Slashdot Mirror


Microwave Pain Ray Keeps Frost From Killing Crops

An anonymous reader writes "Philip K. Dick's novella Project Plowshare was set in a world where deadly new weapons are 'plowshared' into consumer products. A few years after that book was set, defense giant Raytheon is spinning its raygun-like Active Denial System from a weapon into an agricultural tool to prevent frost from damaging citrus and grape crops."

278 comments

  1. Okay... by kurokame · · Score: 4, Funny

    So now they're going to microwave my food before it's even done growing? That's...nice...

    1. Re:Okay... by Nefarious+Wheel · · Score: 1
      But... does it hurt the plants?

      Horrifying, the scream of the leek.

      --
      Do not mock my vision of impractical footwear
  2. Popcorn by ByteSlicer · · Score: 5, Funny

    Imagine the fun we could have with one of these on a corn field.

    1. Re:Popcorn by SpzToid · · Score: 4, Funny

      Does corn grow well on hills(?) because I, for one, volunteer for summer popcorn 'snow'boarding patrol.

      --
      You can't be ahead of the curve, if you're stuck in a loop.
    2. Re:Popcorn by Megahard · · Score: 1

      Sorry, no hills in Iowa.

      --
      I eat only the real part of complex carbohydrates.
    3. Re:Popcorn by The+Mysterious+Dr.+X · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I know you were probably just going for the joke, but corn can grow on slopes if they're not too steep. Contour farming would be highly recommended, as well as strip cropping to keep the soil from eroding. Corn isn't the best at making dirt stay put.

  3. why do people work for Raytheon? by FuckingNickName · · Score: 1, Flamebait

    What sequence of moral thoughts goes through their heads?

    I'm interested.

    ("To turns swords into ploughshares" is cynical nonsense, of course - why really? Is it just the money?)

    1. Re:why do people work for Raytheon? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ("To turns swords into ploughshares" is cynical nonsense, of course - why really? Is it just the money?)

      Someone else paid for all the expensive R&D. It really is that simple.

    2. Re:why do people work for Raytheon? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Same... Why do people work for the US Government (or any Govt for the matter.)?

      I am interested too.

    3. Re:why do people work for Raytheon? by CdBee · · Score: 1

      You know what they say - Mechanical engineers build weapons, civil engineers build targets. If you're a mech.eng and you need a job....

      --
      I have been a user for about 10 years. This ends Feb 2014. The site's been ruined. I'm off. Dice, FU
    4. Re:why do people work for Raytheon? by LambdaWolf · · Score: 5, Insightful

      why do people work for Raytheon? What sequence of moral thoughts goes through their heads?

      Because they're also producing agricultural tools perhaps? Say it's for the money if you want, but results are results.

      Okay, so the agricultural application is a recent development. And the military-industrial complex is full of greed. But if your question is whether anyone at all can work for a defense contractor with a clear conscience, there are—believe it or not—still people who hold onto the hope that the American military is in fact capable of bringing about more freedom and democracy in the world, no matter how poorly it may have been used recently. Just because you don't see it that way doesn't make them wrong. Not to mention, there are also people with enough knowledge of history to understand that, even if defending our home soil from invasion by a conventional foreign military is a farfetched idea right now, the only reason it stays that way is because our military is so damned powerful.

      ("To turns swords into ploughshares" is cynical nonsense, of course - why really? Is it just the money?)

      Attempting to metaphorically turn swords to plowshares is uncynical, almost by definition. Or are you saying they're disingenuous when they say that?

      --
      "This algorithm runs in constant time. Come on, 2,147,483,648 is a constant..."
    5. Re:why do people work for Raytheon? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As with everything else brutal and stupid.... money.

      Hey these people are going to pay me a crapload of money to design new ways to kill my fellow man.
      But they promise not to use it unless they really really need to.
      And they told me they would never lie about that. or sell it to someone who would.

      captcha:society
      [epic sad facepalm]

    6. Re:why do people work for Raytheon? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      On behalf of the rest of the world; please don't bring us any more "freedom" and "democracy".

    7. Re:why do people work for Raytheon? by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1

      For the same reason that people joined Stalin's NKVD, or Chavez' Bolivarian Circles. Any more questions?

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    8. Re:why do people work for Raytheon? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm a programmer and have never particularly cared what my employer does with the software. If I'm paid well and given interesting work I would have no problem working for a weapons manufacturer. Am I really the only one who feels this way?

    9. Re:why do people work for Raytheon? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why do people like guns?
      Why do people like to destroy their own bodies?
      Why do people like faster cars over slower cars?
      Why do people even consider suicide, considering what is "after" it?
      Why do people believe in religions?
      Why do people get excited over law-breaking?
      Why do people bully other people?

      It is all preference. Some people just LOVE their guns. Obviously some of it is to do with the money and position too. A position like that is relatively stable, regardless of country-wide instability.

      And think about it, this gun would save lives over the whole penetration-with-bullet thing.
      I don't see anything wrong with causing a bit of pain to someone over wrecking their insides with a bit of metal travelling at great speed.

    10. Re:why do people work for Raytheon? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree with this. To be honest I think that designing a missile targeting system would be kind of a dream job for me... it seems really cool.

    11. Re:why do people work for Raytheon? by Dexter+Herbivore · · Score: 1

      Why wouldn't people work for Raytheon? Not everyone obeys the same moral and ethical standards that you or I might. Personally, I might even considering working for them for a bucketload of money and some self-justification of "protecting the free world".

    12. Re:why do people work for Raytheon? by maxwell+demon · · Score: 1

      Why do people like to destroy their own bodies?

      Few people do. Now there are many people who like to do things that happen to destroy their own bodies (e.g. smoking). But they are not doing it in order to destroy their bodies, but despite it destroying their bodies, and if there were an alternative which would give them the same experience without destroying their bodies, they'd readily switch to it.

      Why do people even consider suicide, considering what is "after" it?

      Because those people consider the expected future life worse than what they expect after death.

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    13. Re:why do people work for Raytheon? by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      Reminds me of this from :
      "http://www.theage.com.au/technology/technology-news/the-secret-life-of-wikileaks-founder-julian-assange-20100521-w1um.html
      ", mostly at Melbourne University - with stints at the Australian National University in Canberra - but never graduated, disenchanted, he says, with how many of his fellow students were conducting research for the US defence system."
      According to Assange, the US Defence Advance Research Project Agency was funding research which involved optimising the efficiency of a military bulldozer called the Grizzly Plough, which was used in the Iraqi desert during Operation Desert Storm during the 1991 Gulf War.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    14. Re:why do people work for Raytheon? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Oh, you like it.

    15. Re:why do people work for Raytheon? by dbIII · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Compared with advertising it's relatively squeaky clean in terms of morality.

    16. Re:why do people work for Raytheon? by Yvanhoe · · Score: 3, Insightful

      What sequence of moral thoughts goes through their heads?

      "Non-lethal weapon are better than lethal weapons".
      "Let's give violent resolution of conflicts a non-lethal possibility".

      --
      The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
    17. Re:why do people work for Raytheon? by Yaa+101 · · Score: 1

      Morals? soulless people do not have morals...

    18. Re:why do people work for Raytheon? by FuckingNickName · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Are you just going by the Slashdot article summary, or are you actually aware of what Raytheon builds? No-one who applied to work at Raytheon assuming that they build peacemaking equipment to reduce the suffering of war would be given a job - it'd be a classic case of showing a lack of interest in your employer at interview.

      Are you aware of who Raytheon contracts to and for what purposes their clients buy those tools, or are you assuming that all its clients fight wars for defensive purposes and with the aim to create a minimum of suffering?

      Raytheon isn't staffed by idiots, and, "well, they don't really know what's going on," isn't an answer. Because they know what's going on, I want to understand how they justify their employment. Everyone so far has come out with one of the extremes:

      1. "because I don't care and just want a fun job/money" (credible, if somewhat pathetic); or
         
      2. "because without firms like Raytheon my daughter would be raped in the streets by the enemy" (nonsense).

      Is that all?

    19. Re:why do people work for Raytheon? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well what other reasons are there?

      Either you don't care, or you think the weapons will be used by the "good guys" to kill the "bad guys". I'm sure there are also a few people in there who are just sadistic and like the idea of contributing to human suffering; is this the one that you're waiting for people to admit to?

    20. Re:why do people work for Raytheon? by 10101001+10101001 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Okay, so the agricultural application is a recent development. And the military-industrial complex is full of greed.

      You might not realize this, but very few people in the US still seem to have an issue with greed (or sloth and gluttony, for that matter). No, the real issue people tend to have with the military-industrial complex tends to be the whole killing people for money (again, very few people in the US seem to per se have an issue with the military killing people). The fact that "killing people" has changed to "defrosting oranges" doesn't really change the amorality of it, any more than the various unethical WW2 German and Japanese medical experiments being collected and used by Allied doctors after the war (fruit of the poison tree and all). In short, that's why there's a question of morality in this instance.

      But if your question is whether anyone at all can work for a defense contractor with a clear conscience, there arebelieve it or notstill people who hold onto the hope that the American military is in fact capable of bringing about more freedom and democracy in the world, no matter how poorly it may have been used recently.

      Yea, um, you don't bring freedom and democracy with a gun any more than you bring religion with a sword. That is, while it might eventually have that effect, you do so only through amoral means and potentially leaving a multi-generational grudge against its foundation which is likely to eventually unshackle people from that imposed following/belief once they become enlightened to just what was done to make so many people follow along. If there does exist any real long-standing system of belief that can and should be followed, subjugating people to follow it isn't the way for that system to exist. Of course, I like how you use the word "freedom" instead of liberty. Considering one of the main tenets of liberty is a lack of outside coercion, it'd be clear why we couldn't spread that through force even if we wanted to.

      Not to mention, there are also people with enough knowledge of history to understand that, even if defending our home soil from invasion by a conventional foreign military is a farfetched idea right now, the only reason it stays that way is because our military is so damned powerful.

      That'd be a point, if that's what we were developing the technology for. But, clearly this sort of technology is more a "what if" of technology in that regard; if it came down to defending the border, I'm pretty sure the military would prefer killing the armed invaders, not merely causing them pain. So, instead, the technology seems only well suited for other military and non-military applications, directed at unarmed civilians (this agricultural benefit seems in the same scope of university researchers who claim just about anything they do, no matter how mundane, has military application). In short, yes conceptually a need for a military is prudent. But, unless a person has joined the military or defense contracting in some fashion with the mind to change the military towards that just end, then simply riding along with the colossus with some lofty ideals rings quite hollow. Those who are working for change, though, I can see being, if not with a clear conscience, at least with one that's a lot less murky than those who would first excuse the military or defense contractors' actions and only perhaps later acknowledging that in a very limited circumstance, those actions might have been not entirely warranted.

      --
      Eurohacker European paranoia, gun rights, and h
    21. Re:why do people work for Raytheon? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just to play devil's advocate... why is number 2 nonsense?

      Assume Western countries stopped all weapons development today, and 20 or 30 years from now muslim countries had vastly superior military technology. Do you really trust they wouldn't try to impose their ideals on western culture (eg. women should not be educated). If they were sure to win a war because of their military power, are you 100% certain they wouldn't start one?

      Or were you thinking that if weapons manufacturers disappeared from the US every other country would stop developing weapons as well?

    22. Re:why do people work for Raytheon? by FuckingNickName · · Score: 1

      No. I don't want to put words in people's mouths, but there are many possible arguments, such as Darwinian "it's animal nature to want to dominate" - with individual, regional or racist bases; or "white man's burden" style reasoning which dominated British Empire. But these are just scantily outlined first thoughts. I'm looking for a sound thread of reasoning adequate for someone who has actually decided to spend his life working somewhere like that.

      There has been some "it's either me or them", but it wasn't really upheld by any evidence: most countries don't have access to Raytheon-style tech yet their borders aren't endlessly invaded and their people slaughtered. Indeed, some nations seem to prefer to keep a smaller military and are happy to push instead for diplomacy managed with limited centralisation of power. The EU was borne of this philosophy, as indeed was the US - though the US combined this with a degree of isolationism which it has monumentally abandoned over the last century.

    23. Re:why do people work for Raytheon? by FuckingNickName · · Score: 1

      Your strawman: Remove all defences.

      Your result: We are overrun by the (non-existent, but that's by the by) superpower Muslim bogeyman.

      Your conclusion: Existing military strategies are necessary.

      Possible alternative: Limited military for the purposes of national defence combined with strong diplomacy and multilateral arms limitation treaties. Abandonment of defence research and production with the purpose of supporting oppression and endless war.

    24. Re:why do people work for Raytheon? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For me, it was to help a group of people that usually don't get much respect (actual civil service). Unfortunately this is often done in spite of government.

    25. Re:why do people work for Raytheon? by khallow · · Score: 4, Informative

      Yea, um, you don't bring freedom and democracy with a gun any more than you bring religion with a sword.

      Bringing religion with the sword has been wildly successful. Islam, for example, is the largest religion in the world today precisely because of its military efforts in the first few centuries of its existence. Bringing freedom and democracy doesn't work as well because those things require voluntary participation of the group you're "freeing". If they don't want it collectively, then it won't stick.

    26. Re:why do people work for Raytheon? by TheLink · · Score: 1

      > the American military is in fact capable of bringing about more freedom and democracy in the world,
      > no matter how poorly it may have been used recently

      Are there really more cases of the USA actually bringing democracy to a country significantly earlier than causing it instead to happen later (or even destroying an existing democracy?).

      So far "freedom and democracy" appear to just be the "PR" reasons, with the real reasons being $$$ or other.

      --
    27. Re:why do people work for Raytheon? by GaryOlson · · Score: 1

      No matter the technology, users are the same everywhere. They don't read the entire documentation, don't work thru the examples, and blame the technology when old, obsolete methods are forced into an incompatible framework. SSDD

      --
      Every mans' island needs an ocean; choose your ocean carefully.
    28. Re:why do people work for Raytheon? by Americano · · Score: 1

      Why is working for Raytheon (or any other defense contractor) implied to be an *immoral* choice?

      I'm interested.

      ("Make love not war" is naive nonsense, of course - why really? Is it just that you don't bother thinking through the consequences of trying to live in a dangerous world without any means for defending yourself?)

    29. Re:why do people work for Raytheon? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      On my own behalf, please do.

    30. Re:why do people work for Raytheon? by FuckingNickName · · Score: 1

      Why is working for Raytheon (or any other defense contractor) implied to be an *immoral* choice?

      That wasn't implied in the question at all. I was hoping to understand why Raytheon employees consider it moral. I want to do that by understanding what their system of morality is and then learning how they used it to make the conclusion that working at Raytheon is moral.

      I can't imply that working at Raytheon is immoral without forcing a system of morality on you, but I'm not doing that - I want to know what yours is.

      Is it just that you don't bother thinking through the consequences of trying to live in a dangerous world without any means for defending yourself?

      You might want to read the thread. In "working for Raytheon" vs "no means for defending yourself" you have a trivially false dichotomy.

    31. Re:why do people work for Raytheon? by hedwards · · Score: 2, Informative

      That's just plain ignorant. Islam is the largest religion in the world today, but not for that reason. Islam was primarily spread via traders. They'd go in to a principality and tell the local ruler that they'd cut them a discount if they converted. They'd also promise to share their technology with them. At that point in time the various Islamic centers of learning were advanced, I mean really advanced, compared with just about everybody else.

      That's the reason why there's so much diversity and it's such a large religion. It's not really that different from the local royalty in Europe deciding what religion the people of their township would practice.

    32. Re:why do people work for Raytheon? by silentsteel · · Score: 1

      Because people with a true sense of history understand that this world is not black and white. It is several shades of gray at any given time. While, yes, Raytheon manufactures equipment used by the military, many of these technologies trickle down to civilian use, and make America, and its allies, a more comfortable place to live. Its two biggest competitors are good examples of this trickle down. Boeing and Lockheed Martin manufacture just almost as much commercial air equipment as they do military equipment. Today, most people do not even realize that Boeing is a defense contractor.

      --
      I cut it three times, and it's still too short.
    33. Re:why do people work for Raytheon? by stewbacca · · Score: 3, Insightful

      In my experience, there are a lot more of us defense contractors on slashdot than the angry anti-raytheon guy would like to admit. Anytime I post anything related to intelligence or military operations, I'm pleasantly surprised at the amount of quality discussion that ensues (rebutting the tin-foil hat, dirty hippie, libertard majority that linger around here).

    34. Re:why do people work for Raytheon? by khallow · · Score: 1

      Islam was primarily spread via traders.

      That is wrong. Islam was primarily spread by the sword. For example, the entire Middle East, North Africa, and India were all converts by the sword. Indonesia, Malaysia, etc were converts via trade, but they form a minority of current Muslims in the world. And need I remind you that Islam would not have been in a position to make such offers, if it didn't have a vast economic base to begin with?

      That's the reason why there's so much diversity and it's such a large religion.

      Much of the diversity of the religion predates this period. For example, the great Shi'ite/Sunni split came shortly after the death of Mohammad. And Mohammad deliberately put together a religion that was inherently multicultural.

    35. Re:why do people work for Raytheon? by FuckingNickName · · Score: 1

      I asked the question precisely because I've seen that there are so many defence contractors, but at the same time I know it's a casual, generalist and fairly anonymous environment.

      I'm surprised you read anger into the asking of a question. I do hope I am doing nothing to promote aggression.

      Anytime I post anything related to intelligence or military operations

      Hmm.

    36. Re:why do people work for Raytheon? by stewbacca · · Score: 1

      Morals? soulless people do not have morals...

      They do have red hair.

