Ed, what an ugly thing to say.
I abhor ugliness.
Does this mean we're not friends any more?
Ah, Val Kilmer as ""Doc Holiday" in the movie "Tombstone".
"Why Johnny Ringo, you look like someone just...walked over your grave!"
IMHO that was Val Kilmer's best performance and best character portrayal to date. His "charming and lovable, but deadly scoundrel" Doc Holiday character just "nailed it" on so many levels. It almost makes up for his "Batman" (sorry, Kilmer-as-Batman fans).
Really, for me at least, Kilmer's "Doc Holiday" character in "Tombstone" is the one truly good role and performance I remember when "Tombstone" and/or Val Kilmer come up in conversation.
Strat
quite unreasonable.
don't you know the drill, by now?
if this competes with the existing power-brokers (and yes, it does) then it can't be allowed.
to stop things we don't like, we label them as child pron or terrorism.
nothing new about this; we've seen this old play redone hundreds of times during the last 10+ yrs.
this is just about controlling currency and stopping anonymity. has absolutely nothing to do with 'terror'. only an moran would buy that story.
It's about control and destroying a free and open society..
Terrorism, rebellion against the government, and being able to move wealth without government knowledge is only preventable in an authoritarian police-state type of society.
A free and open society only exists when it is possible to keep one's finances a secret from government and organize without the governments' knowledge to commit acts of terrorism and rebellion.
More government "Safety" = Less Freedom, Less Actual Safety, and Less Money for You.
Strat
The Nazis allowed Germans civilian to have long guns too.
That should read "German civilians who were members in good standing in the Nazi Party, or the family member or friend of someone with authority in the Nazi Party. If that Party member happened to fall into political disfavor, or the citizen's personal enemy(s) reported him for some betrayal or politically-forbidden speech etc, those individuals were suddenly instantaneously prohibited from possessing a firearm.
This status-change was often announced by way of a Luger or MP40 discharged into the unlucky formerly-legal-gun-owner for the offense of illegally possessing a firearm.
Every single person ever born or who will ever be born has the natural right to self defense. How much any particular government recognizes this natural individual right varies greatly, however. Until basic human nature deeply and fundamentally changes, people will always need an effective means of self defense against other humans attempting to do them great harm, and therefor have the natural right to that defense.
Every tyranny and authoritarian state down through history where individual freedom was severely restricted also severely restricted and onerously-regulated, or prohibited outright, common people from possessing effective personal weapons for self defense.
Failing to learn such important lessons from history leads people into de-facto slavery if not actual, outright slavery. That is, if they are lucky enough that the powers-that-be haven't included good old genocide of "*those* people" (whoever is politically-inconvenient or convenient, as the case may be) as part of their goals.
Strat
Any scientists care to produce data on how much cooling that hunting the large numbers of truly enormous herds of buffalo that covered many square miles to near-extinction produced? The temperature records I've seen do not show any such corresponding result.
There are about twice as many bovines in the US now. Estimates of the population of bison in the 1500s are 30-60million. There are 90million cattle in the country now. The biomass of a bison was commonly 300-1000kg. The biomass of a beef cow at slaughter is about 600kg average: So I what you're seeing is a replacement of one bovine with another, with a increase in population and biomass.
So you're saying in effect that if the buffalo herds had grown to ~30% larger that it would have had a significant effect on global warming? That's quite a leap.
If global climate is so delicate we're all doomed no matter what we do.
I'm all for solidly-based, practical, cost-effective, common sense, and pragmatic efforts to protect the environment. This whole CO2 and climate-change alarmism is not any of that.
The Earth is in a warming cycle that will continue until it peaks and reverses back towards another ice age, no matter what we puny humans do. We can only make tiny-to-the-point-of-irrelevance changes in the rates of those changes.
Rather than attempt to put chains on the growth of civilization and the freedom of men, why not trust that humans will do what they've always done? Adapt, survive, overcome, and prosper. With the growth of civilization also comes a growth in our ability to adapt, overcome, and mitigate.
Also, with the growth of civilization will be a growth in our ability and desire to move problem-making industries like energy production and many other types of industrial operations. Once humans start moving such activities off-planet, there will be a chance for Earth's natural processes to abate and recover from the damage we may have done on our way to maturity. Humans can't advance as a civilization and live like they're afraid to walk on the grass.
You can't have humans totally proscribed from causing any potential damage to the environment or climate. It's going to happen no matter what, and no matter how many laws are passed or treaties that are signed. Not saying I favor a free-for-all. As I stated above, pragmatic and cost-effective rules that can reasonably be enforced, and that don't do more damage than they're intended to mitigate.
"The secret is to bang the two rocks together, kiddies!" - MC at The Restaurant At The End Of The Universe.
Strat
Point of precision: Cow flatulence isn't a significant source of greenhouse gasses. Cow digestion makes methane, but it is released at the front end of said bovine.
We must work to eliminate the large numbers of carbon-producing buffalo immediately!
Oh, wait...
Any scientists care to produce data on how much cooling that hunting the large numbers of truly enormous herds of buffalo that covered many square miles to near-extinction produced? The temperature records I've seen do not show any such corresponding result.
If curbing the bovine population were to have any meaningful effect on warming, we should be able to identify and quantify the data that would tend to confirm or disprove this from the time periods before and after the time of the disappearance of the buffalo herds.
As a matter of fact, I find the lack of this comparison being used to bolster the case for bovine carbon regulations/laws conspicuous by it's very absence.
Strat
Where government creates regulations and laws to favor "connected" businesses and interests. That's how the established ISPs have come to have so much power.
."..one has to wonder how long before the U.S. recognizes the internet as a utility and passes laws and regulations accordingly."
Now the author of TFS thinks *more* laws & regulations from the *same* crooks that have intentionally worked long and hard to *create* this situation are suddenly going to help!?
If there's enough crap stirred up to occupy the news cycle for more than a day or two, they'll do what they always do. Put together some Bill with a great-sounding name and at a quick glance looks good, but there will be sub-clauses and sub-paragraphs buried deep in the weeds of the Bill that actually make things *worse*.
Hmm, on second thought, where did I put that property title to that bridge? I may have found a prospect!
Strat
BASIC is the Computer Science equivalent of `Scientific Creationism'.