freenode #wikipedia

2008-01-16 15:27 < Schrodinger_Cat> LuciferTiger: Well, sorry to burst your bubble, but pretty much every MiG after the MiG-21 was based of an American aircraft
2008-01-16 15:27 < Schrodinger_Cat> Just compare the Mig-27 and the F-4
2008-01-16 15:27 < Ceiling_Cat> what is a wiki farmer?
2008-01-16 15:28 < Demi> I need one of those "PAID" stamps
2008-01-16 15:28 < LuciferTiger> lol i know... i just said i 'like to believe' i happily ignore the fact
2008-01-16 15:29 < Messedrocker> do you feeeel like apu
2008-01-16 15:30 < Schrodinger_Cat> Messedrocker: Apu?
2008-01-16 15:30 < Ceiling_Cat> Messedrocker feels like Apu
2008-01-16 15:30 < Schrodinger_Cat> Messedrocker: From the Simpsons?
2008-01-16 15:30 < JerseyDevil86> Apu Nahasapeemapetilon
2008-01-16 15:30 * Ceiling_Cat knows from groping
2008-01-16 15:30 * Messedrocker punches Ceiling Cat
2008-01-16 15:31 * name_name is gone
2008-01-16 15:31 < Ceiling_Cat> oh noes
2008-01-16 15:31 < Ceiling_Cat> animal abuse is one of the 3 big signs of a serial killer
2008-01-16 15:32 < Ceiling_Cat> [[MacDonald triad]]
2008-01-16 15:32 < LuciferTiger> sadly there doesnt seem to a list of airforces by strength on wiki
2008-01-16 15:33 < LuciferTiger> like theres one for the army
2008-01-16 15:36 < Schrodinger_Cat> LuciferTiger: Given the lack of proper air-to-air combat after Vietnam, I'd be highly dubious of any attempted ranking of air-forces
2008-01-16 15:36 < Filanca`> hi
2008-01-16 15:37 < LuciferTiger> well i meant just by sheer numbers
2008-01-16 15:37 < LuciferTiger> and incredibly i was thinking the same as to when was the last time there was a major air-air combat
2008-01-16 15:38 < Schrodinger_Cat> LuciferTiger: Well, the last *major* air-to-air combat was in Korea, when the the US F-80 and F-86 went up against Soviet and Chinese MiG-15s
2008-01-16 15:39 < LuciferTiger> there was the '71 war and there was vietnam. other than that, its mostly been one country bombing another one which doesnt have any
2008-01-16 15:39 < shimgray> Falklands.
2008-01-16 15:39 < LuciferTiger> they say vietnam had communist pilots involved too
2008-01-16 15:39 < Schrodinger_Cat> shimgray: Not really much air-to-air there, since the Brits didn't bring one of their big carriers
2008-01-16 15:40 < shimgray> Schrodinger_Cat: ...I am somewhat confused. "big carriers"?
2008-01-16 15:40 < Schrodinger_Cat> LuciferTiger: It did, but Vietnam saw the rise of the surface-to-air missile, that made any kind of loitering dogfight a risky proposition
2008-01-16 15:41 < Schrodinger_Cat> Schrodinger_Cat: Well, I mean they didn't get the US to pitch in a big carrier. The British navy did not really have any big carriers of its own
2008-01-16 15:41 < Schrodinger_Cat> shimgray: ^^
2008-01-16 15:41 < LuciferTiger> yeah. and also they made all the fighters so advanced that theres no point at all in dogfighting
2008-01-16 15:41 < Schrodinger_Cat> LuciferTiger: Not the fighters. The missiles
2008-01-16 15:41 < shimgray> Yes, and god knows only Big Manly Ships are allowed to have aircraft fly off them
2008-01-16 15:42 < LuciferTiger> no thats what im saying.. in the old days the figters had teeny weenie missiles and those cannons
2008-01-16 15:42 < LuciferTiger> now its those fire and forget missiles
2008-01-16 15:42 < Schrodinger_Cat> shimgray: Its not that. Its that there weren't enough aircraft for a comprehensive battle. Also, the British didn't bring air-superiority fighters, they brought ground attack craft.
2008-01-16 15:43 < shimgray> Schrodinger_Cat: And, yet, somehow, they contrived to have air-to-air combat. It's a pity they didn't check with you first as to whether they were allowed.
2008-01-16 15:43 < Demi> shimgray - there's something unmanly about a ramp. i'm just saying.
2008-01-16 15:44 < quanticle> shimgray: Its difficult to evaluate the performance of air-superiority fighters when only one side is using them
2008-01-16 15:46 < LuciferTiger> heres something cool... after the indo-pak war of 65, here what PAF said "PAF claimed it had shot down 104 IAF planes losing only 19 in the process"
2008-01-16 15:46 < LuciferTiger> is it just me or does anyone else think that the losing side should think before bragging to that account
2008-01-16 15:47 < Messedrocker> lolapol
2008-01-16 15:47 < shimgray> quanticle: And, yet, it happened. I note which lot lost, too, which may make any assessment a fairly foregone conclusion :-)
2008-01-16 15:47 < quanticle> LuciferTiger: Well, they can argue that they were overwhelmed with numbers rather than skill
2008-01-16 15:47 < LuciferTiger> i mean it that is indeed true and also considering india's airforce at that time, the pakis would have had a HUGE advantage and would have pushed for a win rather than losing
2008-01-16 15:48 < LuciferTiger> *i mean IF
2008-01-16 15:48 < LuciferTiger> india on the other hand claims to have lost only 35 and shooting down 73
2008-01-16 15:48 < quanticle> shimgray: The British won despite their lack of air-superiority, not because of it. As I note, the Argentinian air force did a fair bit of damage to the British fleet with their Exocets
2008-01-16 15:49 < quanticle> LuciferTiger: Air forces don't win wars, they only prevent losses
2008-01-16 15:49 < shimgray> Well, yes. I am still a little lost as to why this doesn't constitute a valid discussion point for modern air-to-air combat
2008-01-16 15:49 < quanticle> shimgray: What I'm saying is that the British planes weren't designed to deal with air-to-air combat, and were sitting ducks
2008-01-16 15:50 < LuciferTiger> quanticle: they do provide one hell of a platform. like the israel arab war...
2008-01-16 15:50 < LuciferTiger> lemme look up the year...
2008-01-16 15:51 < quanticle> LuciferTiger: Pretty much all the Arab-Israeli wars, except for the first one had the Israeli Air-Force playing a critical role
2008-01-16 15:51 < LuciferTiger> yeah im talkin bout the 6 day war
2008-01-16 15:52 < quanticle> LuciferTiger: Well, the Israelis used their airforce essentially the same way as the Germans - very mobile artillery
2008-01-16 15:52 < neurotope> I think that the UN should add to the geneva convention that any army that uses landmines that are not set by hand in tactical ways (aka blanketing a large region with mines randomly) as a terrorist state :-)
2008-01-16 15:53 < LuciferTiger> the point is that if u have that level of air superiority, [106 vs 19] then theres very little stopping you from bombing the fuck out of the enemy
2008-01-16 15:53 < LuciferTiger> neurotope: what country do u have in mind?
2008-01-16 15:53 < quanticle> LuciferTiger: And, as we learned in Vietnam (and are learning again in Iraq), you can bomb the fuck out of the the enemy, but that doesn't mean that he's gone
2008-01-16 15:54 < LuciferTiger> i was coming to that
2008-01-16 15:54 < LuciferTiger> but in both cases they atleast occupied the enemy territory.