    37. Re:why do people work for Raytheon? by FuckingNickName · · Score: 1

      Because people with a true sense of history understand that

      Yes, every true Scotsman agrees with you.

      many of these technologies trickle down to civilian use, and make America, and its allies, a more comfortable place to live.

      Without some /.er making another wrong "reductio ad Hitlerum" accusation, I ask: so what? It's possible to use cruel experimentation to find out all sorts of information which eventually has positive applications, but that alone doesn't justify it. Why not omit the intermediate step?

      Boeing and Lockheed Martin manufacture just almost as much commercial air equipment as they do military equipment.

      Does this mean they must develop military equipment in order to develop civilian equipment? Can you think of other ways of funding and performing research and development?

    38. Re:why do people work for Raytheon? by KarlIsNotMyName · · Score: 1

      It's never been about either freedom or democracy. It's always been about control. At least as many dictatorships have been supported as democracies, in any case.

      --
      We are all God's parents.
    39. Re:why do people work for Raytheon? by Americano · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Let's set the basis for discussion.

      First, can you agree that "war" - with all its ugliness, misery, and violence - is sometimes a moral and justifiable course of action? You don't have to agree that it always is, or even that it "frequently" is - but if we can't agree that some use of military force is morally justified, then we have no basis for discussion, and I'll call you a smelly treehugging hippie, you can call me a dirty miltaristic ape, and we can stop the conversation right there.

      If we can agree that sometimes war is justifiable, then let's back up and consider a couple wars that we can probably consider to be justified - the NATO involvement in the Kosovo war, and the UN involvement in Operation Desert Storm back in the early 90's. Both of these involved HEAVY multilateral diplomacy from NATO & the UN, and in both cases, diplomacy failed. I don't want to bring the current conflicts in Afghanistan & Iraq into this because both are fraught with politics far beyond the scope of whether or not the conflict there is justifiable, and I've no wish to sit here engaging in "Bush Lied People Died" / "Freedom Fries for Patriots" bumper-sticker-level bullshit soundbites - it's counterproductive, and neither side is capable of being objective about it.

      So, diplomacy failed in Kosovo & Kuwait, and regrettably, the only course left was to deploy military forces in order to end the fighting in Kosovo & to restore Kuwaiti sovereignty. In other words - American, Canadian, Chinese, Russian, Japanese, British, Irish, French, German, Belgian, Spanish etc (name a country if yours was involved and isn't on this list - it's not an exhaustive list by any means) boys and girls were going to be fed into a meat grinder in order to accomplish the goals that diplomacy had failed to achieve. This is a horrible decision, and should never be made lightly and without long, sober thought.

      Now, is where we're going to diverge I suspect. In a case like that, where young men and women are being deployed into a warzone on behalf of me and/or the rightfully elected government of my country, I consider it my absolute moral imperative to provide those young men and women with the best weapons and defensive tools my mind can create for them, in the hopes that every single one of them will come home to their families and other loved ones safely. If that means they're facing down people with machetes and rocks with an M-60 and a Blackhawk helicopter, I don't give a shit about the force imbalance there - if the citizens of the country that we're facing were too poor or too immoral to provide their own young men and women with better weapons, that's not my problem - they're not acting on the behalf of my government, they're not acting on behalf of me, and if it were up to me, they'd lay down those rocks and machetes, make nice, and let all of the young men and women from MY country come home.

      Asking an 18 year old from New Orleans (or Galway, or Beijing, or Moscow, or... name our city) to charge a hardened bunker full of Serbs with nothing to lose, using nothing but a pistol and a folding knife because we've "abandoned defense research" is immoral. Suggesting that telling a group of 18 year olds pinned down in a deadly ambush that "sorry, we don't have any A-10's available to provide close air support because we've abandoned defense research and engaged in arms limitation treaties, looks like your toast kids" is fucking monstrous, and should be considered a war crime on the part of the military those young men and women belong to.

      What it boils down to is this: if war is occasionally, unfortunately, justifiable & necessary, then you prepare to prosecute that war as hard, deadly, and effectively as you can. That means it is moral to develop new weapons in the service of that aim, and that it is immoral to not protect and arm your troops as well as you can afford & design. If you are willing to ask someone to fight and die for your country in the military, you owe it to

    40. Re:why do people work for Raytheon? by stewbacca · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Well your question is provocative, implying that it is morally wrong to work in defense. I merely posit that your view point is more out of the mainstream than the slashdot community thinks, based on how many of us willingly work in defense with none of the moral anguish you are implying.

    41. Re:why do people work for Raytheon? by HungryHobo · · Score: 1

      2 is actually pretty fair, not so much nonsense.
      Rape happens a lot, of course the soldiers on our side are just as inclined towards it but if you don't think women on the losing sides in conflicts tend to get raped a lot then you're deluded.

      "or are you assuming that all its clients fight wars for defensive purposes and with the aim to create a minimum of suffering"

      Does someone working at GM think all it's clients drive responsibly and sober?

      It's someone elses responsibility to use the weapons defensively, not the engineers.
      If I make a knife which my employer then sells to you it's your responsibility to not stab someone with it, not mine.

    42. Re:why do people work for Raytheon? by erroneus · · Score: 1

      Morality goes out the window often when it comes to feeding and providing for one's family especially when military industrial complex makes so much more money than other industries.

      I tend to agree with you on the point that it is rather immoral to support the war machinery, but them you also have to look to the government which supplies the "demand" portion of the bargain. But for better or worse, it is quite true that defense technologies are quite often adapted for peaceful civilian use and quite successfully. The U.S. wouldn't be where it is today (or more optimistically, where it has been) without the MICX (Military Industrial Complex)... it's a sad truth that there is not much market R&D in the peaceful sectors.

      My first question was "is the cost of the energy expended worth the crops that might be saved?" If it is, then I am more than 100% in favor of such technology. Why? Simple: The U.S. produces less and less which makes us more and more dependent on foreign producers. This increases the nation's dependency on "intellectual property" and the exchange market which we all know is rather unstable in many respects. If we could also bring more manufacturing back to the U.S., we would see more middle-class and an economy that is better distributed and a great deal more stable. Part of our instability can be attributed to its top-heaviness after all.

    43. Re:why do people work for Raytheon? by MartinSchou · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Bringing religion with the sword has been wildly successful.

      Very true. It worked wonders for the Europeans when they conquered South America.

      Islam, for example, is the largest religion in the world today precisely because of its military efforts in the first few centuries of its existence.

      While a lot of military expansion certainly did happen under Islamic leadership, it really isn't the largest religion in the world. Not even close.

      Islam has somewhere between 1.1 and 1.3 billion followers. Christianity somewhere between 2.1 and 2.3 billion. But nice try though.
      North and South America is close to exclusively Christian. Most of sub-Saharan African is as well.

      India is 80% Hindu and a "paltry" 140 million Muslims. China has somewhere between 20 and 100 million. Even the "massive population" in the middle east only amounts to about 346 million people, and not all of them are Muslim. Hell, the largest population of Muslims in any one country is in Indonesia, where some 88% of its 230 million inhabitants are Muslim (202 million).

      By comparison the US of A counts between 58 and 82% Christians (179 to 253 million). In the EU it's about 75% (some 375 million).

      So yeah ... we, the people in the West, are certainly under siege by a religious army that far outnumbers our own numbers. I mean - we barely have a two to one advantage. That's so unfair.

      Islam may get a lot of airtime in our media, but then again - so did (not really in a)-balloon-boy, Michael Jacksons death, Janet Jackson's nipple and Miss (OMG, same-sex marriage is like so gay, ya-know) America. And while quite a lot of that attention is negative, because some idiots are blowing themselves up, stoning women and otherwise behaving like idiots, why should we judge all of them by the behaviour of a few loud idiots?

      How would people in the US feel, if the rest of the world judged them, by the behaviour of a small minority of their idiots? Wait ... you already know what that's like, and they keep telling us that it's unfair to judge them in that way.

    44. Re:why do people work for Raytheon? by 10101001+10101001 · · Score: 1

      Yea, um, you don't bring freedom and democracy with a gun any more than you bring religion with a sword.

      Bringing religion with the sword has been wildly successful. Islam, for example, is the largest religion in the world today precisely because of its military efforts in the first few centuries of its existence.

      Funny how you left out the next line which quite explains that.

      That is, while it might eventually have that effect, you do so only through amoral means and potentially leaving a multi-generational grudge against its foundation which is likely to eventually unshackle people from that imposed following/belief once they become enlightened to just what was done to make so many people follow along.

      While that reference to "enlightened" was in specific reference to the European Enlightenment, I predict that those areas converted to Islam by force will be enlightened in the future as well. It won't be because someone from the outside forced that enlightenment but, just like the European Enlightenment, people will realize the corruption of an institution meant more to suppress dissent for the purpose of control than to actually support what is claimed. Part of this is the inherent problem that you can't make people believe what you want them to believe.

      Bringing freedom and democracy doesn't work as well because those things require voluntary participation of the group you're "freeing". If they don't want it collectively, then it won't stick.

      So you'll just have forced participation. I mean, if Australia is a democracy....

      --
      Eurohacker European paranoia, gun rights, and h
    45. Re:why do people work for Raytheon? by Americano · · Score: 1

      Your original question is certainly weighted and strongly indicative of what you consider moral - go back and reread it, and tell me if there's any way to interpret that except that you believe it to be a monstrously immoral decision, since you can't conceive of or offer any rationale that would be moral?

      And for the record, you implying something doesn't mean that I have had your morality forced on me, or that I agree with, or accept, your implication. :)

      I responded in earnest to one of your posts above - I hope you'll read that response, and I hope you'll make an earnest attempt to understand, if not agree.

    46. Re:why do people work for Raytheon? by Americano · · Score: 1

      And, full disclosure: I do not currently work for a defense contractor, but I have interviewed with several, most recently for a job in which I would have been working on several military aircraft control systems for BAE. I declined the job offer because the pay offered was not what I had hoped for, and we couldn't reach an agreeable number. If the pay had been in line with what I wanted, I would have had no moral issue with accepting the position whatsoever, and would certainly have no issue with applying for (or working at) a defense contractor in the future.

    47. Re:why do people work for Raytheon? by HungryHobo · · Score: 1

      And with what exactly would you be enforcing your alternative with?

      Abandonment of defense research is probably the worse possible idea.
      Violent dickheads exist. You know how I know? because right now america is the worlds dickhead.
      Agressive military powers are not a fake bogeyman.
      There are pleanty of them in the world.

      America deals with the problem by being the biggest and most agressive.
      someone else would just take up that title.

      I'm not even american and I can see that their tactics while not nice have a kind of logic.
      and one thing that's good to remember is that being less advanced than an adversary.(and sooner or later there is always an adversary wether you go out and beat the shit out of people until you have one or just wait for one to turn up)

      the problems is with war halk politicians and people who elect war halk politicans, not with the guys on the ground.

    48. Re:why do people work for Raytheon? by FuckingNickName · · Score: 1

      My only implication is that people who work at Raytheon have made a justification that is is moral, kinda the opposite of what you're suggesting. I want to understand what the justification is.

      I can't imply that it is morally wrong unless I assume a set of moral principles, which I have not done. All I can do from the PoV of establishing correctness is understand the moral principles someone presents to me and establish whether "it is moral to work at Raytheon" follows.

    49. Re:why do people work for Raytheon? by Beardo+the+Bearded · · Score: 1

      It's sort of like this:

      "Money, money, money money, money, money, money."

      Set that to some music and there you go.

      But realistically if you find a new target market* for something you've invented, it would be foolish to NOT sell it. Is it faster and cheaper than splicing fish genes into the crop?

      *base base snare

      --

      ---
      ECHELON is a government program to find words like bomb, jihad, plutonium, assassinate, and anarchy.
    50. Re:why do people work for Raytheon? by PK+Tech+Guy · · Score: 1

      What sequence of moral thoughts goes through their heads?

      I'm interested.

      ("To turns swords into ploughshares" is cynical nonsense, of course - why really? Is it just the money?)

      1.Reduce
      2.Reuse
      3.Recycle
      4.???
      5.Profit!

    51. Re:why do people work for Raytheon? by Reziac · · Score: 1

      "Democracy imposed from without is the severest form of tyranny."
          -- Lloyd Biggle Jr.

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    52. Re:why do people work for Raytheon? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      On behalf of the rest of the world; please don't bring us any more "freedom" and "democracy".

      Would you rather have our brand or China's? Take your pick.

    53. Re:why do people work for Raytheon? by neonKow · · Score: 1

      Ok. Can I interest you in some anti-frost crop saving technology?

    54. Re:why do people work for Raytheon? by bsane · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Anyone who claims that isn't too familiar with tyranny.

    55. Re:why do people work for Raytheon? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your baseline, then, must be that everything is immoral unless explicitly justified.

      Mine is different -- everything is moral, unless it explicitly and directly does harm to others.

    56. Re:why do people work for Raytheon? by bsane · · Score: 1

      tell the local ruler that they'd cut them a discount

      I suppose the local ruler's subjects then would voluntarily convert? What if they refused?

      Even giving you the benefit of the doubt- it sounds like it was closer to conversion via force than voluntary.

    57. Re:why do people work for Raytheon? by stewbacca · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You are asking that somebody justify taking a job in the defense industry based on morality. I can only guess you suggest that means it is inherently immoral, otherwise you wouldn't be seeking justification.

      I can justify it on two grounds. The world needs a defense industry and it is a lucrative and rewarding career. I could just as easily design training for banking, government, insurance, but defense pays better than all of those, and there is nothing immoral about the industry.

    58. Re:why do people work for Raytheon? by FuckingNickName · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'm not disagreeing that war is sometimes necessary if your aim is to prevent even greater human suffering.

      I would question the nature of involvement in Kosovo and Kuwait. 20th century Kuwait, like Israel, is an artificial construction of British retreat designed to maintain regional resource and military control. Historically governed from Basra with a degree of autonomy, it was defended by Britain from the Ottoman Empire having gained total control of Iraq. Yet when that Empire fell and Britain took the baton, it held on to both but kept them governed separately. Blah independence, Blah naval control of Persian gulf, blah oil, you know the rest. We used our might to separate the two because it was in our interest, then we used our might to keep them separate - perhaps this is moral, but it's not a question without contention.

      To briefly reinforce some of your points:

      I consider it my absolute moral imperative to provide those young men and women with the best weapons and defensive tools my mind can create for them

      For them.

      That means it is moral to develop new weapons in the service of that aim

      In the service of that aim.

      Yes, we can go on into arguments that governments will sometimes misuse their military, and that governments will sometimes involve us in conflicts that are NOT justifiable and moral.

      But what if our Western governments are currently almost exclusively involving themselves in offensive wars for the protection of special interests? What if it's not the pathological exception, but the norm? Do you then argue, "Well, it's still moral, because while all these weapons of effective destruction are mostly being used to kill immorally, they could also be used to kill morally"?

      using nothing but a pistol and a folding knife because we've "abandoned defense research" is immoral.

      False dichotomy. Are you quite sure that Raytheon is producing weaponry which is appropriate for quick, effective and minimally cruel destruction of an offensive force, rather than weaponry optimised for effective long-term oppression? You don't just research how best to kill, you research how best to kill in a particular context.

      "sorry, we don't have any A-10's available to provide close air support because we've abandoned defense research and engaged in arms limitation treaties, looks like your toast kids"

      Why not just double funding to the military? Why not require criminals to act as human shields? Why not pre-emptively nuke every country which looks at you wrongly, just to ensure that all American and British soldiers' lives are kept intact?

      Military volunteers should be aware of the risks, and should be aware that military management is a resource allocation and diplomacy problem as much as it is a problem of technological development. Military volunteers should be aware that one option is to simply nuke Iraq and Afghanistan and start again from scratch, and that this might reduce the chance that they're gunned down by the enemy. But this would not be appropriate from a diplomatic or humanitarian point of view.

      Finally, I do find it difficult to understand why people have such a respect for the lives of their own military vs the lives of civilians in an enemy country. Is the aim of war to defend our country against invaders (so why Kosovo?)? To defend peaceful traders against tyrants? To reduce human suffering? To protect our interests home and abroad?

    59. Re:why do people work for Raytheon? by RobinEggs · · Score: 0, Troll

      Holy Christ....assuming you're more than twelve years old you've got to know better than to put out a dozen statistics like that without giving us any clue where they came from. Normally I think what I'm about to say is annoying, self-righteous, and pedantic, but you have truly earned yourself a:

      [Citation Needed]

    60. Re:why do people work for Raytheon? by FuckingNickName · · Score: 1

      No, I'm suggesting that every voluntary act performed by a human is somehow justified by their system of morality. Choosing to work at Raytheon is just one of those acts.

      In assuming that I'm mindlessly demonising Raytheon employees just because I question them and want to understand them, you're tilting at windmills.

      As, you would want me to say, are Raytheon's clients ;-).

    61. Re:why do people work for Raytheon? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am a defense contractor here as well.
        I write software that tracks chemical, biological
      and nuclear materials/spill sites/threats around the world now.

      My last job was for a civilian company,
      I am not going to say what I was doing.
      But it was involved in at least 3 potentially conflicting sides of P2P.
      Some of what went on there made me feel scummy.

      I have essentially no moral qualms about my job now.
      I may work indirectly for a government that I do not approve of,
      but at least the work I do doesn't make make me question my morality.

    62. Re:why do people work for Raytheon? by modecx · · Score: 1

      people who hold onto the hope that the American military is in fact capable of bringing about more freedom and democracy in the world

      I'm not one of them, and I still support developing cool new weapons... Not so that we can bring freedom to foreign peoples, but so we can pulverize them into a fine pink mist, if they ever fuck with us. The last time that our military helped deliver freedom was during WWII--arguably the last war worth fighting. Even so, the other wars could have been successful, if we kept the politicians out of making battlefield decisions.

