Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:Folks need to see 'The Day After' (Score 1) 177

by mi (#47971299) Attached to: US Revamping Its Nuclear Arsenal

Every sane and rational person should watch it every 5 or 10 years to remind themselves of the horrific nature of nuclear war.

Except movies rarely (if ever) appeal to rationality.

In this particular case, a sane and rational person might ask himself, how do they know, it will be so bad? There has never been an experiment attempted... Not even close...

The film hopefully cools the excitement about nukes.

I'm unaware of any excitement about nukes, that needs cooling. I am aware of the largely irrational fear of nukes — even of nuclear power plants. And I would rather we used nuclear weapons, than give up and surrender should our conventional forces fail.

Our hesitation to use them in Korea — to kill off hundreds of thousands of Chinese troops supporting the Northern Communists — for example, has condemned millions to the still ongoing decades of dire poverty and tyranny...

Comment: Deterring Putin (Score 0) 177

by mi (#47971245) Attached to: US Revamping Its Nuclear Arsenal

Are we secure from the Putins though? He seems to have fun with the idea his nukes let him do whatever he wants.

Putin's doctrine is that Russia ought to "protect" both ethnic Russians and Russian-speaking people of any ethnicity anywhere in the world. That you don't see "polite" gunmen organizing a referendum in Brighton Beach is a sign, our force does deter Putin still.

I'm very glad, America is rearming itself, because Russia spent the past 20 years nourishing a buttheart like no one had ever had before. They lost the Cold War and they want a revanche. With a Nobel Peace Price dimwit in the White House, and a bona-fide lunatic providing foreign-policy expertise, this is Russia's hour...

Comment: Re:What a Waste of Fossil Fuels (Score 0, Troll) 181

by mi (#47964959) Attached to: Hundreds of Thousands Turn Out For People's Climate March In New York City

I doubt there's a person on this earth that's ever achieved their political goals without at some point having to sacrifice their principles to at least some degree.

Golden words. And it is especially true about Communists, who nowadays masquerade as "environmentalists". Like watermelons, they are green on the outside, but red inside.

Scratch a "green" activist, and you'll find a Che Guevara T-shirt underneath. Whether global warming is really happening (and it is already accepted, that we are living through a "pause" in it), if it helps sabotage Capitalism, it is a worthy cause.

And you'll notice, that these types — who also appear on every "anti-war" demonstration — would call themselves peaceful, non-violent, and opposed to "hatred". But, should they ever be allowed to perform their "revolution" (because Capitalism can't be reformed, you see), they'll all recall Che Guevara's

A revolutionary must become a cold killing machine motivated by pure hate.

Comment: Re:Bullshit. (Score 1) 218

by dave420 (#47963511) Attached to: Secret Service Critics Pounce After White House Breach

Or maybe it's the US's InfinityX number of troops in military bases around the world, coupled with the US's InfinityX support of Israel, with a dash of the US's InfinityX military bases engaging in torture and detention without trial...

Yes, the US is powerful, but if it had used that power for the greater good, there would be less nutters out there with problems with the US and its leadership... You can't pretend it's just a case of the big boy on the block getting bullied...

Comment: Re:Free Willy! (Score 1) 471

by dave420 (#47962843) Attached to: Scotland Votes No To Independence
You seem to be confused. It's not a theocracy. In a theocracy, priests rule in the name of a god or gods. The queen is entirely ceremonial. You seem to be confusing history and the present, something that someone from such a young country can be easily excused. The constitution does exist - it's just not written down in a single document.

Comment: Re:Not a problem... (Score 1) 323

by mi (#47951379) Attached to: New Study Projects World Population of 11B by 2100

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...

Comment: Stronger government -- weaker citizens (Score 1) 319

by mi (#47950099) Attached to: Canadian Regulator Threatens To Impose New Netflix Regulation

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

Comment: Re: I never thought I'd say this... (Score 1) 326

by mi (#47948973) Attached to: FCC Chairman: Americans Shouldn't Subsidize Internet Service Under 10Mbps

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?

The bomb will never go off. I speak as an expert in explosives. -- Admiral William Leahy, U.S. Atomic Bomb Project