Walsingham

Not so much, GD. I think power has gone to the 'advisers' and the bureaucracy, and above all the courts. I mean the SC appoints for life? WTF, America? From the little I know, the Bush regime was a fascinating example of both sides of the coin. On the one hand he ruthlessly hammered a number of heads of department, re-emphasising executive supremacy by firing people who dared execute legislation he didn't like (viz the environment). On the other hand he had a coterie of mandarins around him who trussed him up on defence and foreign policy. Lobbyists/big business. are a big deal to the elected reps, but from my perspective that woudn't matter much, would it?

I don't know why the marines aren't their own service, except of course for the Navy having more political clout to argue their corner. Now a Marines vs Army game would be a thing to watch.

I missed that gem about massive conscript armies being independent of economies. If LoF ever left his desk in the library he might have actually met some former Russian conscripts as I have. I believe they would be inclined to lock you in an unheated barracks and eat nothing but potato, then send you home having stolen your clothes and refuse to pay you.

My last post sounded rather arrogant so I appreciate your responding in an even tone. It seems you have some experience of models, but I would hazard they are scientific rather than operational ones. This, on reflection after reading your response may be significant to the argument in general. You mention the imperative of accuracy, and the 'resistance' (if I can call it that) of some models to exposing variables which can be manipulated. As I say I think this is characteristic of models designed for academic use and accolade. On the other hand decision makers don't actually care - and shouldn't care - why a model works, only that it does. The best example I've ever encountered for this are Lanchester's equations. They persist in 'predicting' quite accurately the outcome of historical military engagements, even though I have yet to be convinced their simplification of combat is why the results are as predicted. The distinction is appropriate because if there is one thing we ought to be able to agree on it is that DECISION is the focus of this debate, NOT science. In essence it does not matter if the models were dreamed up on acid, and the data extracted from a dog being covered in jam and jumping on a calculator keypad. What matters is what we decide to do about it, and whtther it is optimal in relation to our objectives. I could go on, but three paragraphs is most any sane man should expect people to read.

Without a doubt. And vice versa. My ideal US government is: House: Republican Majority by 20-30 seats Senate: Democrat Majority by 2-5 seats ( enough so the Vice President will probably never be a factor). Supreme Court: Constructionist majority by at least 5-4, 6-3 is better, but not more than that. Give me all that and I would not care who is in the White House. Remember Awesomeness, the Executive does not wield very much power. Influence yes, but not much power. The real power in the US is in Congress, the Executive was meant to be a check on them. When you get one political party running everything the results are almost always all bad. I think one of our key differences is that you appear to believe that governmental power resides with the government even under a system which removes power from that government. But power doesn't work that way _in my opinion_. It flows like water. I agree with you that the US govt is often remarkably powerless and ineffectual. But all that has happened is power has devolved to other centres. Centres which are far more remote from the people than their democratically elected government. But unusually for me I'm prepared to concede this is a matter of opinion.

Purkake wins. ROFLMAO. That's awesome. Can you rebrand any other defuinct philosophies? What about flat Earthers?

Slept unusually well after going to bed by midnight last night. Up, and breakfasting on home-made jam spread on buttered toast and hot coffee.

I don't remember paras being any good with AT. Their M18 RRs don't do much damage. Besides which aren't you looking at something like 400 munitions? Anyway, reason I thought to post was beause I think I've nailed those bastard rangers. You need to go terror tree, but for the love of all that's good and holy don't use propaganda war. You merely retreat them back to base. Which, unless the map is huge, is a waste of munitions. No... you need firestorm, and some hapless bastards to concentrate the little sods. Get a moto and some engineers together, stroll them forwards, and the blob advances. Be sure to be near a corner for maximum bunch. Then, when they are about to mass, firetsorm, which takes only about 3 seconds to land after click. I have just been repeatedly taking bunch after bunch of them. I still hate rangers and they should be nerfed, but it's still at least playable now. Later on if you are feeling extravangant, you can arrange a sniper spotter to cover their base, then play the propaganda war and launch a V2 at their headquarters. This is another good way to ruin their day,

Eh, it's been a few years.. she is short, pretty cute, has glasses and red hair.. hmm i wonder if it's the same jess i'm thinking of What about the one I'm thinking of? Is she wearing a succubus costume?

Numers just owned you.

*sigh* Not this again. I know I won't change your mind but it has to be said: Government spending can kickstart an economy. Didn't Roosevelt prove that back in the day?

No way, you bastards. He's ours if anything. Can't be worse than the one-eyed funster.

With great personal reluctance I have to agree.

"What he does"? Investment is not work. Period. Have you ever assessed, planned, and implemented a campaign of investment? No. I thought not. I am quite happy to criticise people who are doing non-jobs which could as easily be done by machines, and in many cases are. But you have the typical mendicant's disregard for how hard management is. I know a couple of self-made millionaires who you would regard as having got rich off the sweat of others. I would argue instead that they ensured the others found application for their sweat IN ADDITION to sweating, worrying, and fuming themselves. A really top class manager and organiser adds value to everyone around him. He is a multiplier of others. You say you are not against inequality, or democracy, or private capital. You claim to be against a police state and against top-down organisation? If this is true - and I'm not convinced it is - then why not do away with your romantic affectations and say you are merely a perfectly uninspired man with some pronounced and savage jealousies towards narrow sections of the populace? You are not a communist. You are a lazy serial killer.

Speaking of scams, did yu read about that guy the NYPD tried to arrest for 'aggressive begging'? He opened fire on them with a ****ing MAC-10!