2008-01-16 15:54 < neurotope> there are several, but the only thing mining a large area does is give a since of fear and helplessness to the people around it
2008-01-16 15:54 < LuciferTiger> the fact that the gurreilas will kick you in the nuts is another matter
2008-01-16 15:54 < neurotope> it provides no long term tactical benefit
2008-01-16 15:55 < quanticle> neurotope: Not true. Minefields can be used tactically to restrict the maneuvering range of enemy armor and infantry
2008-01-16 15:55 < LuciferTiger> neurotope: depends on if you have a pesky neighbor who seems to be about to attack
2008-01-16 15:55 < LuciferTiger> mines have been used pretty smartly before
2008-01-16 15:55 < quanticle> neurotope: Its the difference between forcing a frontal attack and getting flanked
2008-01-16 15:55 < neurotope> choosing known locations that you are advrotising as mine fields is not what im talking about
2008-01-16 15:55 < LuciferTiger> esp in terrain and areas with sparse population
2008-01-16 15:56 < quanticle> neurotope: Its pointless to have a minefield if the enemy knows about it
2008-01-16 15:56 < quanticle> neurotope: Preferably, the enemy will realize that he's in a minefield after stuff starts blowing up
2008-01-16 15:56 < LuciferTiger> quanticle: no it has a point - deterrence
2008-01-16 15:56 < neurotope> if they dont know about it than your hopeing they will flank you, get hurt on the way in... and then have to get reinforcements another way...
2008-01-16 15:56 < patbam> http://www.badastronomy.com/bablog/2008/01/16/alien-signal-from-arecibo-and-seti/
2008-01-16 15:56 < neurotope> yeah, its a moat
2008-01-16 15:57 < LuciferTiger> that forces the enemy to decide between treading the mines and losing tanks or to have a head on battle
2008-01-16 15:57 < quanticle> LuciferTiger: Not really. If I know I'm going through a minefield I can bring in mine-clearing equipment to push a path through. If I don't know, I have to stop and wait, and leave myself open to counterattack
2008-01-16 15:57 < LuciferTiger> and if u are smart/lucky, you can get away by bluffing about how many mines u actually have
2008-01-16 15:58 < neurotope> there is just no good way to clean up mines afterwards, especaily mines that are set out by projectile...
2008-01-16 15:58 < quanticle> LuciferTiger: More smart than lucky
2008-01-16 15:58 < LuciferTiger> mine clearing is a very slow and painful process
2008-01-16 15:58 < quanticle> neurotope: Well, no one said that war is clean
2008-01-16 15:58 < shimgray> patbam: if that was such a remarkable story, you'd think more than *one obscure TV news channel* would#ve picked it up
2008-01-16 15:58 < neurotope> but there is nothing to be gained by large scale war any more
2008-01-16 15:59 < neurotope> the damage potential of small groups of people has gotten to high for large land seasure to make any sence
2008-01-16 15:59 < LuciferTiger> neurotope has a point bout mines too... and my point is related. you can get bombed when trying to clear the mines
2008-01-16 15:59 < patbam> shimgray: indeed.
2008-01-16 15:59 < quanticle> shimgray: Well, it is an unconfirmed rumour.
2008-01-16 15:59 < NotACow> moo
2008-01-16 15:59 < quanticle> shimgray: And we've jumped the gun on this issue before
2008-01-16 15:59 < LuciferTiger> neurotope is right in the humanitarian context and my point is more tactical
2008-01-16 16:00 < shimgray> quanticle: but one that the SETI Institute will field calls about, so it can't be something being embargoed
2008-01-16 16:00 < neurotope> they have a place if there is nothing after war, but if there is nothing after the war than why are you fighting?
2008-01-16 16:00 < shimgray> so if it were an actual story, and rumours were really flying, you'd think a different journalist would've called too :-)
2008-01-16 16:01 * shimgray strongly feels it's garbage, like that big fuss in 2004
2008-01-16 16:01 < patbam> http://www.centauri-dreams.org/?p=1676 yeah could be. what fuss in 2004?
2008-01-16 16:01 < LuciferTiger> neurotope: the fighting doesnt necessarily take place right beside what they want
2008-01-16 16:01 < quanticle> shimgray: Well, SETI has made announcements to the effect of "This might be it!", only to retract a week later after some natural phenomenon is discovered in they area
2008-01-16 16:01 < neurotope> modern military stratigy needs to consider economic impact and moral of the conquered as well as low losses and effective tactics
2008-01-16 16:01 < LuciferTiger> the israel-egypt and indo-pak borders have deserts over a huge portion of he border
2008-01-16 16:02 < quanticle> neurotope: Only if you're intending to occupy...
2008-01-16 16:02 < neurotope> even if your going to pull out
2008-01-16 16:02 < LuciferTiger> so to get to where they want, both parties have to cross the desert
2008-01-16 16:02 < shimgray> quanticle: usually it's someone else making the claim and them having to try to damp it down, rather than them themselves releasing it. they're institutionally paranoid, because they know just how silly you look :-)
2008-01-16 16:02 < LuciferTiger> lots of sand + no people = perfect for minig
2008-01-16 16:02 < neurotope> creating extreemist factions set on your desturction is a bad long term stratigy
2008-01-16 16:03 < quanticle> LuciferTiger: That's why the Arab-Isreli wars have been so clean
2008-01-16 16:03 < quanticle> LuciferTiger: No civilians to get in the way in those parts
2008-01-16 16:03 < LuciferTiger> yeah exactly.
2008-01-16 16:03 < neurotope> yes, and if people would march out onto a battlefield we could go back to using our old tactics
2008-01-16 16:03 < quanticle> shimgray: I think we're actually in agreement. I just misunderstood your statement.
2008-01-16 16:03 < neurotope> :-)
2008-01-16 16:04 < neurotope> i think so too
2008-01-16 16:04 < quanticle> neurotope: Large armies charging one another, followed by loot and rape?
2008-01-16 16:04 < LuciferTiger> these wars as well as much of the indo pak conflicts are more of a who can get the foot in the door first. if i do, i have your whole mainland to shoot down. at that point the war ends
2008-01-16 16:04 < neurotope> loot and rape only happen if its near a town
2008-01-16 16:04 < quanticle> neurotope: If a town isn't nearby, march forward to the nearest town.
2008-01-16 16:04 < LuciferTiger> quanticle: more like kurukshetra
2008-01-16 16:05 < neurotope> if you do that know, while you are looting and rapeing expect to get shot and blown up...
2008-01-16 16:05 < quanticle> LuciferTiger: I'm convincet that was idealized
2008-01-16 16:05 < neurotope> damn feminist movement
2008-01-16 16:05 < quanticle> neurotope: That's why you go through quickly, like the Vikings
2008-01-16 16:05 < LuciferTiger> usually in olden times - not involving whites and middle easterns -, the battles took place in fields and the loser would hand over the keys
2008-01-16 16:06 < quanticle> LuciferTiger: Fully expecting that the their castle would get looted.
2008-01-16 16:06 < quanticle> LuciferTiger: Read about the the wars of religion, or the 100 years war
2008-01-16 16:06 < LuciferTiger> well mostly it wasnt 'looted' just ruled over with tributes going out to the conquerer
2008-01-16 16:07 < neurotope> that would be occupying then....
2008-01-16 16:07 < LuciferTiger> quanticle: read my stmt again.. NOT involving whites and or middle easterns
2008-01-16 16:07 < quanticle> LuciferTiger: No. There was plenty of real looting going on too, especially be freelancers and mercenaries that were paid in loot.
2008-01-16 16:07 < quanticle> LuciferTiger: I knwo
2008-01-16 16:07 < quanticle> Wars of Religion was between Catholics and Protestants
2008-01-16 16:07 < neurotope> well outside of white and middle eastern... that would leave asian wars and tribal conflicts?
