They turn their back on young people

[choff]

I was just reading the other day that a typical revolutionary war era soldier would have an average of 200 lashes during his term of service.

[williatw]

Let the bleeding hearts be driven crazy(pretty short drive IMHO), the simple reality is we are rapidly running out of money. Our current system is going bankrupt, we have a prez who thinks trillion dollar deficits are sustainable. Legalizing would save a god awfull amount of money, the amount of money sucked from our economy by illegal insanely overpriced drug use is staggering. To say nothing of the cost of trying/imprisoning users. Bet pot will be legal(not just medical) in Calif and other places in 10yrs. Regulated hard drugs to follow.

It will only save money if "Nothing happens" once drugs are legalized. That is a presumption at odds with the evidence.

"Needle Park" did not work well in Switzerland. If you look at the Graph of Chests of Opium imported into China you might notice that at first the amounts were not so bad, but grew steadily worse over time.

I have still yet to hear a reasonable explanation as to why the same thing wouldn't happen anywhere else.

I will concede the example of China but think there are important distinctions. The Chinese opium was deliberately and intentionally forced upon them by the British who were trying to correct their trade imbalance with China. They wanted/intended to breed as many addicts as possible, it was not an unintented side effect it was the desired effect. Needle park though not as bad was I believe also unregulated. In the US the 40% of the pop who would be adamantly opposed to legalization would force onerous regs on hard drugs. You have to be over 21, registered with the state as a user so if the cops pull you over they know what to test for. Other things like legal heroin being a product sold at state licensed stores as "herox" 10% heroin at best. Limits on how much you can buy, etc. Our goal would be to try to drive the cartels out of the business and limit the social damage at home, hardly what the Brits intented for China.

[Diogenes]

Let the bleeding hearts be driven crazy(pretty short drive IMHO), the simple reality is we are rapidly running out of money. Our current system is going bankrupt, we have a prez who thinks trillion dollar deficits are sustainable. Legalizing would save a god awfull amount of money, the amount of money sucked from our economy by illegal insanely overpriced drug use is staggering. To say nothing of the cost of trying/imprisoning users. Bet pot will be legal(not just medical) in Calif and other places in 10yrs. Regulated hard drugs to follow.

It will only save money if "Nothing happens" once drugs are legalized. That is a presumption at odds with the evidence.

"Needle Park" did not work well in Switzerland. If you look at the Graph of Chests of Opium imported into China you might notice that at first the amounts were not so bad, but grew steadily worse over time.

I have still yet to hear a reasonable explanation as to why the same thing wouldn't happen anywhere else.

I will concede the example of China but think there are important distinctions. The Chinese opium was deliberately and intentionally forced upon them by the British who were trying to correct their trade imbalance with China. They wanted/intended to breed as many addicts as possible, it was not an unintented side effect it was the desired effect.

And if we had legal suppliers here, they wouldn't do that of course. ( You know, like the tobacco companies did.) Modern drug traffickers are much more moral nowadays.

[Diogenes]

Needle park though not as bad was I believe also unregulated. In the US the 40% of the pop who would be adamantly opposed to legalization would force onerous regs on hard drugs. You have to be over 21, registered with the state as a user so if the cops pull you over they know what to test for. Other things like legal heroin being a product sold at state licensed stores as "herox" 10% heroin at best. Limits on how much you can buy, etc. Our goal would be to try to drive the cartels out of the business and limit the social damage at home, hardly what the Brits intented for China.

I understand the theory, I just don't think it will work in the case of severely addicting drugs. Tobacco is a good example of such a thing. Getting people to give it up has taken many decades. Use is declining, but a lot of people still take up the habit.

Heroine in any concentration would be bad. If you tried to regulate the quantity you would simply create the same black market conditions which legalization was intended to cure.

A better alternative would be to license marijuana users and growers, and thereby split them off from the coke addicts.
(Politically, there are a lot more pot supporters than coke supporters.)
Divide and conquer.


Marijuana seems to be less dangerous to OTHER people than is alcohol. It tends to make the users lazy and indolent, which if they have their own means of support, is not a problem for everyone else.

It is those people who are on the public dole who should not be permitted to play with something for which the rest of us will have to pay eventually.

[Diogenes]

I was just reading the other day that a typical revolutionary war era soldier would have an average of 200 lashes during his term of service.

Ouch!

[choff]

Not uncommon for the era, especially at sea, at least until the morale improved.

[williatw]

Woodward seems to be running into problems with the dielectrics, and Heim is discredited now. HFGWs or Pharis Williams' idea might play out. Williams' work is sweet in terms of parsimony.

I haven't kept up lately, being too involved in politics. What happened with Heim? How was it discredited. As for Woodward, it's easy to see how a technology on the ragged edge of material science might run into problems. At the transition speeds he is trying to use, material becomes spongy.

