly crew.
Dorothy J Heydt
2019-11-16 23:34:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Robert Woodward
Post by Lynn McGuire
Freefall: radiation shielding
http://freefall.purrsia.com/ff3400/fc03357.htm
I learned more about radiation than I ever wanted to learn.
Consequently, I have forgotten it all now.
And the ship's AI needs to be disciplined.
Why? The AI is ignoring Sam; that is good.
An AI ignoring the owner is bad news. Even if the owner did steal the
space ship that the AI is in.
So, in law, he is *not* the owner, and the AI does right to
ignore his wishes.

It would appear the AI is sufficiently I to know which of the
other entities aboard her have brains, and who don't, and respect
them accordingly.
--
Dorothy J. Heydt
Vallejo, California
djheydt at gmail dot com
www.kithrup.com/~djheydt/
Quadibloc
2019-11-17 05:48:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Dorothy J Heydt
Post by Lynn McGuire
An AI ignoring the owner is bad news. Even if the owner did steal the
space ship that the AI is in.
So, in law, he is *not* the owner, and the AI does right to
ignore his wishes.
I agree, having raised this point myself, but while the comment was badly
phrased, I understand the concern.

The A.I. is not three-laws compliant.

I mean, suppose the artificial intelligence systems in office buildings in
downtown Honolulu, or Hawaii decided that the actual owner of the building was
among the heirs and assigns of an individual of Japanese descent... robots are
supposed to leave the tough questions to humans to figure out, and behave like
obedient machines.
Post by Dorothy J Heydt
It would appear the AI is sufficiently I to know which of the
other entities aboard her have brains, and who don't, and respect
them accordingly.
Which is all right if the A.I. has (or is advanced enough that it should have)
the legal status of a person, and the responsibility for its own actions that
comes with that.

John Savard
Quadibloc
2019-11-17 05:53:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Quadibloc
downtown Honolulu, or Hawaii
That should have been "downtown Honolulu, or Vancouver"

John Savard
David Johnston
2019-11-17 06:02:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Quadibloc
Post by Dorothy J Heydt
Post by Lynn McGuire
An AI ignoring the owner is bad news. Even if the owner did steal the
space ship that the AI is in.
So, in law, he is *not* the owner, and the AI does right to
ignore his wishes.
I agree, having raised this point myself, but while the comment was badly
phrased, I understand the concern.
The A.I. is not three-laws compliant.
I mean, suppose the artificial intelligence systems in office buildings in
downtown Honolulu, or Hawaii decided that the actual owner of the building was
among the heirs and assigns of an individual of Japanese descent... robots are
supposed to leave the tough questions to humans to figure out, and behave like
obedient machines.
The Three Laws say human. In fact defining what human is and what human
is not is something that came up as an issue with the Laws in various
stories. But Three Laws robots aren't obligated to follow the orders or
preserve the lives of extraterrestrial nonhumans.
\
Quadibloc
2019-11-17 06:48:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by David Johnston
But Three Laws robots aren't obligated to follow the orders or
preserve the lives of extraterrestrial nonhumans.
But there _weren't_ any aliens in Asimov's robot stories. In a world where there
are aliens, the reasoning that led to robots being given the Three Laws would lead
to all sentient life forms being included.

John Savard
J. Clarke
2019-11-17 06:57:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sat, 16 Nov 2019 22:48:06 -0800 (PST), Quadibloc
Post by Quadibloc
Post by David Johnston
But Three Laws robots aren't obligated to follow the orders or
preserve the lives of extraterrestrial nonhumans.
But there _weren't_ any aliens in Asimov's robot stories. In a world where there
are aliens, the reasoning that led to robots being given the Three Laws would lead
to all sentient life forms being included.
Not in the world of Freefall. The ship's AI apparently _is_ a
three-laws device, and it can justify killing Sam on the basis of at
least two of them.

<http://freefall.purrsia.com/ff500/fv00457.htm>
danny burstein
2019-11-17 09:30:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Quadibloc
Post by David Johnston
But Three Laws robots aren't obligated to follow the orders or
preserve the lives of extraterrestrial nonhumans.
But there _weren't_ any aliens in Asimov's robot stories. In a world where there
are aliens, the reasoning that led to robots being given the Three Laws would lead
to all sentient life forms being included.
cough, cough:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victory_Unintentional
--
_____________________________________________________
Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key
***@panix.com
[to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded]
Robert Carnegie
2019-11-17 14:30:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by danny burstein
Post by Quadibloc
Post by David Johnston
But Three Laws robots aren't obligated to follow the orders or
preserve the lives of extraterrestrial nonhumans.
But there _weren't_ any aliens in Asimov's robot stories. In a world where there
are aliens, the reasoning that led to robots being given the Three Laws would lead
to all sentient life forms being included.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victory_Unintentional
I think Asimov's own retcon of Foundation with robots established
that the Three Laws refer to the human masters only... so the
robots secretly went across the galaxy and exterminated all
the aliens. I suppose John Campbell would be... disappointed.

I don't recall the "Victory Unintentional" robots treating aliens
as masters. Well, the robots had already been given orders.
Dorothy J Heydt
2019-11-17 15:38:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Quadibloc
Post by David Johnston
But Three Laws robots aren't obligated to follow the orders or
preserve the lives of extraterrestrial nonhumans.
But there _weren't_ any aliens in Asimov's robot stories. In a world where there
are aliens, the reasoning that led to robots being given the Three Laws would lead
to all sentient life forms being included.
Which, as I said upthread, is what _Freefall_ is about: Florence
is not a robot, but she is an AI, and a major thread in the plot
has been to secure civil rights for her (and, by extension, other
Bowman's wolves, though we haven't met any others yet).
--
Dorothy J. Heydt
Vallejo, California
djheydt at gmail dot com
www.kithrup.com/~djheydt/
David Johnston
2019-11-17 19:54:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Quadibloc
Post by David Johnston
But Three Laws robots aren't obligated to follow the orders or
preserve the lives of extraterrestrial nonhumans.
But there _weren't_ any aliens in Asimov's robot stories.
Victory Unintentional.

Perhaps more to the point however Asimov had the Solarians genetically
modify themselves into a distinct species from humanity and _their_
robots were hardwired with a definition of "human" that depended on
their physical peculiarities so they could kill homo sapiens without any
problem.
Post by Quadibloc
n a world where there are aliens, the reasoning that led to robots
being given the Three Laws would lead to all sentient life forms
being included.
Oh you sweet naive boy.
Dorothy J Heydt
2019-11-17 15:36:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Quadibloc
Post by Dorothy J Heydt
Post by Lynn McGuire
An AI ignoring the owner is bad news. Even if the owner did steal the
space ship that the AI is in.
So, in law, he is *not* the owner, and the AI does right to
ignore his wishes.
I agree, having raised this point myself, but while the comment was badly
phrased, I understand the concern.
The A.I. is not three-laws compliant.
I mean, suppose the artificial intelligence systems in office buildings in
downtown Honolulu, or Hawaii decided that the actual owner of the building was
among the heirs and assigns of an individual of Japanese descent... robots are
supposed to leave the tough questions to humans to figure out, and behave like
obedient machines.
Post by Dorothy J Heydt
It would appear the AI is sufficiently I to know which of the
other entities aboard her have brains, and who don't, and respect
them accordingly.
Which is all right if the A.I. has (or is advanced enough that it should have)
the legal status of a person, and the responsibility for its own actions that
comes with that.
The main theme throughout _Freefall_ has been legal status of
persons, and the civil rights appropriate to them, for AIs.

The AI aboard the ship appears to clear that bar by a good
margin, and her* actions throughout this sequence support this.
That she refuses even to consider obeying Sam.

An Asimov-type three-laws-compliant, sufficiently intelligent
robot would not obey the random/nonsensical/dangerous commands of
a toddler, because First Law trumps Second.

_____
*The use of a feminine pronoun for/by a ship goes all the way
back to Old English _seo scip_, a feminine noun.
--
Dorothy J. Heydt
Vallejo, California
djheydt at gmail dot com
www.kithrup.com/~djheydt/
Paul S Person
2019-11-17 17:56:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Dorothy J Heydt
Post by Quadibloc
Post by Dorothy J Heydt
Post by Lynn McGuire
An AI ignoring the owner is bad news. Even if the owner did steal the
space ship that the AI is in.
So, in law, he is *not* the owner, and the AI does right to
ignore his wishes.
I agree, having raised this point myself, but while the comment was badly
phrased, I understand the concern.
The A.I. is not three-laws compliant.
I mean, suppose the artificial intelligence systems in office buildings in
downtown Honolulu, or Hawaii decided that the actual owner of the building was
among the heirs and assigns of an individual of Japanese descent... robots are
supposed to leave the tough questions to humans to figure out, and behave like
obedient machines.
Post by Dorothy J Heydt
It would appear the AI is sufficiently I to know which of the
other entities aboard her have brains, and who don't, and respect
them accordingly.
Which is all right if the A.I. has (or is advanced enough that it should have)
the legal status of a person, and the responsibility for its own actions that
comes with that.
The main theme throughout _Freefall_ has been legal status of
persons, and the civil rights appropriate to them, for AIs.
The AI aboard the ship appears to clear that bar by a good
margin, and her* actions throughout this sequence support this.
That she refuses even to consider obeying Sam.
An Asimov-type three-laws-compliant, sufficiently intelligent
robot would not obey the random/nonsensical/dangerous commands of
a toddler, because First Law trumps Second.
Unlike, say, Amazon voice-activated devices, which have been known to
pay a /lot/ of attention to the wishes of very young children.
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."
Christian Weisgerber
2019-11-17 18:12:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Dorothy J Heydt
*The use of a feminine pronoun for/by a ship goes all the way
back to Old English _seo scip_, a feminine noun.
Wait, what? Old English "scip" was neuter, says Wiktionary, and
that's immediately plausible because the German cognate "Schiff"
is, too.
--
Christian "naddy" Weisgerber ***@mips.inka.de
J. Clarke
2019-11-17 06:10:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Dorothy J Heydt
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Robert Woodward
Post by Lynn McGuire
Freefall: radiation shielding
http://freefall.purrsia.com/ff3400/fc03357.htm
I learned more about radiation than I ever wanted to learn.
Consequently, I have forgotten it all now.
And the ship's AI needs to be disciplined.
Why? The AI is ignoring Sam; that is good.
An AI ignoring the owner is bad news. Even if the owner did steal the
space ship that the AI is in.
So, in law, he is *not* the owner, and the AI does right to
ignore his wishes.
It would appear the AI is sufficiently I to know which of the
other entities aboard her have brains, and who don't, and respect
them accordingly.
It's pretty clear that the issue is that Sam is nonhuman.

"You are classified as a pet"
<http://freefall.purrsia.com/ff3300/fc03271.htm>

It _is_ aware that he's an idiot: "Meets and exceeds defined
parameters".
<http://freefall.purrsia.com/ff3300/fc03293.htm>

Apparently he didn't actually steal the ship--somebody was trying to
get rid of him.
<http://freefall.purrsia.com/ff3300/fc03294.htm> The thing he (sort
of) stole was Florence
<http://freefall.purrsia.com/ff100/fv00005.htm>.

And finally we get to the crux of it: "The captain is the highest
ranking _human_ aboard ship."
<http://freefall.purrsia.com/ff3300/fc03295.htm>
Quadibloc
2019-11-17 05:43:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Lynn McGuire
An AI ignoring the owner is bad news. Even if the owner did steal the
space ship that the AI is in.
I am confused. How can one become an owner by stealing?

Onership is lawful title, which is transferred by voluntary exchange, not theft or
fraud.