2008-01-16 16:07 < LuciferTiger> thats my point. those are idiots
2008-01-16 16:08 < LuciferTiger> if you look at the moghul conquest of india, they didnt leave a trail of destruction behind them
2008-01-16 16:08 < LuciferTiger> they just mixed cultures
2008-01-16 16:08 < neurotope> I love the my jesus is better than your jesus wars... they are even sillyer than my god can kill your god wars
2008-01-16 16:08 < shimgray> I love the way that outside greater Europe and in "olden times", the entire world operated homogenously
2008-01-16 16:08 < shimgray> does your history book have more than two chapters in it?
2008-01-16 16:08 < quanticle> LuciferTiger: True, but that's because the Indian population was so much bigger than the Mughal hordes
2008-01-16 16:09 < quanticle> LuciferTiger: As a counterexample, I present Ghengis Khan. He wasn't white or muslim
2008-01-16 16:09 < LuciferTiger> im sure a bunch of farmers cant stand up against well trained organized army
2008-01-16 16:09 < LuciferTiger> well a barbarian nonetheless.
2008-01-16 16:09 < neurotope> farmers do fine if there are 1000 to 1
2008-01-16 16:09 < quanticle> LuciferTiger: Right, but when there are a 100 times as many farmers as invading soldiers the farmers tend to do ok as a group.
2008-01-16 16:10 < LuciferTiger> neurotope: overall that might be the ratio.. but they attack only a village at a time
2008-01-16 16:10 < neurotope> infact stampeeding your cows and goats at an oposing force is a method uses to protect land for a long time
2008-01-16 16:10 < quanticle> LuciferTiger: Also, remember that the Mughals didn't go after individual farmers, they just coopted the ruling class
2008-01-16 16:10 < LuciferTiger> im sure a well trained bunch of soldiers with range weapons can deal with a much greater numer
2008-01-16 16:10 < patbam> i have a nervous feeling that if there is in fact an interstellar signal, they will decode it & it will say RONPAUL2008OMFG
2008-01-16 16:10 < LuciferTiger> also india's population hadnt exploded then
2008-01-16 16:11 < quanticle> LuciferTiger: Right, but the Alamo says that you'll get overwhelmed eventually
2008-01-16 16:11 < LuciferTiger> quanticle: lol thats what my whole point was!!!!!
2008-01-16 16:11 < neurotope> is this what is notmaly going on in the wikipedia chat?
2008-01-16 16:11 < LuciferTiger> in olden times, they did NOT go against the farmers
2008-01-16 16:12 < LuciferTiger> no this is a lot more fun than what goes on
2008-01-16 16:12 < quanticle> LuciferTiger: Well, depends. Often, the farmers were drafted to be soldiers, so there was not real difference
2008-01-16 16:12 < neurotope> the differance was knowing you were supose to be a combatant
2008-01-16 16:12 < quanticle> neurotope: Well, it doesn't really matter if you're fighting for your home country...
2008-01-16 16:12 < LuciferTiger> in older times, the ruler who lost would turn himself in. aas long as the winner was not an asshole, the farmers hardly knew difference other than the increased cultural differences
2008-01-16 16:13 < quanticle> LuciferTiger: Well, more like, "the new ruler was no more of an asshole than the old one"
2008-01-16 16:13 < neurotope> yeah, hostile take over, change the receptionist, the logo and the matto, go on with the same old thing
2008-01-16 16:14 < LuciferTiger> might be. we dunno really how bad or good they were on an average
2008-01-16 16:14 < quanticle> LuciferTiger: If you study history, you'll find that the ruling class has been pretty asshole-ish on average.
2008-01-16 16:14 < neurotope> we know that they were average on average
2008-01-16 16:14 < LuciferTiger> but apparently, if the whole world wanted to get to india, i figure they must be mostly good
2008-01-16 16:14 < neurotope> our history books are writen by the upriseing middle class... how do we know
2008-01-16 16:14 < quanticle> LuciferTiger: Well, the whole world wanted india for spices and textiles
2008-01-16 16:15 < LuciferTiger> and not to forget all the literary and cultural advances india made
2008-01-16 16:15 < LuciferTiger> you surely cant do that if you have a tyrant over you
2008-01-16 16:15 < quanticle> neurotope: True enough. I'm pretty sure that ancient rulers wouldn't have considered themselves assholes, even though they were in retrospect
2008-01-16 16:16 < LuciferTiger> now if the rulers had been stalinesque, there would have been no literary and culture advances. much like you dont have a rock star from soviet union
2008-01-16 16:16 < quanticle> LuciferTiger: Well, the Mughal invasion marked the decline of India as a power for scientific advancement and the rise of the Arab world in that regard
2008-01-16 16:16 < neurotope> and in general if your willing to uprise and kill people, you dont like them... so i expect that our history will describe the overthrown as jerks
2008-01-16 16:16 < LuciferTiger> quanticle: i have to disagree to an extent.
2008-01-16 16:17 < LuciferTiger> mughals themselves, they first few of them ... were really good for india
2008-01-16 16:17 < shimgray> LuciferTiger: Rock stars count, but all those Russian authors don't. Hum.
2008-01-16 16:17 < LuciferTiger> and the muslim invasion started well before the mughals
2008-01-16 16:17 < quanticle> LuciferTiger: You can't disagree that India had largely lost its role in science and technology by the time the British invaded
2008-01-16 16:17 < shimgray> quanticle: and then we kept it stable for two centuries!
2008-01-16 16:17 < neurotope> oh yeah, has china started defending they copyright on swet shops yet? I hear there are a lot of cheap version out there claiming to be the real thing
2008-01-16 16:17 < LuciferTiger> yeah. that happened after the aurangzeb times
2008-01-16 16:18 < LuciferTiger> yeah it started declining from the start of muslim invasions i agree
2008-01-16 16:18 < quanticle> shimgray: But, like everywhere else you blokes went (with the exception of America and Australia) you destabilized it as you left. Good job.
2008-01-16 16:18 < LuciferTiger> mughals, the first 4 of them were a bright spot. if not science, there were lots of advances in arts
2008-01-16 16:18 < quanticle> shimgray: And America and Austrailia don't count since you largely killed off the natives and started fresh
2008-01-16 16:19 < quanticle> LuciferTiger: True. The later Mughals were jerks though.
2008-01-16 16:19 < LuciferTiger> shimgray: you did NOT keep it stable. read about the famines of bengal
2008-01-16 16:19 < shimgray> quanticle: It was a little unfortunate that the rest of the world was a few orders of magnitude more economically powerful when it got independence again, I suppose
2008-01-16 16:20 < LuciferTiger> but you know i have to agree with shimgray on one point
2008-01-16 16:20 < quanticle> shimgray: I can't believe that you're actually defending British imperialism. The Brits, with the their drawing of arbitrary lines on maps doomed half the world to ethnic infighting
2008-01-16 16:20 < neurotope> LuciferTiger - you like pie?
2008-01-16 16:20 < shimgray> LuciferTiger: One of the weird bits of historical economics is that, in absolute terms, two hundred years of British control of India did... very little. the rest of the world surged ahead, but not India.
2008-01-16 16:20 < LuciferTiger> if the brits hadnt invaded, muslims would still have been ruiling. they looted most of our wealths, but still they removed the muslims from power
2008-01-16 16:21 < shimgray> quanticle: I believe I may be being too dryly subtle for you
2008-01-16 16:21 < quanticle> shimgray: Oh. Heh. Sarcasm.
2008-01-16 16:21 * quanticle 's sarcasm meter broke a while ago
2008-01-16 16:21 < quanticle> Sarcasm detection cababilities are currently... limited.
