Secret paper ballots work fine. Granted, if they are poorly implemented problems will occur but that is no different from any other solution. We know what paper solutions work and don't work. So what is the point of changing to a new system?
We don't NEED quicker results. We need the CORRECT results that are BELIEVED to be accurate by the public. Your solution adds technology where none is needed. The result will be more problems.
"and/or is in a state that DOES NOT cap non-economic damages."
So, do malpractice insurance rates decrease for states that have those caps? Or at least not increase? The few statistics (and I don't trust them...) I have seen indicate there isn't a significant difference (where does your data come from?). If that is a case, capping damages is like moving the chairs on the deck of the titanic....
I suspect the real problem is the NUMBER of claims rather than the amount (opinion). A lot of small claims is more costly than a few large ones, and we only hear about the large ones. If every time someone sues it costs 20K (a randomn number) to resolve, even if you were "right", does it really matter if there are a few large claims of a few million? These are the statistics I would like to see. They must exist SOMEWHERE. The fact that I don't see them indicates that nobody involved wants them to see the light of day (pure speculation). After all, if the numbers of suits is the real problem, that would entail a fundamental problem, one that is hard to fix.
"Also, you must understand that while people are protesting the war, that gives the people we are fighting hope to stick it out longer. The longer they stick out, the more of my buddies they blow holes into."
What is your evidence that anti-war protestors cause the insurgents to continue fighting? Anyone who picks up a weapon against the most powerful military in the world has to be pretty motivated already. And they can't realistically expect to live. So why would a few protestors in a country far away matter? Especially when he (she) has seen their country invaded (liberated), innocents killed, their buddies killed, people tortured, their culture disrespected, the utilities destroyed, unemployment has skyrocketed, etc. And this has been done by the soldiers who came to "liberate" their country.
I hate to say it, but the things likely most responsible for the insurgents resolve are the actions of the soldiers. Anti-war protestors are merely window dressing.
"If America was really pro-war, the troops would get more equipment, and our enemy's moral would break sooner."
And how would more equipment help? It wouldn't. More troops would. Because the war isn't popular (for various reasons) they aren't going to come. More troops wouldn't break the enemy morale. Hell, it would probably increase it considering their actions to date....
"I am not saying that you should not be able to talk against the war, but the sad truth is when an insurgent reads on the internet that half of America hates the war and political parties want to just "shut up and leave", well that gives him the hope to shoot another few people in camouflage, and abduct a few more reporters because if it lasts long enough, America might just "shut up and leave" just like Vietnam."
Look, an insurgent reading about protests in the US is going to be motivated by them as as much as the protests bother President Bush. They won't/don't. They have already decided their course of action. If you have evidence to the contrary, please present it.
Finally, America will just "up and leave". It is only a matter of time, NO politician from EITHER party has stated otherwise. If the new government wants us to leave, we will. The only debate is when and how and EVERYONE who matters wants it to be ASAP and total.
"I would submit to you that human beings are the only species even capable of genocide. The lion does not kill the gazelle for pleasure, but for sustenance."
Of course a male lion after taking over a pride will commonly kill all the cubs that aren't his. Now one can say this is "instinct" (and that isn't going to help your argument) but humans aren't the only animal that kills their own for no reason...
"I think the Pentagon must have at least an idea, but they are unwilling to share that information with the public, for a variety of reasons that we need not debate. But if indeed the Pentagon isn't even tracking how many enemy are killed, I mean, what the fuck?"
Probably. But if they say it exists, somebody is going to want it, publicize it, and interpret it wrong. Basically, it is a no-win situation to release numbers (for the Pentagon).
"Isn't knowing the size of the opposing force, and how many have been eliminated, the the easiest way to chart progress (or lack thereof)?"
Short answer: No. Longer answer: Knowing the size of the opposing force is nice but difficult (impossible) in a situation like this. Remember, there were daily body counts in the Vietnam era to show we were "winning". It had no relation to progress of the war or the winning of it. Not to mention those enemy killed numbers are always inaccurate (if numbers are the metric, they WILL get inflated, after all who can really check....)
