Digital Video? DTP? Games? Databases? SW Development?
Yes and no. All these things happened before CPUs hit 2 GHz, and my 800 MHz iMac does fine in Final Cut Pro and Photoshop, hell it works great with Virtual PC 6 w/Windows 2000 and AutoCAD 2000.
200-300 MHz will do fine for the vast majority of users. People on dial-up in rural China need a little self-contaned box that hooks up to a TV and plays Video CDs, not a 3 GHz Intel chip that needs a 700 Watt Power Supply.
If any plane with an ejection system hits another plane with an ejection system, chances are everyone dies.
You take a 7xx with an ejection capsule for the passengers and crew and wack all 200,000+ pounds of it into something else big, I die, you die, everyone dies in said aicraft.
In military aircraft, there have been some dramatic A2A impacts with a successful ejection or two, but you can't punch out 60, 70, 200 people in a big capsule as fast as you can with a Martin-Baker or Zvezda. To punch out a person, you need 150-250 pounds of ejection system.
If you are in a commercial aircraft or military transport and lose a wing, everyone dies, there isn't a punch-out. You lose an engine, you lose hydo, you lose electrical and the plane begins to pitch and yaw wildly.
If you start putting big safety systems on an aircraft, you add weight and weight means less paying cargo and more fuel use.
But it's not going to pick up with a bunch of big ass planes like we got in the 70s and 80s.
The trend is towards smaller planes.
737, 757, Bombardier CRJ, Brazilias, 717, etc.
http://www.bombardier.com/en/3_0/3_1/3_1_1.html
I'm going to give a "US-centric" example, cause thats where I live.
You have a small city - Rapid City. With a USAF base - 85,000 people, with around 130,000 that use that airport as thier "hub". In the past to get anywhere for connecting flights you got to go to one of the three regional hubs - Denver, Salt Lake City to go West and South or the Twin Cities to go East and South. That's great, but when weather slams SLC, it's usually slamming Denver too.
Now it's changing. Now that there are cheaper, longer range faster small jets like the CRJ-700 the airlines are putting in point to point routes from Rapid City. Rapid to Las Vegas, Rapid to Pheonix are the first two coming in.
Or places like Medford OR, where to connect to had to shuttle to Sacramento or Portland, now has direct conections to Pheonix, Las Vegas, LA in regional jets.
UK is building more airports, just don't expect to see 777s, 747s and A-340s and 380s at them all.
They have it, it's called the Planet Express Ship.
1. Subspace, it's going to be a ways off, like 2025-2030 before anything like this is at a commercial stage. NASA and USAF get it first and it's expensive.
2. Explosion resistant, heavy, more fuel less cargo.
3. Detachable passenger cabin? Ask the test pilots from the B-1As how well that worked. 50% fatality rates in any FB-111 or B-1 ejection that used a detachable cabin.
4. Big LCD screens mean weight.
5. VTOL? With all that other crap in the plane? It'll never fly.
But lets say all that weight adding stuff was added to the plane, buh-bye fuel mileage and range. Toss in VTOL and we are seriously burning fuel.
2. All the tech from JSF (which wasn't going to win) is going into UCAVs
3. Boeing still makes Apaches, V-22, RAH-66, F-18E/F, F-18, F-15, systems for B-1,B-2,B-52 and F-22. They have a contract for the KC-135 replacment, the C-17, the replacment for the KC-135 replacment as well as supporting KC-10 and KC-135.
Boeing is also involved in the PAC-3 upgrade to Aegis, the YAL-1 laser, and a whole load of missiles and missile defence systems.
The scientists didn't do it in a void. Massive infrastructure had to be invented, huge fabs and billions of dollars, along with tons of silver. 50,000 American workers created Hanford there in the middle of the grass and dirt.
von Braun lead the rocket scientists, but Grumman, Bell, Douglas, Hughes, Martin-Thiokol, IBM, AT&T Martin, Lockheed, Boeing and thousands of other companies built the rockets. NASA and USAF pushed von Braun and the contractors and it was done. The team of Germans didn't just magic up a 360 foot tall rocket and thousands of tons of infrastructure from thier pipes.
"Think about it. If all you said was true, if an armed populace could really repel a force then the afghans should have been able stop the US army. The palestenians could have thrown off the israeli occupation, the iraquis could have stopped the relentless bombing campaign against them. If molov cocktails could disable tanks then the israeli army would have no tanks left. Hell the palestenians can't even stop caterpillars with guns."
Obviously it takes tactics and modivation.
