You are 100% correct, he probably meant, and if it would be more politically correct and acceptable you, let us just say: it would have been more desirable to have a gas to kill all conservatives.
America is a large spread out place, and many people need to transport two hundred $ worth of groceries sometimes twice a week. Do that on a bike 4 miles twice a week, in Texas..... with three kids.
Do they offer this new green way of consuming stuff? Because, really, who else would commission a study of something so painfully obvious.
But in the big picture it would use more because you need new supply warehouses, vehicles on the road, all the old stores would stay open. Now with widespread shift, and massive adoption of delivery I am sure it would use less.
Joking aside, the near ubiquitous adoption of cars has made walking untenable in many situations of daily shopping errands due to the distance between them. Biking would work in most situations, but you try carrying 60 pounds of groceries on a bike, maybe if you had a bike trailer, but I'm guessing you don't.
Grocery stores would fight it. There's no "oh i want it" to the same degree if you can keep a list in your phone every time you run out of something and it comes to the door twice a week. It would eliminate overhead, but who really needs grocery stores if a warehouse just loads the stuff on a truck and brings it to you. Now with fruits and veggies you'll probably want to pick them out so they dont give you the rejects.
For boxed stuff and canned goods, why not? I mean, my dad told me stories of the milk man/soda man in Brooklyn. Small towns have had a grocer kid who would bring you stuff for a tip. I even recall a similar service failing to gain traction here. I know there is Schwanns. That handsome delivery boy could be the bane of husbands everywhere!
Now that i think about it, for training you could connect them in an ad hoc wireless network and record times for actual training with blanks and see reaction times an a whole assortment of things. Triangulation of the signal, a gyroscope and compass would tell direction of fire, time, location. Could be quite useful.
So you put the 20,000 fingerprints into every gun in the armory. This could be useful for training weapons at a base, they could all sit in a rack that charges and updates fingerprint access, hit could tell how many rounds have been fired without the slide being removed (for cleaning) and other information like who fired how many rounds when for training certification and accident investigation. It wouldn't even have to check the fingerprint every time, a gyroscope could just make it reauthorize after movement stops.
There are many uses which don't require defensive readiness/reliability.
In 2011, 32,163 people were shot to death in the United States.
You seem to have the ability to break that number down, separating out 260 justifiable homicides. Did you happen to see that almost 20,000 of those deaths were suicides? This system would not have prevented those. How many of those 32,000 deaths were justified non-private citizen shootings, e.g. cops shooting criminals? This systems would not have prevented those either. Can you even find out how many of those shootings were committed with a stolen firearm that this system would have prevented?
How many suicides were with someone else's gun? How many were cops shot with their own gun? How many guns are stolen and used in a robbery which shooting didn't happen, but if it did it would be thwarted?
This type of system is a poor choice for military/leo definitely, and most others kind of. There could be other useful systems which accomplish the aim with higher reliability. Your cynicism is unfounded, no one is making this mandatory.
I agree with what I think you meant to say. But the words you chose were just too wrong (all by themselves) to leave there...
You generally want some lives to be lost in a combat situation.
No... you want to get your way. You don't WANT some lives to be lost.
Even for a home invasion situation you don't WANT a life to be lost. You WANT that creep OUT and you will do whatever it takes INCLUDING ending a life, but killing is not what you WANT to do. In an ideal situation you could just spot the invader and say "go away" and they'd turn and leave. But since that's highly unlikely and since there's a good chance there will be a struggle then the safest bet for you is to end the conflict as immediately as possible and in such a way that minimizes your own chances of being harmed. Therefore, you shoot 'em with an intent to kill (so they don't shoot back).
For general political WARS, your statement still goes too far. In a combat situation the goal is almost never "to end lives". The goal is to end a dispute (in neutralize the opponent) and to get your way. Lives being taken is more of a by product of the process than the goal itself. Total annihilation / beating them to nothing is often the simplest route to achieving the end of the war, but make no mistake. It's not that you WANT lives to be lost or resources to be destroyed... you just want break your opponent and get your way.
Then there's the extremist viewpoint. It's the viewpoint that anyone who disagrees must be the devil and should be killed. That attitude certainly breeds a type of combat, but it's not combat in general. And really, the defender (the "not extreme party") still only wants to stay alive through the combat... they're not necessarily interested in killing.