Giving numbers of enemy killed and wounded will only make the war remind people of Vietnam. Of course many would say that would be accurate.... But never accuse the Pentagon of not learning from at least some of their mistakes. In this case, not releasing hard numbers (that are incorrect) is not as bad as releasing them (for those in support of the war).
It doesn't matter as much how many object as much as how many SUPPORT us. Sure, most may not take up arms but they wouldn't lift a finger to stop anyone who did or turn them in. Passive support of the resistence is better than active support but not MUCH better....
The true test will come after the elections. If there is no change to the resistence (when we technically become police force versus occupier) I think we will have our answer.
"If they did, you'd be seeing a lot more casualties on the evening news."
If you hadn't noticed, casualties that don't result in deaths are rarely mentioned on the news (quick, how many injuries sustained by coalition forces?). They greatly outnumber deaths (1246 deaths for coalition forces to 8016 injuries, US only, http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2003/iraq/forces/casua lties/). And they aren't pleasant-lots of lost limbs. If the media showed the true cost of the war to US citizens, I suspect much more of OUR populace would object.
"Intelligence is the greatest weapon in warfare - it has always been decisive. The US army is just trying to push the envelope."
I don't know if it ALWAYS has been decisive but that is merely a minor point. The problem comes from assuming your intelligence will be superior and making it required for your battle plan to succeed. One could make the argument that our intelligence is NOT better than the Iraqi 'resistence' at the present time, after all, we don't seem to be able to avoid ambushes. But our training and equipment seem to help when the intelligence fails.
Remember, when you push the envelope, bad things happen. In combat, that means people die. I don't think the US should rely on "cutting edge" tech but tech that is advanced and reliable. Because unreliable tech on the battlefield makes for a very poor club....
"...the lumber companies are still making money and selling cheap lumber. They certainly aren't cutting everything down in their path and moving on like some strange marauders. There's only a certain amount of land they own, and they've always recognized that they have to replace what they cut down if they want to stay in business. Thus, nearly every tree cut down by Simpson Lumber or other companies was a tree they planted 50 years ago. They plant 5 trees for every one they cut down, in fact."
The large timber companies tend to own much of their crops (aka trees). These are probably sustainable (this is hard to determine a few hundred years out...) in theory. However, much of the outcry was/is about cutting on public lands especially old(er) growth forests. Company lands are forests in name only-they are generally single crops-trees in this case. Areas (public and private) that are replanted/managed are not much different (from what I have experienced growing up in the PNW).
"There are a lot of reasonable estimates that there are now more trees and forest in the United States than there were when the pilgrims set foot in Plymouth."
I have seen those estimates. There are almost certainly more trees now. More useful forest habitat, probably not. Trees do no make a forest, although they are required.
"What's really distressing is that, when you get into the higher echelons of these environmentalist groups, they don't give one hoot about the environment."
Unfortunately, I seem to get that feeling. I really hope I am wrong. I tend to ignore most reports from these organizations-they seem to be designed to get donations.
That is not to say their goals are bad. We are using a heck of a lot of resources. It is unsustainable. But most people won't want to change their lifestyles enought to make a real difference. And it may not matter if the rest of the world doesn't follow (most of the world wants to be like the US....)
"Balloning the debt for what though. Thats just a gross generalization. And you certainly can't blame Bush for all the pork in the budget (no line item veto)."
So what-I don't think they support a ballooning debt even IF it is for a good cause? He also has a veto. And his signature is on the document. So, overall, he must agree with it, right? He could shut the government down-it would hurt his approval rating but if he REALLY felt it was important why wouldn't he? Oh, since you are big on specifics, list the pork in the budget.... One person's pork is another's vital project....
"He promotes nation building and continual warfare. That's not conservative.> You aren't addressing the issue here, just making a broad statement again. Is it ever "conservative" to go to war? When is it liberal to go to war? How would YOU define conservative and liberal?"
And you are changing the subject. My impression of "conservative" values is isolationism. Don't attack anyone that hasn't attacked you. We are about one for two on that issue....
"Again, which civil liberties violations?"