2008-01-16 16:22 < LuciferTiger> a LOT of problems are cuz of imperialism... but im sure without the brits invading india, we would have been divided into many sultanetes
2008-01-16 16:22 < quanticle> LuciferTiger: Not really. India could have gone the same way as China - with a powerful dynasty uniting the country.
2008-01-16 16:22 < LuciferTiger> and brits did bring back the science and tech to india. we seemed to have lost the desire to modernize
2008-01-16 16:23 < shimgray> the post-East India Company period, under direct British rule, is really one of the great lost opportunities
2008-01-16 16:23 < LuciferTiger> quanticle: hard to tell. the main reason the brits were able to conquer was cuz of the fact that indians were divided
2008-01-16 16:23 < quanticle> LuciferTiger: Its the same way with lots of countries that were dominated by empire. Foreign domination seems to crush innovation no matter how lightly its applied
2008-01-16 16:23 < shimgray> if we'd *tried* to put in the inward investment we threw at North America... god, the strides that could have been made
2008-01-16 16:24 < LuciferTiger> well no point in dwelling on what COULD have been
2008-01-16 16:24 < shimgray> let us, instead, return to blaming Washington.
2008-01-16 16:24 < quanticle> shimgray: And the ungrateful way we treated you after you saved our tails from the French!
2008-01-16 16:24 < LuciferTiger> but its hard to forge togather one great population like india or china without the use of brute force
2008-01-16 16:25 < LuciferTiger> in india, it came from brits who united us
2008-01-16 16:25 < LuciferTiger> against them
2008-01-16 16:25 < LuciferTiger> and in china it comes from the communist party
2008-01-16 16:25 < quanticle> LuciferTiger: Well you need force at first, but you need to change the culture to emphasize homogeneity if you want unity to last. Unfortunately this same influence crushes innovations
2008-01-16 16:26 < LuciferTiger> so yeah it sucked to be in india a 2 generations ago, but atleast thanks to what they went thru, this generation is able to chill out
2008-01-16 16:26 < quanticle> LuciferTiger: The togetherness in China is much older than communism. It goes back all the way to the advent of the Mandarin class...
2008-01-16 16:26 < LuciferTiger> and atleast chinese are more homogeneous... look at india man, the languages change if you travel 100 miles this way or that
2008-01-16 16:27 < quanticle> LuciferTiger: That homogeneity is the result of centuries of effort.
2008-01-16 16:27 < LuciferTiger> quanticle: and it sucks. its like having mcdonalds everywhere u go
2008-01-16 16:27 < quanticle> Every ruling class in China since the Qin dynasty has tried to make China more homogenous
2008-01-16 16:28 < LuciferTiger> im not too much in favor of that. but then i may be wrong
2008-01-16 16:28 < LuciferTiger> i just say it cuz the diversity in india seems to rock and other more homogenous stuff seems just boring
2008-01-16 16:28 < halo3> mcdonalds EVERYWHERE?!?!
2008-01-16 16:28 < quanticle> LuciferTiger: Well, its worked out pretty well for them in the long run. The only time China looked weak was when the Japanese (who are even more homogenous) were kicking their ass
2008-01-16 16:28 * halo3 salivates
2008-01-16 16:29 < LuciferTiger> but atleast we dont have iron fists pounding us
2008-01-16 16:29 < quanticle> Militarily, at least, I'd be hard pressed to name a time in which India was stronger than China
2008-01-16 16:29 < LuciferTiger> india has made roughly the same if not better advances in a much more liberated environment
2008-01-16 16:29 < quanticle> LuciferTiger: Well, that's the price you pay for democracy
2008-01-16 16:30 < LuciferTiger> military isnt everything u know
2008-01-16 16:30 < LuciferTiger> see pakistan?
2008-01-16 16:30 < halo3> military isnt everything, public perception is everything!
2008-01-16 16:30 < quanticle> LuciferTiger: I'm afraid you're wrong about that. China, right now is at least 5 (and probably closer to 10) years ahead of India when it comes to loosening economic regulations. Having a central party can be useful...
2008-01-16 16:31 < LuciferTiger> except for the part where you are told what to think
2008-01-16 16:31 < LuciferTiger> civil liberties in china are worse than even those in usa.
2008-01-16 16:32 < LuciferTiger> now thats saying something
2008-01-16 16:32 < quanticle> LuciferTiger: You'll find that civil liberties in England are worse than those in the USA
2008-01-16 16:32 < Messedrocker> the US has ok civil liberties
2008-01-16 16:32 < halo3> american companies produce software to filter internet content in china
2008-01-16 16:32 < LuciferTiger> which sucks even more
2008-01-16 16:32 < Messedrocker> i mean compared to much of south america or africa
2008-01-16 16:32 < LuciferTiger> Messedrocker: it was a joke
2008-01-16 16:33 < quanticle> LuciferTiger: For all the US bashing that I engage in, I do admit that the US is pretty damn good when compared to how crappy the rest of the world is
2008-01-16 16:33 < LuciferTiger> actually even with a lot of percieved loss of civil liberties in the us, ppl can do whatever they want
2008-01-16 16:33 < halo3> quanticle, except when police shoot at protesters
2008-01-16 16:33 < LuciferTiger> quanticle: agreed
2008-01-16 16:33 < quanticle> halo3: Well, here at least you hear that the police were shooting at protesters...
2008-01-16 16:34 < LuciferTiger> halo3: the situation is FUBAR when you get screwed for minding your business
2008-01-16 16:34 < Messedrocker> i thought the police shot only if there was chaos
2008-01-16 16:34 < LuciferTiger> in US that never happens
2008-01-16 16:34 < halo3> how do you define chaos?
2008-01-16 16:34 < LuciferTiger> yet there are places where you could get killed for minding your business or reading your books
2008-01-16 16:35 < quanticle> I always find it somewhat amazing that the British have managed to hold on to their liberties for as long as they have without a written Constitution
2008-01-16 16:35 < halo3> chaos to the police may be shouting loudly or making noise to get people's attention
2008-01-16 16:35 < halo3> that would be enough to disperse crowds and throw tear gas
2008-01-16 16:35 < halo3> in some jurisdictions
2008-01-16 16:35 < LuciferTiger> quanticle: usually its not a problem if the population as a whole is pretty sensible
2008-01-16 16:35 < Messedrocker> LuciferTiger, about 25% of the people still like the president
2008-01-16 16:35 < LuciferTiger> 25
2008-01-16 16:36 < Messedrocker> 0.25 * 300,000,000
2008-01-16 16:36 < quanticle> Messedrocker: Its actually closer to 33%
2008-01-16 16:36 < quanticle> Messedrocker: The 25% figure is for Congress and Dick Cheney
2008-01-16 16:36 < LuciferTiger> Messedrocker: thats the reason why brits have liberties without constitution and americans dont despite constitution
2008-01-16 16:36 < Messedrocker> i thought dick cheney had a 2% approval rating
2008-01-16 16:36 < halo3> could you cite that? i dont think any stat shows that many people "like" the president, which is much different than approval
2008-01-16 16:37 < LuciferTiger> thats the scary part bout US. there are ppl who think that bush is right
2008-01-16 16:37 < Demi> cheney's approval rating is surprisingly high among people he's shot in the face
2008-01-16 16:37 < Messedrocker> bush is right TO A DEGREE
2008-01-16 16:37 < Messedrocker> TO A DEGREE.