      My consideration is this: the freedom American people enjoy has done more to promote freedom across the world than any war we've fought. Our culture is for better or worse, contagious. Dictators and other high-level malefactors the world over do everything possible to keep that influence OUT. Our military is no threat to them and their power (until they fuck with us, of course)---but our culture is!

      --
      Constitutional rights may be respected, repealed, or modified; but they must never be ignored.
    63. Re:why do people work for Raytheon? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      On behalf of some of the world that you made that blanket statement: some areas of the world could use the help some are just fine the way they are and don't need the help... the power to see the difference is important.

    64. Re:why do people work for Raytheon? by misexistentialist · · Score: 1

      On the rare occasion that weapons aren't just built for the sake of defense industry profits and dig-hole-fill-hole economic stimulus, the USA almost always uses/sells them for bad purposes. I don't know if much was accomplished in Kosovo or Kuwait, but I doubt it could make up for all the typical waste and injustice. And even with all the expenditure, a massive bureaucratic weapons procurement process inevitably leaves troops rather badly equipped as we saw in the recent Iraq war.

    65. Re:why do people work for Raytheon? by kelleher · · Score: 1

      Why should he provide citations for demographic data that can easily be found via google? http://www.google.com/search?q=worl+religion+demographics&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:unofficial&client=iceweasel-a

    66. Re:why do people work for Raytheon? by stewbacca · · Score: 1

      What's there to understand other than they provide good salaries, rewarding careers, and there's nothing to morally approve or disapprove of?

      Why do people work for Sony with the evil rootkits? Why do people work for Microsoft with their well-known shortcuts-to-protect-bottom-line, or Apple and their famous walled garden? Somebody will always (and invariable inaccurately) find something they disapprove of from a corporation. Be self-employed, if you must.

      In any of these cases, there's nothing inherently moral or immoral about working for somebody else.

    67. Re:why do people work for Raytheon? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, every true Scotsman agrees with you.

      Just because he says true X doesn't means he's making a true Scotsman fallacy. He's correctly showing your flawed comprehension of history.

    68. Re:why do people work for Raytheon? by Americano · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Sure, you could argue that Kuwait was a construct of the western powers after the fall of the Ottoman Empire, but if you want to argue that, then you must also concede that modern Iraq is primarily a result of that same process. In which case, Iraq had no more "right" to Kuwait than anybody else. We can argue the merits of carving up the Ottoman Empire after world war 1 ad nauseam, and point out how it laid the groundwork for much of the conflict in the present middle east, but you can't say "Kuwait was historically governed by Basra" without also conceding that modern day Iraq, which encompassed modern day Basra, had very little resemblance to the Basra that used to govern Kuwait.

      But what if our Western governments are currently almost exclusively involving themselves in offensive wars for the protection of special interests?

      Then it is up to us to elect wiser politicians and stop this trend, and demand more emphasis on diplomacy. As I noted in my final sentence, "it is also your moral responsibility to ensure that your government does not misuse those tools for immoral ends." I am not saying diplomacy is irrelevant or useless by any means, it should always be the first, and most heavily used "weapon" in international relations. That governments will use weapons of war immorally is not an issue with the weapons of war themselves - it is an issue with the governments being elected. I'm not saying the way things are is perfect, and that no changes or further regulation are needed.

      Why not just double funding to the military?

      Because there are practical limits to the size and amount of money you can spend on your military without running the rest of your country into the ground.

      Why not require criminals to act as human shields?

      Because it would be immoral to force someone to give their life in defense of something they have not volunteered to serve.

      Why not pre-emptively nuke every country which looks at you wrongly, just to ensure that all American and British soldiers' lives are kept intact?

      Because a war that wants to have a claim at being "justifiable" should make serious (reasonable) attempts to limit the deaths of non-combatants and limit collateral damage.

      Finally, I do find it difficult to understand why people have such a respect for the lives of their own military vs the lives of civilians in an enemy country.

      Because they are *my* military. I - through my lawfully elected government - am asking them to put their lives in grave danger on my behalf, and am asking them to walk a tremendously fine line - do violence to those who oppose them and their mission, and do little-or-no harm to those who are peaceful non-combatants. Yes, civilians are killed during a war. It is unfortunate, and I am sorry for all of those civilians who are killed. But if you look at the development of weaponry you're decrying the development of, huge amounts of development - smart bombs, camera-equipped drones, night vision advancements, laser-guided and satellite-guided cruise missiles - all of this is aimed at *precision* - being able to strike *exactly* at the target you wish to, while minimizing damage to surrounding people & infrastructure.

      Is the aim of war to defend our country against invaders (so why Kosovo?)? To defend peaceful traders against tyrants? To reduce human suffering? To protect our interests home and abroad?

      I would say that a legitimate, justifiable, moral war could be fought on any of these grounds. Defending your country against invaders is certainly reasonable; protecting traders against tyrants is simply a subset of "protecting our interests at home and abroad," and I believe that these are also legitimate aims of war where diplomacy and regulation have failed. And reducing human suffering is also a le

    69. Re:why do people work for Raytheon? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How would people in the US feel, if the rest of the world judged them, by the behaviour of a small minority of their idiots?

      Well, they do judge the US that way - but in the rest of the world's defense, the US *does* keep electing said idiots to national office. How many other countries could have sitting officials claiming that Islamic terrorists were helping Mexican drug cartels?

    70. Re:why do people work for Raytheon? by Americano · · Score: 1

      On the rare occasion that weapons aren't just built for the sake of defense industry profits and dig-hole-fill-hole economic stimulus, the USA almost always uses/sells them for bad purposes.

      This statement is way too charged to respond to in any depth. You are framing the discussion in a way that says nearly every bit of military spending is:
      1) Intended to line the pockets of a few rich executives in the defense/aerospace industry;
      2) Intended to just circulate money around the economy with no real military benefit;
      3) Intended for sale to oppressive third parties who will use the technology poorly;

      Cite some examples, please, and then we might have a useful discussion of whether or not your assertion that "almost all" defense spending falls into one of those categories is justified, and then talk about the waste and injustice that they inevitably cause.

      And even with all the expenditure, a massive bureaucratic weapons procurement process inevitably leaves troops rather badly equipped as we saw in the recent Iraq war.

      Yes, it does often do that - and I would consider this a very-nearly criminal act on the part of the civilian & military leadership. To deploy troops into a warzone without them having a plan in place to supply those troops with the best equipment we have available for them to accomplish their mission is monstrous. I will acknowledge the practical realities that dictate that we must at times move lightly equipped units which are capable of rapid functional deployment - typically, Airborne / ranger / recon / special-ops type units - into a warzone to get "boots on the ground," not having a plan to get those troops the support they need and the best equipment we have available as soon as possible is wrong, unjust, immoral, and rightly deserving of the loudest criticism we can muster - when it happens, it is a huge failing of the military & civilian leadership.

    71. Re:why do people work for Raytheon? by RobinEggs · · Score: 1

      Why should he provide citations for demographic data that can easily be found via google?

      And why am I obligated to have psychic powers to know exactly which of the "about 270,000 results" he relied on in making his claims? Being easily searchable or easily available are not the same thing as being easily traceable and verifiable.

    72. Re:why do people work for Raytheon? by FuckingNickName · · Score: 1

      In any of these cases, there's nothing inherently moral or immoral about working for somebody else.

      No voluntary human action, i.e. action by some human as a result of his conscious decision, omits morality. It makes no sense to say "well, I didn't think it right to do X, but I chose to do it anyway" - the very fact that you chose to do it implies that you concluded it right to do.

      It may be that your moral code allows you to conclude "an act is always moral if you get paid well" - in which case working for Raytheon is moral if you get paid well. But that's still just a conclusion and reveals little about what assumptions brought you to that decision.

      Again, this is different from suggesting that choosing who you work for (when you have that choice) is amoral, which contradicts the very fact that you have made a choice.

    73. Re:why do people work for Raytheon? by jd2112 · · Score: 1

      I for one am in favor of anything that can help to keep orange juice with my breakfast and wine with my dinner.

      --
      Any insufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology.
    74. Re:why do people work for Raytheon? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What is this "rest of the world" of which you speak?

    75. Re:why do people work for Raytheon? by sjames · · Score: 1

      So, instead, the technology seems only well suited for other military and non-military applications, directed at unarmed civilians

      Or directed at armed invaders in an urban environment where there may be unarmed civilians they'd rather not kill nearby.

      The real worry is over how many police departments are probably salivating over these as a way to squelch protesters.

    76. Re:why do people work for Raytheon? by hedwards · · Score: 1

      That's not any different from Christianity in Europe. You joined the religion that was practiced by the local royalty. You have to recall that it wasn't really until the American revolution that religious freedom was codified, meaning that you had to go along with it.

      But either way, it's hardly conversion by the sword as was stated.

    77. Re:why do people work for Raytheon? by Firethorn · · Score: 1

      I'd be somewhere in between. Yes, I think the stuff is neat, and I don't care as much about random strangers in a foreign country than I do people I know.

      On the other hand, I'm a patriot and believe that while my country isn't perfect, the stuff I do/build will, on average, be used to advance my country's goals and the overall good.

      Superior guided missiles leads to lower collateral damage, fewer missiles needed, faster resolution of a conflict. It's when the conflict is drawn out that it turns into a real meat-grinder.

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    78. Re:why do people work for Raytheon? by IICV · · Score: 2, Informative

      Islam, for example, is the largest religion in the world today precisely because of its military efforts in the first few centuries of its existence.

      While a lot of military expansion certainly did happen under Islamic leadership, it really isn't the largest religion in the world. Not even close.

      It's funny because that's a common Christian theme - that they're persecuted, that they're the underdogs, the minority, even when they have an overwhelming majority. It's a lot easier to feel self-righteous (another Christian theme) when you think you're downtrodden. Just look at the "War on Christmas"! Oh noes, WalMart greeters are saying "Happy Holidays" instead of "Merry Christmas"! Help, help, we're being oppressed because a large company is acknowledging the fact that not everyone is Christian!

    79. Re:why do people work for Raytheon? by tyler_larson · · Score: 1

      Do you really think they make nothing but weapons? I mean, really?

      That's essentially the same question as asking how people could have the moral dysfunction necessary to work for boeing (they make the apache helicopter, you know).

      Raytheon makes a pretty large percentage of the aircraft used by general aviation and some commuter airlines, for example.

      --
      "With sufficient thrust, pigs fly just fine. However, this is not necessarily a good idea...."
      RFC 1925
    80. Re:why do people work for Raytheon? by FuckingNickName · · Score: 1

      modern Iraq is primarily a result of that same process

      Geographically, to a good extent. If it had remained so in every other way that matters, America wouldn't have a problem.

      but you can't say "Kuwait was historically governed by Basra" without also conceding that modern day Iraq, which encompassed modern day Basra, had very little resemblance to the Basra that used to govern Kuwait.

      In what sense? Culturally? Politically? Religiously? Geographically? In terms of the mutual trading, navigation and security opportunities their cooperation provided? Kuwait can be identified as British-American in the same way South Africa identified itself as white, and Iraqi (or, indeed, simply Arabic) in the same way South Africa was black.

      The moral basis for British/American fighting in Kuwait the '90s was it's valuable from a strategic and resource PoV that we keep control of a territory we occupied and have effectively never departed from.

      Because there are practical limits to the size and amount of money you can spend on your military without running the rest of your country into the ground.

      And given the current level of debt, is it moral to pay Raytheon for random crap?

      Because it would be immoral to force someone to give their life in defense of something they have not volunteered to serve.

      But civilians in enemy territory haven't volunteered to serve for or against you. Why is defence of your interests worth their peaceful citizens' lives but not your criminals' lives?

      Because a war that wants to have a claim at being "justifiable" should make serious (reasonable) attempts to limit the deaths of non-combatants and limit collateral damage.

      Yes. Except when it is considered moral to act in self-interest, and it is judged in the interest of the invading military to kill non-combatants.

      Because they are *my* military. I - through my lawfully elected government -

      Why so possessive? It's a representative democratic republic. Just because you get a limited say every few years in a broad decision-making process doesn't mean you have some special personal power over your military. If you're prepared to stand up and be counted personally for your military and politicians' behaviour then I'd at least have some understanding for why you're calling them "my military", but you're not - you're complaining instead about "voters" and "politicians".

      am asking them to put their lives in grave danger on my behalf

      This assumes that you respect people according as what they might do for you for pay and with the most extensive support any soldier on this earth could dream of.

      smart bombs, camera-equipped drones, night vision advancements, laser-guided and satellite-guided cruise missiles - all of this is aimed at *precision* - being able to strike *exactly* at the target you wish to, while minimizing damage to surrounding people & infrastructure.

      Even assuming that all wars using such weaponry were fought with the aim of being over as quickly and painlessly as possible, what evidence do you have that the weapons manufacturers' sales brochures are true? That the bottleneck is lack of precision in weaponry justifying investment in weapons research?

      I would say that a legitimate, justifiable, moral war could be fought on any of these grounds.

      I think pretty much any reason for waging war could come under the categories I listed. IOW, all wars are moral if you are broad enough with your categorisation of what is moral. This is really why I asked the question in the first place a few hours ago - to get people thinking in more than soundbites and trying to establish the detailed reason for their decisions.

      but this is not the "fault" of the weaponry, it

    81. Re:why do people work for Raytheon? by FuckingNickName · · Score: 1

      Just because he says true X doesn't means he's making a true Scotsman fallacy

      He's correctly showing your flawed comprehension of history.

      "Because the world is not black and white"? That's merely rephrasing part of the question. I could even have phrased it, "Can you give me a more considered answer than the black/white `because I'm worth it! (and you're not)' or `it's us or them!' to `why do you work at Raytheon?'?"

      The stuff about civilian applications for military research is true, and many military developments are interesting from a straight tech PoV, but that doesn't justify anything.

    82. Re:why do people work for Raytheon? by FuckingNickName · · Score: 1

      That's essentially the same question as asking how people could have the moral dysfunction necessary to work for boeing (they make the apache helicopter, you know).

      It's not asking anything about "moral dysfunction" at all, but everyone in this thread seems to be replying as if I'm implying they should feel some sort of guilt. I want to know why employees consider it moral, in the same way any decision process has an element of morality.

      But, yes, why can't I ask the same question of a Boeing employee? Boeing's civilian output is much more significant than Raytheon's, but they take even more money from the US taxpayer to develop weaponry, so it seems a fair question.

    83. Re:why do people work for Raytheon? by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      You have to recall that it wasn't really until the American revolution that religious freedom was codified, meaning that you had to go along with it.

      Bullshit. The Roman Empire tolerated the religions of the people they conquered, as long as they didn't cause political problems.

      Paganism, Christianity and the cult of Mithras existed side by side.

      The separation of church and state goes back a long way: render unto Caesar ...

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    84. Re:why do people work for Raytheon? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would rather have a pony

    85. Re:why do people work for Raytheon? by Americano · · Score: 1

      In what sense? Culturally? Politically? Religiously? Geographically? In terms of the mutual trading, navigation and security opportunities their cooperation provided? Kuwait can be identified as British-American in the same way South Africa identified itself as white, and Iraqi (or, indeed, simply Arabic) in the same way South Africa was black.

      Modern day Iraq (prior to Saddam's ouster) is primarily dominated by Sunnis. The southern portion of Iraq, which includes Basra, is historically a predominantly Shiite area - So yes, culturally, politically, religiously - the "Basra" that governed Kuwait is quite different from the "Iraq" that tried to take over Kuwait in the 90's. Point is, if you're going to say that Kuwait is a western construct, you can't then claim that Iraq - which is also, primarily, a western construct - had any more right to "own" Kuwait than Kuwait itself did. Going back through history, that area has been claimed and subsequently subdivided by numerous empires. So where does it end? Do we attribute Kuwait and Iraq back to some "Mesopotamian" government which no longer exists?

      The moral basis for British/American fighting in Kuwait the '90s was it's valuable from a strategic and resource PoV that we keep control of a territory we occupied and have effectively never departed from.

      Our national interests certainly played a part, nobody can deny that they did. Humanitarian reasons and legal reasons also played a role, and I would suggest that both of those also offer compelling moral weight to the justification for our involvement there.

      And given the current level of debt, is it moral to pay Raytheon for random crap?

      Depends on what we're assigning the term "random crap" - I won't agree to a blanket "yes, it's all crap," but I would certainly believe that a good portion of our spending to Raytheon (and other contractors) is wasteful or unnecessary "make-work." Sec. Gates has been pushing for a lot of program cuts since he took office, and I think it's good that he's undertaking that review. But like I said - just as I can't say "all programs" are moral, neither can I say that "all cuts" are moral, either.

      But civilians in enemy territory haven't volunteered to serve for or against you. Why is defence of your interests worth their peaceful citizens' lives but not your criminals' lives?

      Again we come to a broader-stroke issue where it takes two parties to tango. They have not volunteered to serve for or against you; It is not *immoral* for them to be killed as collateral damage, provided that:
      1) Attempts at dispute resolution involving heavy use of diplomacy and trade incentives have been exhausted;
      2) the military makes serious reasonable efforts to prevent killing innocent non-combatants;
      3) the war is a just, morally defensible war;

      I would offer the same justification if for some reason, say Canada decided to invade New England, where I live. As outraged as I would be by someone invading my homeland, and as sad as I would be to see civilians killed, I would not call it "immoral" for a Canadian unit to accidentally kill American non-combatants, as much as I would mourn the loss of those civilians. War isn't pretty, and it's not perfect - accidents do happen, and as long as reasonable care is taken to avoid that, I think that's about as much as you can expect of people in a warzone. It may be sad, it may be unfortunate, but it is not "immoral", and those people are citizens of the country you are at war with, so by extension, the government is conducting a war on their behalf.

