My point is, that the parent I replied to said all software benifits from more MHz, that's not true since not all software does benefit, somthings run just fine on slower machines.
Not sure that with gigahertz we got to enjoy the benefits. Word on my 233MHz G3 worked as well as it did on 800MHz G4 as it does on my 2x2GHz G5 and as well as it does on my 3.2GHz P4.
I really think in the "megahertz" race we didn't really enjoy the benefits in all areas of software. vi, emacs, text editor x don't really benifit from 3GHz over 333MHz. Someone who just pops open Word or Word Perfect and an email client doesn't benifit from something zoom zoom high GHz.
On that note, quite a few things on OS X work better for CPU/usage on a pair of slower CPUs than on one fast CPU.
"Hell, the same politicians who get on their high horse about prisoners in China used as slaves advocate exactly the same stuff here for American prisoners."
Really? So where do politicians in the United States talk in favor of organ harvesting, work camps, enprisonment of religious groups or slave labor?
Burial chamber made out of granite walls with some steel sheets between the granite layers. A nice dark granite, something from Spain maybe. Floor would be granite as well, polished smooth and then buffed so it's extra smooth, then covered with a couple thousand little ball bearing, just to mess with people walking in. There needs to be a mechanism so that after the tomb is breeched aerosol anthrax is delivered into the tomb, not sure of a power source to run this system, perhaps a RTG running off an isotope with a long half life.
"Depth of investigation varies from less than one meter in mineralogical clay soils like montmorillonite to more than 5,400 meters in polar ice. Depth of investigation increases with decreasing frequency but with decreasing resolution. Typical depths of investigation in fresh-water saturated, clay-free sands are about 30 meters. Depths of investigation (and resolution) are controlled by electrical properties through conduction losses, dielectric relaxation in water, electrochemical reactions at the mineralogical clay-water interface, scattering losses, and (rarely) magnetic relaxation losses in iron bearing minerals. Scattering losses are the result of spatial scales of heterogeneity approaching the size of the wavelength in the ground (like the difference between an ice cube and a snowball in scattering visible light). Detectability of objects in the ground depends upon their size, shape, and orientation relative to the antenna, contrast with the host medium, as well as radiofrequency noise and interferences. "
Urbanization and developed economies do a really good job of lowering birthrates. It's happened in the United States, Europe, Japan and is starting to happen in India. China's is dropping too, but that is more of a side effect because of government planning.
BS. There are alot of cancers "cured" in the last 50 years. I'm one of the people in whom a cancer was cured. I came down with Acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL), also known as acute lymphocytic leukemia, in the fall of 1980 with first symptoms discovered on Oct 16 1980. I was cured in October 1982, relapsed the same month, then finally cured in 1985.
In 1990-1991 I had an unrelated Lymphoma which was treated with drugs and surgery and cured by 1993.
I've had two cancers CURED, not just treated but CURED in the last 50 years.
There were dog fights in the first couple nights of Desert Storm over Iraq, during the opening phase of Allied Force over Serbia in 1999, the Bekka Valley in 1982 as well.
Often the rules of engagement will call for visual identification and at that range BVR systems are worthless, thats why the United States, EU, Russia and Israel all work on advanced visual range missiles and why everyone still trains for dog fighting.
You talk about this like a bridge being out with signs being in place either way. I don't see Global Climate Change as a disaster waiting to happen. It's a shift, the kind of shifts Humans and tens of thousands of other species lived with and through for tens of thousands of years. It's more like cancer, it could happen and be bad, it could happen and be treatable but we'll be sick for a while, it could happen and we won't be that sick, it might not ever happen. Rather than having two outcomes as your bridge being up or down, Global Climate Change has many possible outcomes, not all of them terrible.
We all are at different risks for cancer and heart disease. Does that mean we stop every single thing that lowers that risk? Of course we don't, we come in contact with carcinogens every day, even a recluse living in a cave somewhere will come in contact with a carcinogen. We continue to come in contact with them, dispite the risk, because we are ignorant, don't care, will take the chance.
Now then, on the "wisest course", how is crippling the economic output of the planet and throwing the entire World into serious recession or worse "wise"? If we are goinng to cut back on carbon emissions until we "know for sure", who is going to get China and India to cut back thiers? A harshly worded letter from the UN?
We are not "filling the atmosphere with record levels of carbon simply because it's better for the bottom lines of influential companies." We are filling the atmosphere with record levels of carbon because the Global Economy runs on carbon and our economies are expanding. Lets say the Global Economy has expanded 3% a year since Kyoto in 1990, that's a very conservative figure, so to roll back to 1990 levels we have to cut around 50% of the GDP of all the Industrialized and Industrializing nations.
When we talk about conservation of power many point at large cars and trucks and go "it's the SUVs stupid!" Then when they go home they wake the display up on thier PC which has been drawing 600+ watts running the SETI@Home Client all weekend just like the 200 PCs at work which never turn off. To roll back Carbon emissions will take cuts beyond getting a Prius and turning off lights.
The blaming Bush thing I know is cool and fun, but the United States Senate told the Clinton Administration 99-0 that Kyoto wasn't doable in the United States because of the economic costs, so really any CO2 emissions control system that will cost tax revenue, jobs and votes is dead in the Senate. People like to say W is sticking his head in the sand, but the political reality is that in the United States 100 Senators have to vote on this, 1/3rd of them are up for election every two years and they don't want to stick thier necks out on the line for Kyoto or Global Warming.
If we are only looking at the last 100,000 years for a clue as to climatic change then we aren't looking at the entire climatic history of the Planet, we are looking at 1/2520th of the climatic history of the Earth since the PT event. Do we know what happened during the other 251,900,000 years? Do we know what the Sun did? Nope.
Why are some of the other planets in the Solar System under observation also warming at the similar rates as the Earth?
Either planets under go cyclical actions which we don't understand yet, with the Earth and Mars warming while the equitorial region of Jupiter warming while the poles cool, or something is effecting the planets at the same time (Solar) or it's all a crazy coincidence.