2008-01-16 16:37 < quanticle> Messedrocker: The latest figure is 18% for ol' Dick
2008-01-16 16:37 < The359> what's scary is that there are those who think he is completely wrong
2008-01-16 16:37 < LuciferTiger> and there are people who think that evolution or not is an issue important enough to matter
2008-01-16 16:37 < Demi> He is A DECIDER
2008-01-16 16:37 < Demi> TO A DEGREE
2008-01-16 16:37 < LuciferTiger> lol
2008-01-16 16:37 < Messedrocker> the problem with Bush is that he fucks for virginity
2008-01-16 16:37 < halo3> A UNITER, not a DIVIDER
2008-01-16 16:37 < LuciferTiger> Messedrocker: true
2008-01-16 16:38 < The359> He's a mission accomplisher
2008-01-16 16:38 < Demi> halo3 - to a degree; a negative degree
2008-01-16 16:38 < quanticle> halo3: He's been surprisingly effective in uniting the opposition
2008-01-16 16:38 < Demi> isn't there a song that goes "He's a ..., he's a ..., he's a ... ... on a ... ...?
2008-01-16 16:38 < halo3> this is what he said his administration would be, a UNITER, however it is clear that he will do just the opposite
2008-01-16 16:38 < LuciferTiger> yeah. look at the votes the dems are geting in the primaries
2008-01-16 16:38 < Demi> maybe we can parody that
2008-01-16 16:38 < The359> He's a lover
2008-01-16 16:38 < The359> Not a fighter
2008-01-16 16:38 < Demi> quanticle - if there were united opposition he would have lost
2008-01-16 16:39 < quanticle> The359: Democratic congress in 2006, Democractic Presidency in 2008. Mission Accomplished.
2008-01-16 16:39 < LuciferTiger> a united opposition which is more interested in 2009
2008-01-16 16:39 < halo3> bush administration is trying to overreach its constitutional authority, in every decision
2008-01-16 16:39 < quanticle> Demi: True. I still blame the Dems for screwing up the '04 campaign
2008-01-16 16:39 < The359> Every decision?
2008-01-16 16:40 < shimgray> quanticle: ever read Fear and Loathing on the Campaign Trail?
2008-01-16 16:40 < halo3> i blame the american people for not voting for an independent candidate
2008-01-16 16:40 < The359> Are we trying to one up one another by overblowing things now?
2008-01-16 16:40 < LuciferTiger> Demi: maybe the dems want him to give him room to fuck up so bad that there wont be a republican for a few terms
2008-01-16 16:40 < Demi> "Let's have, um, pizza." "You can't do that, Mr. President."
2008-01-16 16:40 < quanticle> shimgray: No, but thanks for the recommendation
2008-01-16 16:40 < shimgray> (or, 1972: how to *really* fuck up an election)
2008-01-16 16:40 < Demi> LuciferTiger - or maybe they can't get their shit together, and never can!
2008-01-16 16:40 < LuciferTiger> scary, but possible
2008-01-16 16:40 < Demi> i am sad to be a democrat some time
2008-01-16 16:40 < ShakespeareFan00> Nixon was actually breaking the law at one point, Bush han't gone that far
2008-01-16 16:40 < Demi> i'm sad now, for example
2008-01-16 16:41 < quanticle> Demi: The only consolation is that the Republicans are equally disorganized this year
2008-01-16 16:41 < LuciferTiger> me too. they defy logic at times.
2008-01-16 16:41 < ShakespeareFan00> *hasn't
2008-01-16 16:41 < Demi> quanticle - cold comfort
2008-01-16 16:41 < halo3> ShakespeareFan00, the bush administration broke the law by authorizing warantless wiretaps
2008-01-16 16:41 < halo3> on domestic citizens
2008-01-16 16:41 < LuciferTiger> and deleting records
2008-01-16 16:41 < ShakespeareFan00> Erm... National Secuirty was at stake
2008-01-16 16:41 < The359> It was legal at the time
2008-01-16 16:41 < LuciferTiger> yeah... national security
2008-01-16 16:41 < halo3> ShakespeareFan00, it doesnt matter, they broke the law
2008-01-16 16:41 < Messedrocker> Doesn't change the fact that you have to get a warrant to perform wire taps.
2008-01-16 16:41 < Messedrocker> The writ of habaeus corpus wasn't suspended.
2008-01-16 16:42 < halo3> ShakespeareFan00, if the american people thought that national security was more important than our consitutional right to privacy, then they would change the consititution
2008-01-16 16:42 < ShakespeareFan00> Well Bush seems to have tried to change the laws after he's done the contrverisal activity...
2008-01-16 16:42 < Demi> the administration has been interested in redefining the law in novel ways
2008-01-16 16:42 < Messedrocker> Though I don't think the writ applies to wiretapping.
2008-01-16 16:42 < quanticle> ShakespeareFan00: Warrantless wiretaps haven't been challenged in court, so until the courts say that it's legal, I have the right to believe that they're illegal
2008-01-16 16:42 < Demi> "legal" is a relative term
2008-01-16 16:42 < The359> ...
2008-01-16 16:42 < The359> believing they're illegal doesn't make them illegal, quanticle
2008-01-16 16:42 < The359> Unless you're a judge
2008-01-16 16:43 < Demi> Messedrocker - it doesn't, but writs of habeas corpus have been refused, for example, for the guantanamo inmates
2008-01-16 16:43 < quanticle> The359: Conversely, believing they're legal doesn't make it so either.
2008-01-16 16:43 < Demi> of course what we're doing there is "legal", except maybe not
2008-01-16 16:43 < LuciferTiger> just because no one protested doesnt make it legal either The359
2008-01-16 16:43 < quanticle> The359: And that's what the Administration is claiming
2008-01-16 16:43 < halo3> The359, so now its legal to obtain a wiretap on a us citizen without a warrant?
2008-01-16 16:43 < The359> Until a judge deems it illegal, yes?
2008-01-16 16:44 < LuciferTiger> wow so you can tap all that you want until a judge tells you to stop
2008-01-16 16:44 < Messedrocker> it's on the books that in order for wiretapping to be legal, a judge must grant a warrant
2008-01-16 16:44 < quanticle> The359: That's like saying, "It ain't illegal if they can't catch ya'."
2008-01-16 16:44 < LuciferTiger> isnt that supposed to the the other way round
2008-01-16 16:44 < The359> And everyone knows that there are ways around laws with lawyering, Messedrocker
2008-01-16 16:44 < LuciferTiger> see The359 you united the opposition
2008-01-16 16:45 < Demi> i think the359 is saying that a legal decision hasn't been offered on the specific issue
2008-01-16 16:45 < LuciferTiger> lawyering. like the decider.
2008-01-16 16:45 < halo3> The359, "On August 17, 2006 U.S. District Court Judge Anna Diggs Taylor ruled in ACLU v. NSA that the warrantless wiretapping program is unconstitutional and ordered that it be stopped immediately, on the grounds that such activities are violations of the rights to free speech and privacy."
2008-01-16 16:45 < quanticle> Demi: Right, but The359 and I are drawing opposite conclusions from that fact.
2008-01-16 16:45 < halo3> see [[Legal_challenges_to_NSA_warrantless_searches_in_the_United_States]]
2008-01-16 16:45 < quanticle> halo3: Oh, right. I forgot about that case completely.
2008-01-16 16:45 < LuciferTiger> well halo3 blew The359's lid right off
2008-01-16 16:46 < quanticle> Heh, so I guess they are illegal
2008-01-16 16:46 < The359> Blew what lid off?