      Why so possessive? It's a representative democratic republic.

      Because as I said, they government is acting on my behalf, and I do not like my agents working on my behalf in an immoral manner, and find that to be a fireable offense.

      but you're not

    86. Re:why do people work for Raytheon? by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      I predict that those areas converted to Islam by force will be enlightened in the future as well.

      I hope you're proved right, and very soon.

      Because some of the people in those areas are getting pretty close to getting their hands on some serious weaponry.

      because if the Catholics and Protestants had been in possession of these arms back in the early to mid 1600s Europe would probably still be glowing lava.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    87. Re:why do people work for Raytheon? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Which one of the 270,000 results? How about the first, you idiot.

    88. Re:why do people work for Raytheon? by Imrik · · Score: 2, Funny

      And if you don't, we'll keep bringing it to you until you do.

    89. Re:why do people work for Raytheon? by smokin_juan · · Score: 1

      What sequence of moral thoughts goes through their heads?

      I'm interested.

      Sequentially? I'm sure it won't apply to everyone there, but it might give you an idea. OK, so here's how it went:

      1. Holy shit, I'm running out of food. I'd better get a job.
      2. Ugh. This is all we've got? Whatever, I'll probably be looking for another job soon.
      3. Wow, they do some really cool technical shit in here. That ought to take some of my mind off of it.
      4. My god, this bureaucracy sucks. If this is how the government is run it's no wonder we're so fucked up.
      5. Well, at least I'm repairing defensive shit, right? Right?!
      6. Why do they have to do such shady book keeping? They'd still be making a killing :(NPI) even if they didn't encourage people to fuck off and charge every allotted hour to the tax payer.
      7. Whose idea was it to mix union PCB rework technicians with non-union bench techs anyways? Just let me do my fucking job!
      8. Well, maybe your a fucking idiot, but besides knowing that capacitor tops shoot off, solder flings and that springs sprong, i also know that you don't need to wear those godamned safety glasses to type reports into computers.
      9. Screw you guys, I'm going home.

      But the #1 recurring thought throughout the entire event was: If I wasn't so sick of seeing this shit that EVERY TAX PAYING U.S. CITIZEN blindly or knowingly supports and that every external country allows to continue then, maybe then I'd do the species a favor and get a decent job, but as it stands this historically recurring loop of collecting enemies is getting old and we're probably about ready to just let the hawks have their way and wipe out the whole godamned species. The only way to "win" is to let the people who stupidly think, "winning is important" to "win." Unfortunately, I'm sure that being the fuck-ups we are we couldn't wipe ourselves out completely and that there'd be a few idiots left over who'd deem some of the other idiots as inferior and enslave them... and It'd be just our luck that the Hindus would be right leaving the whole lot of us to be reincarnated in to this fucking shit stain cycle of existence over and over and...

      Anyway, you can work for a tin pot dictator at a small company with shitty wages and watch the majority of your fruits and labor pay for, ehem, "entertainment" while seeing none of your relinquished efforts go towards any useful social concepts like reducing war mentality and consensual, victim-less crime laws. Or you can work for a company and industry that killed efficient public transportation, also supports the MIC, and gets deep in bed with companies who fill oceans with sludge. Or you could go into the medical field and support that greedy god-complex bureaucracy. Or you could get into a tech company and do some hard-core patent trolling and shady data farming. How about law... any lawyers out there? Bankers? If you really want to get involved you could walk right in to the belly of the beast and become the next sock-puppet president who gets it soul ripped out through its bottom aperture while saying and doing absolutely nothing substantial that isn't counterbalanced by something purely evil... at least until you're out of office at which point you'll become another ineffectual 'tard like the rest of us. But don't worry because apparently you can ping pong that partisan bullshit back and forth for decades... you'll be sure to get at least 4 years out of that job and you'll have had your ultimate shot "to do something special... just don't you forget JFK, motherfucker" (that was your CIA bodyguard talking. you can replace him with another clone if you'd like).

      Even if you magically manage to sidestep the shitty employment choices born out of an anally-raped-and-loving-it culture don't you EVER forget that YOU'RE paying your fair share of blood taxes just like all the other good imperialist citizens, citizen.

      What a spectacle, hope you're enjoying the show.

    90. Re:why do people work for Raytheon? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because we build devices that increase battlefield survivability for friendly forces. I work on a device which does just this (I don't work for Raytheon but another similar company).

      Does it increase lethality against enemy forces? Yes. Does it allow friendly forces to standoff and pick off enemy forces safely? Yes.

      Am I okay with the increased lethality against enemy forces? Yes. Hopefully the threat of lethality would dissuade some from engaging friendly forces. If they do decide to engage, I want to increase battlefield survivability for friendly forces.

    91. Re:why do people work for Raytheon? by FuckingNickName · · Score: 1

      Modern day Iraq (prior to Saddam's ouster) is primarily dominated by Sunnis. The southern portion of Iraq, which includes Basra, is historically a predominantly Shiite area - So yes, culturally, politically, religiously

      The cultural, political and religious similarities between Sunni and Shia Arabs in the Middle East are rather clearer than between either and Brits/Americans :-).

      Looking in more detail, the Shiite population in Basra city and province has varied radically over the past few decades. And what do you expect, when the West supplies and supports a man for his hatred of Shia Iran? Saddam hanged al-Sadr, outlawed membership of al-Dawa, exiled about 200k Shiites in the '80s and early '90s, and assassinated thouasnds more following the first Gulf War. 500k Madan marsh Arabs responsible for guerrilla operations against Baath were tackled by draining 90% of swamps. The post-Saddam backlash brought Shiite population in Basra back up to 60% by 2005.

      We re-engineered Kuwait; we re-engineered Iraq even later. To "where does it end?" the answer is "quite recently".

      I would not call it "immoral" for a Canadian unit to accidentally kill American non-combatants, as much as I would mourn the loss of those civilians.

      When it has been established that war is just, yes, there is no argument that accidental killing of a non-combatant can be "immoral". The question then becomes, "What is reasonable care to avoid this accidental killing?" I would argue that the bottleneck is tactical and strategic, and technology should be applied toward intelligence-gathering (or, if I'm wearing my tinfoil, I'd argue that existing intelligence technology should be provided to ground forces). This is how you execute a war with minimal casualties - not by wasting money on a missile which hits the wrong target for the wrong reasons even more accurately than the last one didn't quite.

      do not have any "personal power" over the military, but they are still being used on my behalf

      I'm not sure if I'm about to engage in a semantic game, but let us say that they should be being used on your behalf, but aren't. And haven't been for a while. If this is true, it doesn't matter whether the legal framework of your government is such that they should be operating on your behalf; and it doesn't matter that every service member promises to operate to protect you. What matters is that if they're not.

      As such, they are no better than a bunch of pirates which you're forced to pay for by the local laird. I too could promise that I'll protect you, even make a public oath to the effect, then do nothing but leech off you and make life worse for you: does this make me any better than someone who has openly admitted that he's going to leech off you and make life worse for you?

      So, respect a military working on your behalf, perhaps, from general down to infantryman. But one which merely claims to? The military must never state that it is "only following orders". So what if it is emphasised at all levels that it must only either follow legitimate orders or do nothing?

      OK, end of semantic game.

      Each case must be taken individually, and evaluated on its merits

      But with some underlying principles to limit where war may even be considered, no? Without restraint, eventually war will be abused for any possible interest, declared in terms of an unwinnable war on an undefinable enemy. Which may be what's happening.

      It's possible to do very immoral *things* while attempting to achieve a legitimately moral end

      I'm not sure that it is. If you decide that the end is so important as to outweigh the harm caused by the means then the whole act is moral. It's like killing the wife and daughters of the Generalissimo because they happen to be sat next

    92. Re:why do people work for Raytheon? by bsane · · Score: 1

      That's not any different from Christianity in Europe.

      And? I'm not claiming christianity didn't spread by the sword...

      You're arguing that Islam didn't, and rather poorly.

    93. Re:why do people work for Raytheon? by bogjobber · · Score: 1

      His post was an over generalization, but it certainly wasn't any less ignorant than your own.

      This is not an either/or situation. Islam has spread both by the sword and through more peaceful methods. Islam in SE Asia (and to a lesser extent the Indian subcontinent and Central Asia) was spread mainly by diplomacy and trade. But in the Middle East, Persia, North Africa, and the Mediterranean Islam was spread primarily by military dominance during Mohammed's life and the century following his death.

      That doesn't mean they were brutal dictators. In fact it was nearly the opposite. Just as you described, the Muslim world in the first millenium was incredibly advanced in trade, science, mathematics, etc. They were also very tolerant of other faiths. But the caliphates were all extremely militaristic.

    94. Re:why do people work for Raytheon? by Yvanhoe · · Score: 1

      Sorry, I did not know Raytheon and was mistaken, believing that Raytheon was only working on microwave weapons. Now to answer your question, I know quite a few people who work for (French) weapons manufacturers. I must say that 1. is the most prevalent line of thought. If you tell them that they indirectly kill people, they will answer with one of several rationalization :
      "I don't really care about politics"
      "I work on this specific part of weapons system that has many civilian applications"
      "They would kill each other with other weapons anyway"
      "Guns don't kill people, people kill people"
      And more rarely : "Better us to have that than the enemy"

      Actually I could agree with the last one, and would have few problems working for the army of the country I'm living in, but working for a weapons manufacturer that sells indiscriminately weapons to both sides of a conflict is something that sounds awfully wrong.

      --
      The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
    95. Re:why do people work for Raytheon? by lennier · · Score: 1

      Why not require criminals to act as human shields?

      Because putting violent sociopaths with a history of breaking rules into a situation where they could pick up very powerful weapons is a brilliant idea which could never possibly go wrong?

      --
      You are not a brain: http://books.google.com/books?id=2oV61CeDx-YC
    96. Re:why do people work for Raytheon? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why do I work for them? Because I've helped develop tools that are used to defend us. I believe in walking softly and carrying a big stick. I believe that if you don't monitor what other nations are doing, you're inviting another Pearl Harbor, or 9/11. I believe that there are current and future threats to our safety that warrant continued vigilance. I've been around this business since the Cold War, and know plenty of good, hard working, patriotic people. Are there scum just sucking off the government teat, certainly, but I haven't worked with any of them. So please continue to question our moral thoughts, as we continue to help defend your right to do so.

    97. Re:why do people work for Raytheon? by khallow · · Score: 1

      Funny how you left out the next line which quite explains that.

      That is, while it might eventually have that effect, you do so only through amoral means and potentially leaving a multi-generational grudge against its foundation which is likely to eventually unshackle people from that imposed following/belief once they become enlightened to just what was done to make so many people follow along.

      You merely state an opinion which isn't based on fact. Again, I would present the success of Islam as an counterexample to your entire train of argument.

    98. Re:why do people work for Raytheon? by Golddess · · Score: 1

      The fact that "killing people" has changed to "defrosting oranges" doesn't really change the amorality of it

      Yeah, um, my personal feelings about the ADS aside, I'd just like to point out that it isn't lethal.

      --
      "I'm not sure I like the fugnutish tone you used in your post!" -RogL (608926)-
    99. Re:why do people work for Raytheon? by khallow · · Score: 1

      I want to understand what the justification is.

      Why would there be a justification? I don't recall moralizing my jobs with my last few employers. It was what I wanted to do. Also looking at this particular career choice, you should be able to figure it out for yourself. It's not a particularly tough dilemma to rationalize employment in the defense industry. What comes to mind for me: it pays well, you're protecting your society, and the environment is challenging.

    100. Re:why do people work for Raytheon? by shiftless · · Score: 1

      I don't know, maybe because they enjoy working on satellite communications equipment? Or because they find radar to be a fascinating subject? Raytheon's existence is not based on microwave pain rays, you know.

    101. Re:why do people work for Raytheon? by shiftless · · Score: 1

      That is, while it might eventually have that effect, you do so only through amoral means and potentially leaving a multi-generational grudge against its foundation which is likely to eventually unshackle people from that imposed following/belief once they become enlightened to just what was done to make so many people follow along.

      Then explain the American Revolution, asshole.

    102. Re:why do people work for Raytheon? by khallow · · Score: 1

      Islam has somewhere between 1.1 and 1.3 billion followers. Christianity somewhere between 2.1 and 2.3 billion.

      Ok, I'll buy that. Islam isn't all that monolithic than Christianity is and the latter is somewhat more numerous. It's worth noting that just due to these two groups, somewhere over half the world's population follows some variation of monotheism derived from the belief systems of Judaism and Zoroastrianism. And that a considerable portion of those religions' spread has been due to coercion (Islam and Roman Catholicism, for example) while some of it has been in resistance to coercion (Protestantism and Sikhism, for example).

      The point is that conversion by the sword does work and we have millennia of examples.

    103. Re:why do people work for Raytheon? by shiftless · · Score: 1

      Again, this is different from suggesting that choosing who you work for (when you have that choice) is amoral, which contradicts the very fact that you have made a choice.

      Great. Now let me ask you a question. WHO GIVES A FUCK?

    104. Re:why do people work for Raytheon? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you then argue, "Well, it's still moral, because while all these weapons of effective destruction are mostly being used to kill immorally, they could also be used to kill morally"?

      Why not? Do you argue that P2P networks should be shut down because while they could be used for legal means, they are mostly used for illegal means?

    105. Re:why do people work for Raytheon? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And given the current level of debt, is it moral to pay Raytheon for random crap?

      I'd love to know which "random crap" you're speaking of, because we've been laying off people for quite some time. When you've laid off too many of the good ones, you'll have plenty of difficulty building non-"random crap" when you really need to. No, you can't just hire any new engineer, because many of the technologies we deal with are highly specialized.

      I'm not advocating paying the military-industrial complex to build crap, because there are so many things that they do need, and precious little funding for it.

      BTW, next time you use your microwave oven, remember where it was developed http://www.gallawa.com/microtech/history.html. Or, the next time you go by an marina, notice the name on many of the radars.

    106. Re:why do people work for Raytheon? by mjwx · · Score: 1

      Bringing religion with the sword has been wildly successful. Islam, for example, is the largest religion in the world today precisely because of its military efforts in the first few centuries of its existence.

      You mean the British empire.

      Islam spread into Asia on the back of the British who had holdings in modern Iraq, Palestine and Israel back in the 19th century. This was the port of call of ships heading to British Malaya and other places in Asia (Indonesia, Philippines). The British let go of their ME holdings after WWI, Malaya (now Malaysia) gained independence in the late 50's.

      As for the first few centuries of Islam's existence, the sword was on the other foot. A lot of people from good Christian Europe came down to the holy lands with the express intent of driving Islam out of various holy cities. Then there was that Spanish mob, I forget what they were called but no-one expected them. They succeeded in completely forcing the Moors out of Spain (along with Jews and other heathens). Islam spread mainly because the middle east was a hub for trade. In the same way that trade spread the influence of the British and before them the Romans it was trade that spread Islam.

      But hey, don't let the facts get in the way of your baseless xenophobia. It's fashionable to hate Islam, all the cool kids are doing it.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    107. Re:why do people work for Raytheon? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Islam was primarily spread via slave traders.

      Fixed that for ya.

      Islam religion recognizes slavery as a normal part of a healthy society and provides quite a bit of moral guidance on the proper handling of slaves.

      The Arabic slave trade flourished for several hundred years, peaking, IIRC, around 1750. Women were particularly used as slaves.

      Where the slave trade from west Africa ports to the Americas is estimated to have had a mortality rate of around 10%, the Arabic slave trading from East Africa ports and over the deserts had much higher mortality rates, with some estimates exceeding 50%.

      Slavery of others of Islamic faith was sometimes regarded as against holy law, and was always frowned upon. There were no compunctions about enslaving infidels. So in areas where slaves were harvested, there was a lot of incentive to convert to Islam. Slaves who converted to Islam fell into a different category under Islamic religious law which gave them certain protections not available to other slaves. So again there are incentives built into Islamic practice that encourage conversion to Islam.

      Slavery is still practiced in some Islamic societies. There is a growing concern within the USA about what to do when it is discovered that a foreign diplomat in Washington DC has brought a household slave as part of their retinue. It is a thorny, and unresolved, issue in international law. There are no good estimates on the number of slaves currently held in Islamic societies (mostly women and children for sexual and household duties) but it is known that these practices continue.

      It is hard to construct good estimates on the number of slaves harvested from Africa over the centuries by slave traders of Islamic societies. But there is general agreement that the number is several times larger than the number of slaves harvested for the America markets.

      Posting anonymously for obvious reasons, what with the way that any mild challenge of Islamic practices is likely to trigger death threats.

    108. Re:why do people work for Raytheon? by makchen · · Score: 0

      I know you were probably just going for the joke rubber accelerators

    109. Re:why do people work for Raytheon? by Americano · · Score: 1

      The cultural, political and religious similarities between Sunni and Shia Arabs in the Middle East are rather clearer than between either and Brits/Americans.

      Certainly, but the original question under consideration was Kuwait, and the implication that since it was historically governed from Basra, it's questionable whether or not we had a moral justification to push Iraq back out. The area of Kuwait was historically governed from Basra, which is, currently a part of the country known as Iraq, which was a western construct that was created at the same time as, and by the same process as, Kuwait. If we had allowed the various middle eastern mandates to devolve back along existing cultural lines after world war 1, the modern middle east would no doubt look very different. Look at the issues the US has had in Iraq, with the Kurds, Sunnis, and Shia all at each other's throats, and all very clearly unwilling to share power comfortably in a national unity government.

      I would argue that the bottleneck is tactical and strategic, and technology should be applied toward intelligence-gathering.