The Afghanis were in a Civil War with themselves. The PA operates against Civilians instead of military targets. At times Hamas and Hezbollah have scored major hits against IDF forces, the recent destruction of two Merkava Mk IIIs was a major victory, but it wasn't followed up.
If you look at the new Intafatah, you might see that the PA is on the verge of winning, I mean they currently have an autonomy.
Iraq can't stop the bombing campaign because thier military sucks, they are run by a mad dictator and thier military sucks.
"Molotov cocktails (which are not guns) and ak47s can't ever stop a determined air force or an invading army."
Afghanistan 1979-1988. Vietnam 1954 and 1973 (Draw) Somalia 1992-94 Beruit 1982-83 South Lebannon 1982-2000 Israel 1948-49 Yugoslavia 1941-45
"Guns were an expression of resistance, but they would not have won WWII against a German or Japanese empire."
Basicly the entire Germany/Italian campaign in Yugoslavia was stopped by resistance forces.
"No gun in the hands of a citizen, or a million citizens, can "defend freedom". They can fire a few rounds off before the tanks and armored soldiers roll over their families and houses, or before they see a cruise missle go down their chimney, or a tailored virus is released into their water supplies. The era of the brave lone warriors never existed. It doesn't exist now. It's a fantasy."
Never? What about the American Revolution? French Revolution? Communist Revolution in Russia? Vietminh defeat of France in the 1950s? Viet Cong ops and Operation Phoenix in Vietnam were carried out at a "lone warrior" level.
A simple deer rifle like a 300 Mag can stop a tank column. You'd be amazed at how quickly armor operations bog down when a couple tank commanders are popped when they are operating in an unbuttoned environment.
It doesn't take a gun to stop a tank. Tanks aren't immune to infantry and a buttoned-up tank's worst foe is a single "lone warrior". A turret can only traverse so fast and once a person is up close it's easy to get a bottle full of styrofoam/orange concentrate and gasoline up on the engine compartment.
I have a copy of US Army FM-21-75 with the appendix H - Expedient Antiarmor Devices.
"This is made with a breakable container, a gas and oil mixture, and a cloth wick. To construct it, fill the container (usually a bottle) with the gas and oil mixture, and then insert the cloth wick into the container. The wick must extend both into the mixture and out of the container. Light the wick before throwing the Molotov cocktail. When the container hits a vehicle and breaks, the mixture will ignite, burning both the vehicle and the personnel around it."
Then there are advanced things like the Eagle Fireball, Eagle Cocktail, and a number of anti-armor explosive charges. The entire point of this is, the Military and Guards and Police are based on the idea of the "Lone Warrior" at a point smaller than a team.
Ask the Soviets how well they did against the Afghanis before the CIA/MI6 started training the locals. The Soviets died at the hands of "citizens" even before Bofors, D-122s and Stingers were shipped to the locals.
Could the Nazis have thrown as many people as they did into the camps without Gun Control? No.
"Guns are like cigarettes and booze in that way -- they're a real viceral thrill, and they're not a really good thing in the long haul."
Well, the Resistance in France, Yugoslavia and the Soviet Union really thought guns were helpful against the Nazis. The Viet Cong used them to good effect against the French, Japanese, Americans and Republic of Vietnam. In 1989 guns were quite helpful dealing with Nicolae Ceausescu.
Guns helped the SAS and Norwegian Resistance in stopping the Nazi heavy-water production.
http://www.uh.edu/~dbarclay/rm/stats.htm "Every year, more than 2,400,000 people in the United States use a gun to defend themselves against criminals-or more than 6,500 people a day. This means that, each year, firearms are used 60 times more often to protect the lives of honest citizens than to take lives.
Of the 2,400,000 self-defense cases, more than 192,000 are by women defending themselves against sexual abuse. (C) Of the 2,400,000 times citizens use their guns to defend themselves every year, 92 percent merely brandish their gun or fire a warning shot to scare off their attackers. Less than 8 percent of the time, does a citizen kill or wound his or her attacker."
Actually, the East German Stasi had an archive of "smells".
http://www.wsws.org/history/1998/jan1998/gdr.sht ml
"In a country of 17 million, it maintained an army of 200,000 full-time and part-time secret agents to monitor every aspect of the lives of its citizens. The Stasi--or the "nationalised company listen and seize", as it was nicknamed by the people--even collected smell samples from suspicious elements, so it could use dogs to look for them if it wanted to arrest them. The samples were carefully stored in plastic bags. In the Stasi, as in many other fields, efficiency and monstrosity mingled with incompetence."
True, but at the time, Hubble was too big to be launched in a shrouded Titan or Delta.