Umm, like it matters? Conservatives say they want small government and government out of people's lives. If you violate "civil liberties" which I would interpret as at least the "Bill of Rights" then you have failed at least one of those concepts.... If you would like an example, how about holding people accused of crimes (accused combatants) without access to counsel?
"my own experience has been that, with such an attitude towards others, what you see is your own reflection."
And what attitude would that be exactly?
In reading my statement again, I can see that it could be misinterpreted by someone determined to take it out of context. My point was this. Your typical warehouse worker is a lot closer to an "average" American than the typical slashdot poster. And my statement was ONLY meant to apply to science.
I have had discussions about "science" with many of my co-workers-and unfortunately I stand by my statement. I wish it weren't true. They are intelligent people who are only really interested in knowledge if it doesn't conflict with their preconceived notions. So maybe a better statement would be uninterested, unwise, and unwilling to understand. Of course when I tell them why what they think is incorrect (they asked me....) and they don't accept my explanation (or look for logical reasons or knowledge for why I am incorrect) I have a hard time not calling that "stupid" and "incapable of understanding", although it does not meet the strict dictionary definitions.
I guess I don't understand, when these same people give me advice how to do my job better, I don't dismiss it out of hand. I attempt to apply it-if it works I use it, if it doesn't, oh well, no harm done. I actually WANT to learn how a warehouse works. I have never worked at such a place before and probably never will again but I am genuinely curious. I don't find this same level of curiousity from most people-they tend only to expend effort if they HAVE to. Interestingly enough, one supervisor stated that their best workers tended to be the higher educated ones-not what you might expect (it certainly was a surprise to me).
So, what's the point? Probably just a very long-winded way of saying a science show will not get good ratings on TV. Your typical person just doesn't care about science.
"Am I the only one who finds nearly everything said here rather elitist and rude? This attitude of"only we Slashdotters are smart and cultured enough to appreciate science programming."
Well, there is a LOT of that attitude. But not "nearly everything". But let's face it, I suspect most slashdot members have more in common with the "educated elite" than the average public.
"The general public is too stupid, uninterested, and incapable of understanding it." It's utter nonsense."
Really? I mean, surely not all three of those at once, but one of the three words probably applies to many if not most of the "general public". Remember, half the people in the world are below average in intelligence. Science and math are not popular topics.
I currently work with "average" people (warehouse job). And let me tell you uninterested, stupid, and incapable of understanding applies very well. Through in a smattering of "let me tell you how it really is" and "I know I'm right" and you cover the general public very well, even the brighter ones. Sure, there are exceptions, but what you attribute to slashdot members can be found among the "general public" as well-those who have no grounds whatsoever for that elitist attitude.
Most people may not be blathering idiots, but they sure act like it....
"You're assuming that the police did shut them down. Wouldn't it fit perfectly with an "independant" media group to have your stuff shutdown by "the evil government". No one seems to know why they were shut down."
Well, authorities (aka police) seized some equipment (hard drives at a minimum) using a legal document (warrant, supeona, etc) provided by a government. While they may have the equipment back, they would have to assume it is compromised (it was not in their possession) and it takes time to check. In any case, you can't run a server without data.
So, in review. The police acting for a government DID shut them down. Only their MOTIVES are in question....
"This is patently false. There is no correlation between security and liberty."
If people perceive there to be a correlation between security and liberty, it will tend to become a reality. Thus, if they think reducing liberty will increase security they will often go for it.
The perception of reality is far more important than the reality itself. Why do you think all those pieces of green paper/cloth (or ones and zeros) have value? Because people think they do and/or want them to.
"The real lesson learned is maybe it'd be smart to put a "THIS SIDE UP" with a large arrow pointing up."
Better to design the sensor only to install the CORRECT way. But that could be screwed up also....
Hmm, maybe things should be double checked? By persons somewhat unfamiliar with the procedure. So they actually check if things are installed correctly and not just think they are.
"is a managerial salary in some other countries. Hack it is even more than my salary and I am supporting a 3000 employees IT operation from backend to frontend."
Every hear of the term "cost of living" ? Apparently not.... It's just a tad higher in the US.
Hopefully you manage/support better than you reason.
Take home pay will be closer to 1250 (at least in Ohio)-based on about 20% taxes on a person making about $10 an hour.