Personally, I think it's Solar activity, likely a long term variability in the Sun we don't understand yet. Or pirates and the FSM.
That makes too much sense and it absolves Capitalism and the United States from guilt. There is no room in the Global Climate Change arguement for past climatic shifts or any evidence of the Sun rising in output or cyclical events.
"At least 10 to 30 percent of global warming measured during the past two decades may be due to increased solar output rather than factors such as increased heat-absorbing carbon dioxide gas released by various human activities, two Duke University physicists report.
The physicists said that their findings indicate that climate models of global warming need to be corrected for the effects of changes in solar activity. However, they emphasized that their findings do not argue against the basic theory that significant global warming is occurring because of carbon dioxide and other "greenhouse" gases."
Nope, we can't talk in this arguement about how the planet's climate has shifted in the past, but must blame the US, George W. Bush and/or Capitalism for Global Warming.
So the folks from all over the lower-48 that give a rat's ass about celebrity move to Hell A or NYC. Then the coasts get filled with them over the years as they leave SoCal, but like the lifestyle, etc. So then California, NYC metro area, Portland, Seattle get some of them. While the rest of the country continues to go...Meh when they see someone famous. Hell I got starstruck when I was at a booksigning for a academic I'm a fan of, but seeing someone really famous is...hey...isn't that that one guy...
I'm from a "Flyover State", South Dakota, western South Dakota too, where the people from the populated parts of South Dakota flyover. It ain't us who go gaga over celebrities, its the people from the "cool" parts of the Country like the coasts who go gaga over the celebrities.
http://www.astronautix.com/engines/ssme.htm Manufacturer Name: RS-24. Designer: Rocketdyne. Developed in: 1972. Application: . Propellants: Lox/LH2 Thrust(vac): 232,301 kgf. Thrust(vac): 2,278.00 kN. Isp: 453 sec. Isp (sea level): 363 sec. Burn time: 480 sec. Mass Engine: 3,177 kg. Diameter: 1.63 m. Length: 4.24 m. Chambers: 1. Chamber Pressure: 204.08 bar. Area Ratio: 77.5. Oxidizer to Fuel Ratio: 6. Thrust to Weight Ratio: 73.1197829645898. Country: USA. Status: In Production. First Flight: 1981. Last Flight: 1998. Flown: 279 . Comments: Used in Shuttle Orbiter. Space Shuttle Main Engine. Staged combustion, pump-fed. Originaly specification was vacuum specific impulse of 455, but not achieved in the final design.
http://www.astronautix.com/engines/j2.htm Manufacturer Name: J-2. Designer: Rocketdyne. Developed in: 1960. Application: . Propellants: Lox/LH2 Thrust(vac): 105,352 kgf. Thrust(vac): 1,033.10 kN. Isp: 421 sec. Isp (sea level): 200 sec. Burn time: 475 sec. Mass Engine: 1,438 kg. Diameter: 2.01 m. Length: 3.38 m. Chambers: 1. Chamber Pressure: 30.00 bar. Area Ratio: 28. Oxidizer to Fuel Ratio: 5.5. Thrust to Weight Ratio: 73.1801112656467. Country: USA. Status: Out of Production. First Flight: 1966. Last Flight: 1975. Flown: 87. Used in Saturn IVB stage in Saturn IB and Saturn V, and Saturn II stage in Saturn V. Specific impulse and thrust is for final flight version; J-2 had a specific impulse of 418 sec/thrust of 90,700 kgf/mix ratio of 5.00 on LV's SA-201 through 203, and 419 sec/thrust of 102,040 kgf on SA-204 through 207 and SA-501 to 503. Sea level versions with reduced expansion ratio proposed for Saturn II first stage use. Upgraded toroidal aerospike versions (J-2T-200K and J-2T-250K) studies for upgrades to Saturn upper stages. Modestly improved J-2S was tested and provides basis for X-33 linear aerospike engine thirty years later. Proposed for use in Nova A-2; Saturn IVB; Nova NASA-3; Nova B-2; Saturn II; Jarvis-2; Saturn MS-II-1; Saturn S-II-8; Saturn S-IVC; Nova 60-8-3; Saturn S-II-C3; Saturn S-II-4; Saturn S-II. Saturn V S-ll & S-IVB Stage Engines, Saturn IB S-IVB. Upper Stage Engine. Gas generator, pump-fed.
Thier thrust to weight ratios are similar with the J-2 capable of a longer burn
The study's results has also been criticized for being inconsistent with other estimates, such as a statement by the Iraqi Ministry of Health, which estimated 3,853 civilian deaths between April and October based on hospital records. The Iraq Body Count project also gives a much lower figure for Iraqi deaths. A written Ministerial Statement (17 November 2004) by the UK government stated "the Government does not accept its [the study's] central conclusion" for these reasons, mentioning both of these studies
Yea, I said up at the start that we weren't doing the math of it, but just looking at technology. So my math is right on because we aren't using the variable which includes bodies, but hey, I can't sleep so lets look at your arguement.
"For every person with artificial limbs there's loads more people killed by the `advances` in the fighting of war."
That was true from 1860 (American Civil War) through 1975 (end of Vietnam War), but actually wars fought with higher technology have lead to fewer casualties over all and in some instances like the Great Plains Indian Wars, better weapons did not lead to higher casualties.
http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat1.htm Second World War (1937-45): 55 000 000, then 1.8 million in Korea, 1.2 million in Vietnam, 70,000 Arab-Israeli Wars, 30-200,00 Gulf War 1991, 30-45,000 Iraq 2003-now 8-25,000 Afghanistan 2001-now
Advances in technology, like between Desert Storm and Operation Iraqi Freedom didn't lead to more deaths, it lead to fewer deaths. As systems become more capable of destroying a target with one warhead or charge there will be fewer casualties. In Vietnam and World War II a soldier was trained to just hose an area down with machine gun and automatic weapons fire, now zeroed rifles with tactical sights have replaced that tactic with controled aimed shots and bursts with rifles rather than hosing the target.