The Titan IV could have launched a KH-12 or Hubble, but they didn't fly until 1992 and all the first Titans were for National Security launches until the STS backlog was met.
And in a Mondale administration, I'm sure nothing would have been spent on a second HST
The first I knew about Mondale's hate of space came in the HBO series from the Earth to the Moon. In the piece about the Apollo 1 capsule fire there is a bit about Mondale ranting against Apollo. I did a Google search last night on Mondale and got the link there I quoted from.
I guess from the Earth to the Moon sort of understated Mondale's dislike of space spending.
Mondale's presidency would have effected many programs that were Shuttle related.
The Deep Space tracking system that uses TDRS might have not been launched.
A number of ELINT birds for NSA/NRO/NIMA/CIA/DoD might have not been launched.
Magellan probe to Venus
Galileo probe to Jupiter
Hubble was deployed in 1990, with a Mondale administration from 1985-1989 or longer...that might not have flown at all.
Compton Gamma Ray Observatory
The cascade effect from a space hostile administration could have been devistating not just to Shuttle, but to science reasearch, national security and both military/government commucations and civilian.
I was just reading about Shuttle in the Nov '02 Air International.
They approach STS from the angle of a hypersonic research vehicle, and in that reguard with over a hundred launches and recoveries, it's very succesful in gathering data.
It goes from Mach 24 to 200 kts and from orbit to a gliding landing with no power, that's pretty neat.
"What Shuttle has done for aerothermal design and verification is greater than the controbution it has made to the space program, which at best has been a disappointment to some and a digression for many. The legacy of countless simulated landings, more than 100 safe Shuttle touchdowns without a serious malfunction and countless data points across 21 years of Mach 25 atomospheric penetration, has provided an opportunity for safe and efficient aerospace transportation up to and including orbital velocity. That, and not its service as a cargo freighter, is the greatest gift to the future - one embedded in winged flight and not in weightless orbit." - Page 328 Air International Nov 2002
http://www.ad-astra.net/cgi-bin/BBS/SpacePolicy/ re ad/30103
"The worse thing about Mondale is his unrelenting, unbending opposition to the exploration of space. This opposition was dramatized in the wonderful HBO series on the Apollo Program when Mondale pops up as a charector making political hay after the Apollo Fire. While he did not openly oppose the Apollo Program, it being a done deal by the time he entered the Senate, Mondale's views on human space flight were no secret, even then. After Apollo 11 he helped to lead fights against any and all efforts to expand human presence in space. The crippling of the human space program can in part be laid at his door."
"'A Webb aid remembers him (Webb) asking Mondale, "In all due humility, Senator, what have we done wrong? Why are you so down on us?" Webb wanted to know why Mondale was upset and what he could do to rectify the situation. He and other visitors from NASA were standing in front of Mondale's desk. The Senator leaned back in his chair and instructed Webb, "I intend to ride this for every nickle's worth of political power I can get out of it. I don't give a hoot in hell about the space program or your future," a NASA official with Webb recalls Mondale saying.'"
We can blame Vietnam and Nixon for cuts to NASA, but remeber that the Senate and House are both under the control of the Democratic Party, and Senate and House Approprations are controlled by some New-Deal and Great Society Democrats who see the Space Race as a Republican persuit, even though the Moon Race was pushed by JFK. Mercury and the unmanned programs were from the previous Republican Administration.
Tax revenues were dropping in 70-71, Vietnam was expensive, but it was drawing men and money away from developing new systems for the big show, Europe. A Cobra replacement was killed in the AH-56 Cheyenne, the M-60 replacement MBT-70 was canned, and a follow-on to B-52 was killed again. Vietnam was a slight draw, but development of heavy-lift like Saturn was very important to USAF so you can't really point to the war for a failure of continued moon shots.
Yep, the way the Catholic Church works in reguards to hiring and firing priests and a lack of over-view from Rome is flawed.
So you would argue that the idea of seperation of people by race as put forth by both White and Black radicals stands on it's own, and just because the Klan and Black Panthers comitted crimes in the name of race seperation doesn't mean the whole idea it's flawed.
I say, bullshit.
An idea can be flawed because of it's leadership and how it's been applied.
Just because Hitler ordered the murder of 12 million racial and religious minorities doesn't mean Facism is flawed.
I *can* discount an idea because of the actions of proponents.
I discount neo-ludites because of the Unibomber. I discount Communism because of the dead in Russia and China. I discount Facism because of Hitler I discount FBI HRT because of Lon Horiuchi I discount Wal-Mart because they ruin small business I discount the Eco groups because of the violence and terror they spawn.
