Somehow this sounds a little bit more expensive than just using existing arable land or existing potable water

Of course. My post was meant for people, who'd claim, that "Earth can not sustain" such a big population — by listing the vast areas, where the new billions could live in comfort even if those existing parcels of arable land and sources of potable water were exhausted.

I refer you to Project Orion

The method could allow us to reach other star systems, but not practically — not within reasonable time. For that, we'd need faster-than-light travel and that is, what I had in mind.

Because that [ping times -mi] is the main downside of the Malthusian catastrophe.

It was a joke, relax...

The CRTC implicitly threatened to regulate the company by taking away its ability to rely on the new media exception if it did not cooperate with its orders.

Statists rejoice...

"A government big enough to give you everything you want, is a government big enough to take away everything that you have."

— Thomas Jefferson

22 trillion dollars over fifty years is 440 billion dollars a year, which is quite affordable for the US.

That we were able to afford it (sort of — the figure exceeds our current national debt), means, it is indeed affordable, no big news. The points you chose to ignore were: a) the cost of it exceeded the costs of all real wars of the Republic combined; b) the "war on poverty" is a flop — despite spending so much money, we have not achieved the goals Lyndon Johnson spelled-out, when he launched the program.

BTW, the answer to James Madison is Article

Oh, sure, david_thornley from the 21 century knows the meaning of the Constitution better, than the man, who wrote it...

provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States

The interpretation you are proposing here is so wide, you can drive an air-carrier through it — sideways — and affords government limitless power. For example, NSA can claim, that their eavesdropping is for "general Welfare" (and great justice!), abortions can be banned — anything.

Or are you, perhaps, confusing the generic term "welfare" with the Welfare Program — and claiming, the Constitution's authors envisioned the program for the poor 200 years before it was (finally!) implemented?

I've got a solution that will make everyone happy:
Have NetFlix partner with the NFB to distribute NFB content... globally. Nothing like providing global access to Canadian content. NetFlix could even provide it for free to everyone in Canada with an account but no current subscription. Under this setup, the CRTC wouldn't have a leg to stand on, as at that point, they will get their Canadian Content on NetFlix (not sure about the French/English ratio though).

HOWEVER

I'm pretty sure this really has nothing to do with NetFlix and EVERYTHING to do with the new consortium raising a Canadian NetFlix "competitor" (Shomi) whispering nasty things in the CRTC's ear. Yes, blame Rogers/Shaw for this fracas, as they're likely where the blame really lies.

Ah, hubris! One of my favorite old-timey sins.

You are of course correct. The signal must become analog at some point to make it into your head, and we have had the capability to capture analog signals since the dawn of the television age. You can crack open LCD panels and intercept signals for a more modern high tech version of this concept, of course.

But you are forgetting the other side of the equation. When when someone makes that statement - "THIS CANNOT EVER BE PIRATED" - you are throwing down the gauntlet. And invariably some bored teenager will say "oh really is that so?" and make them eat their words. Usually by the following Saturday. Yes you can do an analog capture but by the time you warm up your soldering gun some kid in the Netherlands will have already got the torrent up.

Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to go watch a Blu-Ray movie on my Linux box.

Ok, ok. But it's usually enough outside the world of 24.

Careful there. A lot of people trying to make an example created a martyr.

I'm advocating social peace.

Sorry, I don't believe in compassion and charity. Never worked, never will. Aside of stripping needy people of their last remaining dignity, it's also something you simply cannot rely on once time get rougher, i.e. exactly when those in need feel it the most.

That the supply side can fix problems is a myth. Sorry. It cannot. Mostly because there is no incentive. The economy is in the slumps because the demand is missing. And that in turn is something you can only fix if people HAVE TO spend when the economy would make it more appealing to refrain from doing so, i.e. exactly when the economy would need you to spend to keep it running.

Now, whether people spend money depends mostly on two factors: First, whether they want to. And second, whether they have the means to. You might notice that the economy actually kept going for a while even after the steam was off. That's because people still had money to spend. The recession came when this was over, when people could no longer spend because they had nothing left.

Our whole economy in the west is very heavily dependent on services. Services otoh are also the first thing people cut back on when money gets tight. What's higher on your priority list: Haircut or food?

There is a very easy reason why countries with traditionally "socialist" systems were hit far less heavily by the recession. Mostly because even poor people still have money to spend.

Why not? Upsetting fanatics is a great pastime.

It's trivially easy to do that. All it takes is a redefinition of the value of numbers. Or have some fun with subclasses.

I know what you're trying to say, but you're dealing with people here who do math for fun. If anything I dare say that you should have someone coming up with at least five ways to prove you wrong before the sun goes up today over California.

Well, on the other hand, OTPs are the wet dream of our law enforcement.

"And here we have the decoded text, it clearly tells us that he's behind every crime committed in the past 20 years, at least that's what it decrypts to..."

You underestimate the stupidity of your adversary. And their sadism.

Or, in other words, just 'cause you can't confess doesn't mean the torture ends.

Another reason why biometry is great to establish identity but poor for authentication.

Figure out what you really want to do with this. Do you want to understand everything very broadly? Do you want to become a specialist in a particular niche?

If the answer is broad understanding, lookup dogvomit's post and take the traditional coursework in the traditional order at your pace. There are sets of problems honed over the last 100 years to train people to think like physicists. Then you can go read Einstein and dense particle physics books; that's a lot of fun but probably won't go anywhere. Very, very few physicists contribute generally any more.

If you want to be a specialist, find a very well defined project you could really dig in to and enjoy. Something like one particular measurement you think you could do on your own. Pick something recent that you like. It's all out there on Google Scholar. Fill in the general physics you need as you go, but you'll probably need more engineering, software (and money) than anything else. Above all, please do get in touch with the people who inspired your work!

If you're able to successfully repeat a set of observations, or just do something that looks at all like what some grad student did 5 years ago, you will make their year by sharing it with them. If you can do that even once, you will be well on your way to contributing meaningfully to their field.

To put the time commitment in perspective, this is the kind of thing a new "generalist" physicist will do for 2-3 years full time while learning their specialty. Unless you really like this and find more than 10 hours a week to do it, it could easily take you 10+ years. That's ok. I'd be thrilled to find out someone outside traditional physics replicated my results from 10 years ago.