Operation Anaconda illustrates the change, in Vietnam or Desert Storm, B-52s would have carpet bombed targets, now they lay down one or two JDAMs, rather than Snake-eye bombing a bunch of caves, F-16s will use laser guilded bombs.
Yea, I'll take that stance. We knew about turbines for aviation since around the first century CE. The patent for a stationary turbine was granted to John Barber in England in 1791. The earliest attempts at jet engines were hybrid designs in which an external power source supplied the compression. Then the first gas turbine to successfully run self-sustaining was built in 1903 by Norwegian engineer Aegidius Elling. The first patents for jet propulsion were issued in 1917.
All this work took place and it was not really worked on for aviation until Frank Whittle and Hans von Ohain worked on it for military applications. We knew about it for nearly one thousand years and it there was practical metallurgy from the 1920s on, no civilian projects were undertaken, only military. The Second World War and then the Cold War accelerated development, so yea military spending contributed the initial push and alot of the additional R&D for engines.
The United States understood a need for a large scale highway network as early as 1919, however it wasn't funded and built until the strategic military need for it was understood.
Private enterprise is for the most part, very conservative about new technologies. The development of larger ships during the Age of Sail didn't come about because of trade, but because of military applications. The Panama Canal was a pipe dream until the United States understood the strategic need to move ships between the Atlantic and Pacific during the Spanish American War when the USS Oregon went from Cuba to Manilia via the Horn, after that we literally moved mountains to get a canal done. Likewise the Suez came about because the British needed a short cut to India.
As a military historian, I don't think the arguement can be made that "at we are spending absolutely humongous gobs of money on something that, in my view, has zero benefit to the American people" either from a political, military or technology point of view.
I will focus on the technological point of view here because the political and military sides...hell we all know that'll jsut cause yelling:)
Military spending, in the West since 1900 has had positive outcomes technologically in the long run. Yea, poison gas, nuclear bombs, machine guns all killed people. But GPS, centimeter to millimeter wave radar, Doppler radar, composite aircraft materials, advanced avionics, LORAN, battlefield medicine, advanced metalurgy, the Internet, distributed communication networks, accelerated 3D graphics, nuclear power, light weight jet and gas turbines are just some of the technologies either spawned from defense spending or directly from war.
We use this every day, in the early 80s, what spawned the increase in computing power and graphics? It wasn't the hobby PC market and it wasn't the business world, the technologies to ramp up computing power were directly funded by DoD and Intelligence budgets, the KGB Archives talks about this as an example of when the West started to outstrip the USSR/Comintern.
And spending right now for the Global War on Terror is pushing the development of new technologies and more advanced systems. For example, gun shot wounds and injuries in combat. Vietnam pushed the development of the last generation of artificial limbs and this war is pushing the adaptation of new technologies as the standard. There are many more soldiers surviving wounds in Iraq and Afghanistan than in combat in Vietnam or the Second World War, new treatments and techniques are being developed and proven which will also work thier way into civilian medicine just as civilian gunshot treatments worked thier way into military treatments.
It is sad that things like artificial limbs, blood extenders, advanced sensors require military funding to move into a generation, but that is the reality of life. If the Feds say, "we need new artifical limbs for the public", there will be 15 years of talking about before anything moves, like when we started talking about HDTV, but if the DoD needs something, they will throw the money out and something will get done.
As for taking money away from military contractors, it's just another form of State support for engineering and practical sciences, why not spend the money? Without military contractors we'd not have turbofan powered 777s, we'd not have the Interstate Highway System, we'd not have CT scanners.
It's said a number of places that they were thier strongest around 1500-1515 based on economy and military. So yea I think they were in a decline, like the United States was on a decline in the late 1960s and early 1970s. The Spanish showing up and being successful is in part to the decline, but I think more, it was because the Aztecs had been complete bastards to most of the other folks living in the region and when they needed allies, no one came to thier aid.
All of this said, I really don't think Cortes came to Mexico to make slaves out of them, but he understood thier technology and strength and had the diseases not swept into the area and killed all those people, Spain would have been stronger than they ended up being.
Thats what my research was about this fall actually. Guns Germs and Steel doesn't do a good job of covering it I don't think, Victor Davis Hanson does a better job, and I'll sum my findings up.
First, the Spanish used Combined Arms Tactics in the war and they got thier Indian Allies to modify thier tactics to fit the Combined Arms model. For example, the Roman Legion was notionally a unit of heavy infantrymen, but it was normally fielded with integral or attached skirmishers, and some legions even incorporated a small cavalry unit. The legion was sometimes also incorporated into a higher-echelon combined arms unit, at some times it was customary for a general to command two legions plus two similarly sized units of auxiliaries, lighter units useful as screens or for combat in rough terrain. At the battle of Seminara in 1495 a force of massed sword and short spear wielding Spanish faced a Swiss force with 18 foot pikes who fought much like the Greeks had in 300 BCE and the Swiss were able to handily defeat the Spanish. By 1503 the Spanish had retooled their military formations along the lines of a modern Roman Legion with pikemen, crossbowmen and guns, swordsmen. The Pikemen established a front or perimeter while the crossbows and guns would fire in massed volleys (a technique which would last for over 500 years) to create voids in the enemy line into which the groups of swordsmen would charge to exploit the gaps and kill more enemies with their long swords. The creation of a three row combined arms force not only allowed unit flexibility in dealing with different types of enemy units, but also allowed the line to roll up into a square and defend against enemy attacks from any side, a tactic that would be used well into the 20th century. Squares of infantry against swarming groups of indigenous armies were nearly unbeatable in the Americas, Asia, and Africa.
Beyond that, the Spanish had better leadership in Cortés, López, and Marina who illustrate what today would be considered "outside of the box thinking" many times during the campaign and offer three leaders who reflect the actions and abilities of the many others involved from the Expedition. From the sailors, soldiers, horsemen to the craftsmen and the natives who joined in the destruction, the Spanish and their Allies show a great degree of leadership and organization militarily than do the Aztecs.