I'll dispute what Hamas, Hezbollah, ALF, NOW, NPR and Seasame Street say.
Alright, what do the "worst" of thier crowd say? I'll quote leadership and members of theELF, ALF, Earth First.
http://www.off-road.com/green/ecoquote.html
""I think if we don't overthrow capitalism, we don't have a chance of saving the world ecologically. I think it is possible to have an ecological society under socialism. I don't think it's possible under capitalism."
"If radical environmentalists were to invent a disease to bring human populations back to sanity, it would probably be something like AIDS. It has the potential to end industrialism, which is the main force behind the environmental crises."
"Phasing out the human race will solve every problem on earth, social and environmental."
"To feed a starving child is to exacerbate the world population problem."
"We must make this an insecure and inhospitable place for capitalists and their projects.... We must reclaim the roads and plowed land, halt dam construction, tear down existing dams, free shackled rivers and return to wilderness millions of tens of millions of acres of presently settled land."
"If radical environmentalists were to invent a disease to bring human populations back to sanity, it would probably be something like AIDS."
"Six million Jews died in concentration camps, but six billion broiler chickens will die this year in slaughter houses."
"If the death of one rat cured all diseases, it wouldn't make any difference to me."
http://www.furcommission.com/debate/words4.htm "We do not consider the destruction of property, of things, to be committing violence. How does one do violence against something which is not alive?"
"As long as we emptied the labs of animals, they were still easily replaced. So that's when the ALF in this country, and my cell, started engaging in arson."
"Although fish and chip shops haven't been targeted before so far as I can remember, they would be considered legitimate targets."
Some envrionmentalishs are getting violent, not because of previous nonviolent efforts, but because the leadership calls for it. Thus they are terrorists, no better than radicals like Hamas, Shining Path, Hezbollah, World Church of the Creator.
Humans don't allow the forest to burn. If the forest doesn't burn then more and more crap builds up at the surface. Then there will be a fire of such magnitude that nothing will stop it.
In the past a forest would get to a point, and then there would be a fire which would remove the old forest and the next phase would grow, I think and it's been years but in the Western US it's suposed to be an oak hemlock forest after the conifers.
Modern logging allows for the removal of dead wood, and dying trees and thins the forest out so there isn't a terrible, terrible fire. Environmentalists stop this.
Redwoods are designed to survive NORMAL forest fires, the kinds that swept through the forests for thousands of years, cleaning the forest. Today we have 100 or 200 year fires every year from the crap in the forests that the forest service and loggers can't remove because of environmentalists.
Since we don't allow nature to take it's course and we like wood, the forests need management.
I did RTFA and I think the Earth Firsters are nuts. Nuts like Hezbollah and guys that blow up women's clinics.
"Seems like a pretty interesting way to use technology to help the environment, which isn't something you see everyday."
In helping the environment you mean they want the forests to remain as is and not evolve and keep the forests nice and tight so a fire will take everything out.
The evolution of a western United States forest doesn't stop at the large conifers, fires are supposed to clear out the conifers so the next phase of the forest continues.
We fight fires, so the forests remain coniferous. For the last few decades clear cutting has been replaced with selective cutting, but yahoos like these hippies want things to remain static. Well a forest of big pine bombs waiting to go off will just cause one hell of a fire someday and the trees will still be dead.
Slashdot Mirror
What do people need a GHz+ CPU for?
Digital Video?
DTP?
Games?
Databases?
SW Development?
Yes and no. All these things happened before CPUs hit 2 GHz, and my 800 MHz iMac does fine in Final Cut Pro and Photoshop, hell it works great with Virtual PC 6 w/Windows 2000 and AutoCAD 2000.
200-300 MHz will do fine for the vast majority of users. People on dial-up in rural China need a little self-contaned box that hooks up to a TV and plays Video CDs, not a 3 GHz Intel chip that needs a 700 Watt Power Supply.
If any plane with an ejection system hits another plane with an ejection system, chances are everyone dies.
You take a 7xx with an ejection capsule for the passengers and crew and wack all 200,000+ pounds of it into something else big, I die, you die, everyone dies in said aicraft.
In military aircraft, there have been some dramatic A2A impacts with a successful ejection or two, but you can't punch out 60, 70, 200 people in a big capsule as fast as you can with a Martin-Baker or Zvezda. To punch out a person, you need 150-250 pounds of ejection system.
If you are in a commercial aircraft or military transport and lose a wing, everyone dies, there isn't a punch-out. You lose an engine, you lose hydo, you lose electrical and the plane begins to pitch and yaw wildly.