      And you do realize that the overwhelming push in the DoD is towards UAVs and other "drones" - most of which are unmanned & unarmed, right? The Predators and their close relatives get the splashy newspaper headlines ("Drone Strike kills 13 suspected militants!"), but there are far more unmanned reconnaissance drones than there are drones flying around armed with missiles and bombs looking for something to kill. I think you can make a pretty strong argument that much of the current focus of defense spending on R&D is focused on systems that will provide us with better reconnaissance and intelligence-gathering capabilities... so perhaps there's a step in the "moral" direction here after all?

      I'm not sure if I'm about to engage in a semantic game, but let us say that they should be being used on your behalf, but aren't.

      I would agree with the first part - they should be being used on my behalf; and I would partially agree with the second half - sometimes they are not. Your assessment seems to be that every conflict in the past 30 years has been a gross abuse of military power aimed at protecting the interests of a secret cabal; I'd disagree with that assessment, and the two conflicts I named earlier are, in my estimation, legitimate uses of the military on my behalf for humanitarian purposes and protection of American interests abroad. And to the extent that the politicians, in whom we've entrusted the ability to use the military, are misusing it, that is a moral failing of the politicians, and by extension, of the people who gave that sober trust to people who would misuse it.

      But with some underlying principles to limit where war may even be considered, no? Without restraint, eventually war will be abused for any possible interest, declared in terms of an unwinnable war on an undefinable enemy. Which may be what's happening.

      Yes, with some underlying principles about where war is immoral and can't be justified - e.g., "We like your women, and will take them from you." That would be a (exaggerated, but you get the point) example of an immoral reason to even consider war.

      As far as the abuse of justification for war, as you said: May be happening. I think the general urge with this is to paint every conflict of the past 30-50 years in terms of our current conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, and it's important to understand the context of the older conflicts, and not just say "Well, the government fed us a line of bullshit about Iraq, so they probably were doing that every time." And I have heard this statement, largely word-for-word, from self-styled pacifists I've discussed this topic with. I don't want to try and put words in your mouth, and I think you've demonstrated a refreshing amount of thought & knowledge on

    110. Re:why do people work for Raytheon? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sig: The new Slashdot javascript makes the site nearly unusable on my slower machines. Please fix it Taco....

      upgrade your machines you cock-wanker. why should everyone else be inconvenienced cause you have a shitty computer?

    111. Re:why do people work for Raytheon? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Other business today, but yes, thank you for the chat.

    112. Re:why do people work for Raytheon? by Vintermann · · Score: 1

      > A lot of people from good Christian Europe came down to the holy lands with the express intent of driving Islam out of various holy cities. Then there was that Spanish mob, I forget what they were called but no-one expected them.

      And how did Islam come to Spain in the first place?

      In the first few centuries of Islam's existence, the Christian kingdoms in the middle east, some of the oldest in existence (including Egypt and Turkey) were conquered. They came all the way to Spain. Muhammad's successors claimed that this invasion was commanded by the prophet. Whether it was or not, who knows. But those invasions were part of the explanation and justification for the crusades.

      --
      xkcd is not in the sudoers file. This incident will be reported.
    113. Re:why do people work for Raytheon? by Vintermann · · Score: 1

      Except all those perverse incentives, making money from wars and all that. Not to mention how incomprehensibly corrupt your employers are.

      Even if you believe in just wars, you got to admit that both sides can't be just in the same war. So even if all wars were just, half of all weapons that were made would be used by the wrong side (assuming they are equally well armed over the course of history - if you think the good guys inherently will always have more weapons than the bad guys, I'd love to hear your reasoning.) As an arms manufacturer selling far and wide, the idea that you would always be on the "right" side is even more ridiculous than it would be for a soldier.

      --
      xkcd is not in the sudoers file. This incident will be reported.
    114. Re:why do people work for Raytheon? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "convert or die"

      "hmmm.... well i did want to buy that roll of cotton, i suppose i'll convert as well."

    115. Re:why do people work for Raytheon? by stewbacca · · Score: 1

      Wars are not "just" or "unjust", they just are.

      Raytheon is no more or less corrupt than Ford, Sanyo, or Cisco.

    116. Re:why do people work for Raytheon? by linzeal · · Score: 1

      As someone who has worked in the industry doing optical gyros I call bullocks, you don't design cluster munitions, plastic land mines and IEDS in this day and age without the moral compass of an unrepentant sociopath. What, you don't like being compared to the Taliban, too bad, they have a defense industry too and the IED is kicking your silver-spoon fed asses.

      There are wide swathes of the defense industry that ostensibly do not deal directly with moral questions such as logistics, medical and infrastructure in a box apps but if you do not appreciate the historical or potential abuses of a weapon system you are designing than you are a fucking idiot or a fucking monster, take your pick.

    117. Re:why do people work for Raytheon? by AP31R0N · · Score: 1

      "Yea, um, you don't bring freedom and democracy with a gun"

      There's a book that disproves this. It's called History. Freedom and democracy can exist only when no internal or external threat impedes it. Your freedom to wear a watermelon on your head comes from the fact that someone who thinks you shouldn't have that freedom is afraid of the guy who thinks you do. The willingness of a cop or soldier to protect your rights with force is how you have rights at all. It doesn't come from a document or goodwill. It comes from bad guys being afraid to act on their whims. Rapists don't stop because she asks nicely or demands her right to physical autonomy. He might stop if she scratches out his eyes or if someone clobbers him with a chair. Bank robberies would be a daily occurence if there were no armed guards or prisons. Would be bank robbers fear being shot or imprisoned. Same goes for nations.

      --
      Utilizing the synergization of benchmark e-solutions to pre-workaround action items!
    118. Re:why do people work for Raytheon? by khallow · · Score: 1

      You mean the British empire.

      Islam spread into Asia on the back of the British who had holdings in modern Iraq, Palestine and Israel back in the 19th century. This was the port of call of ships heading to British Malaya and other places in Asia (Indonesia, Philippines). The British let go of their ME holdings after WWI, Malaya (now Malaysia) gained independence in the late 50's.

      Wikipedia comes to the rescue.

      Islam was first brought to Malaysia by Indian Chinese Muslim traders in the 12th century AD. It is commonly held that Islam first exists in Malay peninsular since Sultan Muzaffar Shah I (12th century) of Kedah, the first ruler to be known to convert to Islam after being introduced to it by Rowther and Marakkar.[citation needed] In the 13th century, the Terengganu Stone Monument was found at Kuala Berang, Terengganu where the first Malay state to receive Islam in 1303 Sultan Megat Iskandar Shah, known as Parameswara prior to his conversion, is the first Sultan of Melaka. He converted into Islam after marrying a princess from Pasai, of present day Indonesia.

      The religion was adopted peacefully by the coastal trading ports people of Malaysia and Indonesia, absorbing rather than conquering existing beliefs. By the 15th and 16th centuries it was the majority faith of the Malay people. As in many Muslim countries, Islam in Malaysia has seen a significant revival over the past 10 years or so.

      In other words, this started well before there was a British Empire (which you can claim was started in the 15th century).

      As for the first few centuries of Islam's existence, the sword was on the other foot. A lot of people from good Christian Europe came down to the holy lands with the express intent of driving Islam out of various holy cities. Then there was that Spanish mob, I forget what they were called but no-one expected them. They succeeded in completely forcing the Moors out of Spain (along with Jews and other heathens). Islam spread mainly because the middle east was a hub for trade. In the same way that trade spread the influence of the British and before them the Romans it was trade that spread Islam.

      But hey, don't let the facts get in the way of your baseless xenophobia. It's fashionable to hate Islam, all the cool kids are doing it.

      OTOH, you're putting the hate on the British empire and the Crusades? That's pretty retro. Again, if you actually look at history, you see that Islam spread early on by conquest. Let's go over a short list (provided by Wikipedia in the previous link):

      • Byzantine-Arab Wars: 634-750
      • Conquest of Persia and Iraq: 633-651
      • Conquest of Transoxiana: 662-709
      • Conquest of Sindh: 664-712
      • Conquest of Hispania: 711-718 and Septimania 719-720
      • Conquest of the Caucasus: 711-750
      • End of the Umayyad conquests: 718-750
      • Conquest of Nubia: 700-1606
      • Conquest of Anatolia: 1060-1360
      • Byzantine-Ottoman Wars: 1299-1453
      • Further conquests: 1200-1800 [including the conquest of northern India - me]

      That includes territory from Spain to India. That's a lot of conquering for a religion that was spread by trade.

    119. Re:why do people work for Raytheon? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Raytheon isn't staffed by idiots, and, "well, they don't really know what's going on," isn't an answer. Because they know what's going on, I want to understand how they justify their employment. Everyone so far has come out with one of the extremes:

      I think this is a bullshit argument, but I could see how someone could think that working for Raytheon developing non-lethal weapons would save more lives or otherwise do more good than it would cost. They'd be stupid, and wrong, overall; but at least it would be a moral idea.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    120. Re:why do people work for Raytheon? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      While war may sometimes be justified, morally speaking it is highly dangerous to create weapons when you do not know how they will be used (once they are created, this is out of your control, and in fact usage becomes subject to the lowest common denominator that has access to them).

      Therefore I always feel it is much safer, morally speaking, to err on the side of caution. I would rather have "insufficient" weapon R&D in my country than be responsible for the maiming of woman and children who may already have been living in poverty, due to some form of new and improved cluster bomb that I helped develop. Based on all recent conflicts I can remember, the moral downside in terms of "developed western countries' contributions" seemed greater than the upside.

      Having said that, I generally prefer non-lethal weapons to lethal weapons (or weapons that maim), although I feel conflicted about the way that non-lethal weapons are used more freely, and in particular are used to suppress what I would describe as "justifiable" non-violent protest in many countries even in the West.

    121. Re:why do people work for Raytheon? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We're gonna fuck you til you love it.

    122. Re:why do people work for Raytheon? by waferhead · · Score: 1

      "I want to understand how they justify their employment. "

      Perhaps because they missed the memo where they were supposed to give a tinkers damn what you think?

    123. Re:why do people work for Raytheon? by jim_v2000 · · Score: 1

      "Lloyd Biggle is an assclown."
      --Me

      Seriously, why should I care what he has to say about anything? People are always throwing quotes around as though I should give two shits about what the guy being quoted has to say. I don't. If you can't make an argument as to why your point of view is correct, don't try throwing quotes at me in an attempted appeal to authority.

      --
      Don't take life so seriously. No one makes it out alive.
    124. Re:why do people work for Raytheon? by jim_v2000 · · Score: 1

      I don't think you're capable of understanding the justification. You're coming at the situation with the preconceived notion that Raytheon is evil and wrong, and you're downplaying people's honest beliefs as nonsense" and "pathetic". You need to understand that there are many people who do not share your opinions and beliefs, and are not coming to the table with even close to the same assumptions about how the world works.

      --
      Don't take life so seriously. No one makes it out alive.
    125. Re:why do people work for Raytheon? by jim_v2000 · · Score: 1

      Why are you accusing people of using strawman arguments when you've been using them through your posts?

      Example: "because without firms like Raytheon my daughter would be raped in the streets by the enemy" (nonsense)"

      --
      Don't take life so seriously. No one makes it out alive.
    126. Re:why do people work for Raytheon? by Reziac · · Score: 1

      I use a quote when it says something that can't be improved upon, or touches the argument at the right angle. This is such a case. We're trying to impose democracy from without in Iraq, and can you really argue this has improved their lot in life??

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    127. Re:why do people work for Raytheon? by CharlyFoxtrot · · Score: 1

      It's funny because that's a common Christian theme - that they're persecuted, that they're the underdogs, the minority, even when they have an overwhelming majority. It's a lot easier to feel self-righteous (another Christian theme) when you think you're downtrodden. Just look at the "War on Christmas"! Oh noes, WalMart greeters are saying "Happy Holidays" instead of "Merry Christmas"! Help, help, we're being oppressed because a large company is acknowledging the fact that not everyone is Christian!

      Don't throw in all Christians with your North American fundies. That behavior is completely baffling to the many Christians in the rest of the world.

      --
      If all else fails, immortality can always be assured by spectacular error.
    128. Re:why do people work for Raytheon? by FuckingNickName · · Score: 1

      Jim, there have been quite a few interesting "why working for Raytheon is moral" arguments here - a good argument is what I asked for, not a contradiction of an unexpressed opinion, so I'm glad!

      The good arguments express a need for defence research and discuss in what context it is appropriate. They elaborate on the decision-making process surrounding military engagement without entirely absolving the manufacturers when they suckle at the teat of government. They highlight the difference between research (esp. reconnaissance tools) to win a war and research to cause harm. These ruminations can all be applied to Raytheon to help answer the question initially posed.

      The less sophisticated arguments say something like what you painted as a strawman.

    129. Re:why do people work for Raytheon? by electron+sponge · · Score: 0

      But we have so much more stockpiled!

    130. Re:why do people work for Raytheon? by strikethree · · Score: 1

      "How would people in the US feel, if the rest of the world judged them, by the behaviour of a small minority of their idiots?"

      Well, to be fair, there are quite few voices being raised against the loud minority of idiots here in America... but you do not hear very many objections against stoning women and girls from Muslim folks. Where are the fatwas and jihads against the crazed minority of Muslims? Ah, that's right. There are none.

      I know, I know, you will next seek to question where is the moral outrage over the Catholic church and child molesting... well, the Catholic church is being tried in Christian courts over this behavior.

      You seek to expose hypocrisy where none exists.

      --
      "Someone needs to talk to the tree of liberty about its ghoulish drinking problem." by ohnocitizen
    131. Re:why do people work for Raytheon? by laddiebuck · · Score: 1

      Just to add something, "best" is vaguely defined here. The effectiveness of the weapon depends on what you are going to use it for. If effectiveness in war means what it used to mean for a long time, i.e. "killing more of the enemy than are killed of ours", then nuclear weapons are still the best, unbeatable weapon. But effectiveness today seems to mean "killing as many of the enemy, precisely selected, without damaging your reputation (measured by civilians and works of art destroyed) too much". On the offensive side, drones seem to be one of the best ways of doing this and they are being worked on heavily.

      But perhaps -- and this is something that defense tech firms rarely stop to consider because of the additional expense and difficulty -- effectiveness really ought to mean "incapacitating or disarming as many of the enemy as possible without killing them but without endangering the lives of our own soldiers too much". I freely acknowledge that this latter goal is much harder, and that there has been some minimal research into it with noise or the above-mentioned pain gun, but it is also obviously more humane and very likely the way of the future. We ought to be trying to get there much harder.

    132. Re:why do people work for Raytheon? by hawkfish · · Score: 1

      Islam, for example, is the largest religion in the world today precisely because of its military efforts in the first few centuries of its existence.

      Islam is actually #2 by almost factor of 2.

      --
      You will not drink with us, but you would taste our steel? - Walter Matthau, The Pirates
  4. In Soviet Russia... by Hymer · · Score: 5, Interesting

    ...and most of the former Eastern Europe, they used old T-34 (with turret removed) as tractors in the 1950'ties and 1960'ties.

    No, not the usual "In Soviet Russia..."

    1. Re:In Soviet Russia... by Dachannien · · Score: 0

      ...and most of the former Eastern Europe, they used old T-34 (with turret removed) as tractors in the 1950'ties and 1960'ties.

      In Soviet Russia, tank drives you!

    2. Re:In Soviet Russia... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In Soviet Russia you remove the cannon.

    3. Re:In Soviet Russia... by Dexter+Herbivore · · Score: 0

      In Capitalist America, microwave microwaves you.

    4. Re:In Soviet Russia... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Completely off-topic, and no offense to Hymer, but who uses the term "1950'ties and 1960'ties"???
      How do you parse that? Nineteen-Fifty-ties? Why wouldn't "1950's and 1960's" be sufficient?

    5. Re:In Soviet Russia... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The nineteen fifty-ties and nineteen sixtyties?

    6. Re:In Soviet Russia... by noidentity · · Score: 1

      they used old T-34 (with turret removed) as tractors in the 1950'ties and 1960'ties.

      Hmmm, I've never heard of the nineteen fiftyties and nineteen sixtyties. Were those large tie factories with indoor farms?

    7. Re:In Soviet Russia... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      post understands you!

  5. This sounds "half baked" by seeker_1us · · Score: 1

    What are the microwaves going to do to the nitrogen fixing microbes in the soil? What about the worms that keep the soil tilled and fertile? I'm wondering if the vinyard owner is going to wake up next year and find his land unfarmable. Not to mention the question about what happens to other wildlife, or people.

    1. Re:This sounds "half baked" by Dachannien · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The boundary of effect on the pain ray is pretty distinct. There was an episode of Futureweapons a while back where the host and some colonel were standing a few feet apart from each other; one was affected by the pain ray while the other wasn't.

      So, you could aim the edge of the beam parallel to the ground to avoid any undesired effects to the soil (if there even are any - I'm guessing that the beam doesn't penetrate very far at all).

      As for other wildlife, I would assume that birds and such would learn to avoid the area the same way people would.

    2. Re:This sounds "half baked" by Urkki · · Score: 1

      What are the microwaves going to do to the nitrogen fixing microbes in the soil? What about the worms that keep the soil tilled and fertile?

      I'm wondering if the vinyard owner is going to wake up next year and find his land unfarmable.

      Not to mention the question about what happens to other wildlife, or people.

      First of all, I think they'll find out very fast (in about a year or so :-) if there are measurable harmful effects.

      Secondly, I think the harmful effects would be limited to the microbes at the surface, not covered by any dirt, ie. those microbes that are already dead due to UV radiation... ;-)

      Also if it affects the worms, they'll go underground very fast (as worms go, which is in fact pretty fast considering the scale). Flying insects might suffer, but I'm not sure if that's good or bad for most (non-insect-pollinated) farming.