The Spanish force was well organized and despite some issues during the flight from Valley of Mexico adapted very well to the new environment. The Spanish adopted local cotton armor quickly as well as engineering warships in the middle of Mexico away from bodies of water. Supplies and reinforcements continued to pour into the campaign for the Spanish from near and afar. In the middle of the fighting on a number of occasions, the Spanish were able to split their forces to deal with threats on the periphery of the theatre and operate the detached elements as effectively as the main force under Cortés.
Spanish steel, crossbows, firearms, and warships cannot be ignored, however the guns and steel portion of the Guns, Germs, and Steel argument of inevitability of European ascendancy due to geography and biology does not answer everything. At an engineering level the Valley of Mexico was an amazing accomplishment without pack animals and likely without rival in Europe and perhaps the world in 1519. However, the Europeans had developed better naval technology and metallurgy than the Americas did and this did have an impact on the campaign. Without Caravels and navigation, the Spanish would not have landed in Central America. In the 15th and 16th centuries, the only known societies capable of projecting power across the Atlantic or Pacific were the Western Europeans and Chinese. No Aztec force would have appeared in Spain because of this disparity in technology.
The Aztecs had superior civil engineering to support large populations and logistical networks to support these populations. In addition, the Aztecs did have superior edg
That's the context I was quoting it in regards to Slavery. As documents which illustrate folks attitudes towards slavery in societies that aren't the United States from 1789-1865.
As for your comment, "If it wasn't for the "we are superiour and divine" attitude preached by these books, slavery would likely never have happened." I don't think that is true nor can it be defended nor can it be blamed on Religion. Look at the Romans, they kept slaves for economic reasons, not religious or "nationalistic" reasons. Same with the Spartans, other Greek states, Persians, Aztecs, Mayan, etc.
Religion simply codified the rules for keeping slaves in the Middle East from oh, 3000 BCE to say 1900 CE*
*Not sure when slavery in the Ottoman Empire, Middle East or North Africa really ended.
They lend a helping hand to what they are interested in.
They oppose the death penalty, which has been declared constitutional by the Supreme Court of the United States since 1976. They have attempted to keep people from getting political asylum in the United States. They are offically neutral on Gun Rights, but for the most part will not take part in gun ownership cases in which someone is defending thier right to keep and bare arms. They pretty much want all references to religon removed from the government, all the way to suring to have cities remove Crosses from seals or flags.
In 2004, for example, the ACLU of Southern California (ACLU/SC) threatened to sue the city of Redlands, California if it did not remove a picture of a cross from the city's seal. The ACLU/SC argued that having a cross on the seal amounted to a government-sponsored endorsement of Christianity and violated separation of church and state.
I'm shocked they haven't sued to get LA"s name changed. El Rio de Nuestra Señora la Reina de los Ángeles de Porciúncula, The River of Our Lady the Queen of the Angels of the Porciuncula. Since it has references to Christanity in it.
I'm a military historian working on my Masters and one of my areas of study is the American West 1865-1890 and from that I've looked alot at the Cortes Expedition, in fact I just spent a term working on a paper comparing and contrasting the militaries of the Aztecs to the Spanish.
The Expedition did kill alot of nobles and military leaders, once in a, maybe, unprovoked attack on the Temple of the Moon during a High Holy day and then alot of others were killed during the following responses at the Palace of Axayactl, Cortes's relief and escape and the Battle of Otumba in 1520 and then in the fighting of 1521.
Since the leadership of the Aztecs and other nations in the region lead from the front so to speak, the decapitation of the ruling families and thier destruction largely came about on the field of battle in 1520 and 1521. The sack of Tenochtitlán in 1521 really was the only time there was torturing and murder by the Spanish and thier allies in the conflict. Most of the Aztec, Tepeacan and other allied leaders were lost in the field before the illnesses and murders during the sack.
Recall that during the period following the retreat of the Spanish and Tlaxcalan from Tenochtitlán envoys from the Aztecs tried to pull the Tlaxcalan leaders into an alliance, however the severity of the Aztec relations with their neighbors trumped the Aztec called for unity in the face of invasion by outsiders even though the Tlaxcalan and Aztecs shared ancestry and gods. The Aztecs apparently treated others in the region so poorly that the Tlaxcalans would not come to thier aid even though they had a history togeather.
Thanks, I know everyone was involved but even in Middle Eastern Studies when it comes to Islamic Slave Trade the most you see or hear is, "they had slaves" or "and these people are decended from slaves". And if pressed a professor or speaker will say, "Yes but the United States was worse."
When it's American History slavery gets alot of attention, when it's the Middle East it's brushed aside.
And, slavery is called for in the Bible and Koran
Sura 2 Verse 178
2.178: O you who believe! retaliation is prescribed for you in the matter of the slain, the free for the free, and the slave for the slave, and the female for the female, but if any remission is made to any one by his (aggrieved) brother, then prosecution (for the bloodwit) should be made according to usage, and payment should be made to him in a good manner; this is an alleviation from your Lord and a mercy; so whoever exceeds the limit after this he shall have a painful chastisement."
"Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids" (Leviticus 25:44)
"Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession. And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen for ever" (Leviticus 25:44-46)
Yea, I got two quotes from the Bible, I'm not as up on my Koran as I am on my Old Testament.
Slashdot Mirror
My point is, that the parent I replied to said all software benifits from more MHz, that's not true since not all software does benefit, somthings run just fine on slower machines.
Not sure that with gigahertz we got to enjoy the benefits. Word on my 233MHz G3 worked as well as it did on 800MHz G4 as it does on my 2x2GHz G5 and as well as it does on my 3.2GHz P4.
I really think in the "megahertz" race we didn't really enjoy the benefits in all areas of software. vi, emacs, text editor x don't really benifit from 3GHz over 333MHz. Someone who just pops open Word or Word Perfect and an email client doesn't benifit from something zoom zoom high GHz.