If you start putting big safety systems on an aircraft, you add weight and weight means less paying cargo and more fuel use.
The airline business is going to pick up.
But it's not going to pick up with a bunch of big ass planes like we got in the 70s and 80s.
The trend is towards smaller planes.
737, 757, Bombardier CRJ, Brazilias, 717, etc.
http://www.bombardier.com/en/3_0/3_1/3_1_1.html
I'm going to give a "US-centric" example, cause thats where I live.
You have a small city - Rapid City. With a USAF base - 85,000 people, with around 130,000 that use that airport as thier "hub". In the past to get anywhere for connecting flights you got to go to one of the three regional hubs - Denver, Salt Lake City to go West and South or the Twin Cities to go East and South. That's great, but when weather slams SLC, it's usually slamming Denver too.
Now it's changing. Now that there are cheaper, longer range faster small jets like the CRJ-700 the airlines are putting in point to point routes from Rapid City. Rapid to Las Vegas, Rapid to Pheonix are the first two coming in.
Or places like Medford OR, where to connect to had to shuttle to Sacramento or Portland, now has direct conections to Pheonix, Las Vegas, LA in regional jets.
UK is building more airports, just don't expect to see 777s, 747s and A-340s and 380s at them all.
They have it, it's called the Planet Express Ship.
1. Subspace, it's going to be a ways off, like 2025-2030 before anything like this is at a commercial stage. NASA and USAF get it first and it's expensive.
2. Explosion resistant, heavy, more fuel less cargo.
3. Detachable passenger cabin? Ask the test pilots from the B-1As how well that worked. 50% fatality rates in any FB-111 or B-1 ejection that used a detachable cabin.
4. Big LCD screens mean weight.
5. VTOL? With all that other crap in the plane? It'll never fly.
But lets say all that weight adding stuff was added to the plane, buh-bye fuel mileage and range. Toss in VTOL and we are seriously burning fuel.
1. It wasn't supersonic.
2. All the tech from JSF (which wasn't going to win) is going into UCAVs
3. Boeing still makes Apaches, V-22, RAH-66, F-18E/F, F-18, F-15, systems for B-1,B-2,B-52 and F-22. They have a contract for the KC-135 replacment, the C-17, the replacment for the KC-135 replacment as well as supporting KC-10 and KC-135.
Boeing is also involved in the PAC-3 upgrade to Aegis, the YAL-1 laser, and a whole load of missiles and missile defence systems.
No way.
Remeber, LAPD *may* have tried that with OJ, Time "enhanced" OJ's picture to the tune of a big dollar lawsuit.
Someone else mentioned Waco, yea, "enhanced" evidence is bullshit evidence.
Someone can "enhance" anything, even some yokel atop WTC with a 757 in the background.
Secure digital cameras, photoshoping fingerprints, no way.
Even with a "secure" digital camera, there will be wiggle-room to screw with pixels.
South Vietnam was invaded and annexed in 1975.
The American involvment ended in 1973 with a truce between North and South.
The north broke the cease-fire and over ran the south in 1975.
Nuclear power was invented in the US.
The scientists didn't do it in a void. Massive infrastructure had to be invented, huge fabs and billions of dollars, along with tons of silver. 50,000 American workers created Hanford there in the middle of the grass and dirt.
von Braun lead the rocket scientists, but Grumman, Bell, Douglas, Hughes, Martin-Thiokol, IBM, AT&T Martin, Lockheed, Boeing and thousands of other companies built the rockets. NASA and USAF pushed von Braun and the contractors and it was done. The team of Germans didn't just magic up a 360 foot tall rocket and thousands of tons of infrastructure from thier pipes.
Who split the atom?
It happened at the University of Chicago. Yea most of the scientists were foreign born and recent immigrants, but that's how the US works.
Who put humans in orbit? Germans working for the Soviets, same as the Germans working for the Americans that put our people in orbit.
Work does not equal technology.
Right now Intel is building fabs here in the United States and in Ireland.
The big new fab at Ronler Acres is in the US, not in China.
And even when assembly moves off-shore, that doesn't mean the people designing the systems or the all important fabs are moving off shore.
"Think about it. If all you said was true, if an armed populace could really repel a force then the afghans should have been able stop the US army. The palestenians could have thrown off the israeli occupation, the iraquis could have stopped the relentless bombing campaign against them. If molov cocktails could disable tanks then the israeli army would have no tanks left. Hell the palestenians can't even stop caterpillars with guns."
Obviously it takes tactics and modivation.