I believe djolds1 is referring to this: http://www.physforum.com/index.php?show ... ntry487786
apparently a physicist named John Reed spent the last few years looking at heim theory finally concluding that Heim "cooked" his data, using the data for the particle masses and then deriving his equations "predicting" the particle masses. Extended Heim Theory was derived from Heim original ideas by Droscher and Hauser, that was the one that predicted the propellantless drive with the possibility of FTL. Technically I suppose until someone does the experiments discussed in their papers you could say the EHT hasn't been proven/disproven yet. Understand magnetic field strengths have improved the last few years so it may be possible to test assuming you can get the money.
If your interested this is one of D & H's latest papers: http://www.hpcc-space.de/publications/d ... 1Brief.pdf

[Diogenes]

Woodward seems to be running into problems with the dielectrics, and Heim is discredited now. HFGWs or Pharis Williams' idea might play out. Williams' work is sweet in terms of parsimony.

I haven't kept up lately, being too involved in politics. What happened with Heim? How was it discredited. As for Woodward, it's easy to see how a technology on the ragged edge of material science might run into problems. At the transition speeds he is trying to use, material becomes spongy.

I believe djolds1 is referring to this: http://www.physforum.com/index.php?show ... ntry487786
apparently a physicist named John Reed spent the last few years looking at heim theory finally concluding that Heim "cooked" his data, using the data for the particle masses and then deriving his equations "predicting" the particle masses. Extended Heim Theory was derived from Heim original ideas by Droscher and Hauser, that was the one that predicted the propellantless drive with the possibility of FTL. Technically I suppose until someone does the experiments discussed in their papers you could say the EHT hasn't been proven/disproven yet. Understand magnetic field strengths have improved the last few years so it may be possible to test assuming you can get the money.
If your interested this is one of D & H's latest papers: http://www.hpcc-space.de/publications/d ... 1Brief.pdf

Thanks for the links. I'll check them out.

[choff]

Just found out Bill Still is running for Libertarian US presidential candidate, am curious how he's perceived by the party membership having recently watched his videos myself?

[djolds1]

The libertarian dream is anti-utopian. We assume all levels of government are incompetent, corrupt, and evil. We thus wish to limit government at every turn.

Libertarianism is another variant of economic determinism. A cousin of Communism. All variants require the New Man.

And the libertarian dream? To cut drug use in half in ten years using methods that worked for the Portuguese. And drastically reduce prison and jail costs there by.

No disagreement as to ends. Characterizing those ends as uniquely libertarian is in error.

But you are not alone. A LOT of people favor the corruption of government by drug cartel money.

Unless you can provide a route for neo-technic hunter-gatherers to displace human civilization, the governments that run the societies of those civilizations aren't going anywhere. And the desire by leaders for small coalitions, source of the Iron Law of Oligarchy, also isn't going to go away. Absent the New Man.

[djolds1]

You need something to regulate first. Jump to this too quickly, and you merely perpetuate #1. Move pot and maybe coke over to the state stores, enforce purity standards, and reap the taxes.

I have suggested licensing. For pot it would be pretty much a nothing deal, but for coke, I would expect it to be somewhat onerous.

I assume there would need to be a "hard liquor" equivalent to the "beer" of cannabis. Powdered coke seems to fill that niche historically in the US.

The Cartels are not going to go away - we've spent 40 years creating them. But they will be forced to focus on the more traditional OC trades, plus the new cyber-frauds. They seem to have an affection for kidnapping, but that can be broken.

As long as there is a market for illegal activity, there will be people willing to supply it. Murder has always been illegal, but there are still people willing to kill for money.

Absent a hugely profitable illegal market to fight to control, low-visibility low-violence solutions work best for OC groups, and the LEOs tend not to care about the infrequent violence because it is internal-fratricidal.

Look back to their honest ideals 100 years ago. The state, regulated by magisters whose refined judgment would be assured by the beloved academy, would provide a society of justice and plenty.

Honesty and Lyndon Baines Johnson do not go well together. No doubt idealism motivated some of the simple minds who supported the idea, but from Lyndon Johnson's perspective, It was all about getting and keeping power. My Dad claims to have known Lyndon Johnson, (my dad was from Texas) and he said the man was a crook and a sleaze.

LBJ is 70 years after "the birth of the dream." Well into bureaucratization and the iron law of oligarchy.

They haven't changed their game plan in a century. That's the problem. They pushed their program through to completion - and now its decaying. But instead of adapting, they're digging in to defend. Very human. But it will not guarantee the longevity of their accomplishments.

Many of them don't care about longevity, they only care about the here and now. Unions have been advocating a system which is inherently impossible to maintain, yet every year they argue with greater fervor that their unsustainable plan be maintained and expanded. Perhaps some party therotician\ideologues want longevity, but for their ground troops, all they want is money NOW.

Sad, in a way. Their predecessors DID build glories. They even managed to produce what were quite possibly the fairest societies in human history - for a short while.

