Re: Why would the government not ...?

I didn't read where the government hijacked three Iranian airlines and flew them into Anwar al Awlaki and two other Mosques, with Muslims lined up toe to toe and shoulder to shoulder, while he was holding Salat (prayer) and divine worship of Allah at sundown. So, I guess they did use a higher standard.

So, is that a yes?, that short of a 9/11 copycat, anything goes.

If you live in an area with a large Muslim population take a random sample of people who are Muslim and ask them if they appreciate that Anwar al Awlaki is no longer alive to turn mothers into human bombs?

So being unpopular is good enough to justify an assassination?

Are we not the most unpopular of all? Have I slept for a thousand years?

In all sincerity, you don't feel safer with the government hunting down terrorists?

Oh, safer I do feel.

But safety is always paid in freedom. [*]

I have made my choice, you have made yours. Agree to disagree, shall we?
(and everyone, really, has made their choice - just not always consciously)

[*] Niven expressed it mathematically as

[eq. 1] F*S = k

which if course is also:

[eq. 2] S = k/F

However, he assumed k to be constant. Hence, even, the use of a "k".

I see good reason to believe k is constant in the short run. However, in the long run, I smell a non-linear variable involved. If k was really constant,

[eq. 3] log(F)+log(S) = log(k)

where log(k) is also constant, of course.

But historically we can see that either log(k) is not constant, or F and S are not multiplied directly, but rather in a form like:

[eq. 4] F^(u)*S^(u) = k

where u (from "unknown", by myself) is a non-linear variable which describes in some form societal complication and technological level.

It is even possible that a "u" as exponent for both is itself not the correct number, but more like:

[eq. 5] F^(u)*S^(1-u) = k

where 0 â¤ u â¤ 1

This is all, of course, to account for the fact that history shows periods where both seem to increase or decrease together. That would suggest that the supply of whatever "k" actually is, is not actually totally constant.

Of course, the simplest possibility to remake the equation is that both are themselves multiplications whose product is the same, like:

[eq. 6] F*S = k*u

where u is a variable as above, and k is still constant, at least in the long run. And no, this would not be just an academic point because:

[eq. 7] F = (k*u)/S
[eq. 8] S = (k*u)/F
[eq. 9] k = (F*S)/u
[eq. 10] u = (F*S)/k

suggest that there are actual possibilities of policy tools that do not involve a tradeoff - or at least not at one or another timespan. In other words, that it is thermodynamically possible to increase (or decrease) both F and S together. It would not be a closed system. [4] and [5] also imply that this is not a closed system in thermodynamic terms, but do not have any hint at policy measures, unlike [6].

I am convinced that one of [4], [5] or [6] is entirely correct.

I just haven't figured out exactly what "u" is.