The whole not blow up the earth thing is covered under things like thou shall not kill and the sermon on the mount. I'm not a Christian but tend to agree with a lot of Christ's thinking. Most Christians however do not seem to give a shit. In fact the text around the exhortations not to kill were used to, uh, pillage, kill and destroy.
&Problem is the Romans sacked the temple so there's nothing to point to and say "look the second iteration of our temple stood here almost a millennium before your prophet existed." And with the Muslims and Christians going back and forth over the land for another millennium, and many more people added who call it home, it's easy to forget the people who originally, still do call it home.
One thing you can say about the Egyptians and their pyramids, despite no one practicing their religion (in numbers): despite Cairo being 9:1 Muslim:Coptic Christian, no one will ever forget the people who built them. As long as humans exist on this earth anyway.
The cost of that electricity though will be the wholesale grid cost, about 3.5 cents/KWH. What do you pay for your electricity (probably three times that and up)?
Aluminum is a good way to export electricity. Iceland does this with its hydropower.
And not only is it wholesale pricing but they could even focus production on off-peak hours, at least while there aren't huge quantities in demand.
Yes, but those mini spy cams were not directed at the population, they were used against the evil of then, the bad Russkies. Plus, our politicians had to play nice to keep reminding us that we're the good guys. We don't do oppressive things like keeping tabs on every person, hiring snitches from the population to spy on the people in their apartment block, shooting randomly at suspects because they "look funny" or make people disappear in some remote concentration camps without trial (or a kangaroo court trial at best).
Martin Luther King Jr.? Watergate? McCarthy?
There was plenty of domestic intelligence often aimed wildly at whoever was in the way.
Hell, J. Robert Oppenheimer was outed and accused, you are glossing over many disgusting ordeals.Many prominent people were entangled in webs of ridicule and half truths. Stopping the reds would be achieved no matter the cost. Human experimentation without informed consent on children and prisoners - black syphilis patients not told about penicillin. "Down-winders" exposed to fallout from MANY tests. Bacteria spread over town to watch epidemic infection profiles. People dosed with LSD without their knowledge.
Stop acting like human right violations only occurred elsewhere or to others people. The United States is guilty of many questionable and downright illegal things.
no, we did not have populace on "internet" in 1980s, nor did we have automated systems for listening to all comm for key words. we did not have a "forever war" in place.
We didn't? Weird, I seem to recall wiretaps and miniature recording devices (i.e. "spy gear"; yes, the REAL stuff, not the James Bond fantasy tools) existing back then. Oh, and hey, wasn't there also this one forever-war-that-wasn't-really-a-war going on around that point? Something something Cold War, was it? And I could swear the police fucked up investigations, engaged in brutality (racially-motivated or not), and were abysmal at figuring out small crimes from time to time back then, too.
Or do you seriously believe the entire history of society and human development started with the commercialized internet? Things happened before the internet was created, you know. People in charge did stupid shit before everyone had a cell phone camera, too. All that, and society didn't crumble. Just because you've now got an easy-to-access echo chamber to discuss it ad nauseum with people who have obsessive mental issues doesn't make it worse.
This. For much of history you could be held arbitrarily in jail, there were a few exceptions. We may have some questionable trials (Guantanamo) but in General in America as an American you are afforded some of the best rights on earth. Our eternal vigilance must go towards keeping it that way, as ways of infringing have grown in size and sophistication.
See my above post. I'm convinced APK is serious, he has got battles raging everywhere, meticulously catalogued, yet he thinks this is proof of his knowledge and experience, not obsessive insanity. And making that point doesn't make him reconsider, it incites him. He also seems to think what looks like many multiples of people saying this are one or a few people who are out to get him. Just read my post and google Alexander Peter Kowalski. t
Slashdot Mirror
You are 100% correct, he probably meant, and if it would be more politically correct and acceptable you, let us just say: it would have been more desirable to have a gas to kill all conservatives.
How about we build thorium reactors and waste all the cheap energy we please! China is... with our research.
America is a large spread out place, and many people need to transport two hundred $ worth of groceries sometimes twice a week. Do that on a bike 4 miles twice a week, in Texas..... with three kids.
Do they offer this new green way of consuming stuff? Because, really, who else would commission a study of something so painfully obvious.
But in the big picture it would use more because you need new supply warehouses, vehicles on the road, all the old stores would stay open. Now with widespread shift, and massive adoption of delivery I am sure it would use less.