Primaries are different from general elections. Dems will cheat in general elections, GOPhers will be "caught" by the MSM. Unless there's a disaster, Romney has it sewn up.

Most likely. The question is will the Milquetoast candidate garner any enthusiasm? The base doesn't care for him. If he is the nominee, I doubt many will bother voting. Barack's hard core WILL show up.

The conservative base will show up - they hate Obama. The balance rests on where the Center stands. For the Center, is it "2004" part 2, or "1980" part 2? I.e., is the current POTUS mildly annoying but still acceptable, or is he toxic?

Woodward seems to be running into problems with the dielectrics, and Heim is discredited now. HFGWs or Pharis Williams' idea might play out. Williams' work is sweet in terms of parsimony.

I haven't kept up lately, being too involved in politics. What happened with Heim? How was it discredited.

Tajmar retracted his 2006 claims as an artifact of noise. All EHT work since 2006 including the "bosonic" pathway was predicated on that work.

http://www.physforum.com/index.php?show ... 85&st=3015

As for Woodward, it's easy to see how a technology on the ragged edge of material science might run into problems. At the transition speeds he is trying to use, material becomes spongy.

I do hope so, but am trying to keep a range of testable options under personal review.

As for the RPG, I loved the Fantasy based Genre, but I never got into the Sci-Fi versions.

Just the opposite for me.

Only if you count George Washington and Dwight Eisenhower as vicious bad-asses. Competent and willing to be ruthless at need? Yes. Vicious? Not necessarily.

I just read a few days ago where Washington dealt with a Mutiny from an army group. He Captured them, and said he would pardoned the Enlisted but ordered them to shoot their officers who had so badly led them into mutiny. When the enlisted fired over their heads, Washington told them that if they didn't shoot true on the next volley, they would all join their officer's fate.

The men thereafter shot accurately.

Washington was a civilized man, so he could be ruthless without being vicious. (Wanton Cruelty) However, unprincipled cruelty also works to produce a base of loyal supporters.

Read up on Ike's Werwolf order. Cold. Luckily never needed to be enacted.

[williatw]

Woodward seems to be running into problems with the dielectrics, and Heim is discredited now. HFGWs or Pharis Williams' idea might play out. Williams' work is sweet in terms of parsimony.

I haven't kept up lately, being too involved in politics. What happened with Heim? How was it discredited.

Tajmar retracted his 2006 claims as an artifact of noise. All EHT work since 2006 including the "bosonic" pathway was predicated on that work.

http://www.physforum.com/index.php?show ... 85&st=3015
Respectfully djolds1 EHT is probably too good to be true, but from the link you posted:
QUOTE (kurt9 @ Nov 6 2011, 04:11 PM)
It is true that EHT is a separate work from the original Heim Theory. However, Droescher and Hauser have relied considerably on the Tajmer's experimental results over the past 5 years. Tajmer's results are now seen as questionable because of the failure of other researchers to duplicate the same results. D&H have proposed two experiments over the years. The first one uses the high T magnetic field. This is the experiment proposed in their papers in 2004 and 2005. Later, based on Tajmer's results, they proposed a second experiment that would use a much lower magnetic field than the one in their first experiment. Since the Tajmer's results are questionable, or can be explained by different theories, it is likely the second experiment will prove a null result.
I am not a physicist either. I do not know if EHT requires that the second proposed experiment (low magnetic field) produce valid results. If so, then I would say that EHT is as false as the original Heim Theory.
The high-flux superconducting materials that would make it possible to do the first experiment are being developed (for other applications) and should be commercially available in another 3-4 years. This should make it possible to conduct the high T magnetic field experiment without too horrendous of cost in about 5 years. Until then, everything is pure speculation.

Yes by consistently siting Tajmar experimental works D & H don't have much leg left standing now that he has retracted that explanation for his results. To say nothing of Reed's objection to the original Heim theory. However seems there is still a faint possiblity that the higher field strength original EHT experiment could bare fruit.

[djolds1]

Tajmar retracted his 2006 claims as an artifact of noise. All EHT work since 2006 including the "bosonic" pathway was predicated on that work.

http://www.physforum.com/index.php?show ... 85&st=3015

Respectfully djolds1 EHT is probably too good to be true,

Agreed. Its fall has also made me cynical about the utility of LQG-based approaches, as well as QM-as-primary approaches in general.

Yes by consistently siting Tajmar experimental works D & H don't have much leg left standing now that he has retracted that explanation for his results. To say nothing of Reed's objection to the original Heim theory. However seems there is still a faint possiblity that the higher field strength original EHT experiment could bare fruit.

Yes, the "fermionic" pathway may conceivably still bear fruit, and materials breakthroughs have made high-tesla fields MUCH more plausible since 2006. But I see no effort by D&H to refocus back to that original basis, thus undermining their credibility IMO.