No, they only realize that their processors are not scaling as well as they used to. As a result, they run very hot, hotter than AMD chips. This makes them very hard to cool. OEM's don't like that. Therefore, it's time to change course, and make it sound like it was planned all along....
If they (and AMD) weren't having a heat problem, it WOULD be business as usual....
"So how does this sound: I propose to release novel self-replicating entities into your environment, and I don't know what the consequences will be. I can be almost certain they won't lead to the end of the world as we know it, but on the other hand it isn't a great strech to imagine that my self-replicating entities are going to have a significant effect on the ecosystem you live in and depend upon.
Personally, I'd be very unhappy with someone making this proposal,...."
So, you are unhappy with people having children? And the continued existence of the human race? Because that is what you just described.... Not that I blame you some days:)
"GM "products" should be engineered to be sterile . .."
Read the news much, do you? I seem to recall a very large US company trying to do that and getting raked over the coals in the press... So they bowed to "public" opinion with predictable results. And now people are complaining....
The people who complain about contamination AND sterile GM products are OPPOSED to GM products. But don't want to seem that way. Probably because they can't win an argument against GM foods on merits...
Well, they are already using very fast growing varieties of trees in the US for pulp. Probably from selective breeding rather than "GM". But if you are growing a "crop" why wouldn't you use GM trees? Assuming the economics were there.
"Seed contamination becomes a health issue here. I'm allergic to protiens in wheat flour. If a company decides to put some part of wheat flour in say corn flour, then I can't eat either."
Egads! Someone with a halfway valid argument! That would be a problem IF you were allergic to the wheat proteins they put in corn.
But why would they put wheat proteins in corn? It is an allergen issue (they DO check for these things-it does eliminate many potential hybrids-nothing kills regulatory approval faster than your product killing people, even in the current administration....). What would be the benefit of the wheat proteins? Finally, if you are allergic to flour, you already have to worry about cross-contamination in processing plants. I suspect this is a much larger and actually REAL problem. Good luck, because it must suck.
"... I want to be able to trust my food."
Well, with all due respect, unless you have grown it yourself, you can't. And even then... Food is always a potential hazard (associated chemicals, bacteria, viruses, etc) but the hazards are generally outweighed by the need for it:)
"I'm all for science (I am a scientist), but I'm not for wantonly letting genies out of bottles."
This is a very strange comment for a scientist to make. A scientist understands there are risks and tries to minimize them. But most science carries risk and this risk may be unknown but that doesn't mean the science shouldn't be done. Perhaps you are not as much a scientist as you think you are? The title of "scientist" and the embodiment of "scientist" are two different things....
"It's a lot more than conjecture, if not a "proof beyond all doubt" and, I think, clearly worth giving up your SUVs and air conditioning for."
Well, it's not "proof beyond all doubt" but certainly a hypothesis. It probably isn't a scientific theory yet (humans causing global warming) due to a lot of missing data. But reasonable people could believe human released CO2 is a large problem.
But what to do about it? Is it worth giving up AC for? Considering that WILL cause the deaths of many (see heat wave deaths...) It will impact our economy NOW. Look, if the current levels of CO2 are "bad" then we need to reduce them, yes? The only way to reduce them is to go to technology that doesn't release CO2. There isn't much-hydro and nuclear-and these won't solve our energy needs. Because our population has grown immensely, we would have to throttle back our energy use immensely. Getting rid of SUV's and AC won't cut it. Try getting rid of ALL IC cars for a start. That won't happen short of a nuclear war.
The problem with reducing CO2 levels is that it has REAL COSTS NOW for hard to quantify benefits (what, we gave up our tech and it's STILL warming!?!). And a lot of countries (China, India) may not be too concerned about the consequences-after all when you are trying to feed/modernize a few billion people, CO2 effects can wait...
And if we have reached the tipping point, I don't think there is a lot we can do....
Here's a question for you. For those scientists and others who believe that CO2 is a problem what have they done to SIGNIFICANTLY lower their releases? I would say very little. If that is the case, is there really a large concern ?....