John Savard
Paul S Person
2019-11-17 17:57:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sat, 16 Nov 2019 21:43:37 -0800 (PST), Quadibloc
Post by Quadibloc
Post by Lynn McGuire
An AI ignoring the owner is bad news. Even if the owner did steal the
space ship that the AI is in.
I am confused. How can one become an owner by stealing?
Onership is lawful title, which is transferred by voluntary exchange, not theft or
fraud.
Some people along the southern border might be inclined to equate
"eminent domain" with theft.
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."
J. Clarke
2019-11-17 18:12:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sun, 17 Nov 2019 09:57:30 -0800, Paul S Person
Post by Paul S Person
On Sat, 16 Nov 2019 21:43:37 -0800 (PST), Quadibloc
Post by Quadibloc
Post by Lynn McGuire
An AI ignoring the owner is bad news. Even if the owner did steal the
space ship that the AI is in.
I am confused. How can one become an owner by stealing?
Onership is lawful title, which is transferred by voluntary exchange, not theft or
fraud.
Some people along the southern border might be inclined to equate
"eminent domain" with theft.
An error the Founders made, IMO, was in not making it clear that land
owned by citizens was theirs and not the state's. They obviously
thought about it a little because there is a requirement for
compensation but the compensation is set by the government and is
often inadequate.
Kevrob
2019-11-18 00:45:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
On Sun, 17 Nov 2019 09:57:30 -0800, Paul S Person
Post by Paul S Person
On Sat, 16 Nov 2019 21:43:37 -0800 (PST), Quadibloc
Post by Quadibloc
Post by Lynn McGuire
An AI ignoring the owner is bad news. Even if the owner did steal the
space ship that the AI is in.
I am confused. How can one become an owner by stealing?
Onership is lawful title, which is transferred by voluntary exchange, not theft or
fraud.
Some people along the southern border might be inclined to equate
"eminent domain" with theft.
An error the Founders made, IMO, was in not making it clear that land
owned by citizens was theirs and not the state's. They obviously
thought about it a little because there is a requirement for
compensation but the compensation is set by the government and is
often inadequate.
The real problem was when the courts interpreted "public
use" as "public purpose," so that, for example, a homeowner
could be forced to sell to make things easier for business
owners who have pull with state and/or local government.

Like, this guy:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/aug/19/donald-trumps-eminent-domain-nearly-cost-widow-house

IJ won that round, but a few years later we got this result:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelo_v._City_of_New_London

BTW, the site at issue in the Kelo case _still_
hasn't been developed.

https://www.theday.com/article/20190510/BIZ02/190519944

Nothing like adding incompetence to naked injustice, is there?

Kevin R
Titus G
2019-11-19 03:13:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Kevrob
Post by J. Clarke
On Sun, 17 Nov 2019 09:57:30 -0800, Paul S Person
Post by Paul S Person
On Sat, 16 Nov 2019 21:43:37 -0800 (PST), Quadibloc
Post by Quadibloc
Post by Lynn McGuire
An AI ignoring the owner is bad news. Even if the owner did steal the
space ship that the AI is in.
I am confused. How can one become an owner by stealing?
Onership is lawful title, which is transferred by voluntary exchange, not theft or
fraud.
Some people along the southern border might be inclined to equate
"eminent domain" with theft.
An error the Founders made, IMO, was in not making it clear that land
owned by citizens was theirs and not the state's. They obviously
thought about it a little because there is a requirement for
compensation but the compensation is set by the government and is
often inadequate.
The real problem was when the courts interpreted "public
use" as "public purpose," so that, for example, a homeowner
could be forced to sell to make things easier for business
owners who have pull with state and/or local government.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/aug/19/donald-trumps-eminent-domain-nearly-cost-widow-house
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelo_v._City_of_New_London
BTW, the site at issue in the Kelo case _still_
hasn't been developed.
https://www.theday.com/article/20190510/BIZ02/190519944
Nothing like adding incompetence to naked injustice, is there?
Kevin R
That was fascinating reading though I skimmed most of the Wikipedia
detail. It seems strange that the city would go to such lengths without
some formal commitment from the drug company.
Kevrob
2019-11-19 16:38:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Titus G
Post by Kevrob
Post by J. Clarke
On Sun, 17 Nov 2019 09:57:30 -0800, Paul S Person
Post by Paul S Person
On Sat, 16 Nov 2019 21:43:37 -0800 (PST), Quadibloc
Post by Quadibloc
Post by Lynn McGuire
An AI ignoring the owner is bad news. Even if the owner did steal the
space ship that the AI is in.
I am confused. How can one become an owner by stealing?
Onership is lawful title, which is transferred by voluntary exchange, not theft or
fraud.
Some people along the southern border might be inclined to equate
"eminent domain" with theft.
An error the Founders made, IMO, was in not making it clear that land
owned by citizens was theirs and not the state's. They obviously
thought about it a little because there is a requirement for
compensation but the compensation is set by the government and is
often inadequate.
The real problem was when the courts interpreted "public
use" as "public purpose," so that, for example, a homeowner
could be forced to sell to make things easier for business
owners who have pull with state and/or local government.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/aug/19/donald-trumps-eminent-domain-nearly-cost-widow-house
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelo_v._City_of_New_London
BTW, the site at issue in the Kelo case _still_
hasn't been developed.
https://www.theday.com/article/20190510/BIZ02/190519944
Nothing like adding incompetence to naked injustice, is there?
Kevin R
That was fascinating reading though I skimmed most of the Wikipedia
detail. It seems strange that the city would go to such lengths without
some formal commitment from the drug company.
Pfizer used their facilities in New London until 2009. The developers who
wanted to build nearby?...

[quote]

The Corcoran Jennison Cos., a Boston-based developer, had originally
locked in exclusive rights to develop nearly the entire northern half
of the Fort Trumbull peninsula.

But those rights expired in June 2008, despite multiple extensions, because
the firm was unable to secure financing, according to President Marty Jones.

[/quote]

https://www.nhregister.com/news/article/Fort-Trumbull-still-vacant-4-years-after-seizure-11622633.php

After purchasing pharma company Wyeth, Pfizer consolidated across the
Thames River in Groton. {Locals pronounce the "th" as in "that,"
so we know we are in NEW England.)

The New London campus was a white elephant, but Groton's Electric Boat,
which makes submarines for the Navy, bought it.

This was a boondoggle from the get-go.

See Richard Epstein, who "wrote the book" on the Takings Clause:

https://www.nationalreview.com/2015/06/kelo-eminent-domain-richard-epstein/

Kevin R
Quadibloc
2019-11-18 19:27:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
On Sun, 17 Nov 2019 09:57:30 -0800, Paul S Person
Post by Paul S Person
On Sat, 16 Nov 2019 21:43:37 -0800 (PST), Quadibloc
Post by Quadibloc
Post by Lynn McGuire
An AI ignoring the owner is bad news. Even if the owner did steal the
space ship that the AI is in.
I am confused. How can one become an owner by stealing?
Onership is lawful title, which is transferred by voluntary exchange, not theft or
fraud.
Some people along the southern border might be inclined to equate
"eminent domain" with theft.
An error the Founders made, IMO, was in not making it clear that land
owned by citizens was theirs and not the state's. They obviously
thought about it a little because there is a requirement for
compensation but the compensation is set by the government and is
often inadequate.
While I'm not a Libertarian or anarcho-capitalist, I would consider the
appropriate point for compromise to be:

Private property may be expropriated... in time of war for purposes of national
defense, and not otherwise.

Expropriating somebody's home so that a developer can build a shopping mall?
Instead of that being a routine occurrence, a world in which "Are you crazy?" is
the normal reponse to such a notion would be a more free world.

On the other hand, while I want the government to get off the back of the little
people, large corporations might well feel the heavy hand of government
regulation to a greater degree were I running things. While I abhor some
populists, I think populism, if done right by honest people, is the best
ideology.

John Savard
J. Clarke
2019-11-18 23:41:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Mon, 18 Nov 2019 11:27:22 -0800 (PST), Quadibloc
Post by Quadibloc
Post by J. Clarke
On Sun, 17 Nov 2019 09:57:30 -0800, Paul S Person
Post by Paul S Person
On Sat, 16 Nov 2019 21:43:37 -0800 (PST), Quadibloc
Post by Quadibloc
Post by Lynn McGuire
An AI ignoring the owner is bad news. Even if the owner did steal the
space ship that the AI is in.
I am confused. How can one become an owner by stealing?
Onership is lawful title, which is transferred by voluntary exchange, not theft or
fraud.
Some people along the southern border might be inclined to equate
"eminent domain" with theft.
An error the Founders made, IMO, was in not making it clear that land
owned by citizens was theirs and not the state's. They obviously
thought about it a little because there is a requirement for
compensation but the compensation is set by the government and is
often inadequate.
While I'm not a Libertarian or anarcho-capitalist, I would consider the
Private property may be expropriated... in time of war for purposes of national
defense, and not otherwise.
And so any time the Congress wants to grab somebody's land they
declare war on somebody.
Post by Quadibloc
Expropriating somebody's home so that a developer can build a shopping mall?
Instead of that being a routine occurrence, a world in which "Are you crazy?" is
the normal reponse to such a notion would be a more free world.
On the other hand, while I want the government to get off the back of the little
people, large corporations might well feel the heavy hand of government
regulation to a greater degree were I running things. While I abhor some
populists, I think populism, if done right by honest people, is the best
ideology.
John Savard
Quadibloc
2019-11-18 23:51:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
And so any time the Congress wants to grab somebody's land they
declare war on somebody.
But that is not a loophole that New York City or San Francisco or Denver have open
to them.

So it's an improvement.

John Savard
J. Clarke
2019-11-19 00:22:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Mon, 18 Nov 2019 15:51:09 -0800 (PST), Quadibloc
Post by Quadibloc
Post by J. Clarke
And so any time the Congress wants to grab somebody's land they
declare war on somebody.
But that is not a loophole that New York City or San Francisco or Denver have open
to them.
So it's an improvement.
So only the Federal government has the power of eminent domain?
Kevrob
2019-11-19 00:37:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Quadibloc
Post by J. Clarke
And so any time the Congress wants to grab somebody's land they
declare war on somebody.
But that is not a loophole that New York City or San Francisco or Denver have open
to them.
So it's an improvement.
The municipalities just declare a property "blighted," and
condemn it as part of a "war on drugs," "war on poverty, "war
on crime," or war on whatever-ya-got.

https://reason.com/2018/04/23/in-new-york-blight-is-whatever/

Kevin R
J. Clarke
2019-11-19 01:42:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Kevrob
Post by Quadibloc
Post by J. Clarke
And so any time the Congress wants to grab somebody's land they
declare war on somebody.
But that is not a loophole that New York City or San Francisco or Denver have open
to them.
So it's an improvement.
The municipalities just declare a property "blighted," and
condemn it as part of a "war on drugs," "war on poverty, "war
on crime," or war on whatever-ya-got.
https://reason.com/2018/04/23/in-new-york-blight-is-whatever/
We have something like that here. There's a guy who drives around in
a town-provided car measuring dandelions. If he finds one a foot tall
he declares the property "blighted" and starts assessing $100/day
fines.
Paul S Person
2019-11-19 17:31:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Mon, 18 Nov 2019 20:42:55 -0500, J. Clarke
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Kevrob
Post by Quadibloc
Post by J. Clarke
And so any time the Congress wants to grab somebody's land they
declare war on somebody.
But that is not a loophole that New York City or San Francisco or Denver have open
to them.
So it's an improvement.
The municipalities just declare a property "blighted," and
condemn it as part of a "war on drugs," "war on poverty, "war
on crime," or war on whatever-ya-got.
https://reason.com/2018/04/23/in-new-york-blight-is-whatever/
We have something like that here. There's a guy who drives around in
a town-provided car measuring dandelions. If he finds one a foot tall
he declares the property "blighted" and starts assessing $100/day
fines.
Not that I am a fan of dandelions or anything, but that does sound a
bit ... extreme.
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."
r***@rosettacondot.com
2019-11-19 18:29:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Paul S Person
On Mon, 18 Nov 2019 20:42:55 -0500, J. Clarke
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Kevrob
Post by Quadibloc
Post by J. Clarke
And so any time the Congress wants to grab somebody's land they
declare war on somebody.
But that is not a loophole that New York City or San Francisco or Denver have open
to them.
So it's an improvement.
The municipalities just declare a property "blighted," and
condemn it as part of a "war on drugs," "war on poverty, "war
on crime," or war on whatever-ya-got.
https://reason.com/2018/04/23/in-new-york-blight-is-whatever/
We have something like that here. There's a guy who drives around in
a town-provided car measuring dandelions. If he finds one a foot tall
he declares the property "blighted" and starts assessing $100/day
fines.
Not that I am a fan of dandelions or anything, but that does sound a
bit ... extreme.
One of my former coworkers experienced something similar. Someone from the
city rang his doorbell and handed him a citation for not having his fence
in proper condition. It seems that there can only be a certain (fairly small)
number of broken or missing "slats" in a privacy fence before it's considered
to be in disrepair. He was warned that if the fence weren't brought up to
standard he would continue to receive citations.
He immediately went to the local Home Depot, purchased the required number of
slats and repaired the fence. The same gentleman from the city rang his
doorbell the next day and handed him a somewhat larger citation for repairing
his fence without a permit. It seems that if the fence is considered to be
in disrepair a permit is required to repair it. The lesson learned (other than
"move out of that city") is to make sure that you replace the slats before they
hit the magic threshold that changes the action from "maintenance" to "repair".