The Afghanis were in a Civil War with themselves. The PA operates against Civilians instead of military targets. At times Hamas and Hezbollah have scored major hits against IDF forces, the recent destruction of two Merkava Mk IIIs was a major victory, but it wasn't followed up.
If you look at the new Intafatah, you might see that the PA is on the verge of winning, I mean they currently have an autonomy.
Iraq can't stop the bombing campaign because thier military sucks, they are run by a mad dictator and thier military sucks.
"Molotov cocktails (which are not guns) and ak47s can't ever stop a determined air force or an invading army."
Afghanistan 1979-1988.
Vietnam 1954 and 1973 (Draw)
Somalia 1992-94
Beruit 1982-83
South Lebannon 1982-2000
Israel 1948-49
Yugoslavia 1941-45
"Guns were an expression of resistance, but they would not have won WWII against a German or Japanese empire."
Basicly the entire Germany/Italian campaign in Yugoslavia was stopped by resistance forces.
"No gun in the hands of a citizen, or a million citizens, can "defend freedom". They can fire a few rounds off before the tanks and armored soldiers roll over their families and houses, or before they see a cruise missle go down their chimney, or a tailored virus is released into their water supplies. The era of the brave lone warriors never existed. It doesn't exist now. It's a fantasy."
Never? What about the American Revolution? French Revolution? Communist Revolution in Russia? Vietminh defeat of France in the 1950s? Viet Cong ops and Operation Phoenix in Vietnam were carried out at a "lone warrior" level.
A simple deer rifle like a 300 Mag can stop a tank column. You'd be amazed at how quickly armor operations bog down when a couple tank commanders are popped when they are operating in an unbuttoned environment.
It doesn't take a gun to stop a tank. Tanks aren't immune to infantry and a buttoned-up tank's worst foe is a single "lone warrior". A turret can only traverse so fast and once a person is up close it's easy to get a bottle full of styrofoam/orange concentrate and gasoline up on the engine compartment.
I have a copy of US Army FM-21-75 with the appendix H - Expedient Antiarmor Devices.
"This is made with a breakable container, a gas and oil mixture, and a cloth wick. To construct it, fill the container (usually a bottle) with the gas and oil mixture, and then insert the cloth wick into the container. The wick must extend both into the mixture and out of the container. Light the wick before throwing the Molotov cocktail. When the container hits a vehicle and breaks, the mixture will ignite, burning both the vehicle and the personnel around it."
Then there are advanced things like the Eagle Fireball, Eagle Cocktail, and a number of anti-armor explosive charges. The entire point of this is, the Military and Guards and Police are based on the idea of the "Lone Warrior" at a point smaller than a team.
Ask the Soviets how well they did against the Afghanis before the CIA/MI6 started training the locals. The Soviets died at the hands of "citizens" even before Bofors, D-122s and Stingers were shipped to the locals.
Could the Nazis have thrown as many people as they did into the camps without Gun Control? No.
"Guns are like cigarettes and booze in that way -- they're a real viceral thrill, and they're not a really good thing in the long haul."
y year, more than 2,400,000 people in the United States use a gun to defend themselves against criminals-or more than 6,500 people a day. This means that, each year, firearms are used 60 times more often to protect the lives of honest citizens than to take lives.
Well, the Resistance in France, Yugoslavia and the Soviet Union really thought guns were helpful against the Nazis. The Viet Cong used them to good effect against the French, Japanese, Americans and Republic of Vietnam. In 1989 guns were quite helpful dealing with Nicolae Ceausescu.
Guns helped the SAS and Norwegian Resistance in stopping the Nazi heavy-water production.
http://www.uh.edu/~dbarclay/rm/stats.htm
"Ever
Of the 2,400,000 self-defense cases, more than 192,000 are by women defending themselves against sexual abuse.
(C) Of the 2,400,000 times citizens use their guns to defend themselves every year, 92 percent merely brandish their gun or fire a warning shot to scare off their attackers. Less than 8 percent of the time, does a citizen kill or wound his or her attacker."
Actually, the East German Stasi had an archive of "smells".
t ml
http://www.wsws.org/history/1998/jan1998/gdr.sh
"In a country of 17 million, it maintained an army of 200,000 full-time and part-time secret agents to monitor every aspect of the lives of its citizens. The Stasi--or the "nationalised company listen and seize", as it was nicknamed by the people--even collected smell samples from suspicious elements, so it could use dogs to look for them if it wanted to arrest them. The samples were carefully stored in plastic bags. In the Stasi, as in many other fields, efficiency and monstrosity mingled with incompetence."
True, but at the time, Hubble was too big to be launched in a shrouded Titan or Delta.