"Huh, most cops make quick assessments of situations and make life and death decisions based on limited information in a very short time frame."
So in other words they make life and death decisions based on (potentially) crappy data? Gee, that makes me feel better:)
"To say that they don't "think outside the square" is either ignorant, insulting or both."
Umm, I don't think police as a whole are of significantly above average intelligence. But I could be wrong. Many (most?) are educated, but that has little to do with intelligence.
Frankly, in my experience, they aren't very good at what they do. But that may be no different than any employee in any field-of course most people can't really screw up your life... When a friend who is a cop tells me most of them are "idiots", that doesn't tend to instill confidence... Of course, all of my observations, and yours, are only anecdotal. And may very well be wrong. And I sincerely hope I am, but I have yet to find any convincing evidence to the contrary....
Well, it is a minor one for the most part. In fact, I suspect nearly everyone breaks it. When everyone breaks a law, you had better consider the reasons for it....
"You only have to look at real world case studies to see that speed reduction on USA highways was the major factor in 9000 fewer road deaths in 1974."
Well, I can't read the case studies so I will take your word for it. But it is currently 2004, so those statistics are out of date.
"In 2002 the USA road toll exceeded 43,000 deaths. One-sixth of those deaths were solely due to unsafe driving speeds and speed was a contributing factor in more than one-half of the fatalities"
Over 7000 deaths due to unsafe driving speeds? Sorry, I don't believe you. Citations please. Despite your beliefs to the contrary, speed does NOT kill. Going to fast for conditions may result in an accident that MAY kill. Those are NOT the same things.
BTW, where were the predicted massive increases in deaths due to increasing US speed limits? Lots of people are still waiting.... This indicates that speeding is NOT a major factor in traffic fatalities.
Ah, here is some REAL data (http://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/). Traffic fatalities per million miles travelled in 2003: 1.48 deaths. This is a HISTORIC low. Some quotes from the annual NHSTA report (2002) "Unfortunately, impaired driving and failure to use safety belts continued to be major contributors to fatalities on our highways." and We will focus our efforts on increasing safety belt use, reducing impaired driving, improving inter-vehicle compatibility, reducing fatalities and injuries from rollover collisions,..." Gee, speeding isn't even mentioned. So much for speeding and death rates....
"Cops should be arresting those Real Criminals instead of poor little old me when I was only exceeding the speed limit by 5mph in my 2500kg V8 4WD truck."
Well, yes they should. Murderers actually kill people. Other criminals haved caused REAL harm. If someone's speed has caused harm, then by all means arrest them. If it is LIKELY to cause harm, then ticket them.
"So the message is clear: STOP SPEEDING."
No it isn't. But, hey, never let the facts get in the way of your beliefs.
"Income from traffic tickets helps to pay for police."
Well, they could use taxes like everybody else. At least this would result in all voters having a say in how many police they want. Second, how much of that revenue goes back into paying for the cops writing the tickets? If there is no "net gain" your argument is worthless. Finally, what happens if everyone obeys the traffice laws? Are we going to fire all those police? I think not....
"Why do you think traffic laws shouldn't be enforced?"
Reasonable ones should be. For instance, speed limits based on road conditions-not concerns of residents or the desire for ticket income. Ones that directly relate to safety such as failure to yield (running stop signs, lights) and reckless driving. But how often do you see those enforced? Or police in a POSITION to enforce those laws? Not often. I have observed more than once an officer IGNORE those offences when they could have SAFELY stopped the vehicle. Now you tell me, do they REALLY care about safety or do they want easy revenue?
"Traffic fatalities are a MAJOR cause of death..."
And what does speeding have to do with traffic fatalities? Not much. Now, going too fast for conditions, that has a LOT to do with accidents and POSSIBLY fatalities. But going too fast for conditions and speeding ARE NOT THE SAME THING.
More important considerations for fatalities would be things like wearing seat belts and available air bags. A belted passenger with air bag will likely survive a high speed crash whereas a person without either could die in a low speed one....
Finally, if speeding is a safety issue, why do cops hide? Shouldn't they be in plain view at all times? Heck, it would be better if they drove the roads at the speed limit. This has an amazing compliance rate. Granted, now the cars are probably tailgating each other....