On that note, quite a few things on OS X work better for CPU/usage on a pair of slower CPUs than on one fast CPU.
"Hell, the same politicians who get on their high horse about prisoners in China used as slaves advocate exactly the same stuff here for American prisoners."
Really? So where do politicians in the United States talk in favor of organ harvesting, work camps, enprisonment of religious groups or slave labor?
Burial chamber made out of granite walls with some steel sheets between the granite layers. A nice dark granite, something from Spain maybe. Floor would be granite as well, polished smooth and then buffed so it's extra smooth, then covered with a couple thousand little ball bearing, just to mess with people walking in. There needs to be a mechanism so that after the tomb is breeched aerosol anthrax is delivered into the tomb, not sure of a power source to run this system, perhaps a RTG running off an isotope with a long half life.
Yea, GPR isn't a magic bullet for this stuff because of soil variations, rubble, etc. Kind of like how differences in the water can effect SONAR.
Here is an ugly site that seems to have some interesting stuff about GPR
http://www.g-p-r.com/
"Depth of investigation varies from less than one meter in mineralogical clay soils like montmorillonite to more than 5,400 meters in polar ice. Depth of investigation increases with decreasing frequency but with decreasing resolution. Typical depths of investigation in fresh-water saturated, clay-free sands are about 30 meters. Depths of investigation (and resolution) are controlled by electrical properties through conduction losses, dielectric relaxation in water, electrochemical reactions at the mineralogical clay-water interface, scattering losses, and (rarely) magnetic relaxation losses in iron bearing minerals. Scattering losses are the result of spatial scales of heterogeneity approaching the size of the wavelength in the ground (like the difference between an ice cube and a snowball in scattering visible light). Detectability of objects in the ground depends upon their size, shape, and orientation relative to the antenna, contrast with the host medium, as well as radiofrequency noise and interferences. "
Urbanization and developed economies do a really good job of lowering birthrates. It's happened in the United States, Europe, Japan and is starting to happen in India. China's is dropping too, but that is more of a side effect because of government planning.
BS. There are alot of cancers "cured" in the last 50 years. I'm one of the people in whom a cancer was cured. I came down with Acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL), also known as acute lymphocytic leukemia, in the fall of 1980 with first symptoms discovered on Oct 16 1980. I was cured in October 1982, relapsed the same month, then finally cured in 1985.
In 1990-1991 I had an unrelated Lymphoma which was treated with drugs and surgery and cured by 1993.
I've had two cancers CURED, not just treated but CURED in the last 50 years.
There were dog fights in the first couple nights of Desert Storm over Iraq, during the opening phase of Allied Force over Serbia in 1999, the Bekka Valley in 1982 as well.
Often the rules of engagement will call for visual identification and at that range BVR systems are worthless, thats why the United States, EU, Russia and Israel all work on advanced visual range missiles and why everyone still trains for dog fighting.
You talk about this like a bridge being out with signs being in place either way. I don't see Global Climate Change as a disaster waiting to happen. It's a shift, the kind of shifts Humans and tens of thousands of other species lived with and through for tens of thousands of years. It's more like cancer, it could happen and be bad, it could happen and be treatable but we'll be sick for a while, it could happen and we won't be that sick, it might not ever happen. Rather than having two outcomes as your bridge being up or down, Global Climate Change has many possible outcomes, not all of them terrible.
We all are at different risks for cancer and heart disease. Does that mean we stop every single thing that lowers that risk? Of course we don't, we come in contact with carcinogens every day, even a recluse living in a cave somewhere will come in contact with a carcinogen. We continue to come in contact with them, dispite the risk, because we are ignorant, don't care, will take the chance.
Now then, on the "wisest course", how is crippling the economic output of the planet and throwing the entire World into serious recession or worse "wise"? If we are goinng to cut back on carbon emissions until we "know for sure", who is going to get China and India to cut back thiers? A harshly worded letter from the UN?
We are not "filling the atmosphere with record levels of carbon simply because it's better for the bottom lines of influential companies." We are filling the atmosphere with record levels of carbon because the Global Economy runs on carbon and our economies are expanding. Lets say the Global Economy has expanded 3% a year since Kyoto in 1990, that's a very conservative figure, so to roll back to 1990 levels we have to cut around 50% of the GDP of all the Industrialized and Industrializing nations.
When we talk about conservation of power many point at large cars and trucks and go "it's the SUVs stupid!" Then when they go home they wake the display up on thier PC which has been drawing 600+ watts running the SETI@Home Client all weekend just like the 200 PCs at work which never turn off. To roll back Carbon emissions will take cuts beyond getting a Prius and turning off lights.
A couple quick points.
e _031208.html0 4/21_jupiter.shtml
The blaming Bush thing I know is cool and fun, but the United States Senate told the Clinton Administration 99-0 that Kyoto wasn't doable in the United States because of the economic costs, so really any CO2 emissions control system that will cost tax revenue, jobs and votes is dead in the Senate. People like to say W is sticking his head in the sand, but the political reality is that in the United States 100 Senators have to vote on this, 1/3rd of them are up for election every two years and they don't want to stick thier necks out on the line for Kyoto or Global Warming.
If we are only looking at the last 100,000 years for a clue as to climatic change then we aren't looking at the entire climatic history of the Planet, we are looking at 1/2520th of the climatic history of the Earth since the PT event. Do we know what happened during the other 251,900,000 years? Do we know what the Sun did? Nope.
Why are some of the other planets in the Solar System under observation also warming at the similar rates as the Earth?
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/mars_ice-ag
http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2004/
Either planets under go cyclical actions which we don't understand yet, with the Earth and Mars warming while the equitorial region of Jupiter warming while the poles cool, or something is effecting the planets at the same time (Solar) or it's all a crazy coincidence.
Personally, I think it's Solar activity, likely a long term variability in the Sun we don't understand yet. Or pirates and the FSM.