You mean..... walk? How?
Joking aside, the near ubiquitous adoption of cars has made walking untenable in many situations of daily shopping errands due to the distance between them. Biking would work in most situations, but you try carrying 60 pounds of groceries on a bike, maybe if you had a bike trailer, but I'm guessing you don't.
Grocery stores would fight it. There's no "oh i want it" to the same degree if you can keep a list in your phone every time you run out of something and it comes to the door twice a week. It would eliminate overhead, but who really needs grocery stores if a warehouse just loads the stuff on a truck and brings it to you. Now with fruits and veggies you'll probably want to pick them out so they dont give you the rejects.
For boxed stuff and canned goods, why not? I mean, my dad told me stories of the milk man/soda man in Brooklyn. Small towns have had a grocer kid who would bring you stuff for a tip. I even recall a similar service failing to gain traction here. I know there is Schwanns. That handsome delivery boy could be the bane of husbands everywhere!
I can leave if I want, and so can you, you stupid cunt.
Now that i think about it, for training you could connect them in an ad hoc wireless network and record times for actual training with blanks and see reaction times an a whole assortment of things. Triangulation of the signal, a gyroscope and compass would tell direction of fire, time, location. Could be quite useful.
So you put the 20,000 fingerprints into every gun in the armory. This could be useful for training weapons at a base, they could all sit in a rack that charges and updates fingerprint access, hit could tell how many rounds have been fired without the slide being removed (for cleaning) and other information like who fired how many rounds when for training certification and accident investigation. It wouldn't even have to check the fingerprint every time, a gyroscope could just make it reauthorize after movement stops.
There are many uses which don't require defensive readiness/reliability.
In 2011, 32,163 people were shot to death in the United States.
You seem to have the ability to break that number down, separating out 260 justifiable homicides. Did you happen to see that almost 20,000 of those deaths were suicides? This system would not have prevented those. How many of those 32,000 deaths were justified non-private citizen shootings, e.g. cops shooting criminals? This systems would not have prevented those either. Can you even find out how many of those shootings were committed with a stolen firearm that this system would have prevented?
How many suicides were with someone else's gun? How many were cops shot with their own gun? How many guns are stolen and used in a robbery which shooting didn't happen, but if it did it would be thwarted?
This type of system is a poor choice for military/leo definitely, and most others kind of. There could be other useful systems which accomplish the aim with higher reliability. Your cynicism is unfounded, no one is making this mandatory.
I agree with what I think you meant to say. But the words you chose were just too wrong (all by themselves) to leave there...
You generally want some lives to be lost in a combat situation.
No... you want to get your way. You don't WANT some lives to be lost.
Even for a home invasion situation you don't WANT a life to be lost. You WANT that creep OUT and you will do whatever it takes INCLUDING ending a life, but killing is not what you WANT to do. In an ideal situation you could just spot the invader and say "go away" and they'd turn and leave. But since that's highly unlikely and since there's a good chance there will be a struggle then the safest bet for you is to end the conflict as immediately as possible and in such a way that minimizes your own chances of being harmed. Therefore, you shoot 'em with an intent to kill (so they don't shoot back).
For general political WARS, your statement still goes too far. In a combat situation the goal is almost never "to end lives". The goal is to end a dispute (in neutralize the opponent) and to get your way. Lives being taken is more of a by product of the process than the goal itself. Total annihilation / beating them to nothing is often the simplest route to achieving the end of the war, but make no mistake. It's not that you WANT lives to be lost or resources to be destroyed... you just want break your opponent and get your way.
Then there's the extremist viewpoint. It's the viewpoint that anyone who disagrees must be the devil and should be killed. That attitude certainly breeds a type of combat, but it's not combat in general. And really, the defender (the "not extreme party") still only wants to stay alive through the combat... they're not necessarily interested in killing.
It's also generally a war crime.
You have no imagination. Do you know how much expensive stuff has flimsy plastic which is integral to it's utility?
The whole not blow up the earth thing is covered under things like thou shall not kill and the sermon on the mount. I'm not a Christian but tend to agree with a lot of Christ's thinking. Most Christians however do not seem to give a shit. In fact the text around the exhortations not to kill were used to, uh, pillage, kill and destroy.
You mean the guy who ran stophaus and posted diatribes about the evil of blacklisting spam providers is behind it? I'm speechless.