2008-01-16 16:46 < The359> I said it's legal until a judge says otherwise
2008-01-16 16:46 * Ceiling_Cat turns up the volume
2008-01-16 16:46 < The359> Just because a judge has doesn't change what I said
2008-01-16 16:46 < quanticle> HELLO LOUD_CAT
2008-01-16 16:46 < halo3> you said they were legal
2008-01-16 16:46 < LuciferTiger> national security isnt really worth a lot if you have government listening to your phonesex
2008-01-16 16:47 < quanticle> halo3: He said they're legal until a judge says otherwise
2008-01-16 16:47 < Demi> "[13:48:54] The359: It was legal at the time"
2008-01-16 16:47 < LuciferTiger> and also it wasnt like the terrorists would have invaded and severely hurt the US
2008-01-16 16:47 < LOUD_CAT> HELLO QUANTICLE
2008-01-16 16:47 < halo3> "believing they're illegal doesn't make them illegal, quanticle"
2008-01-16 16:47 * LOUD_CAT WAVES
2008-01-16 16:47 * quanticle WAVES TO LOUD_CAT
2008-01-16 16:47 < The359> Halo, quanticle said in his opinion it is illegal because he believes it to be illegal
2008-01-16 16:47 < halo3> sounds like someone is trying to parse thier words
2008-01-16 16:47 < The359> Which is a bit of a moot point
2008-01-16 16:48 < LuciferTiger> The359: i recommend you apply for GOP nomination. you smack of bullshit.
2008-01-16 16:48 < The359> Um, what?
2008-01-16 16:48 < quanticle> The359: And, in counter to that, I said, "Believing they're legal doesn't make it so either."
2008-01-16 16:48 < Demi> The359 - no, he said he can consider it illegal if a judge were silent on the issue.
2008-01-16 16:48 < The359> I never countered that statement, quanticle
2008-01-16 16:48 < The359> <quanticle> ShakespeareFan00: Warrantless wiretaps haven't been challenged in court, so until the courts say that it's legal, I have the right to believe that they're illegal
2008-01-16 16:48 < The359> He said he can believe they're illegal
2008-01-16 16:48 < The359> I said that doesn't make it illegal
2008-01-16 16:49 < The359> What's the problem here
2008-01-16 16:49 < LuciferTiger> aaah... hey is The359 really Romney or Guiliani? sounds like one of them.
2008-01-16 16:49 < LOUD_CAT> ShakespeareFan00 is wrong. They have been challeneged in court
2008-01-16 16:49 < quanticle> The359: Right, but not illegal != legal
2008-01-16 16:49 < The359> Did I say legal?
2008-01-16 16:49 < LuciferTiger> you did
2008-01-16 16:49 < quanticle> The359: You implied it
2008-01-16 16:49 < LOUD_CAT> the Bush administration is working *very* hard to make sure nobody can succesfully sue over it
2008-01-16 16:49 < The359> Yes, to a completely different statement, LuciferTiger
2008-01-16 16:49 < Demi> The359 - yes, i just pasted it
2008-01-16 16:49 < The359> And I implied nothing
2008-01-16 16:49 < The359> ffs
2008-01-16 16:50 < LuciferTiger> ofcourse. you never implied anything. go fill out those GOP forms. they are running out of bullshit. they need you.
2008-01-16 16:50 < The359> To quanticle's statement I merely said that his opinion of its illegality doesn't make it legal or illegal
2008-01-16 16:50 < halo3> the bush administration broke the law!
2008-01-16 16:50 < halo3> that was the original point
2008-01-16 16:50 < quanticle> LuciferTiger: Nah. Guliani would have threatened to have us all arrested by now.
2008-01-16 16:50 < halo3> that they are overstepping thier authority
2008-01-16 16:50 < The359> That his opinion was moot when it came to the actual law
2008-01-16 16:50 < The359> After that I said it's not illegal until a judge says so
2008-01-16 16:51 < quanticle> The359: Right, but your opinion was moot too. The judge ruled that the warrantless wiretapping was illegal...
2008-01-16 16:51 < halo3> it shouldnt take a judge to make the bush administration obey the law
2008-01-16 16:51 < LuciferTiger> The359: that does not change the fact that you said it was okay to do so
2008-01-16 16:51 < WalterBE> Hi, more or less weekly reminder; I nearing completion of the next edition of Wikizine now. If you have news to report about your project please let me know now. Respond here (but type WalterBE first) or in #wikizine please
2008-01-16 16:51 < Demi> The359 - well, you said, in response to a statement that the bush administration broke the law by authorizing warantless wiretaps, that "it was legal at the time."
2008-01-16 16:51 < The359> My opinion was nothing
2008-01-16 16:51 < The359> Saying it isn't illegal until a judge deems it so isn't an opnion
2008-01-16 16:51 < Demi> The359 - then why did you say it was legal?
2008-01-16 16:51 < The359> it's how the system works
2008-01-16 16:52 < The359> I never said it was "okay", we're talking legality, LuciferTiger
2008-01-16 16:52 < LuciferTiger> ah leave him alone. do you guys really think he is worth the trouble?
2008-01-16 16:52 < The359> Are you done being a twat?
2008-01-16 16:52 < halo3> it was never legal.
2008-01-16 16:52 < LuciferTiger> u said it was okay cuz the national security was at stake - apparently.
2008-01-16 16:52 < The359> It wasn't illegal until a judge said so
2008-01-16 16:52 < The359> I never brought up security, LuciferTiger
2008-01-16 16:52 < quanticle> The359: The judge, if I'm reading the opinion correctly, stated that all warrantless wiretapping was illegal, regardless of whether it occured in the past or not. Hence the current controversy about retroactive immunity
2008-01-16 16:53 < Messedrocker> The359, ShakespeareFan00 did
2008-01-16 16:53 < Demi> The359 - no, as you will understand if you ponder for a moment, that can't be how it works, because you could never prosecute someone for a new crime.
2008-01-16 16:53 < The359> I know he did
2008-01-16 16:53 < The359> LuciferTiger is attributing it to me
2008-01-16 16:53 < NotACow> The359: then you must have said it.
2008-01-16 16:53 < LuciferTiger> ah sorry. my bad, you did agree to him though.
2008-01-16 16:53 < NotACow> The359: why would he lie about that?
2008-01-16 16:53 < The359> I'm well aware of Ex Post Facto, Demi
2008-01-16 16:53 < The359> I never agreed with him, LuciferTiger
2008-01-16 16:53 < quanticle> The359: That would seem to contradict your "It wasn't illegal at the time" argument.
2008-01-16 16:53 < NotACow> The359: you should assume good faith :)
2008-01-16 16:54 < The359> What contradicts what, quanticle?
2008-01-16 16:54 < LuciferTiger> you statement "it was legal at the time"
2008-01-16 16:54 < The359> Way to not answer
2008-01-16 16:54 < Demi> people will really go through all kinds of contortions to avoid admitting they misspoke or made a mistake.
2008-01-16 16:54 < quanticle> The359: You said that warrantless wiretapping was "legal at the time". The judge says otherwise.
2008-01-16 16:54 < LuciferTiger> anyways, you arent worth my time.
2008-01-16 16:55 < Demi> i mean, what if you admitted to someone on IRC that you were wrong about something? What then?!
2008-01-16 16:55 < The359> You don't even know the things I've said, LuciferTiger
2008-01-16 16:55 < The359> So clearly you aren't spending much time on it
2008-01-16 16:55 < LuciferTiger> ahh... the good old trick of generalizing everything.
2008-01-16 16:55 < The359> I didn't misspeak, Demi
2008-01-16 16:55 < The359> ffs
2008-01-16 16:55 < NotACow> Demi: i am never wrong. if you think i am wrong, either you misunderstood or someone is lying to you.
2008-01-16 16:55 < The359> What do you think you did by claiming I said those things, LuciferTiger?
2008-01-16 16:55 < Demi> NotACow - right
2008-01-16 16:55 < quanticle> The359: You have anything to say against my statment?
2008-01-16 16:55 < NotACow> Demi: i'm glad we understand each other now.
2008-01-16 16:55 < LuciferTiger> it was a mistake and i admitted it.
2008-01-16 16:56 < The359> Twice
2008-01-16 16:56 < LuciferTiger> once.
