Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:Does anyone oppose this? (Score 1, Informative) 102

by sumdumass (#47443925) Attached to: Fighting Climate Change With Trade

You don't and wont get it because you are not thinkibg like a true American liberal progresive.

You see, a premise to most of them is that taxes are an entitlement for others and government programs. Any reduction is a boom for the rich and harm for the poor. If you reduce tariffs only on some products, you are by default relying on taxes from the others for this entitlement. This now becomes a government subsidy in their minds purely because the other products still tariffed do not suffer from the same lack of government interference. So tax breaks are always subsidies because those effected do not pay their fair share.

Forget the logic that lack of involvement means less interference. Even if you support the intended goals. I personally think this is an outstanding way to encourage adoption of these technologies. And i should note that i'm typically called a denyer because i don't buy into the doomsday prophecies and think the problems if ever realized would be better dealt with as technology advances and over the long period of time it will take to have the sort of dooms day problems.

Comment: Re:So instead of "free" why don't they say "covere (Score 2) 251

you'd be guilty of various crimes, like tax evasion due to accounting fraud, and also price discrimination against some of your customers. Besides, you'd also be guilty of dumping, which is a variant of antitrust violation.

How so?

I mean building costs into pricing models has been around for quite a long time. Shipping is just one of those costs and costs come off the ledger for profit statements and tax purposes.

The US Postal Service has a flat rate box where if it fits, it ships anywhere for something like $15. If Amazon negotiates that to $10 and their average order qualifying for free shipping has 4 items in it, it is only $2.50 added onto the costs. So they take the retail price, discount it by 25% then add $3 to it and cover the costs of shipping without dipping too much into profits.

Businesses to this with taxes too. You place a fee or raise their rates and they just adjust their prices accordingly. It's easiest to do when the tax increase effects the entire industry too. Of course there has been some industries who got pissed and attached it as a separate fee specifically notating the law that caused the increase on the bill. Congress was really pissed when the telco industry started doing that.

Comment: Re:What is the motivation? (Score 1) 301

by sumdumass (#47441405) Attached to: A Skeptical View of Israel's Iron Dome Rocket Defense System

I suspected this hit piece was just an moral encouragement for hamas to keep up the fight.

I don't know if they are anti Israel or pro hamas or completely clueless but a lot of speculation could have been avoided if they waited until after this was resolved. As it stands now, Israel's citizens will likely be convinced it is useless and demand the military invade every time there is a rocket attack. There could be a lot more violent killing and subjugation than currently in place.

Comment: Re:France built something like this back in the 19 (Score 1) 301

by sumdumass (#47441293) Attached to: A Skeptical View of Israel's Iron Dome Rocket Defense System

Nobody was an idiot back then, everyone knew Hitler was a problem.

I guess you never heard of Neville Chamberlain.

Hitler could have been stopped before a world war happened if the Treaty of Versailles had only been enforced. It would have been minor to stop Germany when they reoccupied the Rhineland. France alone could have done that.

There was a lot of stupidity in hindsight.

Comment: Re:Subject bait (Score 0) 301

by sumdumass (#47441253) Attached to: A Skeptical View of Israel's Iron Dome Rocket Defense System

Where these "Jews" more likely to be the ancestors of the Palestinians or Israelis...

Neither. They are largely from the same gene pool if you consider most of the y chromosome in the populations being of the same pool.

Of course the ottoman empire actually sold land to European Jews (likely from different genetics) off and on since the 1600s.

Did Plaestine cease to be "Jewish" because of migration or because the Arabs "upgraded" to V2 or V3 of "The religion of Abraham"?

Largely because of V3 and the Muslim conquests in the 7th century. The Muslim conquests also brought about quite a bit of conversions (I don't know if it was forced or not). This also brought about the Arabization of the area.

It should be noted that Palestine has never been a country or state. The area got the name due to Hellenization. It was a Hellenized location so the Greeks or other Hellenized people could reference it. The lands have always been occupied by some power other than the Palestinian people since they got the name. DNA studies seem to link the Palestinians close to the Jews and early Christians (who were converted Jews) quite closely.

Comment: Re:Creepy (Score 1) 174

by sumdumass (#47440873) Attached to: DARPA Successfully Demonstrates Self-Guiding Bullets

It's sort of pointless now that rpstrong showed me the error of my thinking.

You see, all you need to do is set the riffle to it's highest point in the trajectory arc and the laser to the center of the scope. At any distance now, the riffle is no longer being aimed except in a general direction. So once the laser kicks in, the bullet will guide itself to the target. All you have to do is get close and aim the laser right when the trigger is pulled.