    3. Re:This sounds "half baked" by Overzeetop · · Score: 1

      Flying insects might suffer, but I'm not sure if that's good or bad for most (non-insect-pollinated) farming.

      Even for insect pollinated farming it's probably irrelevant. This is used for elimination of frost on frost-sensitive crops, which means application during freezing temperatures, or near-freezing temps with clear night skies. Very low occurrence of pollination going on at those times. I can see a potential mis-use to try and eliminate pests at other times, but the energy cost may preclude its use for that.

      --
      Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
    4. Re:This sounds "half baked" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Earthworms are an invasive species. They came over in the ballast of european ships. They arn't necessary here.

    5. Re:This sounds "half baked" by Aranykai · · Score: 1

      True, but if they are using this it's to defend against frost. How many flying insects and microbes are there going to be out and about in freezing temperatures that wont already be dead?

      --
      If sharing a song makes you a pirate, what do I have to share to be a ninja?
    6. Re:This sounds "half baked" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Considering that it's derived from a "pain ray", I wouldn't be too surprised if it also has uses in pest control applications. If it means keeping varmints and bugs out of your crops, that's probably a plus for most farmers. If the range is far enough and operating costs low enough, it might also take the place of electic fences. So it could also have a use for keeping trespassers out and livestock in.

  6. Arrest him already by the_other_chewey · · Score: 1

    Who is this Frost guy and why do they need a pain ray to stop him from killing crops?
    Just arrest him already if he's damaging property. Sheesh...

    1. Re:Arrest him already by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He is a vampire with aspirations to godhood. Trust me, it is not the crops that you should worry about.

    2. Re:Arrest him already by Fnord666 · · Score: 2, Funny

      Who is this Frost guy and why do they need a pain ray to stop him from killing crops? Just arrest him already if he's damaging property. Sheesh...

      Apparently you don't know Jack.

      --
      'The tyrant will always find pretext for his tyranny.' - Aesop's Fables
  7. Two types of people... by SmarterThanMe · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I don't think greed is an actual issue. I would imagine that there are two distinct major camps of people that work for Raytheon and similar companies. People that feel that they are doing the right work, and people who just don't think about it at all.

    Some people who work for these companies (a friend of mine included) genuinely feel that they are doing the right work. They've come to the ethical conclusion that Raytheon and similar companies are doing work that makes them and other people safer. Think 2nd Amendment types who scream about the need to have a personal arsenal of weapons with which to "defend" themselves. Not that I agree with these people, but it's a legitimate perspective.

    Then there are people who just don't think. I would say that this is the minority of the people who work in the more intellectual ends of the military industry. You have to remember that half of people are below average, and it doesn't relate just to academic (or cognitive) intelligence. Socioaffective (or emotional and interpersonal) intelligence is also an important mental factor. These people view their work in the same way that all of the rest of us view our work, just something to do between 9am and 5pm every weekday.

    Of course, there's variations on the theme, but I'd say that in the end 90% of people in the military industry can be categorised one way or the other.

    1. Re:Two types of people... by moz25 · · Score: 1

      You have to remember that half of people are below average

      If half is below average and half is above average, do people who are average exist? :-)

    2. Re:Two types of people... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Thinking that one is doing good is often just clever self-delusion, unfortunately.

      My co-workers, friends and most everyone I encounter seem to think that I am a peace-loving type. I go out in the woods and camp, take pictures of beaches and flowers, write about my feelings. I've opposed certain wars and capital punishment for various reasons.... Yet, I don't oppose them on any philosophical grounds. Quite the contrary, actually. I think wars are necessary. I think having the biggest and most horrifyingly destructive weapons does more to maintain peace than anything else.

      I have weapons, but they are kept locked and hidden and would be useless in a defense situation. I have them because it's an almost zen-like experience to trek out to the range at 5AM in the morning. On shooting days I do not drink coffee, do not get angry at people who cut me off in traffic, do not let rage creep in. Any of these things would mean that I would miss my target (and those rounds are expensive). But many people assume that I'm some 2nd Amendment prepper type because I have these weapons.

      I oppose capital punishment because it is not meted out evenly to all the convicted. The moment that we have mandatory punishments for those capital offenses, I will support quick and immediate execution of those convicted. I don't believe in extenuating circumstances because that's too often abused so that money buys leniency.

      People are not so black and white as one would assume. They rarely have any guiding principles. They are a lot like our political parties. There's no guiding principle, maybe except for political expediency. It is a political trick to make people believe they are fundamentally different from others so that they can get your vote.

    3. Re:Two types of people... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      On a continuous distribution of intelligence, probably no.

    4. Re:Two types of people... by melstav · · Score: 1

      I would imagine that there are two distinct major camps of people that work for Raytheon and similar companies. People that feel that they are doing the right work, and people who just don't think about it at all.

      You might argue that they're a subset of the second group, but there are people who have thought about it but can honestly say they really don't care.

      To quote Tom Lehrer on Werner Von Braun, "Once the rockets go up, who cares where they come down? That's not my department."

    5. Re:Two types of people... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think having the biggest and most horrifyingly destructive weapons does more to maintain peace than anything else.

      Interesting that you believe that on a national level, but not an individual one.

      I don't believe in extenuating circumstances

      Do you believe in wrongful convictions?

      It's generally possible to get someone out of prison when evidence comes to light proving their innocence. Not so, the grave.

  8. Ice by symes · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I might be wrong here - but doesn't the fact that microwaves pass through ice crystals more easily than squishyt fleshy stuff mean they'll cook the oranges and leave them with a light dusting of frost?

    1. Re:Ice by ascari · · Score: 1

      cook the oranges and leave them with a light dusting of frost

      Bam! You should be on food TV.

    2. Re:Ice by gundersd · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure whether you were joking or not, but I think it's probably more about not letting the frost settle in the first place. ie. disturbing the atmosphere enough that the water doesn't condense out/get a chance to fall on, and freeze on the crop, rather than trying to specifically target frost and melt it after the fact without cooking the crop too.

    3. Re:Ice by gundersd · · Score: 1

      I know it's bad form replying to your own post, but I just read the article (sorry, I know I'll need to hand in my slashdot license now), and it seems that you were right; the idea is to actually warm the crops using the death ray. Apparently it's able to target the crops without heating the the air around them (as per a normal household microwave oven), hence preventing the frost from damaging them. Weird.

      Oh well, I've never been a particularly motivated cook, so being able to buy freshly baked vegetables straight from the crop might be of benefit :)

    4. Re:Ice by Americano · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I think you're both partially right. I don't think the goal is to "blast the crops with enough microwaves to cook them," I think the point is "warm the plants & fruit/vegetables a few degrees so that frost doesn't accumulate on them. In other words, put out enough radiation to keep your oranges & trees at a comfortable 50 degrees ("or even room temperature-ish"), even if the air gets down to 30 degrees. The point isn't to bombard them with microwaves until they're cooked, it's to warm the plant just enough to keep frost from forming on the leaves and fruit.

      I doubt that this thing is bombarding the crops all night with high intensity microwaves, it's probably got temperature sensors tied to it, to cycle the microwave emitter on and off just enough to keep the plants in their "optimal" temperature range.

    5. Re:Ice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I might be wrong here - but doesn't the fact that microwaves pass through ice crystals more easily than squishyt fleshy stuff mean they'll cook the oranges and leave them with a light dusting of frost?

      Oranges heat up above freezing, melting the frost. No need to heat them up so much that the oranges actually cook.

  9. When all you have is a weapon ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    everything looks like a target.

  10. New slogans for new applications by AliasMarlowe · · Score: 3, Funny

    "Pain that's too cheap to meter!"
    Some such rubbish was spouted about civilian application of nuclear technology (which also started as a weapon).

    Or more realistically, how about private & city lands covered in helpful signs like:
    "Keep off the grass. Violators may experience discomfort or agony!"
    "Keep out. Or else."

    --
    Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire
  11. Misread title by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Am I the only one that read microsoft pain ray keeps frost from killing cops?

    1. Re:Misread title by p0p0 · · Score: 1

      I read Microsoft too. Is it bad I wasn't surprised?

  12. Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Frost by LambdaWolf · · Score: 1

    What I want to know is, how does the frost feel pain, and should we be concerned about humane alternatives?

    --
    "This algorithm runs in constant time. Come on, 2,147,483,648 is a constant..."
  13. Because they aren't idealistic hippies? by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It may shock you to learn but plenty of people are perfectly ok with the idea of developing weapons. They understand that human history is fraught with wars, and that things often go badly for the losers of those wars, sometimes they are completely wiped out even. Thus they are fine with the idea that we ought to have the very best weapons for our own military. They understand that even if the US did give up all armaments, the rest of the world would not.

    People work for Raytheon because it is a place where you can do interesting engineering, and they aren't troubled by the fact that it has military applications.

    While you can certainly say the world would be a better place if humans stopped fighting, you are naive if you think that Raytheon stopping the development of armaments would lead to that.

    1. Re:Because they aren't idealistic hippies? by FuckingNickName · · Score: 1, Insightful

      This answer is inadequate, and can be used to justify the production of weaponry for any regime from Ancient Greek Democracy to Hitler's Nazism. "Well, look at what has happened in the past - we must be strong or we'll be crushed!" is the mantra of every abusive government.

      You can pretend that what your government actually does with the weaponry is not my department, but you're bright enough to see your link in the causal chain of events. So unless you're exercising wilful intellectual dishonesty your brain has at some point justified the ends. What I want to understand is: what is the moral framework which has enabled you to justify the ends? And what was the argument leading to your conclusion?

      FWIW, my personal experience working with specific ex-Raython people is that they were simply racist, believing in the supreme importance of their culture (not even a white man's burden) and domination by the Anglo-Saxon "indigenous" of their nation. But it surely doesn't come down to that for all weapons contractor employees.

    2. Re:Because they aren't idealistic hippies? by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Godwin's Law: "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1." Once such a comparison is made, the thread is finished and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically lost whatever debate was in progress.

      Reductio ad Hitlerum, also argumentum ad Hitlerum, (dog Latin for "reduction to Hitler" or "argument to Hitler," respectively) is an ad hominem or ad misericordiam argument, and is an informal fallacy. Engaging in this fallacy is sometimes known as playing the Nazi card, by analogy to playing the race card.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    3. Re:Because they aren't idealistic hippies? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Godwin's Law: "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1."

      It's an over-quoted corollary of the infinite monkeys/Shakespeare hypothesis, trivially true and as specious in its applicability to knowledge and logic as Godwin's current employer.

      Once such a comparison is made, the thread is finished and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically lost whatever debate was in progress.

      No. You might as well state that the same applies to Stalin's NKVD or Chavez' Bolivarian Circles, or that Sycraft-fu's foe policy is irrational merely because it uses the term "grammar Nazis". This particular proposed corollary of Godwin's law is a straight humorous non sequitur.

      Reductio ad Hitlerum, also argumentum ad Hitlerum, (dog Latin for "reduction to Hitler" or "argument to Hitler," respectively) is an ad hominem or ad misericordiam argument, and is an informal fallacy.

      Reductio ad Hitlerum is an argument of form, "the Nazis did that, therefore it is wrong!" A proportion of the argument I presented was of form, "Your reasoning is so broad that it could be used to justify working for the Nazi military machine," a reductio ad absurdum.

      Don't hand-wave - think! Look where it got IBM ;-).

    4. Re:Because they aren't idealistic hippies? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why does it have to be a moral decision? I think modern weapons are really cool and would love to work for a weapons contractor.

      Issues of who my country decides to use those weapons against don't really concern me. The US is involved in two wars right now and I don't particularly care about the number of Iraqis or Afghans that have been killed in them or the weapons used to do it. If your moral framework is causing you sleepless nights over these things I feel sorry for you. I really don't think I'm racist to feel this way, if the US started a war with Canada or even a civil war with some of the states I would probably feel exactly the same way. I'm sorry if this is hard for you to accept but some people just extremely apathetic.

    5. Re:Because they aren't idealistic hippies? by FuckingNickName · · Score: 2, Interesting

      It's not causing me sleepless nights that I have decided to work at Raytheon (or similar) because I don't work at Raytheon (or similar).

      You and a few ACs have come out with the "it's fun and I just don't care if a bunch of strangers are horribly oppressed and/or killed" answer and it's the most credible so far. But I'd appreciate an attempt to explain what's brought you to thinking like this. You weren't just born with that attitude. It developed somehow. Can you ask yourself how it developed? I am interested.

    6. Re:Because they aren't idealistic hippies? by zmollusc · · Score: 2, Funny

      Bah! The weapons developers are no better than those Jews whose government invaded poland.

      --
      They whose government reduces their essential liberties for temporary security, receive neither liberty nor security.
    7. Re:Because they aren't idealistic hippies? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      This answer is inadequate, and can be used to justify the production of weaponry for any regime from Ancient Greek Democracy to Hitler's Nazism.

      However, that does not make the argument false. In Nazi Germany there were people who did not particulary like hitler or the war doing military research (disclaimer: my grandfather was one of them). Either because they feared Stalin more than Hitler, or because they liked doing research better then dying at the east front. Those people were generally nither racist not fascist (and the US came to employ quite a few of them after the war. Remember Wernher von Braun?)

    8. Re:Because they aren't idealistic hippies? by FuckingNickName · · Score: 1

      Is there a moral difference between killing a Jew who is of no threat to you, and killing a Muslim who is of no threat to you?

    9. Re:Because they aren't idealistic hippies? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I've actually given this a lot of thought, and had a girlfriend who didn't like it about me, but I'll try to explain.

      I'm not an uncaring person, I care a great deal about friends and family and would do almost anything for them; I'm even kind to strangers I encounter. But when I read about people getting killed on the news I don't feel anything.

      There is a lot of suffering in the world. War causes a lot of suffering, but so does famine, diseases, natural disasters and other things. To me it seems disingenuous to care (or pretend to care) about the some people dying and not others.

      Consider this example: I read a story about the horrors of the Iraq war and decide not to take a job at a weapons manufacturer, and feel good about my self. Later I read about how thousands of Chinese workers are killed each year due to lax safety standards in that country; I vow to stop buying all Chinese made goods and feel good about myself. I read another story about how I can save a child from dying of Aids, malaria or malnutrition for just pennies per day; to me this means that every penny I spend on myself and not these causes means a child has died so that I could buy what it was I bought, in order to feel good about myself I have live in near poverty, and give all my excess income to charity.

      This is the thought process that lead me my current way of thinking; if you take this stuff seriously you're just going to feel guilty all the time because there's always something more you could be doing, or something more you could not be doing, so I just stopped caring.

      I realize that life isn't just black and white, and a lot of people would say "you do what you can, but draw a line somewhere", but I wouldn't know where to draw that line, so I just chose to not care about anyone that isn't directly in my life.

    10. Re:Because they aren't idealistic hippies? by FuckingNickName · · Score: 1

      However, that does not make the argument false.

      It makes the argument vacuous, and inadequate as a justification.

      In Nazi Germany there were people who did not particulary like hitler or the war doing military research (disclaimer: my grandfather was one of them).

      In Nazi Germany it was far more difficult to stand up and refuse to do particular work on moral grounds. It's true that you will do a lot of things when you fear for your life, right down to Sonderkommando duty - but still other Jews, Jehovah's Witnesses, political dissidents and other deviants[tm] remained faithful to their principles to the moment a gun/gas chamber was presented to them. But none of us have been forced to make that sort of choice, and I'm not going to insult your grandfather by claiming he was weak not to have chosen another path.

      Anyway, that's really not a problem in the US and the UK. We're still so damn lucky.

      Either because they feared Stalin more than Hitler

      I wonder whether this could be mapped to today's environment. Does a Raytheon employee work there out of fear? Because he fears, say... the Taliban? North Korea? What does he think they're going to do to his nation? Or does he fear what will happen to his country in quality of life terms if it no longer has the military power to exploit other continents?

      Those people were generally nither racist not fascist (and the US came to employ quite a few of them after the war. Remember Wernher von Braun?)

      I think I linked to Lehrer on von Braun somewhere in this thread ;-). I'm not quite sure that von Braun was "neither racist nor fascist" - he wasn't exactly moving to Israel or Africa, and if you're a leading technologist believing in domination by the strong, of course you'll spearhead technology wherever's strongest.

    11. Re:Because they aren't idealistic hippies? by FuckingNickName · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Thanks for making the effort to explain.

      How about drawing the line somewhere you might consider manageable? Or, if you're not sure what you can manage, try somewhere almost arbitrary. Then adjust over time to accommodate your life without becoming totally uncaring.

      I am reminded (frequently) of the story about the boy throwing washed up sea creatures back into the sea. An old man approaches him and mockingly remarks, "You'll never save them all, you know."

      "Yes," he replies, "But I've saved that one. And that one. And that one."

      The world doesn't run because it's full of superheroes destroying villains, though the worst people try to paint it that way because it causes others to lose hope and become uncaring and cynical. The world runs because enough people are fairly balanced.

    12. Re:Because they aren't idealistic hippies? by hedwards · · Score: 1

      Yes, in the modern era, killing a Jew makes you antisemitic, and killing a Muslim apparently makes you a hero. Or does that only apply to torture?

      Either way it's fucked up beyond belief and the primary reason why there'll never be peace in the Middle East.

    13. Re:Because they aren't idealistic hippies? by stewbacca · · Score: 1

      No, the primary reason there will never be peace in the Middle East is because there is exactly ONE democracy (Israel) surrounded by a bunch of theocracies. The one pseudo democracy (Egypt) has had the same "elected" official since the discovery of electricity.

