tadmjones

Correction , should have said the decade prior to 9/11 , I think I read AS in 89 , and at the time it was the last unread book on the shelf. I did not know who Ayn Rand was at the time , but reading AS was like a religious experience , lol.

I spent decades prior to 9/11 reading as much Rand as I could find. I was Second Renaissance’s dream customer, I think I had all of the hours of LP’s lectures that were publicly available , hey whatever happened to that Walkman? Literal frames of most religions lead to dogmatic practices. There are subtler views.

Or for flavor some texts from the ancient Hindus and their consciousness based religions. A lot of modern physics is the quantification of the Vedic views of existence. Multiverses ‘proven’ by the ‘maths’ is not surprising to ancient philosophies and religions. Most in that vein also have built in methods of thought for not confusing the map for the territory.

What would an embodied transmission look like? AGI is like digital alchemy. I’ve heard a lot of charges of alchemy directed at Newton. Right thinking people are actually starting to realize the paradigm of strict physicalism seems to be heading toward if not a long stretch of diminishing returns then a dead end. To have a theory of everything would everything need to identified first, or would the theory predict the unknown?

Awareness is a phenomenon not a process.

Awareness, experience isn't what is commonly referred to as part of physicality. Or do you not mean that an AGI would be aware? An AGI entity would have the capacity to perform computation, manipulate data without an integrated awareness of 'itself'?

You say absolutely not, but in describing the design and operation of such a device you speak in terms of 'physicality' while at the same time invoking the exploitation of conjectured forces that operate on a scale, so far as we understand, that would be inconsistent with manipulation on 'our' scale.

So in principle you are proposing that AGI would be a disembodied phenomenon?

Belief in all things covid is more complicated, I think, than whether or not one believes there was a specific viron spreading through the human population. One reason to defend one's belief 'in it' is to rationalize the relinquishing of autonomy and especially among those who are cognizant of the level of prize they allot to individualism and productivity and the associated emotional responses that are tied into that relinquishment.

And you will be able to from April 2025 until June of that year.

Yes the judges are required. As to the constitutionality of jerking around SOLs , there as to be something to the idea of creating and closing 'look back windows'? What is a principled argument that allows for 'periodic extended jeopardy'(?) I can understand having a relatively extended SOL ( + 50 yrs in some cases) in the specific area of sexual abuse/abuse of minors and especially involving institutions. Being no legal expert , I still assume there probably exists a jurisprudence in these matters of right's protections and keeping legal avenues open to compensation to individuals that were minors at the time of victimization, that would separate similar strictures for plaintiffs bringing suit when the victimization occurred while they were of legal majority age. And yes also, not all bad ideas are Marxist, but a whole lot of them are!

The context of that leaked and "assumably" 'off the record' comment was clearly a comment on how some people react to those deemed 'above' them in fame or wealth. In the context of rap culture , they were relating and in a surprising manner how far 'liberties' extend to personal space if someone believes they can somehow benefit for granting the space. Bitches be gold diggers , not necessarily prey as the picture was trying to be painted.

Absence of proof is not the same as proof of absence. Mr. Brooks' argument may lack citation of specifics, but in the area of argumentation in legal theory, eg 'stare decisis', surely a broader context is admissible, pun intended. The whole E Jean Carroll vs Trump legal affair is predicated on or reliant on the constitutionality of the NY state ASA which allowed judges to disregard previous statute of limitations on bringing suits. The state appellate courts upheld the constitutionality of the Adult Survivors Act based on a finding of the state supreme court ruling for the constitutionality of the Childhood Victim Act, proposed in the same state legislative session as the ASA though it(the ASA) was not passed until after Cuomo resigned. The 'look back windows' that has allowed suits to be brought was argued on the grounds of correcting injustices perpetrated on victims (groups)via time limitations, and has been hailed in legal circles as a needed 'progressive' measure by states to fully acknowledge the need for protection against and remediation for those whose rights would otherwise be oppressed by the legal precedents of limitations of time to bring such suits. That's a lot of Marxist-y thought right there , no ? If 'progressive legal actions' are unfairly characterized by being solely motivated by Marxist ideologues, the idea that granting exceptions to statute of limitations based on the class of victims being child doesn't/shouldn't necessarily automatically grant those same exemptions to cases that involve adults at the time of their victimization , unless the legal theory is based on an appeal to an over-arching definition of the class of victims. And since these cases are involved in civil litigation, compensatory money rewards are the remediation sought. Again not solely the province of 'marxist' retaliation( especially in the case(s) of minors at the time of victimization , but a case could surely be made that the motivation for allowing what was heretofore a time limited action for adult victims is predicated on a legal theory that too broadly extends a 'class' to incorporate more members to be considered oppressed upon, no ?

