Comment Re:Doesn't matter for its primary mission. (Score 1) 279
Well, now we know what happens when pigs fly.
Obama is a tough guy.
Because being able to handle an empty insult from a bunch of idiots that nobody cares about or listens to is a solid indication of how tough you are.
however it is a mere coincidence that monkey in one context means one thing and monkey in another means a complete other, and both are being used to describe presidents at a time.
Why did you even bother to write what you did? The contexts are obviously the same. It's meant to be a very insulting comparison. There might come a day, say in some "Planet of the Apes" future where being compared to a monkey is meant to be a compliment, but that obviously is not today.
There are far worse insults to throw at obama that aren't racist. Like how he uses robots to murder people because its more humane. Or how he is just the same in power as anyone else and he is really a hopeless president.
Let's hear some of these insults.
Yes, those are viable solutions, if you take about 4 or 5 billion people out of the equation.
Or even if you don't. Someone just has to choose to implement them. That's why they're primarily social problems.
There's no real correlation between skull thickness and gestation. Infants have soft spots (fontanelles) between the bones of the skull that allow the brain to grow faster than bone after birth, precisely because humans need a relatively thick skull protecting a large brain. Child birth would be impossible otherwise.
A "soft spot" increases risk of head injuries. If there's no "real" correlation, then why did you observe that child birth would be impossible without this risky adaptation?
There would be no advantage in a thinner skull.
Except making child birth even more possible and less dangerous.
To bring it down to a truly sustainable level, fish take would have to be reduced by something enormous like maybe 90%.
There you go. Even you can think of a solution, if you really try.
Let's move on to the other problems you mentioned:
Global warming: adaptation, change albedo of urban areas, greenhouse gases reduction, geoengineering.
over-population: Make less people. One way is to keep getting wealthier. Wealthy people have less children.
every ecosystem on the planet in decline: increase habitat and reduce habitat fragmentation, create genome archives for endangered species, determine ways to increase the rate of natural speciation.
ravaged fish stocks: already solved this one earlier.
depleted soils: This is a long solved problem. For example, grow legumes in a field every so often and leaving the field fallow for a year out of four or five.
widespread environmental contamination: pollute less and focus on cleaning up contamination that is actually environmentally significant.
a loss of green spaces: make more green spaces
habitat and species: already addressed with the "ecosystems in decline" problem.
In addition, overpopulation really is a bigger class of problem with almost all of the other problems highly dependent on it.
I don't think ANY of those problems mentioned are actually solvable
Let's consider a counterexample:
ravaged fish stocks
Solution: fish less so that the fish stocks recover to a sustainable level.
Being a lesser "weaker" accomplice was still being an accomplice. They may have been benevolent rulers (some of them even let their own slaves go free), but rulers they were.
"Accomplice" has a certain negative connotation that I think is wholly inappropriate here, unless you were an English imperialist, of course.
Peers referring to mostly white, mostly land owning, and most certainly males, sure.
And it means something else today.
Every slave owning business that operated was in a sense chartered by the power seekers.
No. It's not a charter. And you ignore that the slavery laws were at the state level. The US Constitution, even as aggressively interpreted as it is by modern courts, still throws less restrictions on state governments than on the federal government.
You say that, but then you insist the Constitution written by those Founders must have meant YOUR interpretation on what its purpose was?]
Who has a better interpretation than I? There are several characteristics of a correct interpretation. First, it is consistent as it can be given US law. There are peculiar constraints forced on us by the US Constitution. For example, I prefer an federal-level asset tax, proportional voting for all states, and a privatized post office. But all of these things are precluded by the US Constitution.
Second, any such interpretation holds the US Constitution as the highest law of the lands of the US. If a law, treaty, or action runs counter to the US Constitution, then they are illegal and should be blocked or prevented. There should be no case of declaring something to be legal only because it'd be rather inconvenient to reverse it. A recent example of this was the Obamacare law. When the Supreme Court overturned part the law, they decided to enforce what was left (this is called "severability"). The legislature did not put instructions in for how to partition the law should parts of it be overturned. It's not the Supreme Court's place to decide what parts of a law to keep and to throw away. If the legislative branch doesn't provide otherwise, they should only wholly keep or reject.
Third, policy should not set by interpretation of the US Constitution. A classic example of abuse are some of the interpretations of the Second Amendment,
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Somehow, because there is a preamble that justifies the second, active part of the amendment, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms can readily and trivially be infringed upon. For example, arguing that you're not a member of a "well regulated Militia" and hence, should not be able to have firearms. Or the classic, you can have a black powder musket, but nothing more dangerous. Or forcing people to store their firearms at a tightly controlled firing range. Or forcing people to have firearms with constraints like reduced capacity magazines or gun locks. The games go on and the interpretations mean whatever the would-be law maker wants them to mean.
He waved a reply to Mr. Vining's observations on the common law, (in which that gentleman had been lengthy and minute, in order to invalidate Mr. Madison's objection to the power proposed to be given to the Bank, to make rules and regulations, not contrary to law). Mr. Madison said the question would involve a very lengthy discussion - and other objects more intimately connected with the subject, remained to be considered.
The power of granting Charters, he observed, is a great and important power, and ought not to be exercised, without we find ourselves expressly authorised to grant them: Here he dilated on the great and extensive influence that incorporated societies had on public affairs in Europe: They are a powerful machine, which have always been found competent to effect objects on principles, in a great measure independent of the people.
He argued against the influence of the precedent to be established by the bill - for tho it has been said that the charter is to be granted only for a term of years, yet he contended, that granting the powers on any principle, is granting them in perpetuum - and assuming this right on the part of the government involves the assumption of every power whatever.
So there's an example of one of the most important of the founders eschewing the corporation of that time.
While I imagine Madison would be dubious of today's legal fiction of "corporate personhood", he would have also resisted the formation of many of the US's current public institutions. And in the few cases where those institutions met his approval, he'd probably disapprove of their considerably enlarged scope.
And on other end of this spectrum was Alexander Hamilton who supported a strong central government and probably wouldn't have had a major problem with much of what has been done since.
Just like now, there was a mix of the many human opinions, vices, and virtues. To say that the founding fathers meant that or this, especially when what they supposedly meant is just a blatantly fantastical reinterpretation of their times through a modern ideological filter, is to lose understanding of them or of their times.
Finally, though I don't see the indication that the times of the late 18th century are sufficiently different from today that we can safely ignore the purpose of the Constitution or the various dangers it was designed to forestall or mitigate.
The nature of humans is the same today as it was 10,000 years ago. Because of that, we are still in the same boat. The environment has changed, the problems have changed, but the state of things is the same. When someone in The West claims things are getting better, it's because the person is deceived by the wave of western success. If you look at the world as a whole, it's still a violent, scary place.
Well, it is a less violent and scary place. That has changed.
There is going to be a huge resource crunch in the next half century as more nations become developed. And unless huge breakthroughs are made in energy storage, solar and wind power is not going to be an acceptable way to make them happy since power grids are horrifically complex. (green energy is already a pain to deal with in developed countries with regards to pushing it back in to the power grid)
Another problem solved by Slashdot. Next.
You knew the job was dangerous when you took it, Fred. -- Superchicken
