WhoreMods
Posts: 10691
Joined: 5/6/2016 Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: ManOeuvre Re: Nukes, Yes, thompsonx, I was referring to India, Pakistan, Israël and North Korea. 5, and now 9+. I guess we can argue about what constitutes successful in this case. I suppose 4 strikes in seventy years isn't that bad. Apparently ZA had them for awhile during the bad old days. Pakistan and DPRK are the only ones that really cause me concern, given that Pakistan seems to be only one bloody coup away from having people whose worldview is identical to that of the taliban or ISIS with their hands on the big red button. DPRK is already basically a hostage crisis, but that topic is intensely boring. Given that the AQ Khan discount proliferation outlet had been in business for as long as it did, I think that cat is out of the bag as well. I agree, that someone with Carlos Slim's or Bill Gates' wealth would not be likely to develop nukes, but I disagree with the idea that the reason would be that they be incapable of procuring the necessary information. The complementary situation, the idea that someone in possession of the information but without the material means of production would have an easier time of it I think is even further from most likelihoods. Re: Meth thompsonx, you'll forgive my interpretation of your statement below: quote:
thompsonx In the state of California simple possession of the formula is a felony unless authorized by law. So while the cat is out of the bag it is against the law to pet it. Manoeuvre: I don't want to misunderstand you. Are you stating that it is a felony to possess information on how to cook meth? That's how I read your post. I think that's how most readers would read your post, though I may be mistaken. thompsonx, I don't think I'm going to take your word for this one. Would you mind pointing me to where I can find information on this law? thompsonx: That tortuous road would be linked to criminal conspiracy laws which allow a prosecutor to pile up charges(the purpose of which is to engender a "plea bargain") Say some "chemist" is caught cooking, the "perp" is charged with perhaps a dozen or so crimes related to this one crime. "The knowledge to manuacture contraband is in itself prima-facia evidence that one intends to commit said crime and as such is itself a crime". It makes sense to me, that ownership of the book "Cooking meth for dummies", laying open on the page with step 4, on a table with all the paraphernalia and ingredients for step 4 spread out neatly, with the bunsen burner lit to a nice perfect cool flame, some safety goggles hanging on the coat-hanger which holds nice white Tyvek suit........ Ownership of the book would constitute some evidence of the crime of manufacturing meth. I initially thought that you were stating that possession of the knowledge itself was a felony, which sounds like an awful situation in the post-wikipedia world. Just for fun, I googled your quotation above (highlighted in blue) and I was unable to find any such result. Who are you quoting here? Why the fuck did Heisenberg need a huge lab, then?
_____________________________
On the level and looking for a square deal.
|