I'm not. I'm telling you that the businessman who steals all the profits that rightfully belong to that brilliant scientist should be eliminated from the entire process. But you've chosen to deliberately misinterpret socialism over and over again, in the ridiculous strawman that never applied to any country in the world. Ever. Do you really think that the actual act of storming the Winter Palace was anything more than the tiny capstone on months of work? Do you think that if the Bolsheviks had simply assembled a much, much larger group outside the palace, demanding that the Provisional Government dissolve itself, it would not do so? Or maybe you just think that the RCW is part of the Bolshevik revolution. Do I need to resort to citing color revolutions at you? Hmm, except no. Why does the system I've proposed rely upon constant, state-sponsored violence? Because you say so. Why do I go to coffee shops? Because you say so. I am perfectly content to rely upon the -consistently strong - general historical knowledge of the forum to support my contention that the bolshevik revolution relied upon violence to be completed, and an enduring persistent violence to be maintained. You can deny it as much as you like, but you're convincing no-one. Why do I insist persistent violence is both an historical fact and theoretical constant? Because your system revolves around the minute regulation of the flow of capital to maintain equity in the face of individual differences in ability and ambition. Such unnatural control can only exist through use of force, since you cannot persuade people to adopt a completely unnatural and (often) self-harming behaviour. Which you might know if you actually did anything with your life besides debate abstract philosophy. As for LoF's use of euphemisms, it's fairly obvious that he has adopted this comunist schtick to try and look cool, and chicks don't dig a guy who says he wants to murder his political adversaries. Well, unless he's quite charming and has a nice butt.

That's incorrect, though it's only partly germane to the discussion at hand. To take an extreme example, things like models of the universe ('big bang'/ 'big crunch'/ 'big bounce') are designed to replicate what has actually happened as exactly as possible and to predict 'exactly' what will happen in the future, and have no other purpose- obviously in that case the time scale is such that it's only of interest from a "pure" science basis and cannot be used for making any decisions. As Numbers again says, either you are a lot dumber or a lot smarter than you appear. The suggestion that a model replicates is - to my knowledge - both impossible and counter-productive. If a model exactly replicated what happend it would be identical to reality, and no more useful. Even if it could be run faster. How would the user/decision maker know what variables to manipulate in their actions? No, I'm afraid I can't agree.

Briefly puzzled over Sluggo's posts as usual. Did no work whatever today, other than some general historical reading. Loafed about the house enjoying my house. Did my exercise (I've been doing it this last week, just not posting on it), and then off for singing lesson then pub. Dinedon chips, followed by homemade curry. Several real ales. etc etc. In too good a mood to read LoF madness.

I like term limits. Personally I like to see term limits on House and Senate seats, both state and federal, and state governors. No more than 12 years on the HOuse and Senate side, no more than 8 on the governor side. In the case of your President doesn't that just mean power gets even more heavily weighted towards the permanent bureaucracy? I agree that its deviant and creepy that you have senators who just stay in power for their lifetimes, but that's up to voters at the end of the day.

Numbers makes an important point. ALL models are designed to answer a specific action choice. They have to simplify and make assumptions or they would merely replicate what is actually happening and be impenetrable for the decision maker. On the other hand, given his debating style I should have thought that gravity was not the only possible cause for him being hit in the head with fruit.

Gluh bluh bluh bodies. Nothing's gonna change for the better with an attitude like that, young man. Hold on, you're actually saying the Bolshevist and Iranian revolutions were bloodless? I don't know whether to laugh or simply fall over. Both of them only took place after huge levels of popular protest. Storming the Winter Castle was done with an anemic force of Bolsheviks against an even more anemic force of supporters of the Provisional Government. Do you think the Iranian revolution wasn't built on huge protests or what? Do you even know what you're talking about? - As my support for intervention in Iraq and Afghanistan proves, I have nothing against sacrifice. But sacrifice with an end in sight. Because your system revolves around constant extreme control it necessitates constant violence on the part of the state. However I also think your comments underline my central contention that you are a footling adolescent coffee-shop academic. - I never said that large scale protests weren't part of revolutions. I merely observed the widely accepted fact that they ALSO involve a lot of revolutionary 'justice' involving armed mobs and gangs of thugs torturing intellectuals and landowners. Or do you deny the fact that the IRGC et al went about imprisoning and killing people? In fact, sod it, go to Iran and say so. See how long it takes for you to get punched in the face. Indeed my main grief at the thought of you getting your way is that you might wind up as one of the sweaty-faced torturers, shining with revolutionary fervour, rather than one of the middle-ground intellectuals in the gulag.

If the mouse looked like that, who the hell wouldn't? I'm assuming he didn't before he got gassed. Maybe he looked really scary.

Unlike you I've actually seen a post-revolutionary mass grave. I've also seen township violence first hand. So f*** your "c'est la vie", right in the ear. You couldn't care less about possible death, and it's not because you're evil. It's because you have no concept of what you are describing. Hold on, you're actually saying the Bolshevist and Iranian revolutions were bloodless? I don't know whether to laugh or simply fall over.

I like my sci-fi option 6. We won't get everyone to agree to do the necessary cutbacks, so the winner will be the nation which uses the cheapest dirtiest power now, and preps for the worst. Freaking underground cities, steam-powered death robots, ant-controlled CCTV thought monitoring. You name it, baby. Hang on, isn't taht what China is already doing? I read in a book today that 50% of China is more than 200m above sea level.

You realise you've simply got stuck in the shower cubicle?