I was originally thinking the gun had to be aimed before firing so the laser would have to be in the field of view at the same time. According to this site a .50 cal sighted in a 1000 yards or 915 meters will be roughly 45 inches high at 200 yards and 300 inches low at 1500 yards or 1371 meters. Now most scopes and military sights will have adjustments that can be tuned for the differences in distance. But as you can see, with almost a difference of 350 inches (29 feet or 8.8 meters) between 200 yards and 1500 yards, a laser centered at 1000 yards will have to be adjusted the same or be out of the field of view. So if you had to aim the riffle before shooting, you would also have to adjust both the laser and scope. But because the bullet is guided, you just need to make sure the bullet is high enough in the trajectory arc in order to follow the laser to the target. The laser can be centered at this sighting reference and remain on target.

So basically, I was over thinking it without paying attention to the correct details.

Comment: Re:Yet another proof creation doesn't work! (Score 1) 156

by sumdumass (#47440795) Attached to: Hints of Life's Start Found In a Giant Virus

My premise is nothing of the sort. It has nothing to do with individual reality but how reality is presented and accepted. No one said anything about anything being true or not, that is beyond anything I was conveying. The point is that it all boils down to someone claiming to have authority saying something and people either accepting it as true or not. This is because just like those people (who happen to be the vast majority) who cannot do the science for whatever reason, most will never talk to god or be presented with any significant evidence of a God.

Now, you coming out and saying trust me, I can do all this to prove it is still someone saying trust me, trust this that proves it. You say but all these other people say it to, but look at all the churches saying the same things too. People listening will still have no option but to trust you or not just like with religion or science fiction.

Note, I put science fiction out there not because science is fiction but because I wanted to show that people will believe science fiction just the same as real science and/or religion.

This entire religion verses science is a bunch of bullshit anyways. They are tools and used for different things. Less than 99 percent of either will ever conflict with each other and of what will, it has so little of an impact on most people it is insignificant.

Comment: Re:and... (Score 1) 152

For the content, one only needs a good faith belief. There could be a garage band in the background singing "row roe row your boat" and the automated whatever thinks it is part of some bands album and issues the warning. That would be a good faith belief that the content was infringing. But as you showed, would not be perjury.

Comment: Re:Don't sweep it under the rug as collateral dama (Score 2) 152

The perjury clause isn't for the claim of infringement or mistaken claim, it's for the statement that you are a copyright owner and/or authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed. For the actually claimed infringement, it only takes a good faith belief that the use of the material in the manner complained of is not authorized by the copyright owner, its agent, or the law.

Misidentifying a file would not be perjury. The best that could happen is damages and law fees from the person making the claim of infringement.

Comment: Re:The Elephant in the Room (Score 1) 94

Is there some reason they would jump to an "it's aliens" conclusion in this case?

It's in the wording of the article summery. Radio pulse sort of initially brings thoughts of a radio station receiver like in a car or home theater, a purpose constructed signal meant to convey messages. Add in the "might have been picking up signals originating from sources on or near Earth" and it kind of reinforces the sentiment of a constructed signal.

GP isn't the only one making that jump either. There are some posts about decoding it and so on.

Comment: Re:Yet another proof creation doesn't work! (Score 1) 156

by sumdumass (#47435733) Attached to: Hints of Life's Start Found In a Giant Virus

Listen, I understand how you feel threatened by what I said. I understand how you badly want it not to be true. But we are not talking about those who can do the science, the entire premise was those who cannot. It doesn't matter who is here and not right now, those people will only be able to trust what you say is true.

As for miracles, try doing a google search for modern miracles and see what doesn't happen any more. People are still claiming they happen.

I'm sure there is a huge difference when you ignore the parts you do not agree with. Like this sections started out though, you don't get to ignore reality and impose your own. You do not have to believe miracles happen but you do have to acknowledge that others do. Your premise is lot on reality.

Comment: Re:Creepy (Score 1) 174

by sumdumass (#47435313) Attached to: DARPA Successfully Demonstrates Self-Guiding Bullets

You are probably correct.

However, you would think that the laser would need to be sighted separate from the gun. In order to compensate for gravity, the barrel of the gun is usually lifted so the trajectory is an arch of sorts rather than a straight line. A laser on the other hand, while also suffering from gravity, will not be near as much or even notifiable. This isn't a problem with handguns because the range they are used in is so close that gravity doesn't take hold. Long shots will require a lot of compensation.

Perhaps there is also a method of pre-aiming the so it is as accurate as the sights on the riffle.

Computers can figure out all kinds of problems, except the things in the world that just don't add up.