    14. Re:Because they aren't idealistic hippies? by NatasRevol · · Score: 1

      While I think you make a great point here, I don't think it would work on many people.

      Most people who are pro war would say that the muslims are a threat. Whether they are or not is not a concern to them. In their mind, the muslims ARE a threat. And thus it's fine to kill millions of them. Of course, that's exactly what the Nazis argument was too...

      --
      There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
    15. Re:Because they aren't idealistic hippies? by HungryHobo · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You seem to believe that creating tools is morally the same as using them.

      If I create a network diagnostic tool am I responsible for someone else using it to steal passwords?

      If I work at the electric company am I morally responsible if the state uses the power I helped produce to kill an innocent man in the electric chair or a child sticks a fork into the socket?

      If I work at an auto company am I morally responsible for the deaths caused by drunk drivers?

      If I work at a weapons company am I morally responsible for the deaths caused by drunk politicians?

      If I work in theoretical physics and do some calculations on neutron absorbtion am I responsible when that research gets used by someone else to build a bomb which someone else again uses to destroy a city?
      If so do I also get goodness points when a diplomat uses other weapons built as a result of the same calculations as a threat to convince someone on the other side of the table to not invade another country and kill millions?

      If I work in bio-research and develop some handy new restriction enzyme which later gets used to develop bioweapons is that my fault?
      Do I get any positive score if those same weapons pressure the other side in some conflict into not using their own?

      If I work as an engineer designing microwave emmiters am I responsible for the pain suffered by people who get mazered while protesting?
      If I sabotaged the same design instead and it didn't work in the field would I somehow escape moral responsibility for the extra deaths as the crowd is instead beaten down by more traditional means?

    16. Re:Because they aren't idealistic hippies? by FuckingNickName · · Score: 0

      That's a lot of straw men for a Sunday afternoon.

      If you develop something with the primary purpose of oppressing or kill offensively, and which is known to be commissioned to oppresss or kill offensively, and which is being commissioned by an entity which makes a habit of oppressing or killing offensively, then you certainly assume a degree of moral responsibility. For you are knowingly a link in the chain of people who must say "yes" for the development to be made and the people to be oppressed/killed offensively. That you are not the one with the arbitrary Presidente name badge is entirely irrelevant - absolute authority is a human fiction and cooperation is the reality.

      If you create something which is unforeseeably later used to oppress or kill offensively, and which was not designed for the purpose of oppressing or killing offensively, then it does not seem feasible to argue that you assume moral responsibility.

      (None of this is intended as a demonstration that oppressing or killing offensively is necessarily immoral. That's another question. What's fallacious is the "not my department" get-out-of-jail-free card which technologists like to wave.)

    17. Re:Because they aren't idealistic hippies? by Reziac · · Score: 1

      Not quite true, but they DID both have and assassinate the only sane leader in the entire middle east... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anwar_El_Sadat

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    18. Re:Because they aren't idealistic hippies? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, Hitler had the right idea, but he applied it to the wrong group of people...

    19. Re:Because they aren't idealistic hippies? by Firethorn · · Score: 1

      what is the moral framework which has enabled you to justify the ends? And what was the argument leading to your conclusion?

      A multitude of thoughts here.

      On death: Car designers also have to deal with the statistical fact that somebody is going to die in the vehicle they design. Likely multitudes.

      So, Come from it from a different angle. Whether car or weapon design, come at it from the idea that the person is either a sociopath on some level, or that he's a patriot. In designing a new weapon, sure, I'm going to be aware that it WILL be misused. But, on some level, I'm convinced that it will be misused less than it will be used properly; to advance effective and therefore shorter and less bloody warfare, to prevent conflict(like the pain ray), etc...

      Kalashnikov, by reports, isn't happy that his rifle is the most common in the hands of the terrorists. But for every one in the hands of the terrorists, there are dozens in the hands of security people and regular military.

      He designed a rifle for the USSR government as a patriot. As a former infantryman, he designed the best infantryman rifle he could.

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    20. Re:Because they aren't idealistic hippies? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Offensively"? Is all projection of power offensive, then?

      I don't consider fulfilling a mutual defense treaty -- and the US is party to many -- offensive.

    21. Re:Because they aren't idealistic hippies? by jnork · · Score: 1

      The question was whether there was a moral difference, not a popular culture difference.

      --
      Cleverly disguised as a responsible adult.
    22. Re:Because they aren't idealistic hippies? by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

      Wow. You've not only managed somehow to figure out the entire motivation of 'the people who are pro-war,' you've managed to do so while remaining above them and thus not contaminated by their (evil?) delusions.

      And you understand completely what motivated the NAZIs too!

      This is so cool. Do you have a newsletter or a blog I could subscribe to?

    23. Re:Because they aren't idealistic hippies? by FuckingNickName · · Score: 1

      OK, I shall engage in a "mutual defence treaty" whereby I employ a gaggle of hired guns and anyone who wants my protection in the City simply pays me a set amount of their income per year.

      They also promise to defend me, of course. But I'm the one with the guns and they're the ones with the income I'm getting a cut of, so it's fairly clear which way things are likely to work.

      IOW, it depends entirely on the nature of the treaty. No entangling alliances, that sort of stuff.

    24. Re:Because they aren't idealistic hippies? by WCguru42 · · Score: 1

      This answer is inadequate, and can be used to justify the production of weaponry for any regime from Ancient Greek Democracy to Hitler's Nazism. "Well, look at what has happened in the past - we must be strong or we'll be crushed!" is the mantra of every abusive government.

      That might be true, but in deciding to work for a company involved in military research and development you have to consider the nation that the military is attached to. Now, if you believe that the USA and it's military are akin to Nazi Germany then you would have a strong moral argument for not working in military research and development. I would posit that most people from the United States don't feel that our nation is like Nazi Germany and therefore the morality of the decision changes.

      Personally, I prefer not to work on weapons research and while I might be against violence I'm not going to say that the world would be a better place if the US just dropped all arms. That would most likely lead to WWIII as the removal of the top military power would create an even greater struggle to be the strongest military in the world.

      --
      "Educate the mind but never at the expense of the soul."~Blessed Basil Moreau
    25. Re:Because they aren't idealistic hippies? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ya right. Only the Americans believe they are using their weapons for defense and to keep up with the "enemy". They also believe that the US is fighting for freedom and democracy.

      The rest of the world knows that it is all about power, greed, and religion. The same as those countries they are constantly invading.

    26. Re:Because they aren't idealistic hippies? by Solandri · · Score: 1

      You can pretend that what your government actually does with the weaponry is not my department, but you're bright enough to see your link in the causal chain of events. So unless you're exercising wilful intellectual dishonesty your brain has at some point justified the ends. What I want to understand is: what is the moral framework which has enabled you to justify the ends? And what was the argument leading to your conclusion?

      It's pretty simple. Countries which don't prepare for war eventually get conquered and cease to exist. As a result, all countries which exist have some history of warfare. If you believe your country is generally doing morally good things, asking for a cessation of investment in military technology is tantamount to insuring that your country (and thus those morally good things) cease to exist.

      Morally, the choice is not, as you seem to feel, between building things which could be used for evil purposes or not building them. It's between building things which might possibly be used for evil purposes, or guaranteeing that your idea of morality will cease to exist because your country will be conquered and its morality replaced by the conqueror's. And it's a pretty good bet that the conqueror's morality will be worse than yours because, hey, they had no qualms about conquering you despite the generally good things you were doing morally.

      The moral position you're staking - that one should never build weapons since they might be used for evil purposes - is an unstable boundary condition. One can only remain at that boundary state so long as the entire rest of the world is also in the same state. If you model it simply with a markov chain, you'll see that the moment even a tiny bit of the world takes a minuscule step away from that boundary state, the moment a child is born who decides he would rather take something from another child rather than play nice, with the passage of time the entire system diverges away from that boundary state until nothing is left. Practically, the best long-term stable position you can hope for is something close to that boundary state but not quite there. Hence some investment in the military is necessary if you want to insure that your ideas and sense of morality survive into the future.

    27. Re:Because they aren't idealistic hippies? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      man up.

      pain rays are cool, tears aren't.

    28. Re:Because they aren't idealistic hippies? by WCguru42 · · Score: 1

      It makes the argument vacuous, and inadequate as a justification.

      I think you're missing the point, the argument has multiple moral characteristics. Say I have the choice of working for company A or company B.

      A claims to make weapons purely as defensive tools to protect people from other nations weapons. Maybe they work on missile shield technology that has purely defensive capabilities and zero offensive capabilities. Now, say company B does the same type of research but instead of a missile shield they are using the technology to thwart other nations missile shields so that the military can suppress other nations' militaries by fear.

      Now, the person justifies their reasons with the argument that in the past the nation with the poorest military power has suffered tremendously. In the case of working at company A the person has taken that argument to develop something that gives them military power. In the case of company B the person has also taken the argument to develop something that gives them military power. It appears clear to me that their is more positive morality in working for company A because the technology is used purely to defend where as with company B the technology could be used to preempt and dominate the world.

      I understand that the two companies and technologies I've stated probably could never exist because generally technology with zero offensive applications is rare to non existent. These are merely used as tools to develop and argument.

      --
      "Educate the mind but never at the expense of the soul."~Blessed Basil Moreau
    29. Re:Because they aren't idealistic hippies? by FuckingNickName · · Score: 1

      in deciding to work for a company involved in military research and development you have to consider the nation that the military is attached to.

      If your moral framework cares about the wider impact of your actions, absolutely. The argument isn't "America is like Nazi Germany", but "don't make a justification which could be applied equally to Nazi Germany unless you see no moral difference between promoting America and promoting Nazi Germany".

      So, a Raytheon employee who cares about the wider impact of his actions must ask: "does the American military tend to act morally or immorally?" Again, it depends what that individual defines as moral. To von Braun, for example, military might may have an overriding moral imperative, and he would apply his skills to any nation which saught to increase its military might.

      I'm not going to say that the world would be a better place if the US just dropped all arms.

      Yes, but why are so many people in this thread speaking as if the alternative to "it is moral to work at Raytheon" is "the US should disarm completely and unilaterally"?

    30. Re:Because they aren't idealistic hippies? by hedwards · · Score: 1

      That's not an appropriate definition of morals. Morals cannot be separated from the culture that gives rise to them without risking them changing or not applying. Ever notice how "morals" that some people have are objectively immoral to others? As in they demand behavior which on the face of it nobody in their right mind would consider to be acceptable?

    31. Re:Because they aren't idealistic hippies? by budgenator · · Score: 1

      Most people who are pro war would say that the muslims are a threat. Whether they are or not is not a concern to them. In their mind, the muslims ARE a threat. And thus it's fine to kill millions of them.

      Wahhabists are the threat, not Muslims in general, the Wahhabism is a threat to Muslims as well as non-Muslims. The real question is will we fight them on our turf or their's?

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    32. Re:Because they aren't idealistic hippies? by FuckingNickName · · Score: 1

      The US won't die tomorrow just because, say, good minds refuse to develop military tech which hasn't even been proven necessary for defensive (or any) war until voters, politicians, military and contractors bash it out and decide to establish some principles for just[tm] war. In the US this might be war for self-defence rather than entangling alliances and special interests. Seriously, why is the US citizenry in a permanent state of panic?

      I'm not convinced by your argument that a conquering country is always more evil than the conquered. Even if I consider myself moral, that doesn't mean I consider my country moral. The conquerors may be more aligned with my sense of morality. Hell, I might be a capitalist dreamer in North Korea, waiting for America to roll in...

    33. Re:Because they aren't idealistic hippies? by NatasRevol · · Score: 1
      --
      There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
    34. Re:Because they aren't idealistic hippies? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      GP use of nazis was actually purely for illustrative purposes and carried no further weight in his argument; you can remove the part where he mentioned it and the argument would still stand.
      Your appeal to godwin, on the other hand, ironically would self-godwin itself in a recursive fit of irony. Perhaps, I would have left that alone if you had made an attempt at addressing his actual argument.

    35. Re:Because they aren't idealistic hippies? by HungryHobo · · Score: 1

      I take it you don't like police or a standing army of any kind then since that's a pretty straightforward description of such.

    36. Re:Because they aren't idealistic hippies? by HungryHobo · · Score: 1

      Really?
      You're calling this a strawman?

      If I work as an engineer designing microwave emmiters am I responsible for the pain suffered by people who get mazered while protesting?

      In a debate about the morality of working as an engineer designing microwave emmiters?
      really?
      You're calling that a strawman?

    37. Re:Because they aren't idealistic hippies? by FuckingNickName · · Score: 1

      that's a pretty straightforward description of such.

      Yes, precisely! That is what is traditional and appropriate for governments to offer to residents within their country.

    38. Re:Because they aren't idealistic hippies? by FuckingNickName · · Score: 1

      I apologise, I guess I didn't realise that the last example was designed to catch me out by implicit reference to the pain-causing as opposed to any other transmitter.

      Oh, and the solution to the problem of policeman beating down protesters is for policemen to stop beating down protesters. Not pain rays.

    39. Re:Because they aren't idealistic hippies? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      FWIW, my personal experience working with specific ex-Raython people is that they were simply racist, believing in the supreme importance of their culture (not even a white man's burden) and domination by the Anglo-Saxon "indigenous" of their nation. But it surely doesn't come down to that for all weapons contractor employees.

      Interesting that as a Raytheon employee, I'm required to take several ethics, and diversity training classes every year. Obviously, that doesn't prevent some employee from being racist (and I'll admit to having known some over the years), but it does imply that the corporate culture is not exactly racist friendly.

    40. Re:Because they aren't idealistic hippies? by HungryHobo · · Score: 1

      Sure.
      By outlining the exact scenario we're talking about and a number of similar scenarios I was in fact trying to catch you out!
      But you saw through my devious use of common sense!
      You see now that it was all a PLOT!

      A few engineers working elsewhere have exactly zero effect on how politicians abuse their creations.
      I know it feels good to be smug and look down your nose at everyone from your moral high ground but news flash: tools are just tools. Anything which can be used for defense can be used for offense.
      Anything can be abused.
      The inventor of pepper spray by your logic could be said to be responsible for both the pain suffered by countless protesters at the hands of police with mace and also saving countless women from getting raped.
      The creators of the atomic bomb could be said to be responsible for both the deaths of hundreds of thousands and the saving of millions.

      Because politicians will always abuse any power they are given.
      They'll abuse their power with wooden clubs or high tech lazers and if anything they do far less damage with the high tech stuff since they're more afraid to use it.
      Low tech wars have traditionally been, if anything, more bloody and more damaging than high tech ones.

      Don't blame the blacksmith for what someone else does with the swords he makes as he ultimately has no say .
      Don't blame the programmer for what someone else aims his targeting system at as he ultimately has no say .

    41. Re:Because they aren't idealistic hippies? by HungryHobo · · Score: 1

      Your point?

    42. Re:Because they aren't idealistic hippies? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the USA and it's military

      You mean "its".

    43. Re:Because they aren't idealistic hippies? by jim_v2000 · · Score: 1

      >"Well, look at what has happened in the past - we must be strong or we'll be crushed!" is the mantra of every abusive government.

      Correction, that's been the mantra of every government and group of people that's survived to see today. It's a shitty world. You could use a dose of reality if you think it's not.

      --
      Don't take life so seriously. No one makes it out alive.
    44. Re:Because they aren't idealistic hippies? by FuckingNickName · · Score: 1

      We are in disagreement, as it were, on whether th'assembly would trammel up the consequence. This last fulmination is ample demonstration that you haven't yet spotted this; the discussion has stalled.

      Nevertheless, cheers for the brief chat. The thread as a whole has been interesting for me.

  14. Pirate Defense System, perhaps . . . ? by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 5, Funny

    Maybe this "Active Denial System" could be deployed on ships to ward off Somalian pirates? I mean, deploy a series of these around the perimeter of the deck of the ship, so the crew doesn't actually need to aim them, just flip a switch. This would create a "ring of pain" around the ship. The crew can be holed up in their safe room.

    First Mate: "Captain! There's pirates off the starboard bow!"

    Captain: "All hands to the safe room!"

    In the safe room . . .

    Captain: "Now let me read the instructions. Set power to 1000 W. Cook until pirates have fled. Cooking times will very depending on how tough or tender the pirates are.

    Meanwhile, back at the pirate cove . . .

    Pirate #1: "How was your pirating today?"

    Pirate #2: "Terrible, I am like totally fried . . . "

    Unfunny Comedian: "Thank you! Tip the veal, try the waitress . . ."

    --
    Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
    1. Re:Pirate Defense System, perhaps . . . ? by TouchAndGo · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Oddly enough I seem to remember a sonic based weapon along these same lines designed for exactly that intent. http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/techinnovations/2005-11-07-cruise-blast_x.htm Obviously not as fun as microwaving some peg legs, but still cool

    2. Re:Pirate Defense System, perhaps . . . ? by Hognoxious · · Score: 4, Funny

      Pirates (before device is switched on): Arrrrrrrr!

      Pirates (after device is switched on): ARGH!

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    3. Re:Pirate Defense System, perhaps . . . ? by jack2000 · · Score: 1

      You are thinking too high tech. Two snipers per ship are enough.

    4. Re:Pirate Defense System, perhaps . . . ? by Pharmboy · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Funny perhaps, but there is a degree of logic in this. A non lethal way to move them away from the ship, then you put cheap, fake towers on the ships that don't have the $$$ for the whole system. This makes it a version of Russian Roulette for the pirates. This would seem a humane way to reduce pirate problems off Somalia.

      Then again, I'm not totally against just shooting them via snipers, but this would be less expensive and likely more effective if all you have to do is throw a switch. Assuming you can aim it around the ship without affecting the people ON the ship.