That makes too much sense and it absolves Capitalism and the United States from guilt. There is no room in the Global Climate Change arguement for past climatic shifts or any evidence of the Sun rising in output or cyclical events.
e s/ApJL/v549n1/005748/005748.web.pdf_ variationo n#Pleistocene_glacial_cycles
"At least 10 to 30 percent of global warming measured during the past two decades may be due to increased solar output rather than factors such as increased heat-absorbing carbon dioxide gas released by various human activities, two Duke University physicists report.
The physicists said that their findings indicate that climate models of global warming need to be corrected for the effects of changes in solar activity. However, they emphasized that their findings do not argue against the basic theory that significant global warming is occurring because of carbon dioxide and other "greenhouse" gases."
http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/ApJ/journal/issu
http://news.mongabay.com/2005/1001-duke.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change#Solar
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_glaciati
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Younger_Dryas
Nope, we can't talk in this arguement about how the planet's climate has shifted in the past, but must blame the US, George W. Bush and/or Capitalism for Global Warming.
Actually I was thinking about that as I posted.
So the folks from all over the lower-48 that give a rat's ass about celebrity move to Hell A or NYC. Then the coasts get filled with them over the years as they leave SoCal, but like the lifestyle, etc. So then California, NYC metro area, Portland, Seattle get some of them. While the rest of the country continues to go...Meh when they see someone famous. Hell I got starstruck when I was at a booksigning for a academic I'm a fan of, but seeing someone really famous is...hey...isn't that that one guy...
Fly over states?
I'm from a "Flyover State", South Dakota, western South Dakota too, where the people from the populated parts of South Dakota flyover. It ain't us who go gaga over celebrities, its the people from the "cool" parts of the Country like the coasts who go gaga over the celebrities.
Not sure how much "less-efficent" the J-2 is.
http://www.astronautix.com/engines/ssme.htm
Manufacturer Name: RS-24. Designer: Rocketdyne. Developed in: 1972. Application: . Propellants: Lox/LH2 Thrust(vac): 232,301 kgf. Thrust(vac): 2,278.00 kN. Isp: 453 sec. Isp (sea level): 363 sec. Burn time: 480 sec. Mass Engine: 3,177 kg. Diameter: 1.63 m. Length: 4.24 m. Chambers: 1. Chamber Pressure: 204.08 bar. Area Ratio: 77.5. Oxidizer to Fuel Ratio: 6. Thrust to Weight Ratio: 73.1197829645898. Country: USA. Status: In Production. First Flight: 1981. Last Flight: 1998. Flown: 279 . Comments: Used in Shuttle Orbiter. Space Shuttle Main Engine. Staged combustion, pump-fed. Originaly specification was vacuum specific impulse of 455, but not achieved in the final design.
http://www.astronautix.com/engines/j2.htm
Manufacturer Name: J-2. Designer: Rocketdyne. Developed in: 1960. Application: . Propellants: Lox/LH2 Thrust(vac): 105,352 kgf. Thrust(vac): 1,033.10 kN. Isp: 421 sec. Isp (sea level): 200 sec. Burn time: 475 sec. Mass Engine: 1,438 kg. Diameter: 2.01 m. Length: 3.38 m. Chambers: 1. Chamber Pressure: 30.00 bar. Area Ratio: 28. Oxidizer to Fuel Ratio: 5.5. Thrust to Weight Ratio: 73.1801112656467. Country: USA. Status: Out of Production. First Flight: 1966. Last Flight: 1975. Flown: 87.
Used in Saturn IVB stage in Saturn IB and Saturn V, and Saturn II stage in Saturn V. Specific impulse and thrust is for final flight version; J-2 had a specific impulse of 418 sec/thrust of 90,700 kgf/mix ratio of 5.00 on LV's SA-201 through 203, and 419 sec/thrust of 102,040 kgf on SA-204 through 207 and SA-501 to 503. Sea level versions with reduced expansion ratio proposed for Saturn II first stage use. Upgraded toroidal aerospike versions (J-2T-200K and J-2T-250K) studies for upgrades to Saturn upper stages. Modestly improved J-2S was tested and provides basis for X-33 linear aerospike engine thirty years later. Proposed for use in Nova A-2; Saturn IVB; Nova NASA-3; Nova B-2; Saturn II; Jarvis-2; Saturn MS-II-1; Saturn S-II-8; Saturn S-IVC; Nova 60-8-3; Saturn S-II-C3; Saturn S-II-4; Saturn S-II. Saturn V S-ll & S-IVB Stage Engines, Saturn IB S-IVB. Upper Stage Engine. Gas generator, pump-fed.
Thier thrust to weight ratios are similar with the J-2 capable of a longer burn
Folks other than the US and UK governments wonder about the Lancet's numbers.
? story_id=3352814
http://www.economist.com/science/displayStory.cfm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_war_casualties
The study's results has also been criticized for being inconsistent with other estimates, such as a statement by the Iraqi Ministry of Health, which estimated 3,853 civilian deaths between April and October based on hospital records. The Iraq Body Count project also gives a much lower figure for Iraqi deaths. A written Ministerial Statement (17 November 2004) by the UK government stated "the Government does not accept its [the study's] central conclusion" for these reasons, mentioning both of these studies
Yea, I said up at the start that we weren't doing the math of it, but just looking at technology. So my math is right on because we aren't using the variable which includes bodies, but hey, I can't sleep so lets look at your arguement.
"For every person with artificial limbs there's loads more people killed by the `advances` in the fighting of war."
