Slashdot Mirror
Sci-Fi Tech We Could Have Right Now (For a Price)
PlainBlack writes "Possibility isn't limited by technology. And it's certainly not limited by human imagination. What makes something impossible is the lack of cold, hard, cash. Wired blog takes a look at 10 science fiction technologies we could build, if they weren't so expensive. 'New York-L.A. Maglev Express - Cost: $70bn (Based on established construction costs). At $70bn, it's tantalizingly affordable by the standards of this roundup: a train that could beat airliners from one side of the country to the other. Many agree that Maglev has enormous potential. Bite-sized examples are in operation all over the world. Birmingham, England, had the first in the 1980s, though the promise of airliner-like speeds on land is still unrealized. The British system sped along at a pathetic 26MPH and was designed to get air travelers to the planes, not to outrun them.'"
Very true. But... If Fox News sells the risk of train hijacking the public will cheerfully remove their shoes... and in all probability also allow rectally inserted rfid chips.
Never let facts and reason get in the way of a nice heartwarming Riechstags fire.
we can have all of this !
Ceci n'est pas une Signature !
> By invading Iraq, we did not save Western civilization, since it was never in jeopardy.
Sigh, I know lefties prefer emotion over reason but try to work a little harder on the reading comprehension.... Reading really is Fundamental, K?
You don't believe we are at war, ok. And if you read what I wrote you will see that I acknowledge that if one doesn't believe we are at war then spending ANY blood or treasure is a bad idea. It isn't a position I agree with, but if one starts from the position that we aren't in fact in a clash of civilizations, that spending anything on a 'false war' is a bad idea is a quite logical conclusion based on it.
However you can assert we aren't at war until the stars go cold but it isn't likely to change my position anymore than I'm likely to change yours.
Democrat delenda est
> What if I believe that Islamic terrorists are likely to cause trouble but that they lack
> the ability to even approach destroying western civiliation and that for every X people
> they might kill, we can save 10X people by spending the money on something besides war?
You are perfectly entitled to that position. Thanks for being one the rare war opponents who can rationally state a different position without going off the tracks (groan) into Bush Derangement Syndrome.
However I'd like to argue the opposite because I think it is the stronger side. Western Civilization, by definition, is open and thus vulnerable to terrorism. I'd submit 9/11 as the perfect example. A low tech operation carried out by a small group of fanatics crippled one our major cities. But that was actually the lessor damage. It took Bush ramming through a extreme tax cut to prevent the whole world economy from suffering a cascade failure. The problem with tax cuts on that scale is it can't be repeated all that many times. If we let up on AQ they will regroup and give it another go. No it won't be airliners again, that was trick that can only work once; but I'm not an expert and can think of a dozen similar antics that would cause as much or more damage... both physical and TERROR. How many hits can we take and remain Western Civilization?
Bush (with the broad support of Congress I would remind the audience.. including HRC) opted for a proactive response. It was his call and I (along with most voters at the time) supported his decision. Just ending the Taliban was not going to get the job done, a bigger message was needed. Saddam was an ongoing threat anyway so it made sense to pick Iraq for the 'drain the swamp' plan because it wasn't going to be possible to pick anywhere else without first dealing with the likelyhood of Iraq making mischief.
Personally I'm dubious on W's faith in planting the notion of self government in that part of the world on anything like the timeframe we are likely to have the will to stay in the area. But it was his call, not mine. And besides I haven't heard of a plan with better odds of success that is otherwise acceptable. Note the past tense. Objecting, opposing or offering alternatives were all honorable and patrotic (nay, it was a DUTY if you believed it unwise) right up until the vote was taken to launch a War. Once that happened it was all moot, Wars don't end they are Won or Lost and rooting for us to lose (you guys call it ending the war) should be punishable by law.
Consider the alternative. Ms. Coulter's "Invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them all to Christianity." would work though, and the moral objections would disappear pretty quick if a major US city went FOOM! I'd really rather things didn't get that extreme, how about you?
And finally consider this: The odds of the current plan succeeding are directly proportional to our perceived unity of purpose, because the belief we will retreat if they can only pile up enough corpses for the TV cameras is the only thing keeping the terrorists hopes alive right now in Iraq. You guys better pray to whatever supreme being you worship that you never develop a conscience because all you people will have no honorable option but suicide if you ever develop one; and realize just how much blood (American and Iraqi) is on your hands because you have helped drag this war out for political purposes.
Was that last paragraph harsh? Yup. If it is too much Truth for ya, tough noogies.
Democrat delenda est