It sounds funny, but with many over the counter remedies there is a gradual increase in danger. Ie, if you take too much aspirin you get intestinal irritation and bleeding that gradually gets worse as you take more. With acetominophen/tylenol you go from being fine to being hospitalized very quickly. Even one or two tablets beyond the "do not exceed" on the label is very dangerous. Yet most consumers take the "do not exceed" numbers as the proper dosage that they should be taking.

That's the thing, doctors just don't know this stuff. Even with acetominophen they don't realize how dangerous it is, and only by studying mortality records at hospitals were people discovering a major connection. Even more bizarre is the association between "Tylenol" and "safe", so that parents have overmedicated their children thinking that nothing can possibly be wrong with such a safe medicine.

It IS a very dangerous drug which. Ironically it became successful as the "safe" alternative to aspirin it is much more deadly. A huge problem is with children's versus infants dosages. There have been decades of delays getting accurate dosage information onto the bottles. The fiction that this is a safe drug is being actively maintained by the major manufacturer's like Tylenol. It was only considered safe in the early days because so little information was known about it.

We're not talking about just anything that can potentially be harmful if you use too much, but which is *deadly* if using only a slight amount above the listed maximum daily dosage. Children die from this every year. Irritation of intestinal lining from aspirin is minor in comparison to irreversible liver damage.

So nothing is real or possible before you see it? Why not kill yourself now, then? After all, tomorrow may never come.

People smarter than you (or I) believe that mining asteroids is not only possible but even feasibly. That doesn't mean that it is, of course. It only means that I have no reason to give a shit what you think about asteroid mining.

Also, in case you hadn't noticed, congress does pretty much whatever it wants of late. Interstate commerce? nah... Intrastate commerce is so much more fun to regulate. Warrants to search? nah... so much more fun to just search as is convenient. Property rights? nah... they'll take your land for commercial reuse, it's potentially much more profitable. Ex post facto law? nah... sometimes, that's just the thing. Shall make no law? Oh HELL no. Rights that shall not be infringed? Oh, ho ho ho, isn't that quaint.

"Jurisdiction" ... what a funny old word. :)

...but it should also be pointed out that when you bring said mined assets back into the USA, congress does have jurisdiction, and that's what this law primarily addresses, although it may also have direct implications for how US government crewed spacecraft will treat US citizen or corporation owned spacecraft carrying cargo.

So, you believe if I can take it from you by force, it's mine?

You should really read more carefully. Overzeetop said "get it and defend it."

"All things come to those who wait" -- however, they're the set of all things left around by those who got there first.

The only space law we really need: If you see a lawyer, SHOOT TO KILL.

There is no enforcement mechanism in the event of a dispute with another country, however.

Sure there is. Radar-guided missiles. Etc.

OK. Tell that to MPEG-LA. By your definition it's a cartel plus extortion. Have fun with that.

Asteroid mining is the only way we're going to build large structures in space anytime "soon". There's plenty of asteroids, this issue can be revisited later.

The Gestapo actually wasn't that good at spying. The German people were, however, quite good at turning their neighbors in to the Gestapo.

Which means Gestapo was good at spying. The indicator is whether you get results, after all, not whether you get them because you're smart or scary.

There's a lot of myth concerning the Nazi police force. It's unfortunate that even today people repeat it without thinking.

"He who thus domineers over you has only two eyes, only two hands, only one body, no more than is possessed by the least man among the infinite numbers dwelling in your cities; he has indeed nothing more than the power that you confer upon him to destroy you."

Tyrants stay in power, not because they're stronger than their very source of power, but because they're good at building myths. A nation, company or any other organization is nothing more than a myth shared by its members. And the myth of the Third Reich is so strong it still persists, long after its embodiment is gone, as a kind of ghost nation. Time will tell whether Hitler will take up permanent residence in our collective pantheon along the Caesar's and Napoleon.

X86 went away fifteen years ago. Every "x86" COU built since the last 1990s runs an x86 layer, but underneath is a very different bear.

At the time, the closest the DOS world had to multitasking was TSRs. Beside my first PC was my CoCo 3 with OS/9 level 2 with 512k of RAM with a true preemptive multitasking kernel running on an 8 but 6809 CPU. Microsoft's dominance at the time meant in many ways the most common 16 bit opposing system in the world was only marginally better than a CPM machine from 1980.

Structure, from the sound of it, although mostly this is people committing various fallacies of reification and making false claims of "natural kinds".

Everything is a continuum. Humans divide the continuum up using acts of selective attention. The only infinitely sharp edge is the edge of our attention (because we scale the edge to match the scale we are attending to, so whatever scale we are attending to seems to have a sharp division between the things we are selecting out.)

"Species" do not have particularly crisp boundaries in the general case: they fade into each other, and we draw edges around them in more-or-less arbitrary ways. When we find new varieties we can either create new categories (by drawing new edges) or lump them into old categories (by moving old edges). Which move is to be preferred depends on the purposes of the knowing subject.