That was true from 1860 (American Civil War) through 1975 (end of Vietnam War), but actually wars fought with higher technology have lead to fewer casualties over all and in some instances like the Great Plains Indian Wars, better weapons did not lead to higher casualties.
http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat1.htm
Second World War (1937-45): 55 000 000, then 1.8 million in Korea, 1.2 million in Vietnam, 70,000 Arab-Israeli Wars, 30-200,00 Gulf War 1991, 30-45,000 Iraq 2003-now 8-25,000 Afghanistan 2001-now
Advances in technology, like between Desert Storm and Operation Iraqi Freedom didn't lead to more deaths, it lead to fewer deaths. As systems become more capable of destroying a target with one warhead or charge there will be fewer casualties. In Vietnam and World War II a soldier was trained to just hose an area down with machine gun and automatic weapons fire, now zeroed rifles with tactical sights have replaced that tactic with controled aimed shots and bursts with rifles rather than hosing the target.
Operation Anaconda illustrates the change, in Vietnam or Desert Storm, B-52s would have carpet bombed targets, now they lay down one or two JDAMs, rather than Snake-eye bombing a bunch of caves, F-16s will use laser guilded bombs.
Yea, I'll take that stance. We knew about turbines for aviation since around the first century CE. The patent for a stationary turbine was granted to John Barber in England in 1791. The earliest attempts at jet engines were hybrid designs in which an external power source supplied the compression. Then the first gas turbine to successfully run self-sustaining was built in 1903 by Norwegian engineer Aegidius Elling. The first patents for jet propulsion were issued in 1917.
All this work took place and it was not really worked on for aviation until Frank Whittle and Hans von Ohain worked on it for military applications. We knew about it for nearly one thousand years and it there was practical metallurgy from the 1920s on, no civilian projects were undertaken, only military. The Second World War and then the Cold War accelerated development, so yea military spending contributed the initial push and alot of the additional R&D for engines.
The United States understood a need for a large scale highway network as early as 1919, however it wasn't funded and built until the strategic military need for it was understood.
Private enterprise is for the most part, very conservative about new technologies. The development of larger ships during the Age of Sail didn't come about because of trade, but because of military applications. The Panama Canal was a pipe dream until the United States understood the strategic need to move ships between the Atlantic and Pacific during the Spanish American War when the USS Oregon went from Cuba to Manilia via the Horn, after that we literally moved mountains to get a canal done. Likewise the Suez came about because the British needed a short cut to India.
As a military historian, I don't think the arguement can be made that "at we are spending absolutely humongous gobs of money on something that, in my view, has zero benefit to the American people" either from a political, military or technology point of view.
:)
I will focus on the technological point of view here because the political and military sides...hell we all know that'll jsut cause yelling
Military spending, in the West since 1900 has had positive outcomes technologically in the long run. Yea, poison gas, nuclear bombs, machine guns all killed people. But GPS, centimeter to millimeter wave radar, Doppler radar, composite aircraft materials, advanced avionics, LORAN, battlefield medicine, advanced metalurgy, the Internet, distributed communication networks, accelerated 3D graphics, nuclear power, light weight jet and gas turbines are just some of the technologies either spawned from defense spending or directly from war.
We use this every day, in the early 80s, what spawned the increase in computing power and graphics? It wasn't the hobby PC market and it wasn't the business world, the technologies to ramp up computing power were directly funded by DoD and Intelligence budgets, the KGB Archives talks about this as an example of when the West started to outstrip the USSR/Comintern.
And spending right now for the Global War on Terror is pushing the development of new technologies and more advanced systems. For example, gun shot wounds and injuries in combat. Vietnam pushed the development of the last generation of artificial limbs and this war is pushing the adaptation of new technologies as the standard. There are many more soldiers surviving wounds in Iraq and Afghanistan than in combat in Vietnam or the Second World War, new treatments and techniques are being developed and proven which will also work thier way into civilian medicine just as civilian gunshot treatments worked thier way into military treatments.
It is sad that things like artificial limbs, blood extenders, advanced sensors require military funding to move into a generation, but that is the reality of life. If the Feds say, "we need new artifical limbs for the public", there will be 15 years of talking about before anything moves, like when we started talking about HDTV, but if the DoD needs something, they will throw the money out and something will get done.
As for taking money away from military contractors, it's just another form of State support for engineering and practical sciences, why not spend the money? Without military contractors we'd not have turbofan powered 777s, we'd not have the Interstate Highway System, we'd not have CT scanners.
It's said a number of places that they were thier strongest around 1500-1515 based on economy and military. So yea I think they were in a decline, like the United States was on a decline in the late 1960s and early 1970s. The Spanish showing up and being successful is in part to the decline, but I think more, it was because the Aztecs had been complete bastards to most of the other folks living in the region and when they needed allies, no one came to thier aid.
All of this said, I really don't think Cortes came to Mexico to make slaves out of them, but he understood thier technology and strength and had the diseases not swept into the area and killed all those people, Spain would have been stronger than they ended up being.
Thats what my research was about this fall actually. Guns Germs and Steel doesn't do a good job of covering it I don't think, Victor Davis Hanson does a better job, and I'll sum my findings up.
First, the Spanish used Combined Arms Tactics in the war and they got thier Indian Allies to modify thier tactics to fit the Combined Arms model. For example, the Roman Legion was notionally a unit of heavy infantrymen, but it was normally fielded with integral or attached skirmishers, and some legions even incorporated a small cavalry unit. The legion was sometimes also incorporated into a higher-echelon combined arms unit, at some times it was customary for a general to command two legions plus two similarly sized units of auxiliaries, lighter units useful as screens or for combat in rough terrain. At the battle of Seminara in 1495 a force of massed sword and short spear wielding Spanish faced a Swiss force with 18 foot pikes who fought much like the Greeks had in 300 BCE and the Swiss were able to handily defeat the Spanish. By 1503 the Spanish had retooled their military formations along the lines of a modern Roman Legion with pikemen, crossbowmen and guns, swordsmen. The Pikemen established a front or perimeter while the crossbows and guns would fire in massed volleys (a technique which would last for over 500 years) to create voids in the enemy line into which the groups of swordsmen would charge to exploit the gaps and kill more enemies with their long swords. The creation of a three row combined arms force not only allowed unit flexibility in dealing with different types of enemy units, but also allowed the line to roll up into a square and defend against enemy attacks from any side, a tactic that would be used well into the 20th century. Squares of infantry against swarming groups of indigenous armies were nearly unbeatable in the Americas, Asia, and Africa.
