It you actually believe that, I have a fine bridge to sell you.
The "innocent until proven guilty" bit is refering to the opinion that should be held by a juror, not to facts in the world. Were I a juror I would require that his guilt be proven. As I'm in the role of a reader of an article about it, I cannot take the same stance, lest I not have an opinion about anything.
Yes, it *IS* the task of a court, and in particular of a jury, to decide legal guilt. But legal guilt is not actual guilt, and, in fact, often gets things wrong. (Not, however, as often as a biased and illegally acting police officer.)
To the police he should have been a suspect. They apparently murdered him. But even this, alone, would not have set off a civil disturbance. That is clear evidence that this is a part of a pattern of behavior on the part of the police such that the community believed them to be habitually violent thugs biased against the community. (It's not proof, but only strong evidence, that this is an actuality.)
I'm *NOT* saying he wasn't maltreated. In fact I suggested that he was probably murdered. But I'm also saying that I the evidence indicates that he was not an innocent (which doesn't mean he was guilty of anything in particular).
Please note the distinction between "an innocent" and "innocent".
Clearly by "the people" you mean those people currently holding power. For some reason those are the people that I think *should* be held most accountable.
How about "both". I don't think he was a maltreated innocent, but he didn't deserve summary execution (if you can call illegal assault resultlng in murder execution). And it wouldn't have inspired public rage if he wasn't merely the tip of the iceberg.
Additionally, according to experts (Synanon) heroin is less addictive than tobbacco. So why demonize it?
I do agree that most drug dealers should be incarcerated...but for selling fraudulent merchandise. (I'm informed by the press that most black market drugs are mixed with various harmful substances other than the drug. And this time I suspect that they are telling the truth. For reasons suggested by Thoreau's "A Trout in Milk".)
To be fair, the police have, occasionally, committed violence and mass murder against white communities. Usually separatist religious groups.
There may, indeed, have been some people who were sufficiently scared by 9/11 to think that the change in laws was desireable, but I've never met one. There certainly weren't enough to get the laws changed in less than a month. But certain people in power saw an opportunity and used it, and it MUCH harder to get a law repealed.
I don't think the country, as in most of the people living there, was ever in favor of the draconian and unconstitutional changes in the law. That doesn't much matter when both major parties are in favor of increasing the centralization of power (no matter what they say...watch what they *do*, and remember they are always willing to lie to you).
Actually, MSWindNT wasn't that stable, but I've heard that the recent releases actually are pretty stable. I'll never be able to test though, since I won't agree to the EULA.
Also, I never experienced any real problems even with an unmodified MSWind95. The problems started when you installed additional software or hardware. (Yes, the 49.7 days bug existed, but it doesn't exist in the final version of MSWind95. I've got a machine that's running that, and has been up for years. It doesn't get much use, but there are a couple of abandoned programs that I can't export data from.)
No, Orwell visited fascist Spain, and wrote a fictionalized version set in a venue English speakers could identify with. (I've heard that it's called 1984 because he was reporting on 1948.)
You are assuming that the parties are monolithic blocks, which is incorrect. Many of them will grandstand on an issue that is not supported by their party if they think it will help their reelection, and some will do it for ideological reasons even if their party is on the opposite side.
BOTH parties are trying to centralize control. Both parties are trying to do what different constituencies want. And both are actually more interested in supporting the goals of unspoken backers. Neither of them puts the good of either the country or of the citizenry first, but both will take stands that allow them to claim to do so...to different constituencies.
There's that, but there's also the question of how small a percentage of those "skilled in the art" should need to consider something obvious before someone is granted a monopoly on it? To me it seems that this percentage should clearly be much less than 1% if there are 1000 skilled practitioners of the art. If there are more than 10,000 practitioners it should clearly be less than 0.1%. This would require an unwieldy jury size.
So I propose that if there is an independent invention of the same invention the patent should be immediately voided...or at least converted from a monopoly to a duopoly. (FWIW the telephone had three patents applied for by different people before the first one was granted. Why should *one* of them be granted a monopoly? [I think all three were in the US, and that the one in Russia is not one of the three, but this could be a mistake.]) But note that my proposal does not require that the separate invention be filed for before the first patent is granted. It's my belief that most "inventions" are never patented because the inventor considers them obvious. So the main result of patents is to retard the state of the art and centralize control...and that it's the centralization of control that is the main driving force behind the clamor for patent protection.
"Wipe out agriculture" is probably incorrect, but wipe out agricultural regions is not an overstatement, as deserts will appear in new places, and so will rainy areas. Even places that aren't seriously affected due to changes in rainfall will need to switch to different crops due to changes in temperature. Some places, however, will become much more productive. But they won't be the places that have been that way in the past.
That said, it is probable that the net agricultural production will be sharply reduced. The newer areas will be closer to the poles, and there's a lot less land there than there is closer to the equator.
I don't think you have properly evaluated the costs of your proposed mitigation measures. And most ocean acidification derives directly from the carbon dioxide level, not from agricultural chemicals. (Though they do tend to produce the "dead zone"s.)
So far, at least, urban farming is either only usable in low density "cities", which means lots of fast transport, or to produce high cost greens for local gourmet restaurants. And sea-steading is mainly feasible for multi-millionaires, who don't care about maintenance costs.
Of course, it's been awhile since I checked those expenses. Perhaps some "technological advance" has made them practical. But I'd be really surprised. Sea water is intensively corrsive, and barnacles seem to grow on nearly anything.
I'm sorry, but parts of Antarctica are already melting. That's not 200 years away, that's last year and the year before.
If you want to say "total meltdown of Antacrtica" has been postponed for 200 years, I suspect you're being unreasonably pessimistic. The mountain tops will probably stay covered in ice for considerably longer. But in between those extremes things are variable depending on what actions we take now, and so are the results.
Now we get to the paper you referenced. In the first place I don't think either of us really understand it. (I know that I don't.) In the second place he's comparing a historical record in a few spots at a time that we don't have detailed information about to current models that are based on much greater amounts of information. He could be right. But most current models have been underestimating the actual melting, due to things like not including wave driven fragmentation. So I don't think he is. (And that article was published in 2005, so it doesn't include all the data that current models are based on.)
That said, I'll admit that I'm much more aware of models of the Arctic than of the Antarctic. Perhaps they aren't underestimating the melt rate, or at least not as much.