The Titan IV could have launched a KH-12 or Hubble, but they didn't fly until 1992 and all the first Titans were for National Security launches until the STS backlog was met.
And in a Mondale administration, I'm sure nothing would have been spent on a second HST
The first I knew about Mondale's hate of space came in the HBO series from the Earth to the Moon. In the piece about the Apollo 1 capsule fire there is a bit about Mondale ranting against Apollo. I did a Google search last night on Mondale and got the link there I quoted from.
I guess from the Earth to the Moon sort of understated Mondale's dislike of space spending.
Mondale's presidency would have effected many programs that were Shuttle related.
The Deep Space tracking system that uses TDRS might have not been launched.
A number of ELINT birds for NSA/NRO/NIMA/CIA/DoD might have not been launched.
Magellan probe to Venus
Galileo probe to Jupiter
Hubble was deployed in 1990, with a Mondale administration from 1985-1989 or longer...that might not have flown at all.
Compton Gamma Ray Observatory
The cascade effect from a space hostile administration could have been devistating not just to Shuttle, but to science reasearch, national security and both military/government commucations and civilian.
I was just reading about Shuttle in the Nov '02 Air International.
They approach STS from the angle of a hypersonic research vehicle, and in that reguard with over a hundred launches and recoveries, it's very succesful in gathering data.
It goes from Mach 24 to 200 kts and from orbit to a gliding landing with no power, that's pretty neat.
"What Shuttle has done for aerothermal design and verification is greater than the controbution it has made to the space program, which at best has been a disappointment to some and a digression for many. The legacy of countless simulated landings, more than 100 safe Shuttle touchdowns without a serious malfunction and countless data points across 21 years of Mach 25 atomospheric penetration, has provided an opportunity for safe and efficient aerospace transportation up to and including orbital velocity. That, and not its service as a cargo freighter, is the greatest gift to the future - one embedded in winged flight and not in weightless orbit." - Page 328 Air International Nov 2002
Walter Mondale always had it out for NASA.
/ re ad/30103
http://www.ad-astra.net/cgi-bin/BBS/SpacePolicy
"The worse thing about Mondale is his unrelenting, unbending opposition to the exploration of space. This opposition was dramatized in the wonderful HBO series on the Apollo Program when Mondale pops up as a charector making political hay after the Apollo Fire. While he did not openly oppose the Apollo Program, it being a done deal by the time he entered the Senate, Mondale's views on human space flight were no secret, even then. After Apollo 11 he helped to lead fights against any and all efforts to expand human presence in space. The crippling of the human space program can in part be laid at his door."
"'A Webb aid remembers him (Webb) asking Mondale, "In all due humility, Senator, what have we done wrong? Why are you so down on us?" Webb wanted to know why Mondale was upset and what he could do to rectify the situation. He and other visitors from NASA were standing in front of Mondale's desk. The Senator leaned back in his chair and instructed Webb, "I intend to ride this for every nickle's worth of political power I can get out of it. I don't give a hoot in hell about the space program or your future," a NASA official with Webb recalls Mondale saying.'"
We can blame Vietnam and Nixon for cuts to NASA, but remeber that the Senate and House are both under the control of the Democratic Party, and Senate and House Approprations are controlled by some New-Deal and Great Society Democrats who see the Space Race as a Republican persuit, even though the Moon Race was pushed by JFK. Mercury and the unmanned programs were from the previous Republican Administration.
Tax revenues were dropping in 70-71, Vietnam was expensive, but it was drawing men and money away from developing new systems for the big show, Europe. A Cobra replacement was killed in the AH-56 Cheyenne, the M-60 replacement MBT-70 was canned, and a follow-on to B-52 was killed again. Vietnam was a slight draw, but development of heavy-lift like Saturn was very important to USAF so you can't really point to the war for a failure of continued moon shots.
Yep, the way the Catholic Church works in reguards to hiring and firing priests and a lack of over-view from Rome is flawed.
So you would argue that the idea of seperation of people by race as put forth by both White and Black radicals stands on it's own, and just because the Klan and Black Panthers comitted crimes in the name of race seperation doesn't mean the whole idea it's flawed.
I say, bullshit.
An idea can be flawed because of it's leadership and how it's been applied.
So is Facism or National Socialism alright?
Just because Hitler ordered the murder of 12 million racial and religious minorities doesn't mean Facism is flawed.
I *can* discount an idea because of the actions of proponents.
I discount neo-ludites because of the Unibomber.
I discount Communism because of the dead in Russia and China.