Robert
--
Robert K. Shull Email: rkshull at rosettacon dot com
Paul S Person
2019-11-20 17:13:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by r***@rosettacondot.com
Post by Paul S Person
On Mon, 18 Nov 2019 20:42:55 -0500, J. Clarke
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Kevrob
Post by Quadibloc
Post by J. Clarke
And so any time the Congress wants to grab somebody's land they
declare war on somebody.
But that is not a loophole that New York City or San Francisco or Denver have open
to them.
So it's an improvement.
The municipalities just declare a property "blighted," and
condemn it as part of a "war on drugs," "war on poverty, "war
on crime," or war on whatever-ya-got.
https://reason.com/2018/04/23/in-new-york-blight-is-whatever/
We have something like that here. There's a guy who drives around in
a town-provided car measuring dandelions. If he finds one a foot tall
he declares the property "blighted" and starts assessing $100/day
fines.
Not that I am a fan of dandelions or anything, but that does sound a
bit ... extreme.
One of my former coworkers experienced something similar. Someone from the
city rang his doorbell and handed him a citation for not having his fence
in proper condition. It seems that there can only be a certain (fairly small)
number of broken or missing "slats" in a privacy fence before it's considered
to be in disrepair. He was warned that if the fence weren't brought up to
standard he would continue to receive citations.
He immediately went to the local Home Depot, purchased the required number of
slats and repaired the fence. The same gentleman from the city rang his
doorbell the next day and handed him a somewhat larger citation for repairing
his fence without a permit. It seems that if the fence is considered to be
in disrepair a permit is required to repair it. The lesson learned (other than
"move out of that city") is to make sure that you replace the slats before they
hit the magic threshold that changes the action from "maintenance" to "repair".
Or you could file a massive lawsuit.

Claiming "civil stupidity" as the offending action.

Might not work, might get the laws changed to exempt repairs made
within a certain time after the first citation from the permitting
requirement.
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."
r***@rosettacondot.com
2019-11-20 18:58:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Paul S Person
Post by r***@rosettacondot.com
Post by Paul S Person
On Mon, 18 Nov 2019 20:42:55 -0500, J. Clarke
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Kevrob
Post by Quadibloc
Post by J. Clarke
And so any time the Congress wants to grab somebody's land they
declare war on somebody.
But that is not a loophole that New York City or San Francisco or Denver have open
to them.
So it's an improvement.
The municipalities just declare a property "blighted," and
condemn it as part of a "war on drugs," "war on poverty, "war
on crime," or war on whatever-ya-got.
https://reason.com/2018/04/23/in-new-york-blight-is-whatever/
We have something like that here. There's a guy who drives around in
a town-provided car measuring dandelions. If he finds one a foot tall
he declares the property "blighted" and starts assessing $100/day
fines.
Not that I am a fan of dandelions or anything, but that does sound a
bit ... extreme.
One of my former coworkers experienced something similar. Someone from the
city rang his doorbell and handed him a citation for not having his fence
in proper condition. It seems that there can only be a certain (fairly small)
number of broken or missing "slats" in a privacy fence before it's considered
to be in disrepair. He was warned that if the fence weren't brought up to
standard he would continue to receive citations.
He immediately went to the local Home Depot, purchased the required number of
slats and repaired the fence. The same gentleman from the city rang his
doorbell the next day and handed him a somewhat larger citation for repairing
his fence without a permit. It seems that if the fence is considered to be
in disrepair a permit is required to repair it. The lesson learned (other than
"move out of that city") is to make sure that you replace the slats before they
hit the magic threshold that changes the action from "maintenance" to "repair".
Or you could file a massive lawsuit.
Claiming "civil stupidity" as the offending action.
Might not work, might get the laws changed to exempt repairs made
within a certain time after the first citation from the permitting
requirement.
Unfortunately I don't think "stupidity" is unconstitutional or illegal, and
those are the only two remotely applicable justifications for overturning a
home rule city's sovereign immunity. Now if the inspector had knocked down the
fence with a city vehicle that would be different...

Robert
--
Robert K. Shull Email: rkshull at rosettacon dot com
Scott Lurndal
2019-11-19 18:59:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Paul S Person
On Mon, 18 Nov 2019 20:42:55 -0500, J. Clarke
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Kevrob
Post by Quadibloc
Post by J. Clarke
And so any time the Congress wants to grab somebody's land they
declare war on somebody.
But that is not a loophole that New York City or San Francisco or Denver have open
to them.
So it's an improvement.
The municipalities just declare a property "blighted," and
condemn it as part of a "war on drugs," "war on poverty, "war
on crime," or war on whatever-ya-got.
https://reason.com/2018/04/23/in-new-york-blight-is-whatever/
We have something like that here. There's a guy who drives around in
a town-provided car measuring dandelions. If he finds one a foot tall
he declares the property "blighted" and starts assessing $100/day
fines.
Not that I am a fan of dandelions or anything, but that does sound a
bit ... extreme.
In fact, it sounds like hyperbole.
Jay E. Morris
2019-11-20 00:14:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Scott Lurndal
Post by Paul S Person
On Mon, 18 Nov 2019 20:42:55 -0500, J. Clarke
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Kevrob
Post by Quadibloc
Post by J. Clarke
And so any time the Congress wants to grab somebody's land they
declare war on somebody.
But that is not a loophole that New York City or San Francisco or Denver have open
to them.
So it's an improvement.
The municipalities just declare a property "blighted," and
condemn it as part of a "war on drugs," "war on poverty, "war
on crime," or war on whatever-ya-got.
https://reason.com/2018/04/23/in-new-york-blight-is-whatever/
We have something like that here. There's a guy who drives around in
a town-provided car measuring dandelions. If he finds one a foot tall
he declares the property "blighted" and starts assessing $100/day
fines.
Not that I am a fan of dandelions or anything, but that does sound a
bit ... extreme.
In fact, it sounds like hyperbole.
I believe it. I lived near a small beach town in Florida that was
supposed to be upscale (it was at one time). One of the city council
members would go about town looking for the smallest infraction, then
calling code compliance in.
Scott Lurndal
2019-11-20 14:17:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Jay E. Morris
Post by Scott Lurndal
Post by Paul S Person
On Mon, 18 Nov 2019 20:42:55 -0500, J. Clarke
Post by J. Clarke
We have something like that here. There's a guy who drives around in
a town-provided car measuring dandelions. If he finds one a foot tall
he declares the property "blighted" and starts assessing $100/day
fines.
Not that I am a fan of dandelions or anything, but that does sound a
bit ... extreme.
In fact, it sounds like hyperbole.
I believe it. I lived near a small beach town in Florida that was
supposed to be upscale (it was at one time). One of the city council
members would go about town looking for the smallest infraction, then
calling code compliance in.
Foot tall dandelions seems like hyperbole to me.
Paul S Person
2019-11-20 17:14:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Scott Lurndal
Post by Jay E. Morris
Post by Scott Lurndal
Post by Paul S Person
On Mon, 18 Nov 2019 20:42:55 -0500, J. Clarke
Post by J. Clarke
We have something like that here. There's a guy who drives around in
a town-provided car measuring dandelions. If he finds one a foot tall
he declares the property "blighted" and starts assessing $100/day
fines.
Not that I am a fan of dandelions or anything, but that does sound a
bit ... extreme.
In fact, it sounds like hyperbole.
I believe it. I lived near a small beach town in Florida that was
supposed to be upscale (it was at one time). One of the city council
members would go about town looking for the smallest infraction, then
calling code compliance in.
Foot tall dandelions seems like hyperbole to me.
To be honest, I think some of mine have gotten that high.

Before I cut them down to size or removed them, of course.
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."
Magewolf
2019-11-20 18:11:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Scott Lurndal
Post by Jay E. Morris
Post by Scott Lurndal
Post by Paul S Person
On Mon, 18 Nov 2019 20:42:55 -0500, J. Clarke
Post by J. Clarke
We have something like that here. There's a guy who drives around in
a town-provided car measuring dandelions. If he finds one a foot tall
he declares the property "blighted" and starts assessing $100/day
fines.
Not that I am a fan of dandelions or anything, but that does sound a
bit ... extreme.
In fact, it sounds like hyperbole.
I believe it. I lived near a small beach town in Florida that was
supposed to be upscale (it was at one time). One of the city council
members would go about town looking for the smallest infraction, then
calling code compliance in.
Foot tall dandelions seems like hyperbole to me.
Not to me. I inherited some land adjacent to The People's Republic of
Cary that my father had kept horses on. I sold the horses and then a
little later one of the neighbors bought the land. In the time in
between the grass in the pasture grew up to less than six inches. So
one day my mother got a phone-call from Cary for my father(deceased)
saying that the grass was too high and unless it was cut immediately
they would do it and charge him $150 an hour for it. I called and
explained that it was outside the city limits and that it was posted
against trespassers so any employees of the city who set foot on it
would be prosecuted.
p***@hotmail.com
2019-11-20 19:07:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Scott Lurndal
Post by Jay E. Morris
Post by Scott Lurndal
Post by Paul S Person
On Mon, 18 Nov 2019 20:42:55 -0500, J. Clarke
Post by J. Clarke
We have something like that here. There's a guy who drives around in
a town-provided car measuring dandelions. If he finds one a foot tall
he declares the property "blighted" and starts assessing $100/day
fines.
Not that I am a fan of dandelions or anything, but that does sound a
bit ... extreme.
In fact, it sounds like hyperbole.
I believe it. I lived near a small beach town in Florida that was
supposed to be upscale (it was at one time). One of the city council
members would go about town looking for the smallest infraction, then
calling code compliance in.
Foot tall dandelions seems like hyperbole to me.
A dandelion that size would tend to lay down from its own weight,
but if the inspector were allowed to pull the plant up to its
maximum height for measuring a one foot height is possible.

In my experience, on a neglected yard the first weeds to reach
one foot in height would be thistles.

Peter Wezeman
anti-social Darwinist
r***@rosettacondot.com
2019-11-20 20:43:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by p***@hotmail.com
Post by Scott Lurndal
Post by Jay E. Morris
Post by Scott Lurndal
Post by Paul S Person
On Mon, 18 Nov 2019 20:42:55 -0500, J. Clarke
Post by J. Clarke
We have something like that here. There's a guy who drives around in
a town-provided car measuring dandelions. If he finds one a foot tall
he declares the property "blighted" and starts assessing $100/day
fines.
Not that I am a fan of dandelions or anything, but that does sound a
bit ... extreme.
In fact, it sounds like hyperbole.
I believe it. I lived near a small beach town in Florida that was
supposed to be upscale (it was at one time). One of the city council
members would go about town looking for the smallest infraction, then
calling code compliance in.
Foot tall dandelions seems like hyperbole to me.
A dandelion that size would tend to lay down from its own weight,
but if the inspector were allowed to pull the plant up to its
maximum height for measuring a one foot height is possible.
In my experience, on a neglected yard the first weeds to reach
one foot in height would be thistles.
I think there are a lot of plants that get called "dandelions" because they
have yellow flowers and form similar seedheads.
"Texas Dandelion" (Pyrrhopappus multicaulis/pauciflorus) can reach 2-3 feet
if it's left alone and we get something (possibly western salsify/Tragopogon
dubius) that can reach at least 4 feet and has seedheads 3-4 inches across.