"Do you really want traffic cops to become detectives?"
Ah, agreement! Considering the ability of the last officer(s) I met to accurately fill out a police report, I wouldn't trust them to investigate a cat trapped in a tree....
"I'm sure this is stated in their computer use policy, as it is in ours. Firing the employee was probably the correct action."
Don't be so sure it is stated in their computer use policy. It may well be. I don't know. I have no doubt it would be GROUNDS for termination. But just because you can do something, doesn't mean you should.
I suspect they had the right to fire him. I believe they can make a good case for it. However, I think much of the problem is the unprofessional conduct of Tom Hayes, head of the agency. I suspect (having interned with an Ohio agency and read the standard boilerplate that passes for an employee handbook-not that they actually gave me one for a few years....) that his comments are also GROUNDS for termination. But due to his position he won't be, even though it should be EASIER to remove him.
The problem with employee handbooks (and why I look at them with amusement and derision-I imagine many others do also) is that they tend to be employer propaganda rather than a useful document. They are generally filled with vague policies. Other policies may be quite specific. But these policies and handbooks have one thing in common-they are things that have consequences ONLY WHEN and IF the company WANTS to enforce them.
They are quite similar to traffic laws-nearly everyone breaks them because there are so many of them (and some are contrary to common sense) but they are only enforced when the police (aka management) FEEL like it or want to make an example or get rid of someone.... If they were actively enforced, the company/organization would be losing employees left and right, from CEO's/directors on down. Of course, I would have great respect for that organization. I don't think any such organization exists (though many may get close...)
Slashdot Mirror
And the point is?
Secret paper ballots work fine. Granted, if they are poorly implemented problems will occur but that is no different from any other solution. We know what paper solutions work and don't work. So what is the point of changing to a new system?
We don't NEED quicker results. We need the CORRECT results that are BELIEVED to be accurate by the public. Your solution adds technology where none is needed. The result will be more problems.
"and/or is in a state that DOES NOT cap non-economic damages."
So, do malpractice insurance rates decrease for states that have those caps? Or at least not increase? The few statistics (and I don't trust them...) I have seen indicate there isn't a significant difference (where does your data come from?). If that is a case, capping damages is like moving the chairs on the deck of the titanic....
I suspect the real problem is the NUMBER of claims rather than the amount (opinion). A lot of small claims is more costly than a few large ones, and we only hear about the large ones. If every time someone sues it costs 20K (a randomn number) to resolve, even if you were "right", does it really matter if there are a few large claims of a few million? These are the statistics I would like to see. They must exist SOMEWHERE. The fact that I don't see them indicates that nobody involved wants them to see the light of day (pure speculation). After all, if the numbers of suits is the real problem, that would entail a fundamental problem, one that is hard to fix.
"Also, you must understand that while people are protesting the war, that gives the people we are fighting hope to stick it out longer. The longer they stick out, the more of my buddies they blow holes into."
What is your evidence that anti-war protestors cause the insurgents to continue fighting? Anyone who picks up a weapon against the most powerful military in the world has to be pretty motivated already. And they can't realistically expect to live. So why would a few protestors in a country far away matter? Especially when he (she) has seen their country invaded (liberated), innocents killed, their buddies killed, people tortured, their culture disrespected, the utilities destroyed, unemployment has skyrocketed, etc. And this has been done by the soldiers who came to "liberate" their country.
I hate to say it, but the things likely most responsible for the insurgents resolve are the actions of the soldiers. Anti-war protestors are merely window dressing.
"If America was really pro-war, the troops would get more equipment, and our enemy's moral would break sooner."
And how would more equipment help? It wouldn't. More troops would. Because the war isn't popular (for various reasons) they aren't going to come. More troops wouldn't break the enemy morale. Hell, it would probably increase it considering their actions to date....
"I am not saying that you should not be able to talk against the war, but the sad truth is when an insurgent reads on the internet that half of America hates the war and political parties want to just "shut up and leave", well that gives him the hope to shoot another few people in camouflage, and abduct a few more reporters because if it lasts long enough, America might just "shut up and leave" just like Vietnam."
