On 12/03/18 22:50, Morlock Elloi wrote:
> Using acoustic waves through the air as the carrier is definitely
> confronting at the infrastructure level :)
>
>> And then something really radical: talk to your neighbour, come out of
Oh, so you give into the idea of human resources? :)
Well, I beg
I have studied Churchill for a long time, especially his part in British
imperialism (Southern African branch) around 1900. Liberal governments at
the launch of the last century, when facing insurgency in India Ireland
and South Africa, invented most of techniques of dirty state warfare that
made
On 13/03/18 04:39, Prem Chandavarkar wrote:
> In a similar vein:
> https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/global-opinions/wp/2018/03/10/in-winston-churchill-hollywood-rewards-a-mass-murderer/?utm_term=.61f5a658e188
>
>
I have studied Churchill for a long time, especially his part in British
imperialism (Southern African branch) around 1900. Liberal governments at
the launch of the last century, when facing insurgency in India Ireland
and South Africa, invented most of techniques of dirty state warfare that
made
On 2018-03-12 18:27, Morlock Elloi wrote:
> The old-fashioned way, by confronting at the infrastructure level, away
> from keyboards. Messaging through the adversarial infrastructure is like
> drawing graffiti on the enemy tanks - cute but doesn't do s*it.
>
> This is not something that will be
> What do you mean by "confronting on an infrastructure level" and
> "liberating the infrastructure"? Sure, one thing is to understand the
1. Requiring equal access to switches and fiber. Like cities (most so
far) cannot have private streets, and like Ma Bell was forced to provide
phone
These distinctions (humans, animals, machines) are artificial and not
helpful (also a slippery slope - the end game in that direction is
racism/identity politics.)
Speech is most likely a mutation only 50,000 years old (we didn't get
quite used to it yet.) The difference between the speech
I mostly agree, apart from antiquity of speech.
The more we go, the older it gets.
See for instance :
https://cosmosmagazine.com/palaeontology/bones-of-stone-age-boy-challenge-single-origin-theory-of-modern-humans
"Bones of Stone Age boy challenge single-origin theory of modern humans.
DNA
I mostly agree, apart from the antiquity of speech.
The more we go, the older it gets.
See for instance :
https://cosmosmagazine.com/palaeontology/bones-of-stone-
age-boy-challenge-single-origin-theory-of-modern-humans
"Bones of Stone Age boy challenge single-origin theory of modern humans.
DNA