Robert
--
Robert K. Shull Email: rkshull at rosettacon dot com
Kevrob
2019-11-20 22:06:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by r***@rosettacondot.com
Post by p***@hotmail.com
Post by Scott Lurndal
Post by Jay E. Morris
Post by Scott Lurndal
Post by Paul S Person
On Mon, 18 Nov 2019 20:42:55 -0500, J. Clarke
Post by J. Clarke
We have something like that here. There's a guy who drives around in
a town-provided car measuring dandelions. If he finds one a foot tall
he declares the property "blighted" and starts assessing $100/day
fines.
Not that I am a fan of dandelions or anything, but that does sound a
bit ... extreme.
In fact, it sounds like hyperbole.
I believe it. I lived near a small beach town in Florida that was
supposed to be upscale (it was at one time). One of the city council
members would go about town looking for the smallest infraction, then
calling code compliance in.
Foot tall dandelions seems like hyperbole to me.
A dandelion that size would tend to lay down from its own weight,
but if the inspector were allowed to pull the plant up to its
maximum height for measuring a one foot height is possible.
In my experience, on a neglected yard the first weeds to reach
one foot in height would be thistles.
I think there are a lot of plants that get called "dandelions" because they
have yellow flowers and form similar seedheads.
"Texas Dandelion" (Pyrrhopappus multicaulis/pauciflorus) can reach 2-3 feet
if it's left alone and we get something (possibly western salsify/Tragopogon
dubius) that can reach at least 4 feet and has seedheads 3-4 inches across.
I remember pulling foot-long blades of grass out of fields, or even woodlots,
where they would grow from the base of trees and stumps. We'd chew the
ends, like we were Huck and Tom, watching the Mississippi go by.

Of course, living on an island, with many small inlets, and /s/w/a/m/p/s/
wetlands, what was often considered "out of place" was the dreaded cattail
(rush, "Typha.") Great for habitat for youg fish, ducks, etc, but they foul
propellers something fierce. Other types of grasses and reeds abound.

Letting your property go so that wild grasses, or crabgrass would flourish
a short breeze away from your neighbors' meticulously mowed and manicured
suburban lawns was a horror that could not be tolerated. Even if there were
no village ordinance nor homeowners association bylaw prohibiting such
behavior, keeping neighborhood peace would compel one to at least attempt
too conform. I loved the North Shore bungalow we stayed in summers.
There was NO lawn, only tress, with some moss, bushes and clumps of grass
crowing at the base of same. There was no level surface "lawn grasses" could
grow on, and too much shade for them. It was great for playing Natty Bumppo
and Chingachook, or Daniel Boone and Mingo, but we had to walk down the
hill to a local park to play baseball.

My uncle, who had the next bungalow over, and a house with a small
"lawn" in Queens he did not want to have to mow, would put in ground
cover plants, such as myrtle, rather than grass. Smart man.

Kevin R
Paul S Person
2019-11-19 17:29:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Mon, 18 Nov 2019 11:27:22 -0800 (PST), Quadibloc
Post by Quadibloc
Post by J. Clarke
On Sun, 17 Nov 2019 09:57:30 -0800, Paul S Person
Post by Paul S Person
On Sat, 16 Nov 2019 21:43:37 -0800 (PST), Quadibloc
Post by Quadibloc
Post by Lynn McGuire
An AI ignoring the owner is bad news. Even if the owner did steal the
space ship that the AI is in.
I am confused. How can one become an owner by stealing?
Onership is lawful title, which is transferred by voluntary exchange, not theft or
fraud.
Some people along the southern border might be inclined to equate
"eminent domain" with theft.
An error the Founders made, IMO, was in not making it clear that land
owned by citizens was theirs and not the state's. They obviously
thought about it a little because there is a requirement for
compensation but the compensation is set by the government and is
often inadequate.
While I'm not a Libertarian or anarcho-capitalist, I would consider the
Private property may be expropriated... in time of war for purposes of national
defense, and not otherwise.
Trump would argue that we /are/ at war and the Wall /is/ for national
defense.

And, indeed, at war we are -- in Afghanistan, and maybe in a few other
places, on drugs, on terrorism, and maybe a few others.
Post by Quadibloc
Expropriating somebody's home so that a developer can build a shopping mall?
Instead of that being a routine occurrence, a world in which "Are you crazy?" is
the normal reponse to such a notion would be a more free world.
The response should to find how /who the developer bribed/ and put
both of them in prison for a suitably long time.
Post by Quadibloc
On the other hand, while I want the government to get off the back of the little
people, large corporations might well feel the heavy hand of government
regulation to a greater degree were I running things. While I abhor some
populists, I think populism, if done right by honest people, is the best
ideology.
Government regulation is at its /best/ when it is in response to
/specific abuses/. This leaves those businesses who are not, as yet,
abusing their position free to operate more efficiently.

You can't predict or prevent every possible abuse anyway.
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."
Quadibloc
2019-11-19 19:06:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Congress has not authorized a declaration of war. Absent that, there is no time of
war. So even Korea and Vietnam don't count, never mind the war on drugs.
Words mean things.
Lynn McGuire
2019-11-20 19:58:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Quadibloc
Congress has not authorized a declaration of war. Absent that, there is no time of
war. So even Korea and Vietnam don't count, never mind the war on drugs.
Words mean things.
Not true.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorization_for_Use_of_Military_Force_Against_Terrorists

Lynn
Alan Baker
2019-11-20 20:45:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Quadibloc
Congress has not authorized a declaration of war. Absent that, there is no time of
war. So even Korea and Vietnam don't count, never mind the war on drugs.
Words mean things.
Not true.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorization_for_Use_of_Military_Force_Against_Terrorists
Lynn
The AUMF is NOT a declaration of war, Sunshine.
Dimensional Traveler
2019-11-20 22:44:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Quadibloc
Congress has not authorized a declaration of war. Absent that, there is no time of
war. So even Korea and Vietnam don't count, never mind the war on drugs.
Words mean things.
Not true.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorization_for_Use_of_Military_Force_Against_Terrorists
Still not a declaration of war.
--
"You need to believe in things that aren't true. How else can they become?"
Kevrob
2019-11-20 23:15:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Quadibloc
Congress has not authorized a declaration of war. Absent that, there is no time of
war. So even Korea and Vietnam don't count, never mind the war on drugs.
Words mean things.
Not true.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorization_for_Use_of_Military_Force_Against_Terrorists
Still not a declaration of war.
Something I posted in `03, when the Taliban reared their evil little
heads in Afghanistan, again:

[quote]

I was chewing this over, and I remember a thought I had shortly
after 9/11, when people were arguing over how the U.S. should respond:
as toward a military threat, with our armed forces, or according
to a law enforcement model, led by the FBI and other investigators.
It struck me that modern terrorists are frequently PIRATES.
They hijack ships (Achille Lauro) and planes. They fly false
flags. They hold hostages and expect to be paid ransom.
Navies have long had the duty of ridding the seas of pirates.
They have never needed a declaration of war to empower themselves
to catch or sink such blackguards.

[/quote] Message-ID: <***@posting.google.com>

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/rec.arts.comics.misc/dPiAzYsbBPc

Since this was a comics group post, I brought up Lee Falk's "The Phantom,"
sworn enemy of all pirates.

Kevin R
J. Clarke
2019-11-21 00:22:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Wed, 20 Nov 2019 17:07:22 -0600, Lynn McGuire
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Quadibloc
Congress has not authorized a declaration of war. Absent that, there is no time of
war. So even Korea and Vietnam don't count, never mind the war on drugs.
Words mean things.
Not true.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorization_for_Use_of_Military_Force_Against_Terrorists
Still not a declaration of war.
We've already had this argument. You lost.
So has a court ruled it to be a declaration of war? If not then how
did he "lose"?
Lynn McGuire
2019-11-21 01:22:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
On Wed, 20 Nov 2019 17:07:22 -0600, Lynn McGuire
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Quadibloc
Congress has not authorized a declaration of war. Absent that, there is no time of
war. So even Korea and Vietnam don't count, never mind the war on drugs.
Words mean things.
Not true.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorization_for_Use_of_Military_Force_Against_Terrorists
Still not a declaration of war.
We've already had this argument. You lost.
So has a court ruled it to be a declaration of war? If not then how
did he "lose"?
GUCS.

Lynn
Kevrob
2019-11-21 01:29:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
On Wed, 20 Nov 2019 17:07:22 -0600, Lynn McGuire
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Quadibloc
Congress has not authorized a declaration of war. Absent that, there
is no time of
war. So even Korea and Vietnam don't count, never mind the war on drugs.
Words mean things.
Not true.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorization_for_Use_of_Military_Force_Against_Terrorists
Still not a declaration of war.
We've already had this argument. You lost.
So has a court ruled it to be a declaration of war? If not then how
did he "lose"?
GUCS.
Quaddie sounds like too much of a neo-con to be a GUCS.
I would hesitate to call anyone in the Canadian forces
"Gutless." The best the US ever did against Canadian soldiery
was, arguably, a tie.

Now, some of their pols....

Kevin R
Dimensional Traveler
2019-11-21 01:52:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Quadibloc
Congress has not authorized a declaration of war. Absent that, there is no time of
war. So even Korea and Vietnam don't count, never mind the war on drugs.
Words mean things.
Not true.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorization_for_Use_of_Military_Force_Against_Terrorists
Still not a declaration of war.
We've already had this argument.
We have?
You lost.
Yet here I am still.
--
"You need to believe in things that aren't true. How else can they become?"
Lynn McGuire
2019-11-21 00:01:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Wed, 20 Nov 2019 13:58:15 -0600, Lynn McGuire
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Quadibloc
Congress has not authorized a declaration of war. Absent that, there is no time of
war. So even Korea and Vietnam don't count, never mind the war on drugs.
Words mean things.
Not true.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorization_for_Use_of_Military_Force_Against_Terrorists
Not a declaration of war.
So what would you be more scared of ?
1. a declaration of war from the Congress of the United States against you ?
2. an authorization from the Congress of the United States for the
President to use any means necessary to kill you ?

Not any difference between these two. You are dead either way.

Lynn
Alan Baker
2019-11-21 00:08:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Lynn McGuire
On Wed, 20 Nov 2019 13:58:15 -0600, Lynn McGuire
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Quadibloc
Congress has not authorized a declaration of war. Absent that, there is no time of
war. So even Korea and Vietnam don't count, never mind the war on drugs.
Words mean things.
Not true.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorization_for_Use_of_Military_Force_Against_Terrorists
Not a declaration of war.
So what would you be more scared of ?
1. a declaration of war from the Congress of the United States against you ?
2. an authorization from the Congress of the United States for the
President to use any means necessary to kill you ?
Not any difference between these two.  You are dead either way.
Completely ignoring the legal differences that effect civil liberties...
J. Clarke
2019-11-21 00:25:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Wed, 20 Nov 2019 18:01:17 -0600, Lynn McGuire
Post by Lynn McGuire
On Wed, 20 Nov 2019 13:58:15 -0600, Lynn McGuire
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Quadibloc
Congress has not authorized a declaration of war. Absent that, there is no time of
war. So even Korea and Vietnam don't count, never mind the war on drugs.
Words mean things.
Not true.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorization_for_Use_of_Military_Force_Against_Terrorists
Not a declaration of war.
So what would you be more scared of ?
1. a declaration of war from the Congress of the United States against you ?
2. an authorization from the Congress of the United States for the
President to use any means necessary to kill you ?
Not any difference between these two. You are dead either way.
If the issue is giving the government the authority to perform some
action, and a declaration of war is necessary in order for the
government to be able to do it, then it has to be a declaration of
war, not an "authorization to use military force".