Look, an insurgent reading about protests in the US is going to be motivated by them as as much as the protests bother President Bush. They won't/don't. They have already decided their course of action. If you have evidence to the contrary, please present it.
Finally, America will just "up and leave". It is only a matter of time, NO politician from EITHER party has stated otherwise. If the new government wants us to leave, we will. The only debate is when and how and EVERYONE who matters wants it to be ASAP and total.
"I would submit to you that human beings are the only species even capable of genocide. The lion does not kill the gazelle for pleasure, but for sustenance."
Of course a male lion after taking over a pride will commonly kill all the cubs that aren't his. Now one can say this is "instinct" (and that isn't going to help your argument) but humans aren't the only animal that kills their own for no reason...
"I think the Pentagon must have at least an idea, but they are unwilling to share that information with the public, for a variety of reasons that we need not debate. But if indeed the Pentagon isn't even tracking how many enemy are killed, I mean, what the fuck?"
Probably. But if they say it exists, somebody is going to want it, publicize it, and interpret it wrong. Basically, it is a no-win situation to release numbers (for the Pentagon).
"Isn't knowing the size of the opposing force, and how many have been eliminated, the the easiest way to chart progress (or lack thereof)?"
Short answer: No. Longer answer: Knowing the size of the opposing force is nice but difficult (impossible) in a situation like this. Remember, there were daily body counts in the Vietnam era to show we were "winning". It had no relation to progress of the war or the winning of it. Not to mention those enemy killed numbers are always inaccurate (if numbers are the metric, they WILL get inflated, after all who can really check....)
Giving numbers of enemy killed and wounded will only make the war remind people of Vietnam. Of course many would say that would be accurate.... But never accuse the Pentagon of not learning from at least some of their mistakes. In this case, not releasing hard numbers (that are incorrect) is not as bad as releasing them (for those in support of the war).
"The populace doesn't object, by and large."
a lties/). And they aren't pleasant-lots of lost limbs. If the media showed the true cost of the war to US citizens, I suspect much more of OUR populace would object.
It doesn't matter as much how many object as much as how many SUPPORT us. Sure, most may not take up arms but they wouldn't lift a finger to stop anyone who did or turn them in. Passive support of the resistence is better than active support but not MUCH better....
The true test will come after the elections. If there is no change to the resistence (when we technically become police force versus occupier) I think we will have our answer.
"If they did, you'd be seeing a lot more casualties on the evening news."
If you hadn't noticed, casualties that don't result in deaths are rarely mentioned on the news (quick, how many injuries sustained by coalition forces?). They greatly outnumber deaths (1246 deaths for coalition forces to 8016 injuries, US only, http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2003/iraq/forces/casu
"Intelligence is the greatest weapon in warfare - it has always been decisive. The US army is just trying to push the envelope."
I don't know if it ALWAYS has been decisive but that is merely a minor point. The problem comes from assuming your intelligence will be superior and making it required for your battle plan to succeed. One could make the argument that our intelligence is NOT better than the Iraqi 'resistence' at the present time, after all, we don't seem to be able to avoid ambushes. But our training and equipment seem to help when the intelligence fails.
Remember, when you push the envelope, bad things happen. In combat, that means people die. I don't think the US should rely on "cutting edge" tech but tech that is advanced and reliable. Because unreliable tech on the battlefield makes for a very poor club....
"...the lumber companies are still making money and selling cheap lumber. They certainly aren't cutting everything down in their path and moving on like some strange marauders. There's only a certain amount of land they own, and they've always recognized that they have to replace what they cut down if they want to stay in business. Thus, nearly every tree cut down by Simpson Lumber or other companies was a tree they planted 50 years ago. They plant 5 trees for every one they cut down, in fact."
The large timber companies tend to own much of their crops (aka trees). These are probably sustainable (this is hard to determine a few hundred years out...) in theory. However, much of the outcry was/is about cutting on public lands especially old(er) growth forests. Company lands are forests in name only-they are generally single crops-trees in this case. Areas (public and private) that are replanted/managed are not much different (from what I have experienced growing up in the PNW).