Lacking a formal exposition ,so in a more philosophical frame, linguistics and conceptualization are means to the end that is meaning. And that awareness is the only capacity that can facilitate identification. As Stephen is fond of saying existence is identity. The capacity the facilitates the apprehension of identity is the primary.

Being in 'the great outdoors' with 'fresh air abound' will by volume of air reduce the concentration of free floating particulates as opposed to a relatively closed environment of a structure that 'turns over' the volume of air within via the natural restrictions of venting. That coupled with the reduced ability of the body to produce and utilize vit D in winter months because the angle of the rays of the sun are not conducive to the process. Not exactly rocket science and yet on the whole basic logic was jettisoned.

I noticed the owner was viewing a thread the other day and then it seems a crew of new moderators were newly inaugurated.

That reminds me of funny bit on Ricky Gervais’ last special. He was talking about being famous and rich and having an extended family that he barely tolerates. At Christmas he promised each niece and nephew , separately, that they were going to be his sole heir, just don’t tell any of the others, lol.

How does not acknowledging a specific DNA sequence's existence protect a patent? Is that how patent law is administered? So if the information 'makes it to the public' , patent law is then unenforceable?

https://www.asil.org/insights/volume/8/issue/25/world-court-finds-us-attacks-iranian-oil-platforms-1987-1988-were-not I had not heard of the military action prior to clicking on the link and not sure how much credence to put on ICJ proceedings but seems they determined the US strikes on the oil platforms were not consistent a with self defense, defense. I think the destruction of the Iranian Navy would have to precede from a declaration of war, no ?

He said : " it looks like a lot of what were called covid deaths were really a lot of the normal , non covid, but covid like things people die from, maybe they just claimed all the noncovid deaths on covid, we should just count the total deaths and compare the number to historic rates of noncovid but covid like deaths to see if there is a real difference" I inferred your replay as " but what if mitigation efforts worked against the deaths from historic noncovid things" But maybe you mean there wasn't an overall uptick in total deaths from covid combined with noncovid, and that without the mitigation efforts the total would have been higher due to historic trends plus added covid deaths , which were lowered also , that the case fatatlity rate was so high that the mitigation worked to slow covid too, just not as effectively against covid ?

I inferred that your comment that virus transmission mitigation may lead to overall lower numbers of deaths to a post about trying to find a method to deduce the total number of covid deaths leads to the implication since other ILI were officially tallied lower than past totals 'in the pandemic' being overtaken by 'covid' death totals means the lower ILI's were the result of the mitigation efforts.

.."you keep using that word, I do not think it means what you think it means.." I. Montoya

In the mundane, corrupted , and pragmatic real world and current moment SCOTUS implying anything about a memo becoming an act of insurrection is/would be what is in reality a politically motivated DOJ action, not a principled act of ensuring constitutional integrity. In the same manner that SCOTUS decisions containing gerrymandering in the modern day with a two decade struggle to ensure ‘the franchise’ to black males immediately following the Civil War. The justice department was about three decades ‘old’ then, the country/culture was different then and so was the government, both the men and the laws have changed.

"PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL January 6 scenario 7 states have transmitted dual slates of electors to the President of the Senate. The 12th Amendment merely provides that “the President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted.” There is very solid legal authority, and historical precedent, for the view that the President of the Senate does the counting, including the resolution of disputed electoral votes (as Adams and Jefferson did while Vice President, regarding their own election as President), and all the Members of Congress can do is watch. The Electoral Count Act, which is likely unconstitutional, provides: If more than one return or paper purporting to be a return from a State shall have been received by the President of the Senate, those votes, and those only, shall be counted which shall have been regularly given by the electors who are shown by the determination mentioned in section 5 of this title to have been appointed, if the determination in said section provided for shall have been made, or by such successors or substitutes, in case of a vacancy in the board of electors so ascertained, as have been appointed to fill such vacancy in the mode provided by the laws of the State; but in case there shall arise the question which of two or more of such State authorities determining what electors have been appointed, as mentioned in section 5 of this title, is the lawful tribunal of such State, the votes regularly given of those electors, and those only, of such State shall be counted whose title as electors the two Houses, acting separately, shall concurrently decide is supported by the decision of such State so authorized by its law; and in such case of more than one return or paper purporting to be a return from a State, if there shall have been no such determination of the question in the State aforesaid, then those votes, and those only, shall be counted which the two Houses shall concurrently decide were cast by lawful electors appointed in accordance with the laws of the State, unless the two Houses, acting separately, shall concurrently decide such votes not to be the lawful votes of the legally appointed electors of such State. But if the two Houses shall disagree in respect of the counting of such votes, then, and in that case, the votes of the electors whose appointment shall have been certified by the executive of the State, under the seal thereof, shall be counted. This is the piece that we believe is unconstitutional. It allows the two houses, “acting separately,” to decide the question, whereas the 12th Amendment provides only for a joint session. And if there is disagreement, under the Act the slate certified by the “executive” of the state is to be counted, regardless of the evidence that exists regarding the election, and regardless of whether there was ever fair review of what happened in the election, by judges and/or state legislatures. So here’s the scenario we propose: 1. VP Pence, presiding over the joint session (or Senate Pro Tempore Grassley, if Pence recuses himself), begins to open and count the ballots, starting with Alabama (without conceding that the procedure, specified by the Electoral Count Act, of going through the States alphabetically is required). 2. When he gets to Arizona, he announces that he has multiple slates of electors, and so is going to defer decision on that until finishing the other States. This would be the first break with the procedure set out in the Act. 3. At the end, he announces that because of the ongoing disputes in the 7 States, there are no electors that can be deemed validly appointed in those States. That means the total number of “electors appointed” – the language of the 12th Amendment -- is 454. This reading of the 12th Amendment has also been advanced by Harvard Law Professor Laurence Tribe (here). A “majority of the electors appointed” would therefore be 228. There are at this point 232 votes for Trump, 222 votes for Biden. Pence then gavels President Trump as re-elected. 4. Howls, of course, from the Democrats, who now claim, contrary to Tribe’s prior position, that 270 is required. So Pence says, fine. Pursuant to the 12th Amendment, no candidate has achieved the necessary majority. That sends the matter to the House, where the “the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote . . . .” Republicans currently control 26 of the state delegations, the bare majority needed to win that vote. President Trump is re-elected there as well. 5. One last piece. Assuming the Electoral Count Act process is followed and, upon getting the objections to the Arizona slates, the two houses break into their separate chambers, we should not allow the Electoral Count Act constraint on debate to control. That would mean that a prior legislature was determining the rules of the present one — a constitutional no-no (as Tribe has forcefully argued). So someone – Ted Cruz, Rand Paul, etc. – should demand normal rules (which includes the filibuster). That creates a stalemate that would give the state legislatures more time to weigh in to formally support the alternate slate of electors, if they had not already done so. 6. The main thing here is that Pence should do this without asking for permission – either from a vote of the joint session or from the Court. Let the other side challenge his actions in court, where Tribe (who in 2001 conceded the President of the Senate might be in charge of counting the votes) and others who would press a lawsuit would have their past position -- that these are non-justiciable political questions – thrown back at them, to get the lawsuit dismissed. The fact is that the Constitution assigns this power to the Vice President as the ultimate arbiter. We should take all of our actions with that in mind." Stephen As a layman I believe the proposal can be described as very or even extremely 'aggressive' as legal moves, but nothing jumps out as 'unconstitutional' to this layman's eye, where do you see it?

Except covid ? Masking, distancing, and curtailing social engagement had an effect on respiratory disease transmission but did not limit the spread of covid ? The mitigation efforts stop somethings but not that one? Are you proposing the transmission mechanism of covid was different than the mechanisms operational in the other diseases? I'm having a hard time understanding your logical cause and effect argument here.