Authorization for use of force may be very unpleasant for somebody in
Afghanistan but it doesn't mean that the government can seize the
house of some old lady in Tulsa.
Lynn McGuire
2019-11-21 01:26:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
On Wed, 20 Nov 2019 18:01:17 -0600, Lynn McGuire
Post by Lynn McGuire
On Wed, 20 Nov 2019 13:58:15 -0600, Lynn McGuire
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Quadibloc
Congress has not authorized a declaration of war. Absent that, there is no time of
war. So even Korea and Vietnam don't count, never mind the war on drugs.
Words mean things.
Not true.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorization_for_Use_of_Military_Force_Against_Terrorists
Not a declaration of war.
So what would you be more scared of ?
1. a declaration of war from the Congress of the United States against you ?
2. an authorization from the Congress of the United States for the
President to use any means necessary to kill you ?
Not any difference between these two. You are dead either way.
If the issue is giving the government the authority to perform some
action, and a declaration of war is necessary in order for the
government to be able to do it, then it has to be a declaration of
war, not an "authorization to use military force".
Authorization for use of force may be very unpleasant for somebody in
Afghanistan but it doesn't mean that the government can seize the
house of some old lady in Tulsa.
Yes, it does.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Powers_Clause

Lynn
Alan Baker
2019-11-21 01:38:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by J. Clarke
On Wed, 20 Nov 2019 18:01:17 -0600, Lynn McGuire
Post by Lynn McGuire
On Wed, 20 Nov 2019 13:58:15 -0600, Lynn McGuire
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Quadibloc
Congress has not authorized a declaration of war. Absent that,
there is no time of
war. So even Korea and Vietnam don't count, never mind the war on drugs.
Words mean things.
Not true.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorization_for_Use_of_Military_Force_Against_Terrorists
Not a declaration of war.
So what would you be more scared of ?
1. a declaration of war from the Congress of the United States against you ?
2. an authorization from the Congress of the United States for the
President to use any means necessary to kill you ?
Not any difference between these two.  You are dead either way.
If the issue is giving the government the authority to perform some
action, and a declaration of war is necessary in order for the
government to be able to do it, then it has to be a declaration of
war, not an "authorization to use military force".
Authorization for use of force may be very unpleasant for somebody in
Afghanistan but it doesn't mean that the government can seize the
house of some old lady in Tulsa.
Yes, it does.
   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Powers_Clause
Lynn
Not nearly good enough...

...but that's pretty much your pattern.
Dimensional Traveler
2019-11-21 01:54:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Lynn McGuire
On Wed, 20 Nov 2019 13:58:15 -0600, Lynn McGuire
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Quadibloc
Congress has not authorized a declaration of war. Absent that, there is no time of
war. So even Korea and Vietnam don't count, never mind the war on drugs.
Words mean things.
Not true.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorization_for_Use_of_Military_Force_Against_Terrorists
Not a declaration of war.
So what would you be more scared of ?
1. a declaration of war from the Congress of the United States against you ?
2. an authorization from the Congress of the United States for the
President to use any means necessary to kill you ?
Not any difference between these two.  You are dead either way.
Actually there is a large difference between the two.
--
"You need to believe in things that aren't true. How else can they become?"
Dimensional Traveler
2019-11-19 23:19:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
On Mon, 18 Nov 2019 11:27:22 -0800 (PST), Quadibloc
Post by Quadibloc
Post by J. Clarke
On Sun, 17 Nov 2019 09:57:30 -0800, Paul S Person
Post by Paul S Person
On Sat, 16 Nov 2019 21:43:37 -0800 (PST), Quadibloc
Post by Quadibloc
Post by Lynn McGuire
An AI ignoring the owner is bad news. Even if the owner did steal the
space ship that the AI is in.
I am confused. How can one become an owner by stealing?
Onership is lawful title, which is transferred by voluntary exchange, not theft or
fraud.
Some people along the southern border might be inclined to equate
"eminent domain" with theft.
An error the Founders made, IMO, was in not making it clear that land
owned by citizens was theirs and not the state's. They obviously
thought about it a little because there is a requirement for
compensation but the compensation is set by the government and is
often inadequate.
While I'm not a Libertarian or anarcho-capitalist, I would consider the
Private property may be expropriated... in time of war for purposes of national
defense, and not otherwise.
Trump would argue that we /are/ at war and the Wall /is/ for national
defense.
And, indeed, at war we are -- in Afghanistan, and maybe in a few other
places, on drugs, on terrorism, and maybe a few others.
None of them declared so no, that doesn't work here.
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Quadibloc
Expropriating somebody's home so that a developer can build a shopping mall?
Instead of that being a routine occurrence, a world in which "Are you crazy?" is
the normal reponse to such a notion would be a more free world.
The response should to find how /who the developer bribed/ and put
both of them in prison for a suitably long time.
Post by Quadibloc
On the other hand, while I want the government to get off the back of the little
people, large corporations might well feel the heavy hand of government
regulation to a greater degree were I running things. While I abhor some
populists, I think populism, if done right by honest people, is the best
ideology.
Government regulation is at its /best/ when it is in response to
/specific abuses/. This leaves those businesses who are not, as yet,
abusing their position free to operate more efficiently.
You can't predict or prevent every possible abuse anyway.
But many potential abuses are easily predictable and should be
preemptively outlawed.
--
"You need to believe in things that aren't true. How else can they become?"
Paul S Person
2019-11-20 17:21:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Tue, 19 Nov 2019 15:19:17 -0800, Dimensional Traveler
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by J. Clarke
On Mon, 18 Nov 2019 11:27:22 -0800 (PST), Quadibloc
Post by Quadibloc
Post by J. Clarke
On Sun, 17 Nov 2019 09:57:30 -0800, Paul S Person
Post by Paul S Person
On Sat, 16 Nov 2019 21:43:37 -0800 (PST), Quadibloc
Post by Quadibloc
Post by Lynn McGuire
An AI ignoring the owner is bad news. Even if the owner did steal the
space ship that the AI is in.
I am confused. How can one become an owner by stealing?
Onership is lawful title, which is transferred by voluntary exchange, not theft or
fraud.
Some people along the southern border might be inclined to equate
"eminent domain" with theft.
An error the Founders made, IMO, was in not making it clear that land
owned by citizens was theirs and not the state's. They obviously
thought about it a little because there is a requirement for
compensation but the compensation is set by the government and is
often inadequate.
While I'm not a Libertarian or anarcho-capitalist, I would consider the
Private property may be expropriated... in time of war for purposes of national
defense, and not otherwise.
Trump would argue that we /are/ at war and the Wall /is/ for national
defense.
And, indeed, at war we are -- in Afghanistan, and maybe in a few other
places, on drugs, on terrorism, and maybe a few others.
None of them declared so no, that doesn't work here.
I keep hearing this, but has it actually been tested in a Court of
Law?
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Quadibloc
Expropriating somebody's home so that a developer can build a shopping mall?
Instead of that being a routine occurrence, a world in which "Are you crazy?" is
the normal reponse to such a notion would be a more free world.
The response should to find how /who the developer bribed/ and put
both of them in prison for a suitably long time.
Post by Quadibloc
On the other hand, while I want the government to get off the back of the little
people, large corporations might well feel the heavy hand of government
regulation to a greater degree were I running things. While I abhor some
populists, I think populism, if done right by honest people, is the best
ideology.
Government regulation is at its /best/ when it is in response to
/specific abuses/. This leaves those businesses who are not, as yet,
abusing their position free to operate more efficiently.
You can't predict or prevent every possible abuse anyway.
But many potential abuses are easily predictable and should be
preemptively outlawed.
And they are -- if they are that predictable they are criminalized.

Examples:
deceptive advertising
false "sale" prices
adulteration
bait and switch
collecting sales tax and not turning it in
collecting payroll taxes and not depositing them
skimming money off the top
bribing public officials

and so on.

Explicit regulation often results when a /specific/ industry finds a
/new/ way to cheat, lie and steal.

It is also an alternative to breaking up a monopoly -- that is, the
monopoly can be recognized as desirable (utilities are a good
example), and then regulated to prevent exploitation of monopoly
status.
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."
Dimensional Traveler
2019-11-20 18:41:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Paul S Person
On Tue, 19 Nov 2019 15:19:17 -0800, Dimensional Traveler
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by J. Clarke
On Mon, 18 Nov 2019 11:27:22 -0800 (PST), Quadibloc
Post by Quadibloc
Post by J. Clarke
On Sun, 17 Nov 2019 09:57:30 -0800, Paul S Person
Post by Paul S Person
On Sat, 16 Nov 2019 21:43:37 -0800 (PST), Quadibloc
Post by Quadibloc
Post by Lynn McGuire
An AI ignoring the owner is bad news. Even if the owner did steal the
space ship that the AI is in.
I am confused. How can one become an owner by stealing?
Onership is lawful title, which is transferred by voluntary exchange, not theft or
fraud.
Some people along the southern border might be inclined to equate
"eminent domain" with theft.
An error the Founders made, IMO, was in not making it clear that land
owned by citizens was theirs and not the state's. They obviously
thought about it a little because there is a requirement for
compensation but the compensation is set by the government and is
often inadequate.
While I'm not a Libertarian or anarcho-capitalist, I would consider the
Private property may be expropriated... in time of war for purposes of national
defense, and not otherwise.
Trump would argue that we /are/ at war and the Wall /is/ for national
defense.
And, indeed, at war we are -- in Afghanistan, and maybe in a few other
places, on drugs, on terrorism, and maybe a few others.
None of them declared so no, that doesn't work here.
I keep hearing this, but has it actually been tested in a Court of
Law?
Since being "in time of war" is not an actual prerequisite it is
unlikely to ever be tested that way.
--
"You need to believe in things that aren't true. How else can they become?"
-dsr-
2019-11-18 11:40:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Quadibloc
Post by Lynn McGuire
An AI ignoring the owner is bad news. Even if the owner did steal the
space ship that the AI is in.
I am confused. How can one become an owner by stealing?
Onership is lawful title, which is transferred by voluntary exchange, not theft or
fraud.
Please tell us how much of North America is currently owned, then.

Reminder: very little was voluntarily exchanged by the invaders after 1492.

-dsr-
David Johnston
2019-11-18 18:15:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by -dsr-
Post by Quadibloc
Post by Lynn McGuire
An AI ignoring the owner is bad news. Even if the owner did steal the
space ship that the AI is in.
I am confused. How can one become an owner by stealing?
Onership is lawful title, which is transferred by voluntary exchange, not theft or
fraud.
Please tell us how much of North America is currently owned, then.
Reminder: very little was voluntarily exchanged by the invaders after 1492.
Both the invaders and the invaded are long dead.
Titus G
2019-11-18 19:11:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by David Johnston
Post by -dsr-
Post by Quadibloc
An AI ignoring the owner is bad news.  Even if the owner did steal the
space ship that the AI is in.
I am confused. How can one become an owner by stealing?
Onership is lawful title, which is transferred by voluntary exchange, not theft or
fraud.
Please tell us how much of North America is currently owned, then.
Reminder: very little was voluntarily exchanged by the invaders after 1492.
Both the invaders and the invaded are long dead.
Try Palestine then.
Quadibloc
2019-11-18 19:41:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Titus G
Post by David Johnston
Both the invaders and the invaded are long dead.
Try Palestine then.
If the Jewish Autonomous Region weren't part of the Korean national homeland... or
maybe the Manchurian national homeland via the Jurchen... it would be a fitting
place to relocate the Palestinians to help Israel enjoy peace and quiet.

John Savard
-dsr-
2019-11-18 19:44:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by David Johnston
Post by -dsr-
Post by Quadibloc
Post by Lynn McGuire
An AI ignoring the owner is bad news. Even if the owner did steal the
space ship that the AI is in.
I am confused. How can one become an owner by stealing?
Onership is lawful title, which is transferred by voluntary exchange, not theft or
fraud.
Please tell us how much of North America is currently owned, then.
Reminder: very little was voluntarily exchanged by the invaders after 1492.
Both the invaders and the invaded are long dead.
Your argument is that theft does not confer ownership, but theft plus murder
does?

