WorBlux

Everyone freaks out when Linux changes, but It'll probably be just fine. Linux as it's succeeded has gotten more and more corporate, and some sort of formal code of expected conduct and conflict resolution is likely needed. Linus doesn't really go off all that often, but still more than is average on the mailing list, and it always makes the news. However adopting the Covenant Code of Conduct was a terrible idea. First of is gives the impression that there was some sort of existing problem with discrimination. Second, it puts forth the best way to deal with problems is to make an anonymous report to a advisory body that wasn't chosen for this purpose, and may or may not have the credibility in the community to make final decisions stick and gives a lot of room for interpretation of the rules. Third, it's actual result in many communities has been discord and a exodus. But I don't think Linus or Greg have any great attachment to this particular code, so when the problems pop up, they can reach for something like the KDE code which is a lot more goal and process oriented, and less adversarial. An open source project without open and transparent governance isn't going to hold a lot of community support or long.

A small correction at 29:37 Legally speaking the receiver is the firearm. You can still buy other replacement parts to automatic weapons. (stocks, triggers,sights, and barrels), and even if you didn't specifically market them that way replacements from semi-automatic firearms would be compatible in most cases.

1. You have to be careful here and notice the distinction between a particular claim being passed by contract, and weather that claim was of any validity on the first place. There's no natural law or free market(tm) registrar out there validating claims. I look at these transfers like a quitclaim title, the real effect relies largely on the validity of the original claim. Additionally only one and a half of the three conditions for redemption have been met, and the tie of sovereignty to such title is suspect. Remember anarchist here. The German State hardly has proper claim over it's own alleged territory, much less over any of Poland's alleged territory. Even if they paid cash to each and every individual landowner, their insistence of being the sole and final arbiter of the contract now and forever after would in itself lead be to believe those contracts void, as natural law principles do no allow a party to be a judge in their own case. They don't get it because they the German state, like all states is fundamentally a criminal organization that operated based on violence and threats thereof. 2. A leasors obligation may vary by the specific contract and local custom, generally they have a duty of care (to mitigate or communicate certain hazard affecting the property), a minimum level of maintenance, and are time bound. The purported "duke" has no such personal duties, and the state generally does not either. 3. "Coerced into accepting" is not in any way acceptance. Either there is individual consent, or there is coercion. A few days ago I ordered a few products from amazon. On the Checkout page I was offered 3 products and shipping for approximately $220. I accepted by entering payment information and clicking "place order". There was mutual consideration of goods provided by amazon, and money I transferred in return. The meeting of mind is likely as the products were pictured and clearly described in English. Plain, simple contract theory. In the case of your source, birth is not evidence of an offer or acceptance of anything. Even in the case of naturalization it's not clear what exactly is to be accepted, and oaths given to the wind. Mainly what is given is participation in the voting system, of which voting can't be said to be genuine consent of policies in the future. (No Treason, Lysander Spooner) 4. As to concrete example, the closest match medieval Iceland and to a lessor degree Ireland. Just search for anarchic Iceland and anarchic Ireland to find details. The key feature I feel is polycentric law which is an interesting topic even if you aren't an anarchist.

If you limit yourself to conventional agriculture, yes, not really. A bit cheaper nuclear combined with aquaculture, algaculture, entoculutre, and bacterial feedstocks, you could create a lot of food. Phosphorous isn't really all that limited, it just likes to bind up with other stuff in the environment, but you can extract it if you have the energy to do so. The tech to do it is all there, the main problem of actually coordinating toward more intensive production while increasing land held in reserve.

1. There is a pretty easy way to rectify stolen land. Give it back to the owners or heirs. There is a point where remoteness from the act of aggression, uncertain inheritance of the original claim, and unwillingness to injure parties who have mixed labor and resources with the land for improvements and maintenance may redeem a claim, however redemption is not automatic. See the recent case in which Bayer was held liable for atrocities they supported in WWII. The office of the Duke is a lot like a corporation, in a very real sense it is the duchy that was sold in 1443 and granted to the current line in 1813. Corporate transfers retain debt for past actions of that corporation, at least to the value of the corporation at the time. The is not much remoteness to the act of aggression. While the line of prior inheritance is almost completely opaque, the parties who have fee simple titles are the parties who have maintained and improved most of the lands for the past 200 years or so could keep the same or better title. At most what is due the duchy in a voiding of title would be the price paid in 1443, divided over the appraised value of all freed properties. 2. In contract theory that which you would call consideration. What specific actions must the duke carry out, that if he fails must make restitution from his personal funds, resign from office, or otherwise suffer penalties? The very fact they you call him sovereign is a very strong indicator that he has no real legal duties in a factual sense, as a sovereign is functionally defined as one is answerable to none save themselves. 3. Show to me in the text and backed by fact all of the following: a) offer, b) acceptence, c) meeting of the minds, and d)consideration. within the luxemburg constitution between the duke and all current alleged citizens. https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/Luxembourg_2009.pdf?lang=en Additionally the claimed right of legislation within the nation means that the terms are always shifting. Consent is not possible when it is not clear what exactly is being consented to.

1. Lawful=Opinion of a particular legislator. I'm looking for facts here. The facts you mention (grant subsequent to violent conquest) are precisely those of theft and murder. Certainly the duke would not acquiesce to the violent conquest of his own claimed territory, or the subsequent redistribution to lackeys. 2. So what particular, enforceable duties does the Duke and freinds, (alias "The Crown") have because of this alleged responsibility. Remember I'm interested in facts, not opinions. Is this a real responsibility with real consequences, or is it just public relations propaganda (vox et praeterea nihil)? 3. Another issue with feudalism is that feudal pledges fall flat on their face if you analyze them through the lens of contract theory. The Consent if often far from perfect, and the meeting of the minds is imperfect as it subjects the vassal to unknown future terms.