2008-01-16 16:56 < The359> I didn't agree with ShakespeareFan00
2008-01-16 16:56 < LuciferTiger> the point was u said it was legal
2008-01-16 16:56 < The359> No, the point I just made is that I didn't agree with ShakespeareFan00
2008-01-16 16:57 < LuciferTiger> now you are the usual run of the mill douche who wont agree to what he implied cuz u are now proven wrong. i know your kinds arent worth arguing with.
2008-01-16 16:57 < publunch> hello
2008-01-16 16:57 < Demi> hello publunch
2008-01-16 16:57 < publunch> hello demi
2008-01-16 16:57 < Demi> i think i have some peach pie to eat
2008-01-16 16:57 < The359> Um, what the fuck are you snorting?
2008-01-16 16:57 < The359> I didn't agree with anything ShakespeareFan00 said
2008-01-16 16:57 < The359> He was talking National Security
2008-01-16 16:57 < The359> I never mentioned it at all
2008-01-16 16:57 < LuciferTiger> fuck off bitch
2008-01-16 16:57 < The359> Don't giv eme bullshit about "implying"
2008-01-16 16:58 < quanticle> halo3> The359, so now its legal to obtain a wiretap on a us citizen without a warrant?
2008-01-16 16:58 < The359> If "my kinds" aren't worth arguing with, they must be worth insulting with all of this "Oh, GOP!" bullshit
2008-01-16 16:58 < quanticle> 15:43 -!- cctoide [n=fortytwo@87-196-8-208.net.novis.pt] has quit [Read error: 110 (Connection timed out)]
2008-01-16 16:58 < quanticle> 15:43 -!- Gurumasa [i=Gurumasa@dsl-roibrasgw1-fe8cfb00-221.dhcp.inet.fi] has quit ["Lähdössä"]
2008-01-16 16:58 < quanticle> 15:43 < The359> Until a judge deems it illegal, yes?
2008-01-16 16:58 < Demi> LuciferTiger - stop arguing, if you can't do it civilly, and please don't engage in namecalling
2008-01-16 16:58 < halo3> The359, it seemed obvious to me what you were saying
2008-01-16 16:59 < quanticle> The359: The judge, in this case has explicitly stated that it was *not* legal to wiretap before he said otherwise
2008-01-16 16:59 < LuciferTiger> well it kept on going after i made my point. now if it cant shut up after being conclusively proven wrong, i cant help it.
2008-01-16 16:59 < mavhk> you could argue that nothing is legal or illegal until tested in court
2008-01-16 17:00 < NotACow> mavhk: stop being such a lawyer :)
2008-01-16 17:00 < mavhk> but how will I make loads of money?
2008-01-16 17:00 < quanticle> mavhk: Right. That's the argument The359 was amking. However, the judge in the case Halo3 posted has stated that warrantless wiretapping was illegal even before it was tested in court.
2008-01-16 17:00 < quanticle> *making
2008-01-16 17:00 < halo3> mavhk, nothing is legal or illegal until laws are written
2008-01-16 17:00 < The359> And I never argued that case
2008-01-16 17:00 < NotACow> halo3: no, until the laws are applied
2008-01-16 17:00 < mavhk> well, once they make their decision it's applied retroactively
2008-01-16 17:00 < NotACow> halo3: written laws may end up being inactive
2008-01-16 17:01 < The359> Not to all cases, mavhk
2008-01-16 17:01 < LuciferTiger> This case was The359.
2008-01-16 17:01 < mavhk> in most cases laws aren't legal by default
2008-01-16 17:01 < quanticle> halo3: Not true. A judge can deem things illegal even if there isn't a law covering the circumstance explicitly. In fact, that's the entire point of having a judiciary.
2008-01-16 17:02 < LuciferTiger> if there were set laws and we didnt need more, we wouldnt need the judiciary
2008-01-16 17:02 < The359> And the whole point is that someone wouldn't set about making this sort of act without the idea that they could argue it legally
2008-01-16 17:02 < The359> Just because they were proven wrong doesn't change the fact that at the time of their doing, they were doing it under the belief is it being legal
2008-01-16 17:02 < NotACow> moo
2008-01-16 17:02 < NotACow> ignorance of the law is no excuse!
2008-01-16 17:02 < quanticle> mavhk: In the US laws are assumed to be Constitutional until declared otherwise. Its like "innocent until proven guilty", but for laws.
2008-01-16 17:02 < Demi> mavhk - that's paradoxical
2008-01-16 17:02 < NotACow> quanticle: it's not that simple
2008-01-16 17:03 < LuciferTiger> which The359 is the whole problem with this administration... that they THINK they are right
2008-01-16 17:03 < NotACow> quanticle: illinois' adultery statute has never been declared unconstitutional, but it is widely believed that it is unconstitutional and the law itself is not enforced.
2008-01-16 17:03 < Demi> it doesn't matter if you think what you're doing is legal or not
2008-01-16 17:03 < quanticle> The359: Belief, at this point doesn't matter. The judge has stated that its illegal now, and it was illegal then.
2008-01-16 17:03 < LuciferTiger> that does not change the fact that they are wrong.
2008-01-16 17:03 < mavhk> if the government makes a law that crap it's not legal, because when it's tested the judge will say it's not
2008-01-16 17:03 < LuciferTiger> your own argument that was
2008-01-16 17:04 < quanticle> NotACow: Its not enforced because everyone thinks that the law would be shot down if anyone tried to enforce it.
2008-01-16 17:04 < Demi> NotACow - say that in latin, it sounds better
2008-01-16 17:05 < quanticle> mavhk: Nope. The law stands until the judge shoots it down. Heck, that's how all the Jim Crow laws worked in the South.
2008-01-16 17:05 < NotACow> quanticle: yes, but it never has been shot down, so by your analysis it's still constitutional.
2008-01-16 17:05 < quanticle> NotACow: It is.
2008-01-16 17:06 < NotACow> quanticle: but it's not.
2008-01-16 17:06 < NotACow> quanticle: it's actually difficutl for you to distinguish it from a law which has actually been declared unconstitutional
2008-01-16 17:06 < quanticle> NotACow: You don't know that, since you aren't a judge who has the power to make that declaration. All you can say is that a judge would probably find it unconstitutional.
2008-01-16 17:07 < quanticle> But you yourself cannot call a law unconstutional
2008-01-16 17:07 < LuciferTiger> anyways, anyone up for some fresh air?
2008-01-16 17:07 < NotACow> quanticle: how does a law which is entirely unenforced because everyone believes it is unconstitutional differ from a law which has been judically held to be unconstitutional?
2008-01-16 17:07 < NotACow> quanticle: sure i can
2008-01-16 17:07 < quanticle> NotACow: One is unconstitutional and one isn't
2008-01-16 17:07 < NotACow> "The Defense of Marriage Act is unconstititional"
2008-01-16 17:07 < NotACow> there, i just did it
2008-01-16 17:08 < NotACow> well, no, because i misspelled "unconstitutional"
2008-01-16 17:08 < quanticle> NotACow: Right, but try telling the nice police officer that
2008-01-16 17:08 < Demi> adultery is totatally constititional, as we know
2008-01-16 17:08 < NotACow> quanticle: porlice officers don't care about constitutionality.
2008-01-16 17:08 < halo3> quanticle, the police will shoot you down, watch out!
2008-01-16 17:08 < Messedrocker> porlice
2008-01-16 17:08 < quanticle> NotAcow: Lack of enforcement on the part of the executive has no bearing on whether a law is constitutional or not
2008-01-16 17:09 < quanticle> NotACow: Constitutionality is solely decided by the judiciary
2008-01-16 17:09 < quanticle> NotACow: Therefore, my point stands. The law isn't unconstitutional until a judge holds it so
2008-01-16 17:10 < NotACow> quanticle: i envy you your simple world.