-dsr-
David Johnston
2019-11-18 21:57:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by -dsr-
Post by David Johnston
Post by -dsr-
Post by Quadibloc
Post by Lynn McGuire
An AI ignoring the owner is bad news. Even if the owner did steal the
space ship that the AI is in.
I am confused. How can one become an owner by stealing?
Onership is lawful title, which is transferred by voluntary exchange, not theft or
fraud.
Please tell us how much of North America is currently owned, then.
Reminder: very little was voluntarily exchanged by the invaders after 1492.
Both the invaders and the invaded are long dead.
Your argument is that theft does not confer ownership, but theft plus murder
does?
Nope. My argument is that theft plus many generations of inheritance
confers ownership.
Robert Woodward
2019-11-19 05:56:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by David Johnston
Post by -dsr-
Post by Quadibloc
Post by Lynn McGuire
An AI ignoring the owner is bad news. Even if the owner did steal the
space ship that the AI is in.
I am confused. How can one become an owner by stealing?
Onership is lawful title, which is transferred by voluntary exchange, not theft or
fraud.
Please tell us how much of North America is currently owned, then.
Reminder: very little was voluntarily exchanged by the invaders after 1492.
Both the invaders and the invaded are long dead.
I believe there is something called the doctrine of adverse possession.
--
"We have advanced to new and surprising levels of bafflement."
Imperial Auditor Miles Vorkosigan describes progress in _Komarr_.
—-----------------------------------------------------
Robert Woodward ***@drizzle.com
Kevrob
2019-11-20 21:30:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Robert Woodward
I believe there is something called the doctrine of adverse possession.
It has always baffled me as to why such a thing would be put into the laws. Why
would anyone wish to encourage lawlessness by giving rights to squatters?
In English jurisprudence, and in that of the "daughter countries" that
adopted the common law tradition, adverse possession was seen as a way
to settle disputes between landowners who couldn't be bothered, for whatever
reason, to protect their rights and privileges under the law.

I believe similar situations pertain regarding the law on easements.

If you don't contest the usurpation of your property, at some point,
the courts won't back ou up when you finally do. Hence, in publishing,
the rapidity with which "cease and desist" letters are sent if a trademark
or copyright is being trespassed on, beyond "fair use." Hell, they send
those letters to folks whom a court would find had used the protected
work or mark within the law.

I remember when I lived in a beach town, on waterfront property, how my
parents and their neighbors were assiduous about not letting J Random
Beachcomber walk the beach above the high-tide mark, as that was not
property common to the community, the way the intertidal zone was.
Walking after asking permission? If it were done politely, and the
visitors had a plausible reason for being there - "We've been invited to
stay with the Smiths, who have the cabana further down the strand" -
they were wished a good day and allowed to pass.

The beach road was cut off from the next town in the 1930s, when
Long Island Lighting built a new powerplant and fenced it in down to
the low-tide mark, leading my Great-Uncle and others to get our hamlet
incorporated as a Village. The state neglected to enforce the easement
of the residents, out of "public necessity," I'm sure. We weren't
about to further reduce the value of the shoreline properties by making
the beachfront a thoroughfare.

Kevin R
r***@rosettacondot.com
2019-11-21 00:36:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Kevrob
Post by Robert Woodward
I believe there is something called the doctrine of adverse possession.
It has always baffled me as to why such a thing would be put into the laws. Why
would anyone wish to encourage lawlessness by giving rights to squatters?
In English jurisprudence, and in that of the "daughter countries" that
adopted the common law tradition, adverse possession was seen as a way
to settle disputes between landowners who couldn't be bothered, for whatever
reason, to protect their rights and privileges under the law.
I believe similar situations pertain regarding the law on easements.
There's something similar involving fence lines in some places. If the
fence line isn't contested for some not exactly defined amount of time
then it becomes the accepted property line.
We bought some land and when the surveyor did what was probably the first
accurate marking of boundaries ever we found that a number of acres of
"our" land were on the other side of the fence line, which actually ran at
an angle. Also a half mile of county road was "ours".
Landowners of dubious morality are known to take advantage of their neighbors'
absence to rebuild fences in a slightly different and advantageous position.

Robert
--
Robert K. Shull Email: rkshull at rosettacon dot com
Kevrob
2019-11-21 00:51:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by r***@rosettacondot.com
Post by Kevrob
Post by Robert Woodward
I believe there is something called the doctrine of adverse possession.
It has always baffled me as to why such a thing would be put into the laws. Why
would anyone wish to encourage lawlessness by giving rights to squatters?
In English jurisprudence, and in that of the "daughter countries" that
adopted the common law tradition, adverse possession was seen as a way
to settle disputes between landowners who couldn't be bothered, for whatever
reason, to protect their rights and privileges under the law.
I believe similar situations pertain regarding the law on easements.
There's something similar involving fence lines in some places. If the
fence line isn't contested for some not exactly defined amount of time
then it becomes the accepted property line.
We bought some land and when the surveyor did what was probably the first
accurate marking of boundaries ever we found that a number of acres of
"our" land were on the other side of the fence line, which actually ran at
an angle. Also a half mile of county road was "ours".
Landowners of dubious morality are known to take advantage of their neighbors'
absence to rebuild fences in a slightly different and advantageous position.
That is slimy behavior, and in the "Bad Olde Days" might have led
to a range war, especially if it messed with rights to water.

Frost was right, in a way. "Good Fences Make Good Neighbors."

https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poems/44266/mending-wall

That's not the only way to read that poem, of course.
I like to think "Good Neighbors Make Good Fences, if
fences are needed at all!" Sometimes they are, if only
to keep one's ambulatory charges from eating the neighbors'
windfalls or trampling their roses.

Kevin R
Quadibloc
2019-11-18 19:39:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by -dsr-
Please tell us how much of North America is currently owned, then.
Reminder: very little was voluntarily exchanged by the invaders after 1492.
Your point is valid.

Some people - Ayn Rand included, but I don't believe she is alone in this - have
attempted to rationalize the colonial theft of continents on the basis that
since the indigenous people hunted on the land, rather than farming it, they did
not have title to the land in which they hunted, because they did nothing to
improve it.

Indeed, even the Indians themselves didn't think in terms of owning their
hunting grounds as any kind of property (let alone making the distinction
between personal property and real estate that is made in British law).

None the less, the argument is obviously a specious rationalization.

Proof: you can be convicted of murder for smothering someone to death with a
pillow.

Hence, despite the fact that your victim did not hold title to the Earth's
atmosphere, it was a wrongful act of aggression to deny that victim access to
the atmosphere to obtain needed sustenance from it.

Cutting someone off from the atmosphere, so he cannot breathe, and cutting that
person off from the fields and forests, so he cannot hunt there, and therefore
eat, are basically the same thing, different only in time scale.

Hence, Robin Hood was right in treating the restrictions on the King's deer as
oppressive, and the Enclosure Acts are properly regarded as evil.

The trouble is, of course, that without the United States, the Nazis or
Communists would have conquered the world. Also, many American Indian tribes
committed aggression against other American Indian tribes.

Since it's infeasible to crowd the non-native population of the Americas back
into Europe, or to have them move on to unoccupied frontiers on Mars...

it is unclear what can be done to satisfy the dictates of true, absolute
morality.

I admit to not being terribly much more botherd by this than most people are. None the less, I think we should recognize the issue, and look for a solution if one could be found.

Possibly, with advances in building construction and food production, the non-
native population of the Americas could all be relocated to former Aztec
territiory, as that rather nasty bunch could arguably be said to have forfeited
its territorial rights. Presumably their innocent descendants would not face
difficulty finding homes within the national homelands of other native American
tribes - given how many of them all we've exterminated, they'll all have room to
spare for a while.

John Savard
Dorothy J Heydt
2019-11-18 21:51:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Quadibloc
Some people - Ayn Rand included, but I don't believe she is alone in this - have
attempted to rationalize the colonial theft of continents on the basis that
since the indigenous people hunted on the land, rather than farming it, they did
not have title to the land in which they hunted, because they did nothing to
improve it.
Dear me. That's the line Laura Ingalls Wilder's mother used.
"They don't farm it, they just roam around on it!"

An attitude that goes back to the memory of man runneth not to
the contrary. For another point of view, in Genesis God rejected
the cereal crops of Cain (a farmer) and accepted the meat products
of Abel (a pastoralist).

And rather later (1943, but set in 1906):

"I'd like to say a word for the farmer.
He came out here and made a lot of changes."
"He came out here and built a lot of fences,
And built 'em right across our cattle ranges!"
---Oscar Hammerstein, _Oklahoma!_
--
Dorothy J. Heydt
Vallejo, California
djheydt at gmail dot com
www.kithrup.com/~djheydt/
Kevrob
2019-11-19 00:31:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Dorothy J Heydt
Post by Quadibloc
Some people - Ayn Rand included, but I don't believe she is alone in this - have
attempted to rationalize the colonial theft of continents on the basis that
since the indigenous people hunted on the land, rather than farming it, they did
not have title to the land in which they hunted, because they did nothing to
improve it.
Dear me. That's the line Laura Ingalls Wilder's mother used.
"They don't farm it, they just roam around on it!"
An attitude that goes back to the memory of man runneth not to
the contrary. For another point of view, in Genesis God rejected
the cereal crops of Cain (a farmer) and accepted the meat products
of Abel (a pastoralist).
"I'd like to say a word for the farmer.
He came out here and made a lot of changes."
"He came out here and built a lot of fences,
And built 'em right across our cattle ranges!"
---Oscar Hammerstein, _Oklahoma!_
The Eastern Woodland Indians tribes did some farming.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Sisters_(agriculture)

I grew up on Long Island, and the local Lenape/Delaware, the
Matinecock and Patchogue, and the Pequot - related tribes
the Shinnecock and Montaukett did a lot of gathering, fishing
and hunting, and some farming or gardening.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Sisters_(agriculture)

See also:

https://www.khanacademy.org/humanities/us-history/precontact-and-early-colonial-era/before-contact/a/northeast-indian-culture

Loading Image...

The transfer of land from natives to settlers by sale was recognized by
the Dutch and the English, but, seen from the point of view of the tribes,
may have been of dubious legality. Did any one chief or leader have the
authority to alienate the land? Some would say not, just as Irish clan
chiefs had no right to surrender land to the Tudor kings, and accept
a regrant from the English king, now an overlord.

The Algonquian peoples were not united, and a canny sachem might use the
Europeans as allies against his enemies, even if that meant giving up
sovereignty, as we moderns would call it, over once-tribal land.
On Fair Pomonauk (LI) Wyandanch was particularly good at this.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wyandanch_(sachem)

There's conquest, and there's being swindled. The invaders and
settlers used whatever was in the toolbox.

I say this as someone who prefers a system of allodial title to
a feudal model. That doesn't change our getting there by less
than honest methods.

Most "private property" in the US is held "in fee simple," and
as such is subject to taxation. One can consider the annual
property tax as equivalent to feudal rent, in which case few
in the US actually "own" their land. It would be unusual to
hear of someone living on a property with a "99-year leasehold"
from the local or state government, here in the US, though in many
Commonwealth countries that would not be strange.

As for Rand and her Lockean explanation of the justice of colonization,
there are facts in evidence against it. The "Lockean Proviso" reads:

[quote]

Nor was this appropriation of any parcel of land, by improving it, any prejudice
to any other man, since there was still enough and as good left, and more than
the yet unprovided could use. So that, in effect, there was never the less left
for others because of his enclosure for himself. For he that leaves as much
as another can make use of, does as good as take nothing at all. Nobody could
think himself injured by the drinking of another man, though he took a good
draught, who had a whole river of the same water left him to quench his thirst.
And the case of land and water, where there is enough of both, is perfectly the
same.

— John Locke, Second Treatise of Government, Chapter V, paragraph 33

https://www.gutenberg.org/files/7370/7370-h/7370-h.htm

Leaving the "non-farming" tribespeople with the worst land, and not
enough of it, violates Locke's dictum.

Kevin R
(putting his ol' PoliSci degree to use, for once.)
-dsr-
2019-11-19 17:52:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Quadibloc
Post by -dsr-
Please tell us how much of North America is currently owned, then.
Reminder: very little was voluntarily exchanged by the invaders after 1492.
Your point is valid.
....
Post by Quadibloc
The trouble is, of course, that without the United States, the Nazis or
Communists would have conquered the world. Also, many American Indian tribes
committed aggression against other American Indian tribes.
To address the first bit: if you're going to point to an event hundreds of
years later to justify genocide, then you are (a) justifying genocide and (b)
stark raving insane.