I discount Facism because of Hitler
I discount FBI HRT because of Lon Horiuchi
I discount Wal-Mart because they ruin small business
I discount the Eco groups because of the violence and terror they spawn.
I'll dispute what Hamas, Hezbollah, ALF, NOW, NPR and Seasame Street say.
t es .html
t es /Animal%20Rights%20Quotes_files/Animal%20Rights%20 Quotes.htm
"We do not consider the destruction of property, of things, to be committing violence. How does one do violence against something which is not alive?"
Alright, what do the "worst" of thier crowd say? I'll quote leadership and members of theELF, ALF, Earth First.
http://www.off-road.com/green/ecoquote.html
""I think if we don't overthrow capitalism, we don't have a chance of saving the world ecologically. I think it is possible to have an ecological society under socialism. I don't think it's possible under capitalism."
"If radical environmentalists were to invent a disease to bring human populations back to sanity, it would probably be something like AIDS. It has the potential to end industrialism, which is the main force behind the environmental crises."
"Phasing out the human race will solve every problem on earth, social and environmental."
http://www.pushback.com/environment/EcoFreakQuo
"To feed a starving child is to exacerbate the world population problem."
"We must make this an insecure and inhospitable place for capitalists and their projects.... We must reclaim the roads and plowed land, halt dam construction, tear down existing dams, free shackled rivers and return to wilderness millions of tens of millions of acres of presently settled land."
"If radical environmentalists were to invent a disease to bring human populations back to sanity, it would probably be something like AIDS."
http://www.animalliberationfront.com/Saints/Quo
"Six million Jews died in concentration camps, but six billion broiler chickens will die this year in slaughter houses."
"If the death of one rat cured all diseases, it wouldn't make any difference to me."
http://www.furcommission.com/debate/words4.htm
"As long as we emptied the labs of animals, they were still easily replaced. So that's when the ALF in this country, and my cell, started engaging in arson."
"Although fish and chip shops haven't been targeted before so far as I can remember, they would be considered legitimate targets."
Some envrionmentalishs are getting violent, not because of previous nonviolent efforts, but because the leadership calls for it. Thus they are terrorists, no better than radicals like Hamas, Shining Path, Hezbollah, World Church of the Creator.
My point was and is...
Humans don't allow the forest to burn. If the forest doesn't burn then more and more crap builds up at the surface. Then there will be a fire of such magnitude that nothing will stop it.
In the past a forest would get to a point, and then there would be a fire which would remove the old forest and the next phase would grow, I think and it's been years but in the Western US it's suposed to be an oak hemlock forest after the conifers.
Modern logging allows for the removal of dead wood, and dying trees and thins the forest out so there isn't a terrible, terrible fire. Environmentalists stop this.
Redwoods are designed to survive NORMAL forest fires, the kinds that swept through the forests for thousands of years, cleaning the forest. Today we have 100 or 200 year fires every year from the crap in the forests that the forest service and loggers can't remove because of environmentalists.
Since we don't allow nature to take it's course and we like wood, the forests need management.
I did RTFA and I think the Earth Firsters are nuts. Nuts like Hezbollah and guys that blow up women's clinics.
And if people don't post about Hezbollah using 802.11, then why is there stuff about Earth First?
b ui ld/forests/ecoterror.php?nnn=2
"Headwaters has been the scene of numerous clashes between Earth First environmentalists and Pacific Lumber."
Good, I hope someone gets a paddlin' by some loggers.
http://www.montanaforum.com/rednews/2002/08/29/
http://www.cdfe.org/ecoterror1.htm
ALF, Hezbollah, Earth First, Earth Liberation Front, Hamas, Violent Right to Life, WCC...
Terrorism is terrorism.
"Seems like a pretty interesting way to use technology to help the environment, which isn't something you see everyday."
In helping the environment you mean they want the forests to remain as is and not evolve and keep the forests nice and tight so a fire will take everything out.
The evolution of a western United States forest doesn't stop at the large conifers, fires are supposed to clear out the conifers so the next phase of the forest continues.
We fight fires, so the forests remain coniferous. For the last few decades clear cutting has been replaced with selective cutting, but yahoos like these hippies want things to remain static. Well a forest of big pine bombs waiting to go off will just cause one hell of a fire someday and the trees will still be dead.
Bah to the hippies.
Look at Crack.
It's cheap, easy to produce and distribute.
A cheap and easy to make and distribute drug has lead to many many addicts and make petty crimes to get the money for a 10 dollar rock.
Crank is similar, easy to produce, easy to move, and easy to cause nasty addictions.
Why are there crimes associated with cheap drugs? Cause a frickin' junkie can't keep a job.