&Problem is the Romans sacked the temple so there's nothing to point to and say "look the second iteration of our temple stood here almost a millennium before your prophet existed." And with the Muslims and Christians going back and forth over the land for another millennium, and many more people added who call it home, it's easy to forget the people who originally, still do call it home.
One thing you can say about the Egyptians and their pyramids, despite no one practicing their religion (in numbers): despite Cairo being 9:1 Muslim:Coptic Christian, no one will ever forget the people who built them. As long as humans exist on this earth anyway.
I think i knew most of that, but interesting none the less.
Not being able to fly != not being able to leave
Please do and leave it that way, because no one with a productive/meaningful life cares anything about your trivial host file ramblings.
And even the people on slashdot with unproductive, trivial, meaningless lives don't care.
According to Alcoa, the world's largest producer of aluminium, the best smelters use about 13 kilowatt hours (46.8 megajoules) of electrical energy to produce one kilogram of aluminium; the worldwide average is closer to 15 kWh/kg (54 MJ/kg). Each kilogram of aluminum in the battery produces about 8 KWH of energy, so the efficiency from plant to engine is around 60%, maybe a bit lower than charging a battery from house-delivered electricity (10% transmission loss, 80% charging efficiency, 0.9*0.8 = 0.72).
The cost of that electricity though will be the wholesale grid cost, about 3.5 cents/KWH. What do you pay for your electricity (probably three times that and up)?
Aluminum is a good way to export electricity. Iceland does this with its hydropower.
And not only is it wholesale pricing but they could even focus production on off-peak hours, at least while there aren't huge quantities in demand.
You got smacked with a fist of logic. **pow**
Yes, but those mini spy cams were not directed at the population, they were used against the evil of then, the bad Russkies. Plus, our politicians had to play nice to keep reminding us that we're the good guys. We don't do oppressive things like keeping tabs on every person, hiring snitches from the population to spy on the people in their apartment block, shooting randomly at suspects because they "look funny" or make people disappear in some remote concentration camps without trial (or a kangaroo court trial at best).
Martin Luther King Jr.? Watergate? McCarthy?
There was plenty of domestic intelligence often aimed wildly at whoever was in the way.
Hell, J. Robert Oppenheimer was outed and accused, you are glossing over many disgusting ordeals.Many prominent people were entangled in webs of ridicule and half truths. Stopping the reds would be achieved no matter the cost. Human experimentation without informed consent on children and prisoners - black syphilis patients not told about penicillin. "Down-winders" exposed to fallout from MANY tests. Bacteria spread over town to watch epidemic infection profiles. People dosed with LSD without their knowledge.
Stop acting like human right violations only occurred elsewhere or to others people. The United States is guilty of many questionable and downright illegal things.
no, we did not have populace on "internet" in 1980s, nor did we have automated systems for listening to all comm for key words. we did not have a "forever war" in place.
We didn't? Weird, I seem to recall wiretaps and miniature recording devices (i.e. "spy gear"; yes, the REAL stuff, not the James Bond fantasy tools) existing back then. Oh, and hey, wasn't there also this one forever-war-that-wasn't-really-a-war going on around that point? Something something Cold War, was it? And I could swear the police fucked up investigations, engaged in brutality (racially-motivated or not), and were abysmal at figuring out small crimes from time to time back then, too.
Or do you seriously believe the entire history of society and human development started with the commercialized internet? Things happened before the internet was created, you know. People in charge did stupid shit before everyone had a cell phone camera, too. All that, and society didn't crumble. Just because you've now got an easy-to-access echo chamber to discuss it ad nauseum with people who have obsessive mental issues doesn't make it worse.
This. For much of history you could be held arbitrarily in jail, there were a few exceptions. We may have some questionable trials (Guantanamo) but in General in America as an American you are afforded some of the best rights on earth. Our eternal vigilance must go towards keeping it that way, as ways of infringing have grown in size and sophistication.
.
That's also possible.
I have to say it makes you both fucking nuts.
See my above post. I'm convinced APK is serious, he has got battles raging everywhere, meticulously catalogued, yet he thinks this is proof of his knowledge and experience, not obsessive insanity. And making that point doesn't make him reconsider, it incites him. He also seems to think what looks like many multiples of people saying this are one or a few people who are out to get him. Just read my post and google Alexander Peter Kowalski.
t