To address the second bit: you appear to be claiming that murdering
murderers is justified -- and so is murdering their entire tribe or nation.

I am leaning towards insanity.
Post by Quadibloc
Possibly, with advances in building construction and food production, the non-
native population of the Americas could all be relocated to former Aztec
territiory, as that rather nasty bunch could arguably be said to have forfeited
its territorial rights. Presumably their innocent descendants would not face
difficulty finding homes within the national homelands of other native American
tribes - given how many of them all we've exterminated, they'll all have room to
spare for a while.
Your idea of reparation is forced relocation?

Raving insane asshole. You aren't civilized in the least.

-dsr-
Kevrob
2019-11-19 18:20:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by -dsr-
Post by Quadibloc
Post by -dsr-
Please tell us how much of North America is currently owned, then.
Reminder: very little was voluntarily exchanged by the invaders after 1492.
Your point is valid.
....
Post by Quadibloc
The trouble is, of course, that without the United States, the Nazis or
Communists would have conquered the world. Also, many American Indian tribes
committed aggression against other American Indian tribes.
To address the first bit: if you're going to point to an event hundreds of
years later to justify genocide, then you are (a) justifying genocide and (b)
stark raving insane.
To address the second bit: you appear to be claiming that murdering
murderers is justified -- and so is murdering their entire tribe or nation.
I am leaning towards insanity.
Post by Quadibloc
Possibly, with advances in building construction and food production, the non-
native population of the Americas could all be relocated to former Aztec
territiory, as that rather nasty bunch could arguably be said to have forfeited
its territorial rights. Presumably their innocent descendants would not face
difficulty finding homes within the national homelands of other native American
tribes - given how many of them all we've exterminated, they'll all have room to
spare for a while.
Your idea of reparation is forced relocation?
Raving insane asshole. You aren't civilized in the least.
Not to mention,a whole lot of people who are descended, in
whole or in part from the Aztecs, still live there.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Mexico#Ethnic_groups

Kevin R
Robert Carnegie
2019-11-19 20:22:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Kevrob
Post by -dsr-
Post by Quadibloc
Post by -dsr-
Please tell us how much of North America is currently owned, then.
Reminder: very little was voluntarily exchanged by the invaders after 1492.
Your point is valid.
....
Post by Quadibloc
The trouble is, of course, that without the United States, the Nazis or
Communists would have conquered the world. Also, many American Indian tribes
committed aggression against other American Indian tribes.
To address the first bit: if you're going to point to an event hundreds of
years later to justify genocide, then you are (a) justifying genocide and (b)
stark raving insane.
To address the second bit: you appear to be claiming that murdering
murderers is justified -- and so is murdering their entire tribe or nation.
I am leaning towards insanity.
Post by Quadibloc
Possibly, with advances in building construction and food production, the non-
native population of the Americas could all be relocated to former Aztec
territiory, as that rather nasty bunch could arguably be said to have forfeited
its territorial rights. Presumably their innocent descendants would not face
difficulty finding homes within the national homelands of other native American
tribes - given how many of them all we've exterminated, they'll all have room to
spare for a while.
Your idea of reparation is forced relocation?
Raving insane asshole. You aren't civilized in the least.
Not to mention,a whole lot of people who are descended, in
whole or in part from the Aztecs, still live there.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Mexico#Ethnic_groups
Yeah, the plan is to move them out, apparently.
Into North America, if I'm following this.
Peter Trei
2019-11-19 18:22:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
[...]
Post by -dsr-
Your idea of reparation is forced relocation?
Raving insane asshole. You aren't civilized in the least.
Quaddie has a long history of proposing death, destruction, and radical change for people who are not Just Like Him.

He usually wants Americans to do it for him.

Pt
Titus G
2019-11-19 19:02:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter Trei
[...]
Post by -dsr-
Your idea of reparation is forced relocation?
Raving insane asshole. You aren't civilized in the least.
Quaddie has a long history of proposing death, destruction, and radical change for people who are not Just Like Him.
He usually wants Americans to do it for him.
Pt
Sounds like a Zionist.
Quadibloc
2019-11-20 18:26:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by -dsr-
Your idea of reparation is forced relocation?
From the context of the rest of your response, it seems you think I'm suggesting
relocating the Native Americans to that area, instead of relocating the white
people there so that the Native Americans can have their land back. So you seem
not to have read carefully.

John Savard
Quadibloc
2019-11-20 18:27:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by -dsr-
To address the first bit: if you're going to point to an event hundreds of
years later to justify genocide,
I am pointing to an event hundreds of years later to justify not, hundreds of
years later, giving back lands stolen by genocide hundreds of years ago. That has
nothing to do with justifying the original genocide itself, which was not
addressed one way or the other.

Again, please read carefully.

John Savard
David Johnston
2019-11-20 16:24:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Quadibloc
Post by -dsr-
Please tell us how much of North America is currently owned, then.
Reminder: very little was voluntarily exchanged by the invaders after 1492.
Your point is valid.
Some people - Ayn Rand included, but I don't believe she is alone in this - have
attempted to rationalize the colonial theft of continents on the basis that
since the indigenous people hunted on the land, rather than farming it, they did
not have title to the land in which they hunted, because they did nothing to
improve it.
Indeed, even the Indians themselves didn't think in terms of owning their
hunting grounds as any kind of property (let alone making the distinction
between personal property and real estate that is made in British law).
None the less, the argument is obviously a specious rationalization.
Proof: you can be convicted of murder for smothering someone to death with a
pillow.
Hence, despite the fact that your victim did not hold title to the Earth's
atmosphere, it was a wrongful act of aggression to deny that victim access to
the atmosphere to obtain needed sustenance from it.
Cutting someone off from the atmosphere, so he cannot breathe, and cutting that
person off from the fields and forests, so he cannot hunt there, and therefore
eat, are basically the same thing, different only in time scale.
Hence, Robin Hood was right in treating the restrictions on the King's deer as
oppressive, and the Enclosure Acts are properly regarded as evil.
The trouble is, of course, that without the United States, the Nazis or
Communists would have conquered the world. Also, many American Indian tribes
committed aggression against other American Indian tribes.
Every culture has committed aggression. Therefore attacking them is not
aggression. Therefore no culture has committed aggression.
Quadibloc
2019-11-20 18:30:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by David Johnston
Every culture has committed aggression. Therefore attacking them is not
aggression. Therefore no culture has committed aggression.
Fortunately, the alien culture that designed me, unlike those that designed
several computers encountered by one Captain James T. Kirk, incorporated
precautions against thermal overload and other malfunctions due to infinite loop
conditions. Instead, they are detected at real-time-clock interrupts and
terminated.

John Savard
s***@yahoo.com
2019-11-16 11:36:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
I was at a science con, talking to young scientists, including some from Denver. I explained why the standard measurement should be the daily background radiation for folks living there. So if the news reports a radiation leak of 0.7 Denvers we can easily tell it's not very important.

Nils K. Hammer
Robert Carnegie
2019-11-16 13:01:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by s***@yahoo.com
I was at a science con, talking to young scientists, including some from Denver. I explained why the standard measurement should be the daily background radiation for folks living there. So if the news reports a radiation leak of 0.7 Denvers we can easily tell it's not very important.
This doesn't work if you live near Three Mile Island,
Chernobyl, Fukushima... so that local radiation
is already pretty high.

In some sci fi, future Earthmen all wear lead
underwear due to worldwide radioisotope pollution
interfering with their underbits.
Robert Woodward
2019-11-16 18:44:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Robert Carnegie
Post by s***@yahoo.com
I was at a science con, talking to young scientists, including some from
Denver. I explained why the standard measurement should be the daily
background radiation for folks living there. So if the news reports a
radiation leak of 0.7 Denvers we can easily tell it's not very important.
This doesn't work if you live near Three Mile Island,
Chernobyl, Fukushima... so that local radiation
is already pretty high.
I suspect that the background level at Three Mile Island is less than
Denver's background. Besides, I believe that he was advocating using
DENVER's background level as a base (of course, there are places whose
background is significantly higher than Denvers's; because they are
sitting on a low grade thorium or uranium orebody.
--
"We have advanced to new and surprising levels of bafflement."
Imperial Auditor Miles Vorkosigan describes progress in _Komarr_.
—-----------------------------------------------------
Robert Woodward ***@drizzle.com
Dorothy J Heydt
2019-11-16 19:04:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Robert Woodward
Post by Robert Carnegie
Post by s***@yahoo.com
I was at a science con, talking to young scientists, including some from
Denver. I explained why the standard measurement should be the daily
background radiation for folks living there. So if the news reports a
radiation leak of 0.7 Denvers we can easily tell it's not very important.
This doesn't work if you live near Three Mile Island,
Chernobyl, Fukushima... so that local radiation
is already pretty high.
I suspect that the background level at Three Mile Island is less than
Denver's background. Besides, I believe that he was advocating using
DENVER's background level as a base (of course, there are places whose
background is significantly higher than Denvers's; because they are
sitting on a low grade thorium or uranium orebody.
ISTR that Edinburgh (Scotland) has to be cautious about
ventilation to fend off radon poisoning, because it's built on
(and of) granite.
--
Dorothy J. Heydt
Vallejo, California
djheydt at gmail dot com
www.kithrup.com/~djheydt/
Juho Julkunen
2019-11-17 03:05:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Dorothy J Heydt
Post by Robert Woodward
Post by Robert Carnegie
Post by s***@yahoo.com
I was at a science con, talking to young scientists, including some from
Denver. I explained why the standard measurement should be the daily
background radiation for folks living there. So if the news reports a
radiation leak of 0.7 Denvers we can easily tell it's not very important.
This doesn't work if you live near Three Mile Island,
Chernobyl, Fukushima... so that local radiation
is already pretty high.
I suspect that the background level at Three Mile Island is less than
Denver's background. Besides, I believe that he was advocating using
DENVER's background level as a base (of course, there are places whose
background is significantly higher than Denvers's; because they are
sitting on a low grade thorium or uranium orebody.
ISTR that Edinburgh (Scotland) has to be cautious about
ventilation to fend off radon poisoning, because it's built on
(and of) granite.
Yeah, you don't want to spend too much time in unventilated cellars in
Finland, either. The bedrock's mostly granite, and there's not a lot of
soil on top of it, either.

I've understood that Denver gets a double dose from both radon and
cosmic background radiation.
--
Juho Julkunen
Quadibloc
2019-11-17 05:51:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Juho Julkunen
I've understood that Denver gets a double dose from both radon and
cosmic background radiation.
And according to a link in another post in this thread, a *triple* dose, with the
third due to plutonium from a nuclear weapons manufacturing plant in Rocky Flats.

John Savard
Robert Carnegie
2019-11-16 19:25:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Robert Woodward
Post by Robert Carnegie
Post by s***@yahoo.com
I was at a science con, talking to young scientists, including some from
Denver. I explained why the standard measurement should be the daily
background radiation for folks living there. So if the news reports a
radiation leak of 0.7 Denvers we can easily tell it's not very important.
This doesn't work if you live near Three Mile Island,
Chernobyl, Fukushima... so that local radiation
is already pretty high.
I suspect that the background level at Three Mile Island is less than
Denver's background. Besides, I believe that he was advocating using
DENVER's background level as a base (of course, there are places whose
background is significantly higher than Denvers's; because they are
sitting on a low grade thorium or uranium orebody.
Well. Denver, radiation... oh my:
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioactive_contamination_from_the_Rocky_Flats_Plant>

Not what I expected (but the city didn't get the worst of it).
I was thinking more about the altitude - which means extra
cosmic ray exposure.

