Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:Militia, then vs now (Score 1) 1617

by flaming error (#46770803) Attached to: Retired SCOTUS Justice Wants To 'Fix' the Second Amendment

> Please go read the Federal Papers

"Federal Papers"?

Do you mean the 85 chaper "The Federalist"? Or its contemporary Anti-Federalist papers (the ones that argued for a Bill of Rights)?

Either way that's a lot of reading. Could you narrow it down a bit? Like point us to the chapter which explains "the original intent of the 2nd Amendment"?

Comment: Re:What if we overcorrect? (Score 1) 343

"You can go out in the woods, build a cabin, and live without electricity or indoor plumbing."

Maybe we could. Let's think about it.

We'd probably have to buy the woods we wanted to build in. We' might need a building permit for the cabin, followed by an inspection. We'd need a permit for a well. We'd probably need to register our firearms, buy a fishing license and hunting license and tags. We might need a business license if we plan to sell those crops, plus all the government oversight selling food would bring.

So, yeah, maybe it's possible. It doesn't really seem like most people could afford it, and it doesn't seem like most people could comply with all the rules of the various agencies and jurisdictions that could be involved.

I think the reality is that lifestyle of 200 years ago is gone. Whatever semblance might remain is costly and wrapped in red tape.

Comment: Re:The Chinese could pull this off (Score 1) 343

How did you get from here:

The basic theorem states that, under a certain market price process (the classical random walk), in the absence of taxes, bankruptcy costs, agency costs, and asymmetric information, and in an efficient market, the value of a firm is unaffected by how that firm is financed.[1] It does not matter if the firm's capital is raised by issuing stock or selling debt. It does not matter what the firm's dividend policy is.

to here?
"The Modigliani-Miller theorem of finance shows that how you finance a good idea doesn't matter."

Comment: Re:Level of public funding ? (Score 3, Insightful) 292

"He is ...a very controversial figure in science journalism (in a good way)"

Good why? Does he have a gift for explaining new scientific discoveries to laypeople? Does he somehow further the state of the art?

Sounds to me like what he does for a living is tell people that scientific progress is ending. I see no compelling evidence from him supporting that point, and I see nothing good coming from pushing that idea.

Many Americans don't even accept evolution or global warming yet. Pretending that where we are is the furthest we'll ever get is not constructive and not correct.

If this is all he's got, I wouldn't even call him a science journalist. He's more like an op-ed columnist/author.

Comment: Re:Not going to work... (Score -1) 408

A while back I was prescribed an anti-depressant. The doctor said he didn't know if it would work for me. He said it wasn't even well understood *how* it worked.

That confused me because presumably whatever was in the pill was added for a reason, but clearly there's a lot of trial and error. And clearly there are extremely nasty side effects from many drugs.

So many pharmaceuticals' effectiveness may be overrated, as may be their safety. I'm not sure some medicinal plants are necessarily less effective or less safe.

Presumably chemicals in our drugs are often extracted from nature. why wouldn't the same chemicals in their natural form have the same potential to work? For example, willow bark has salicin (from whence aspirin came), and has been used medicinally since the time of Hippocrates.

The idea of treating the whole person instead of just the symptom is a growing concern in western medicine. This has always been the defining characteristic of homeopathy's holistic approach.

So many homeopathic treatments are almost certainly bunk, but throwing out all homeopathy may be short sighted, just as throwing out all of western medicine would be.

Comment: Re:Outrage fatigue (Score 5, Interesting) 230

by flaming error (#46701347) Attached to: Snowden: NSA Spied On Human Rights Workers
AlanObject says:

the same approach that I would have taken given their mission statement

What "mission statement"? This?

Collect (including through clandestine means), process, analyze, produce, and disseminate signals intelligence information and data for foreign intelligence and counterintelligence purposes to support national and departmental missions;

GP is right. They can't process and analyze as much data as they collect, so they don't produce useful intelligence.

They want to collect everything then go through it later when a need arises

That's forensics, not intelligence.

So NSA is on a track where they are sound technically, but way off legally and ethically.

Just curious - if they are way off ethically and morally, why would you take that same approach?

% APL is a natural extension of assembler language programming; ...and is best for educational purposes. -- A. Perlis