2008-01-16 17:10 < Demi> well, a law in unconstitutional when it violates the constitution, judges may in fact disagree, what's held to be a law at any given time is, yes, dependent on precedent
2008-01-16 17:11 < Messedrocker> NotACow is speaking of de-facto unconstitutionality
2008-01-16 17:11 < quanticle> NotACow: That's how real laws work. A police officer may choose to enforce that law at any time, regardless of whether some future judge's decision
2008-01-16 17:11 < Demi> the supreme may strike down a sodomy law in one state in such a way that it strongly suggests all similar laws are unconstitutional, although those similar laws may not have been at issue in the particular deciding case.
2008-01-16 17:11 < NotACow> quanticle: cops enforce laws that don't exist, fail to enforce laws that are valid and enforceable, and enforce unconstitutional laws all the time.
2008-01-16 17:12 < CMoreschi> mais c'est la vie
2008-01-16 17:12 < mavhk> damn those human cops, if only there was something else...
2008-01-16 17:12 * Demi has taken to nicknaming the supreme court "the supreme", i like it that way
2008-01-16 17:12 < Messedrocker> The Supremes?
2008-01-16 17:12 < quanticle> Demi: Right. The other laws then lose enforcement, because the executive doesn't want to fight the judicial battle in defending that law
2008-01-16 17:13 < Demi> quanticle - yes, because they're unconstitutional
2008-01-16 17:13 < Cyrius> supreme court is like regular court with sour cream and tomatoes
2008-01-16 17:13 < mavhk> this entire court is unconstitutional!
2008-01-16 17:13 < NotACow> yay! no malignancy!
2008-01-16 17:13 < Demi> a burrito supreme... chicken supreme... cutlass supreme... we reign... supreme!
2008-01-16 17:14 < quanticle> Demi: They haven't been decided so. Its just that everyone shares the common assumption that the Supreme Court would use precedent and rule the sam way.
2008-01-16 17:14 < quanticle> *same
2008-01-16 17:14 < ancjr> "Your reality, sir, is lies and balderdash and I’m delighted to say that I have no grasp of it whatsoever."
2008-01-16 17:14 < NotACow> moo!
2008-01-16 17:14 < mavhk> surely anything that gets to the supreme court is highly unprecedented and devisive
2008-01-16 17:14 < Demi> quanticle - they are actually unconstitutional because they violate the constitution. i think what's happening is you think the law works like a structured system like a computer, when in fact it works like literature.
2008-01-16 17:14 < NotACow> Demi: vey common mistake from techies.
2008-01-16 17:15 < NotACow> the law concerns itself with results.
2008-01-16 17:15 < NotACow> 90% of the time, the judge decides who he wants to win the case, and writes the judgement to match.
2008-01-16 17:15 < NotACow> in virtually any case you can find an argument to support any result
2008-01-16 17:15 < quanticle> NotACow: That's how things work, yes, but not how they work "theoretically".
2008-01-16 17:15 < mavhk> can't we just program every possible event into the law?
2008-01-16 17:15 < NotACow> quanticle: it's reality.
2008-01-16 17:16 < ancjr> court would be better if it has music, a light show & pyrotechnics
2008-01-16 17:16 < NotACow> quanticle: it doesn't matter what the theory is; what matters is the result.
2008-01-16 17:16 < Messedrocker> ]ere]
2008-01-16 17:16 < quanticle> NotACow: I'm not arguing about you in terms of practicality. I'm arguing legal theory.
2008-01-16 17:16 < Messedrocker> NotACow, you forgot that the white man always wins
2008-01-16 17:16 < quanticle> Messedrocker: Not true! Look at OJ...
2008-01-16 17:17 < quanticle> If the glove don't fit, you can't convict
2008-01-16 17:17 < NotACow> quanticle: you might as well argue about what shade of pink invisible pink unicorns are
2008-01-16 17:17 < CMoreschi> hate this
2008-01-16 17:17 < CMoreschi> I try to write something
2008-01-16 17:17 < CMoreschi> for a change
2008-01-16 17:17 < CMoreschi> and down goes the database
2008-01-16 17:17 < CMoreschi> just on cue
2008-01-16 17:17 < Messedrocker> [enH]12345
2008-01-16 17:18 < Messedrocker> EOF
2008-01-16 17:18 < quanticle> NotACow: Heh. True. You and I are in agreement about the practical status of the law: its unconstituttional. Whether its unconstitutional in a strictly legal sense is up for debate.
2008-01-16 17:18 < Demi> hell, in the UK you can violate the constitution and that shit's not even written down!
2008-01-16 17:18 < mavhk> you can?
2008-01-16 17:18 < quanticle> Demi: I never quite understood how that worked.
2008-01-16 17:18 * CMoreschi loves the fact that his country has no written constitution
2008-01-16 17:19 < CMoreschi> makes you feel as though you're living in the land of permanent IAR
2008-01-16 17:19 < mavhk> the americans do seem rather too obsessed with it
2008-01-16 17:19 < NotACow> CMoreschi: i do love english constitutional law.
2008-01-16 17:19 < Demi> i don't know, i think i've heard about the constitution requiring someone to convene parliament or whatever
2008-01-16 17:19 * CMoreschi chuckles
2008-01-16 17:19 < mavhk> next they'll stop worshipping a flag
2008-01-16 17:19 < quanticle> CMoreschi: Doesn't it make your civil liberties easier to take away?
2008-01-16 17:19 < CMoreschi> probably
2008-01-16 17:19 < DannyLilithborne> someone check out the user creation log?
2008-01-16 17:19 < The359> wtf is wrong with Wikipedia
2008-01-16 17:19 < CMoreschi> then again, it makes for good adaptability
2008-01-16 17:19 < The359> I'm getting a different error page this time
2008-01-16 17:20 < The359> Wikipedia Foundation error
2008-01-16 17:20 < shimgray> CMoreschi: that's not completely true. we have *lots* of written bits
2008-01-16 17:20 < The359> Wikimedia FOundation, make that
2008-01-16 17:20 < CMoreschi> of course
2008-01-16 17:20 < Demi> ASBO, CCTV, banning "violent" porn, yes, i think it does
2008-01-16 17:20 < The359> Now a Wikipedia MySQL error
2008-01-16 17:20 < DannyLilithborne> last time I checked before it stopped working, there were many user accounts created consecutively
2008-01-16 17:20 < CMoreschi> just not this constitution
2008-01-16 17:20 < shimgray> admittedly, it's hard to remember where they all are, and it's sort of glued together with a lot of "this is how we've always done it"
2008-01-16 17:20 * Messedrocker throws a banana peel at shimgray
2008-01-16 17:20 < CMoreschi> which probably means no one can ever quite know what Britain is
2008-01-16 17:20 < quanticle> Hmmm, I'm getting the standard DB Lock error page
2008-01-16 17:21 < Demi> i think i'll have another bit of peach pie
2008-01-16 17:21 < shimgray> we're a sort of Schrodinger political theory
2008-01-16 17:21 * Messedrocker throws the spiky blue shell at Demi
2008-01-16 17:21 < Save-Me-Oprah> Hm
2008-01-16 17:21 < Save-Me-Oprah> Well this is interesting
2008-01-16 17:21 < quanticle> shimgray: Whether you're constitutional or not depends on how we test for constitutionality?
2008-01-16 17:22 < quanticle> shimgray: I like it!
2008-01-16 17:22 < The359> I'm getting the Wikimedia Foundation error page again
2008-01-16 17:22 < CMoreschi> bastard servers
2008-01-16 17:22 < Save-Me-Oprah> im not getting any errors