I was going to mention Aberdeen, in Scotland, which is built
in and on granite. But that's not all there is there, either.
<https://www.geos.ed.ac.uk/homes/rsh/Aberdeen_Beach_radioactive.html>

I wonder if you can get lead kilts? Could be risky otherwise
though. Those pleats are going to nip together...
Dimensional Traveler
2019-11-16 19:47:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Robert Carnegie
Post by Robert Woodward
Post by Robert Carnegie
Post by s***@yahoo.com
I was at a science con, talking to young scientists, including some from
Denver. I explained why the standard measurement should be the daily
background radiation for folks living there. So if the news reports a
radiation leak of 0.7 Denvers we can easily tell it's not very important.
This doesn't work if you live near Three Mile Island,
Chernobyl, Fukushima... so that local radiation
is already pretty high.
I suspect that the background level at Three Mile Island is less than
Denver's background. Besides, I believe that he was advocating using
DENVER's background level as a base (of course, there are places whose
background is significantly higher than Denvers's; because they are
sitting on a low grade thorium or uranium orebody.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioactive_contamination_from_the_Rocky_Flats_Plant>
Not what I expected (but the city didn't get the worst of it).
I was thinking more about the altitude - which means extra
cosmic ray exposure.
I was going to mention Aberdeen, in Scotland, which is built
in and on granite. But that's not all there is there, either.
<https://www.geos.ed.ac.uk/homes/rsh/Aberdeen_Beach_radioactive.html>
I wonder if you can get lead kilts? Could be risky otherwise
though. Those pleats are going to nip together...
If the radioactivity is coming from sand they are walking on wouldn't
lead kilts just kind of funnel it to the sensitive parts?
--
"You need to believe in things that aren't true. How else can they become?"
Robert Carnegie
2019-11-16 19:56:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by Robert Carnegie
Post by Robert Woodward
Post by Robert Carnegie
Post by s***@yahoo.com
I was at a science con, talking to young scientists, including some from
Denver. I explained why the standard measurement should be the daily
background radiation for folks living there. So if the news reports a
radiation leak of 0.7 Denvers we can easily tell it's not very important.
This doesn't work if you live near Three Mile Island,
Chernobyl, Fukushima... so that local radiation
is already pretty high.
I suspect that the background level at Three Mile Island is less than
Denver's background. Besides, I believe that he was advocating using
DENVER's background level as a base (of course, there are places whose
background is significantly higher than Denvers's; because they are
sitting on a low grade thorium or uranium orebody.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioactive_contamination_from_the_Rocky_Flats_Plant>
Not what I expected (but the city didn't get the worst of it).
I was thinking more about the altitude - which means extra
cosmic ray exposure.
I was going to mention Aberdeen, in Scotland, which is built
in and on granite. But that's not all there is there, either.
<https://www.geos.ed.ac.uk/homes/rsh/Aberdeen_Beach_radioactive.html>
I wonder if you can get lead kilts? Could be risky otherwise
though. Those pleats are going to nip together...
If the radioactivity is coming from sand they are walking on wouldn't
lead kilts just kind of funnel it to the sensitive parts?
Perhaps you're right. Here is something more suitable in local culture:
<https://www.springthyme.co.uk/ah11/ah11_04.htm>
<http://www.rampantscotland.com/poetry/blpoems_tams.htm>

"Fen I wis only ten year aul I left the pairish squeel,
Ma faither fee'd me tae the mains tae chaw his milk an meal;
I first pit on ma nerra breeks tae hap ma spinnle trams,
Syne bukkelt roon ma knappin knees a pair o nicky tams."

Surely impenetrable :-)
Dorothy J Heydt
2019-11-16 19:51:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Robert Carnegie
Post by Robert Woodward
Post by Robert Carnegie
Post by s***@yahoo.com
I was at a science con, talking to young scientists, including some from
Denver. I explained why the standard measurement should be the daily
background radiation for folks living there. So if the news reports a
radiation leak of 0.7 Denvers we can easily tell it's not very important.
This doesn't work if you live near Three Mile Island,
Chernobyl, Fukushima... so that local radiation
is already pretty high.
I suspect that the background level at Three Mile Island is less than
Denver's background. Besides, I believe that he was advocating using
DENVER's background level as a base (of course, there are places whose
background is significantly higher than Denvers's; because they are
sitting on a low grade thorium or uranium orebody.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioactive_contamination_from_the_Rocky_Flats_Plant>
Not what I expected (but the city didn't get the worst of it).
I was thinking more about the altitude - which means extra
cosmic ray exposure.
I was going to mention Aberdeen, in Scotland, which is built
in and on granite. But that's not all there is there, either.
<https://www.geos.ed.ac.uk/homes/rsh/Aberdeen_Beach_radioactive.html>
I wonder if you can get lead kilts? Could be risky otherwise
though. Those pleats are going to nip together...
I remember Duncan Lunan describing how he was occasionally asked
"What is worn under the kilt?" and he would reply, "NOTHING is
worn under the kilt; it's all in perfect working order."
--
Dorothy J. Heydt
Vallejo, California
djheydt at gmail dot com
www.kithrup.com/~djheydt/
Ted Nolan <tednolan>
2019-11-16 20:07:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Dorothy J Heydt
Post by Robert Carnegie
Post by Robert Woodward
Post by Robert Carnegie
Post by s***@yahoo.com
I was at a science con, talking to young scientists, including some from
Denver. I explained why the standard measurement should be the daily
background radiation for folks living there. So if the news reports a
radiation leak of 0.7 Denvers we can easily tell it's not very important.
This doesn't work if you live near Three Mile Island,
Chernobyl, Fukushima... so that local radiation
is already pretty high.
I suspect that the background level at Three Mile Island is less than
Denver's background. Besides, I believe that he was advocating using
DENVER's background level as a base (of course, there are places whose
background is significantly higher than Denvers's; because they are
sitting on a low grade thorium or uranium orebody.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioactive_contamination_from_the_Rocky_Flats_Plant>
Not what I expected (but the city didn't get the worst of it).
I was thinking more about the altitude - which means extra
cosmic ray exposure.
I was going to mention Aberdeen, in Scotland, which is built
in and on granite. But that's not all there is there, either.
<https://www.geos.ed.ac.uk/homes/rsh/Aberdeen_Beach_radioactive.html>
I wonder if you can get lead kilts? Could be risky otherwise
though. Those pleats are going to nip together...
I remember Duncan Lunan describing how he was occasionally asked
"What is worn under the kilt?" and he would reply, "NOTHING is
worn under the kilt; it's all in perfect working order."
--
"Akk lad I don't know where you've been but I see you've won first prize"
--
columbiaclosings.com
What's not in Columbia anymore..
Dorothy J Heydt
2019-11-16 21:08:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by s***@yahoo.com
Post by Dorothy J Heydt
Post by Robert Carnegie
Post by Robert Woodward
Post by Robert Carnegie
Post by s***@yahoo.com
I was at a science con, talking to young scientists, including
some from
Post by Dorothy J Heydt
Post by Robert Carnegie
Post by Robert Woodward
Post by Robert Carnegie
Post by s***@yahoo.com
Denver. I explained why the standard measurement should be the daily
background radiation for folks living there. So if the news reports a
radiation leak of 0.7 Denvers we can easily tell it's not very
important.
Post by Dorothy J Heydt
Post by Robert Carnegie
Post by Robert Woodward
Post by Robert Carnegie
This doesn't work if you live near Three Mile Island,
Chernobyl, Fukushima... so that local radiation
is already pretty high.
I suspect that the background level at Three Mile Island is less than
Denver's background. Besides, I believe that he was advocating using
DENVER's background level as a base (of course, there are places whose
background is significantly higher than Denvers's; because they are
sitting on a low grade thorium or uranium orebody.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioactive_contamination_from_the_Rocky_Flats_Plant>
Not what I expected (but the city didn't get the worst of it).
I was thinking more about the altitude - which means extra
cosmic ray exposure.
I was going to mention Aberdeen, in Scotland, which is built
in and on granite. But that's not all there is there, either.
<https://www.geos.ed.ac.uk/homes/rsh/Aberdeen_Beach_radioactive.html>
I wonder if you can get lead kilts? Could be risky otherwise
though. Those pleats are going to nip together...
I remember Duncan Lunan describing how he was occasionally asked
"What is worn under the kilt?" and he would reply, "NOTHING is
worn under the kilt; it's all in perfect working order."
"Akk lad I don't know where you've been but I see you've won first prize"
Yeah, he quoted that one too.
--
Dorothy J. Heydt
Vallejo, California
djheydt at gmail dot com
www.kithrup.com/~djheydt/
Peter Trei
2019-11-17 16:59:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Robert Carnegie
Post by Robert Woodward
Post by Robert Carnegie
Post by s***@yahoo.com
I was at a science con, talking to young scientists, including some from
Denver. I explained why the standard measurement should be the daily
background radiation for folks living there. So if the news reports a
radiation leak of 0.7 Denvers we can easily tell it's not very important.
This doesn't work if you live near Three Mile Island,
Chernobyl, Fukushima... so that local radiation
is already pretty high.
I suspect that the background level at Three Mile Island is less than
Denver's background. Besides, I believe that he was advocating using
DENVER's background level as a base (of course, there are places whose
background is significantly higher than Denvers's; because they are
sitting on a low grade thorium or uranium orebody.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioactive_contamination_from_the_Rocky_Flats_Plant>
Not what I expected (but the city didn't get the worst of it).
I was thinking more about the altitude - which means extra
cosmic ray exposure.
I was going to mention Aberdeen, in Scotland, which is built
in and on granite. But that's not all there is there, either.
<https://www.geos.ed.ac.uk/homes/rsh/Aberdeen_Beach_radioactive.html>
I wonder if you can get lead kilts? Could be risky otherwise
though. Those pleats are going to nip together...
Radon is an issue in a lot of places. You can buy kits to test your basement.

There are spots in India where the
exposure in houses built of local stone can be 80 times the average, and
several times the recommended maximum from artificial sources.

Allegedly, the most radioactive natural spot in NYC is the west entrance of
Grand Central Station, due to the granite it is built from.

pt
Jaimie Vandenbergh
2019-11-18 00:59:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sun, 17 Nov 2019 08:59:13 -0800 (PST), Peter Trei
Post by Peter Trei
Post by Robert Carnegie
I was going to mention Aberdeen, in Scotland, which is built
in and on granite. But that's not all there is there, either.
<https://www.geos.ed.ac.uk/homes/rsh/Aberdeen_Beach_radioactive.html>
I wonder if you can get lead kilts? Could be risky otherwise
though. Those pleats are going to nip together...
Radon is an issue in a lot of places. You can buy kits to test your basement.
I totally misread that as kilts. What a world!

Everyone knows the story that radon accumulation in homes was discovered
thanks to a nuclear plant worker who kept setting off the radioactivity
alarms on leaving work? He probably wasn't wearing a kilt though.
https://www.the-scientist.com/research/radon-research-typifies-challenges-facing-risk-assessment-60260

Cheers - Jaimie
--
'Rings! Rings! Wherever they may be
I am the Lord of the Rings,' said he
'And I'll find them all, wherever they may be
And I'll bind them all in the dark,' said he -- Kevin Ahearn
J. Clarke
2019-11-18 01:09:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Mon, 18 Nov 2019 00:59:54 +0000, Jaimie Vandenbergh
Post by Jaimie Vandenbergh
On Sun, 17 Nov 2019 08:59:13 -0800 (PST), Peter Trei
Post by Peter Trei
Post by Robert Carnegie
I was going to mention Aberdeen, in Scotland, which is built
in and on granite. But that's not all there is there, either.
<https://www.geos.ed.ac.uk/homes/rsh/Aberdeen_Beach_radioactive.html>
I wonder if you can get lead kilts? Could be risky otherwise
though. Those pleats are going to nip together...
Radon is an issue in a lot of places. You can buy kits to test your basement.
I totally misread that as kilts. What a world!
Everyone knows the story that radon accumulation in homes was discovered
thanks to a nuclear plant worker who kept setting off the radioactivity
alarms on leaving work? He probably wasn't wearing a kilt though.
https://www.the-scientist.com/research/radon-research-typifies-challenges-facing-risk-assessment-60260
Note that the article's description of radon is rather garbled--the
article says that it's "not radioactive but decays in the
atmosphere"--that's nonsense. It is radioactive and decays in or out
of the atmosphere to several different radioactive isotopes that are
not gases at room temperature.
Loading...