      --
      Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
    5. Re:Pirate Defense System, perhaps . . . ? by Ross+D+Anderson · · Score: 2, Informative

      Having guns on board means they cannot dock at a lot of ports though

    6. Re:Pirate Defense System, perhaps . . . ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      deploy a series of these around the perimeter of the deck of the ship, so the crew doesn't actually need to aim them, just flip a switch. This would create a "ring of pain" around the ship.

      Love Is A Burning Thing
      And It Makes A Painful Ring
      Bound By Wild Desire
      I Fell Into A Ring Of Pain

      CHORUS:
      I Fell Into A Burning Ring Of Pain
      I Went Down, Down, Down
      And The Flames Went Higher

      And It Burns, Burns, Burns
      The Ring Of Pain
      The Ring Of Pain

      The Taste Of Love Is Sweet
      When Hearts Like Ours Meet
      I Fell For You Like A Child
      Oh,But The Fire Went Wild

      CHORUS
      I Fell Into A Burning Ring Of Pain
      I Went Down, Down, Down
      And The Flames Went Higher
      And It Burns, Burns, Burns
      The Ring Of Pain
      The Ring Of Pain

      Love Is A Burning Thing
      And It Makes A Painful Ring
      Bound By Wild Desire
      I Fell Into A Ring Of Pain

      I Fell Into A Burning Ring Of Pain
      I Went Down(down), Down(down), Down(down)
      And The Flames Went Higher Higher Higher

      I Fell Into A Burning Ring Of Pain
      I Went Down(down), Down(down), Down(down)
      And The Flames Went Higher Higher Higher

      And It Burns

    7. Re:Pirate Defense System, perhaps . . . ? by Nerdfest · · Score: 1

      Too easy to block as well. Simple ear protection would do it. This would require a complete tinfoil outfit. There could be a bright future for some entrepreneurial SlashDotters.

    8. Re:Pirate Defense System, perhaps . . . ? by spitzak · · Score: 1

      Two more employees, especially ones with some skill such as being able to hit a target with a gun, are probably a lot more expensive than some added machinery that will probably work for decades.

    9. Re:Pirate Defense System, perhaps . . . ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You try shooting accurately from a platform that's bobbing.

    10. Re:Pirate Defense System, perhaps . . . ? by waferhead · · Score: 1

      You try shooting accurately from a platform that's bobbing.

      OTOH, consider chasing a ship in a rubber raft with a couple guys with 50 cals shooting at you...

      I'd consider looking for another target immediately.

  15. Nothing Here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Absolutely no chance of unforseen, unwanted, undetectable, harmful mutations here.
    Absolutely no chance of unforseen, unwanted, undetectable, harmful effects on microorganisms and insect life.

  16. I read the title three times by TouchAndGo · · Score: 1

    Each time I thought it said it keeps frost from killing cops. I was starting to wonder if frostbite was the leading cause of police fatalities.

  17. A Microwave people warmer by jimmydevice · · Score: 2, Informative

    was proposed in a 70's IEEE publication I read while killing time at the computer center help desk as a student.
    It was thought at that time that microwaves could be used safely to heat the occupants directly, without raising the
    ambient temperature. Apparently this idea did not fly after later scrutiny.

    1. Re:A Microwave people warmer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ha ha ha, oh wow.

      I can only imagine what the thought process of the person thinking that up was.

      "Man it's cold. I'm gonna go microwave something. WAIT A SECOND! Microwaves make things hot and the inside of the microwave stays not hot! Maybe I can use it on people to do the same thing!" Talk about stupid ideas...

      Next up comes using sandpaper to scratch itches, laser matches, nuclear bombs to kill cockroaches, and an external antenna to increase cellphone reception.

  18. I'm idealistic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    After looking at the body of a dead girl, slaughtered for the crime of going to school, I decided that wasn't happening to my daughters while I'm alive. The idealist bullshit here is nice, and I bought into it until I realized that the consequences would be slavery. Literally. War is a disgusting, brutal thing, but I now know why it's worth it.

    1. Re:I'm idealistic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      ...I fear you've gone too far and reached unrealistic pessimism. Unless the Middle East (probably including Israel) unifies under an extreme Muslim rule, and the U.S fails in every effort to destabilize such a government, and all of the U.S allies decided to not aid the U.S when said union attacks after spending several decades building up an industry that can oppose the U.S then maybe you're granddaughter would have to worry about not going to school.

      Also, while a death of a girl is a terrible thing, one must also contemplate how forceful invasions increases radicalism in any country. Or, to put it in an more emotional context, for every girl killed for trying to go to school, there will be another child who thinks such an act was necessary or even moral because the hatred of the U.S increased his/her parents fundamentalism. And if history has taught us anything, it's that the fundamentalists usually win.

    2. Re:I'm idealistic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's a clear implcation in your statement that you served in the military, probably in Iraq or Afghanistan. If so, thank you for your service.

  19. what's the impact on organisms? by bl8n8r · · Score: 1

    you know, bees, birds, ladybugs and other beneficial creatures. And how about soil biology? without healthy dirt, you end up dumping more chemicals on your food to get in to grow (nitrogen, etc). I'm not a PETA nut, hell I love bacon, but just wondering. If people run from that thing, everything in the orchard may too.

    --
    boycott slashdot February 10th - 17th check out: altSlashdot.org
    1. Re:what's the impact on organisms? by jack2000 · · Score: 1

      You do know you don't want flying and walking things in your orchard right?
      Also the cutoff area of effect is pretty sharp you can aim it so it doesn't affect the ground.
      Everything that's flying/walking around your fruit trees should probably not be doing that. And even if it did it'd leave the zone pretty fast.

    2. Re:what's the impact on organisms? by Securityemo · · Score: 1

      I doubt the microwaves would penetrate that far into soil, and it seems counterintuitive to construct a device that blankets a large area with microwaves instead of just sweeping the fruits once in a while.

      --
      Emotions! In your brain!
    3. Re:what's the impact on organisms? by Junta · · Score: 1

      Everything that's flying/walking around your fruit trees should probably not be doing that.

      You mean like the creatures that fly around and help your plants pollinate so they actually, you know, bear fruit? I guess the point could be made that this would only be used when frost was a risk and therefore no pollinating would be occurring anyway.

      --
      XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
    4. Re:what's the impact on organisms? by AxeTheMax · · Score: 1

      It's not just pollinating insects. Beneficial insects and arachnids (ladybirds and their larvae, all manner of spiders) as well as birds could be cooked. Only a millimetre penetration into human flesh is a small fraction of our total volume, we're big creatures and may just feel some pain, but a millimetre into an insect will probably kill it. This has all the potential that the catchall insecticides like DDT of previous decades had, to cause environmental devastation.

    5. Re:what's the impact on organisms? by jim_v2000 · · Score: 1

      Obviously the dead bugs act as fertilizer, right?

      --
      Don't take life so seriously. No one makes it out alive.
  20. Kids these days... by Heshler · · Score: 1

    This brings a whole new meaning to "get off my lawn!"

  21. Screw Godwin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    To paraphrase Freud, sometimes a Nazi is just a well-known example of some of the worst in the human race. As the extreme terminator of a range definition whose other end was "Greek Democracy", it sets an appropriate boundary

    There's Godwinism and there's False Godwinism.

    1. Re:Screw Godwin by kelleher · · Score: 1

      To paraphrase Freud, sometimes a Nazi is just a well-known example of some of the worst in the human race. As the extreme terminator of a range definition whose other end was "Greek Democracy", it sets an appropriate boundary

      There's Godwinism and there's False Godwinism.

      Greek Democracy... so now you're advocating slavery?

  22. Other weapons to adapt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wouldn't a nuclear explosion also warm the crops?

  23. Project Plowshare by handy_vandal · · Score: 2, Interesting

    1. I've read The Zap Gun (Dick's novel-length version of Project Plowshare ). The "plowsharing" metaphor is heavily ironic: "plowshared" consumer goods are useless, or purposeless, or trivial, or outright annoying -- e.g. there's a talking ashtray named "Ol' Orville", if memory serves.

    2. "Operation Plowshare, better known as Project Plowshare, not to be confused with the anti-nuclear Plowshares Movement, was the overall United States term for the development of techniques to use nuclear explosives for peaceful construction purposes."

    --
    -kgj
  24. Some people want to remain free? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Defense is required as long as people believe that it is moral to use force against someone else to take something they have. And as long as the insane in charge in some countries that will be the prevailing ideology for a long time.

    The short answer is that some people want to remain free and not slaves of others.

  25. islam = microsoft? by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

    Islam was primarily spread via traders. They'd go in to a principality and tell the local ruler that they'd cut them a discount if they converted.

    Even if that was true (and it's the first time I'd heard it), how do you think it got big enough that it had sufficient market power to abuse its monopoly in that way?

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    1. Re:islam = microsoft? by hedwards · · Score: 1

      That's kind of a straw man argument. Islam sprang up in the Middle East a part of the world where pretty much all the trade routes went through when trading between Europe and Asia and to a lesser extent Europe and Africa. Religion or no religion, the people who inhabited the Middle East were going to have a strong sway on that.

      There's never been a particularly strong case for them spreading by the sword. It's more sour grapes politics that many converted to Islam, very few converted from Islam. The main reason being that at it's core the religion is very well put together and considers what most people value. I myself was tempted to convert many years ago because of the appeal of the ethical system. It's hard not to appreciate the finesse that went into it.

    2. Re:islam = microsoft? by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      That's kind of a straw man argument.

      Saying that you made something up is a strawman argument?

      Islam sprang up in the Middle East a part of the world where pretty much all the trade routes went through when trading between Europe and Asia and to a lesser extent Europe and Africa. Religion or no religion, the people who inhabited the Middle East were going to have a strong sway on that.

      They already had religions. Why one over the others?

      So really there's no evidence for your previous assertion that islam spread as kind of a customs union/discount club.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    3. Re:islam = microsoft? by FuckingNickName · · Score: 1

      They already had religions. Why one over the others?

      As usual, it's more complex than "Muslims tried to take over the world".

      So brief, often uttered, and very wrong: Muslims converted by the sword.

      Very brief and somewhat misleading: Arabs took over a part of the world significant from a trading PoV, and Arabs happened to be Muslim. Trade influenced the remainder.

      Less brief: The early caliphs had no interest in converting the conquered. Indeed, in some areas relation with an Arab tribe was necessary for formal conversion. But over a century later, i.e. after 750 AD, voluntary conversions became apparent for a multitude of reasons: loss of former infrastructure; trading favours (including tax breaks); political multiculturalism: i.e. give the natives a say and they'll take an interest in what you have to offer; etc.

      Recall that Islam makes a vague effort to define the status of non-Muslims - although this has latterly been used to criticise Islam, it then ensured that non-Muslims received a degree of protection and respect, with specific fairly tolerant (by the standards of sharia) laws to handle their status. Islam has this big thing about "innovation", i.e. changing the religion to suit the whim of the times, and one of the ways this stuck was in respecting the dhimmi in a way that the Crusader didn't accept the heathen. It might have been convenient to use the excuse of using force to save the otherwise damned, but this wasn't how Islam spread.

      This was domination by Arabs, not imposition of Islam. You'll be hard-pressed to find evidence in the literature of mass forced conversions, and there is no evidence that even a sizeable minority was forced to convert.

    4. Re:islam = microsoft? by FuckingNickName · · Score: 1

      Islam has this big thing about "innovation",

      For "about" read "against" :-).

  26. Ctl+Alt+Del? by stewbacca · · Score: 1

    How do you reboot a frozen crop?

  27. Only in frost conditions by Overzeetop · · Score: 1

    Most "beneficial" insects are not active during frost periods - i.e. below freezing or near-freezing with clear night skies.

    --
    Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
    1. Re:Only in frost conditions by AxeTheMax · · Score: 1

      But they don't all have homes to go to, like some bees (not all) do.

  28. noun number by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    when you think about those questions try to consider from your own point of view. you've used few, they, their, them, and they'd, but honestly have you considered these questions from a personal perspective?

    captcha:equipped

  29. Morality has little to do with it by sjbe · · Score: 1

    why do people work for Raytheon? What sequence of moral thoughts goes through their heads?

    Just a few thoughts:

    • Feeding their families.
    • Protecting the nation and people like you. Someone has to design and make the weapons the soldiers use and no I don't agree that making weapons is inherently immoral.
    • Working on/with really interesting technology.
    • Raytheon does a lot of non-military work such as managing staffing at Antarctic research stations.
    • Working for Raytheon is voluntary and those who work there clearly are not bothered by Raytheon's business endeavors. In other words they don't see it as immoral. You might disagree but that doesn't make you right.

    ("To turns swords into ploughshares" is cynical nonsense, of course - why really? Is it just the money?)

    It's a business so of course it is mostly about money. Many technologies have civilian and military applications. Why not make some cash on the civilian side of the technology too? The social effects can often be bigger on the civilian side as well.

  30. Anonymous Coward by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So now they are going to torture the grapes? That can't be good for their flavor...

  31. "...you can do interesting engineering" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "...Raytheon...is a place where you can do interesting engineering" That I suspect is the main reason why there is a defence industry.

    It's great fun to work with technology which has a global reach and which can change the environment in an instant. Just a bit sad that people get a mashed up in the process. Still, worth it in the end. Wow, those lasers man, and get that thrust vector.

  32. Are the police really cold now? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I read the title as keeping frost from killing cops.

  33. Two for one! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Two for one! Deny the frost and as a bonus clear the illegals from the fields/orchards.

  34. Unintended consequences? by macraig · · Score: 1

    I predict this will have the unintended consequence of tripling crop damage by pests, as the microwaves also help keep them warm and toasty - and hungry - through the winter months. :-)

  35. I'm not a weapons contractor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    though I did have an idiot hippy friend in college who was convinced my degree path would inevitably lead to me making weapons and indirectly killing people. As far as I am concerned, the politician declaring the war or the soldier pulling the trigger is the one actually doing the killing. In the absence of weapons designers, we'd just be bludgeoning each other to death with clubs.

    Think of nuclear weapons. Are they terrible? Yes. But the military activities they've been used in so far were not significantly worse than what was being done with conventional weapons (Dresden, Tokyo) at the time. In the time since, we'd had a noticeable absence of the devastating wars that were the norm every 20 years or so when a new crop of young men was available.

    Furthermore, it can be argued that modern weapons greatly reduce the potential for collateral damage. More accurate bombs and bullets (in theory) lead to few civilian casualties. And though killing people from drones might seem inhumane, a transition to an all-drone force could make for a more humane war since the person pulling the trigger is in no danger, possibly allowing for more level-headed decisions.

  36. No organization is pure? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When I sub-contracted from Raytheon, my client was NASA's Earth Observing group - yes, the people responsible for first documenting that hole in the ozone layer and now providing the images of the spread of gulf oil. Not all clients are military and not all projects are evil.

  37. Well, there goes a little $$ off the trade defecit by krzysz00 · · Score: 1

    So, we're about to prevent $800+ million dollars of crop losses. Hey, maybe we can use the food we used to lose for export so we aren't that behind China on the whole export thing. Or, we could always the now slightly greater surplus to feed the poor and hungry.

  38. Active Denial System - versus - Lightning by DarkStarZumaBeach · · Score: 1

    Typically, frost forms on crops when a cold front comes through - and typically where cold air meets warm air - the atmosphere becomes charged.

    Now - it is known that holding a cell phone call in a lightning storm is a really bad idea - because the cell phone is a localized microwave source that can become the origin of a grounding path for lightning.

    An Active Denial System antenna array certainly has all the characteristics of generating a localized microwave source with about a ten million times more wattage than a cell phone.

    Perhaps, the really interesting question is: Can we use mobile ADS systems to DRIVE tornadoes away from large ground planes like mobile home parks, hi-voltage power lines, and tin-roofed warehouses and farm buildings?

    The idea would be to focus an array of ADS beams in a way to disrupt the downdraft side of a cumulus cloud by vaporizing water droplets and perhaps reduce the wind velocity that drives tornadic winds.

    If Raytheon can demonstrate even limited control of a tornado using a multi-unit ADS deployment, my bet is that the US insurance companies will be investing heavily to make sure that local national guard units have ten or twenty of the mobile ADS units fully networked and ready to roll by next year's tornado season.

    Why? Because simplification of chaos means higher storm wind velocities - and global warming is simplifying weather patterns across the US prairie, midwestern, and southeastern states. An ability to steer tornadoes could save lives and limit property damage - and that is something Raytheon could be proud to deliver.

    --
    DarkStarZumaBeachSurfinApocalypseWow
  39. COMPOST IS YOUR FRIEND by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If farmers took the time to heavily mulch around their crops they would find that frost damage was a very small problem. You can prove this yourself by sticking your hand into a compost heap. Hot isn't it???

  40. Don't cry for me Palestina, the truth is ... here! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    > an agricultural tool to prevent frost from damaging citrus and grape crops.

    Citrus sounds very much like kibbutz alibi produce. A kibbutz is a zionist-run military reserve training camp, disguised to look a collective agricultural farm, where actually judeo-fascist brainwashing takes place by way of hate-preaching rabbi.

    The zionist entity will import a lot of the innocent-badged Raytheon "agricultural rayguns" and give them to kibbutz-troopers to mass-disperse and torture occupied palestinians and steal even more of their land, worsening the ethnic cleansing situation.

    Nobody suffers more then the palestinians, said presidental hopeful Barack Obama. Then he met AIPAC and was made to clearly understand he will always remain presidental hopeful, unless he starts speaking the Holo vocabulary and forgets about the Holy Land arabs. He listened and became US president and Tel-Aviv is now more influential then ever before.

  41. Get Off My Lawn! by Alcoholist · · Score: 1

    No seriously! There's radiation!

    --
    Bibo Ergo Sum.