Beyond that, the Spanish had better leadership in Cortés, López, and Marina who illustrate what today would be considered "outside of the box thinking" many times during the campaign and offer three leaders who reflect the actions and abilities of the many others involved from the Expedition. From the sailors, soldiers, horsemen to the craftsmen and the natives who joined in the destruction, the Spanish and their Allies show a great degree of leadership and organization militarily than do the Aztecs.
The Spanish force was well organized and despite some issues during the flight from Valley of Mexico adapted very well to the new environment. The Spanish adopted local cotton armor quickly as well as engineering warships in the middle of Mexico away from bodies of water. Supplies and reinforcements continued to pour into the campaign for the Spanish from near and afar. In the middle of the fighting on a number of occasions, the Spanish were able to split their forces to deal with threats on the periphery of the theatre and operate the detached elements as effectively as the main force under Cortés.
Spanish steel, crossbows, firearms, and warships cannot be ignored, however the guns and steel portion of the Guns, Germs, and Steel argument of inevitability of European ascendancy due to geography and biology does not answer everything. At an engineering level the Valley of Mexico was an amazing accomplishment without pack animals and likely without rival in Europe and perhaps the world in 1519. However, the Europeans had developed better naval technology and metallurgy than the Americas did and this did have an impact on the campaign. Without Caravels and navigation, the Spanish would not have landed in Central America. In the 15th and 16th centuries, the only known societies capable of projecting power across the Atlantic or Pacific were the Western Europeans and Chinese. No Aztec force would have appeared in Spain because of this disparity in technology.
The Aztecs had superior civil engineering to support large populations and logistical networks to support these populations. In addition, the Aztecs did have superior edg
That's the context I was quoting it in regards to Slavery. As documents which illustrate folks attitudes towards slavery in societies that aren't the United States from 1789-1865.
As for your comment, "If it wasn't for the "we are superiour and divine" attitude preached by these books, slavery would likely never have happened." I don't think that is true nor can it be defended nor can it be blamed on Religion. Look at the Romans, they kept slaves for economic reasons, not religious or "nationalistic" reasons. Same with the Spartans, other Greek states, Persians, Aztecs, Mayan, etc.
Religion simply codified the rules for keeping slaves in the Middle East from oh, 3000 BCE to say 1900 CE*
*Not sure when slavery in the Ottoman Empire, Middle East or North Africa really ended.
Mark your calendars, today Slashdot became Fark, but without the boobies, oh and the threads can be nested.
They lend a helping hand to what they are interested in.
They oppose the death penalty, which has been declared constitutional by the Supreme Court of the United States since 1976. They have attempted to keep people from getting political asylum in the United States. They are offically neutral on Gun Rights, but for the most part will not take part in gun ownership cases in which someone is defending thier right to keep and bare arms. They pretty much want all references to religon removed from the government, all the way to suring to have cities remove Crosses from seals or flags.
In 2004, for example, the ACLU of Southern California (ACLU/SC) threatened to sue the city of Redlands, California if it did not remove a picture of a cross from the city's seal. The ACLU/SC argued that having a cross on the seal amounted to a government-sponsored endorsement of Christianity and violated separation of church and state.
I'm shocked they haven't sued to get LA"s name changed. El Rio de Nuestra Señora la Reina de los Ángeles de Porciúncula, The River of Our Lady the Queen of the Angels of the Porciuncula. Since it has references to Christanity in it.
I'm a military historian working on my Masters and one of my areas of study is the American West 1865-1890 and from that I've looked alot at the Cortes Expedition, in fact I just spent a term working on a paper comparing and contrasting the militaries of the Aztecs to the Spanish.
The Expedition did kill alot of nobles and military leaders, once in a, maybe, unprovoked attack on the Temple of the Moon during a High Holy day and then alot of others were killed during the following responses at the Palace of Axayactl, Cortes's relief and escape and the Battle of Otumba in 1520 and then in the fighting of 1521.
Since the leadership of the Aztecs and other nations in the region lead from the front so to speak, the decapitation of the ruling families and thier destruction largely came about on the field of battle in 1520 and 1521. The sack of Tenochtitlán in 1521 really was the only time there was torturing and murder by the Spanish and thier allies in the conflict. Most of the Aztec, Tepeacan and other allied leaders were lost in the field before the illnesses and murders during the sack.
Recall that during the period following the retreat of the Spanish and Tlaxcalan from Tenochtitlán envoys from the Aztecs tried to pull the Tlaxcalan leaders into an alliance, however the severity of the Aztec relations with their neighbors trumped the Aztec called for unity in the face of invasion by outsiders even though the Tlaxcalan and Aztecs shared ancestry and gods. The Aztecs apparently treated others in the region so poorly that the Tlaxcalans would not come to thier aid even though they had a history togeather.
Thanks, I know everyone was involved but even in Middle Eastern Studies when it comes to Islamic Slave Trade the most you see or hear is, "they had slaves" or "and these people are decended from slaves". And if pressed a professor or speaker will say, "Yes but the United States was worse."
When it's American History slavery gets alot of attention, when it's the Middle East it's brushed aside.
And, slavery is called for in the Bible and Koran
Sura 2 Verse 178
2.178: O you who believe! retaliation is prescribed for you in the matter of the slain, the free for the free, and the slave for the slave, and the female for the female, but if any remission is made to any one by his (aggrieved) brother, then prosecution (for the bloodwit) should be made according to usage, and payment should be made to him in a good manner; this is an alleviation from your Lord and a mercy; so whoever exceeds the limit after this he shall have a painful chastisement."
"Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids" (Leviticus 25:44)
"Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession. And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen for ever" (Leviticus 25:44-46)
Yea, I got two quotes from the Bible, I'm not as up on my Koran as I am on my Old Testament.