The claim of property here is problematic. Under what circumstances was the title gained? Would the duke respect and condone people acquiring his claimed property under the same conditions? Is he responsible for maintenance and mitigation of hazards thereupon? (Does he accept liability for the properties?) Additionally Monoco does have a 20% VAT and 33% Corporate tax. Additional the cost a avoiding certain thefts may be greater than simply accepting them.

Actually the statutory definition is more along the lines of; Whoever without lawful authority takes property belonging to another with the intent to deprive the owner of such property, shall be guilty of theft, a class X misdanear punishable by public flogging. The only factual difference is that the men and women calling themselves "government" have given themselves permission to perform the same acts to the same people as criminals do.

All that observation will give you is a measure of physical constants that do not change. To say that they can't change, or are unchangeable requires a different sort of reasoning. I find it strange that they would necessarily of themselves be constant, as there are many possible conceivable values they might have. I would find if far less strange should there be sufficient reasons for these constants be be as we find them.

What Godel showed is that the formalization is necessarily incomplete in non-trivial systems. While not every statement can be decided from a finite set of starting axioms, those that can be may proceed by algorithm. Further just about any sort of math anyone actually uses, may be formalized.

Only incidentally and contingently. Math fundamentally is a system of symbols, formal descriptions of relations between those symbols, and rules for manipulating those symbols to other forms. If we trained a computer, monkey or zombie to perform these symbolic transformations we would be more than happy to call that math. It's not like other sorts of descriptive language where the Chinese Room Argument is convincing. http://www.iep.utm.edu/chineser/ Math only describes relations and continuous changes if the essence of what you attempt to describe meaningfully matches to the formal descriptions of the symbols. Even if true there is a problem to answer why those attributes are precisely the way they are. There is really no reason as far as we can tell that the fundamental physical constants of the universe are they way they are. There are many theories that answer that, but none really proven. Define power. I could more precisely and more descriptively saw Natural law is the unvarying description of an effect of some affect, the arc of a motion of some mover, or the complementary tat of some tit. The problem is mentally guided action, is that it is always aimed precisely at the relief of some dissatisfaction or tic. Thus if the alleged creation of the universe was the effect of a mental act, it must be assumed that the creator is changing or mutable, and thus not timeless. Thus abducto ad absurdem. The only conclusion that makes sense the zig-zagger of the universe is not seperate from the zigs and zags. Distinct? Sort of, but not separate, and from time to time zigs into some specific form and forgets who he is in order to be surprised when the zags happens, even if only just for a little while. It's precisely like it was before you were born. And if no substance lacks mind, what precisely is the difference?

Man that sounds like a real crapstorm all around. If you are worried about your brother, talk to a lawyer, you may be able to sue for guardianship.

References to random information, or stochastic correlation, seem generally to be poorly thought through. Think of radio waves and their carrier frequency, to finish up as sound coming out of your radio's loudspeaker. If your "random information" can be made to follow a pattern, then you might still be able to transmit information. Perhaps there is scope for converting random information into some kind of carrier base over which information might be transmitted, much like a radio carrier frequency being used to broadcast sound. Once you disturb or measure the state of and entangled particle, the entanglement collapses. It lets you read the state of the paired particle at a particular instant. And the an entangled pair is only formed as the result of a reaction at the quantum scale, the particles themselves are still moved at some finite speed. Thus it is still impossible is to transmit information faster than the speed of light. (Given the formal definition of information as used in the Original Post to analyze the informational content of DNA.) I also don't think about it as and instantaneous correlation, so much as smearing a single quantum squiggle over a distance. We don't actually know weather there is a limit to how far apart entangle particles can travel while remaining entangles.

Can you do an IRC based on the same authentication database?

This just shows the silliness of using GDP as a figure. The government giving 20 units back the the people they took it from doesn't add to national wealth, but you did just add 20 unites to the GDP. Hover MMT actually states the 20 units is simply destroyed, with actually leaves about 91.84% or the remaining money in private account or remaining purchases made from such accounts. The Austrian theory then predicts a case induced decrease in prices and subsequent decrease in demand for cash holdings (by about 2%). There in fact will likely be unemployment in the adjustment as individuals come to adjust to the new conditions. And supposing that extra government spending (possibly via a rebate) adds to the private sum or production is ridiculous. Again the meaning of GDP is should be regarded with caution. To criticize the linked article ""Sectoral Balances and Private Saving": I'll quote from it here. Not quite true, you need to adjust for capital account transactions. See 2-31. In the NIPA method, it's a double entry where net lending or borrowing (-) and capital account transfers must balance the current account. This doesn't really tell you much, as net lending, must be to or from foreign trade, as private to public lending (FA365000905 and FA835000905 https://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/z1/current/accessible/f4.htm) balance out the only source or sink left is the foreign one. Thus the demonstration is not unique to fiat systems, by any nation you analyze with the NIPA method. And even if we assume net government lending is zero, and there is zero of the current account. Yes it would mean that private net lending is also zero. However all this really means that individuals in the economy are borrowing the same amount of money they are lending. So far I see nothing here that is problematic to allow individuals to gain savings, so long as some other people are spending savings (retirement, large expenses, unemployment) Or net savings can be increased by reducing total expenditures or consumption. Yet this also is not a big deal as lowers the demand on higher-order goods, tending to lower the prices on all goods. However this is a negative feedback control for savings as the point of saving is to purchase particulars goods and services in the future. At some point it would balance out with people generally consuming less, but decreasing the cost of capital resource acquisition, which is the seed and driver of future wealth.