"There are a lot of reasonable estimates that there are now more trees and forest in the United States than there were when the pilgrims set foot in Plymouth."
I have seen those estimates. There are almost certainly more trees now. More useful forest habitat, probably not. Trees do no make a forest, although they are required.
"What's really distressing is that, when you get into the higher echelons of these environmentalist groups, they don't give one hoot about the environment."
Unfortunately, I seem to get that feeling. I really hope I am wrong. I tend to ignore most reports from these organizations-they seem to be designed to get donations.
That is not to say their goals are bad. We are using a heck of a lot of resources. It is unsustainable. But most people won't want to change their lifestyles enought to make a real difference. And it may not matter if the rest of the world doesn't follow (most of the world wants to be like the US....)
"Balloning the debt for what though. Thats just a gross generalization. And you certainly can't blame Bush for all the pork in the budget (no line item veto)."
So what-I don't think they support a ballooning debt even IF it is for a good cause? He also has a veto. And his signature is on the document. So, overall, he must agree with it, right? He could shut the government down-it would hurt his approval rating but if he REALLY felt it was important why wouldn't he? Oh, since you are big on specifics, list the pork in the budget.... One person's pork is another's vital project....
"He promotes nation building and continual warfare. That's not conservative.> You aren't addressing the issue here, just making a broad statement again. Is it ever "conservative" to go to war? When is it liberal to go to war? How would YOU define conservative and liberal?"
And you are changing the subject. My impression of "conservative" values is isolationism. Don't attack anyone that hasn't attacked you. We are about one for two on that issue....
"Again, which civil liberties violations?"
Umm, like it matters? Conservatives say they want small government and government out of people's lives. If you violate "civil liberties" which I would interpret as at least the "Bill of Rights" then you have failed at least one of those concepts.... If you would like an example, how about holding people accused of crimes (accused combatants) without access to counsel?
"my own experience has been that, with such an attitude towards others, what you see is your own reflection."
And what attitude would that be exactly?
In reading my statement again, I can see that it could be misinterpreted by someone determined to take it out of context. My point was this. Your typical warehouse worker is a lot closer to an "average" American than the typical slashdot poster. And my statement was ONLY meant to apply to science.
I have had discussions about "science" with many of my co-workers-and unfortunately I stand by my statement. I wish it weren't true. They are intelligent people who are only really interested in knowledge if it doesn't conflict with their preconceived notions. So maybe a better statement would be uninterested, unwise, and unwilling to understand. Of course when I tell them why what they think is incorrect (they asked me....) and they don't accept my explanation (or look for logical reasons or knowledge for why I am incorrect) I have a hard time not calling that "stupid" and "incapable of understanding", although it does not meet the strict dictionary definitions.
I guess I don't understand, when these same people give me advice how to do my job better, I don't dismiss it out of hand. I attempt to apply it-if it works I use it, if it doesn't, oh well, no harm done. I actually WANT to learn how a warehouse works. I have never worked at such a place before and probably never will again but I am genuinely curious. I don't find this same level of curiousity from most people-they tend only to expend effort if they HAVE to. Interestingly enough, one supervisor stated that their best workers tended to be the higher educated ones-not what you might expect (it certainly was a surprise to me).
So, what's the point? Probably just a very long-winded way of saying a science show will not get good ratings on TV. Your typical person just doesn't care about science.
"Am I the only one who finds nearly everything said here rather elitist and rude? This attitude of"only we Slashdotters are smart and cultured enough to appreciate science programming."
Well, there is a LOT of that attitude. But not "nearly everything". But let's face it, I suspect most slashdot members have more in common with the "educated elite" than the average public.
"The general public is too stupid, uninterested, and incapable of understanding it." It's utter nonsense."
Really? I mean, surely not all three of those at once, but one of the three words probably applies to many if not most of the "general public". Remember, half the people in the world are below average in intelligence. Science and math are not popular topics.
I currently work with "average" people (warehouse job). And let me tell you uninterested, stupid, and incapable of understanding applies very well. Through in a smattering of "let me tell you how it really is" and "I know I'm right" and you cover the general public very well, even the brighter ones. Sure, there are exceptions, but what you attribute to slashdot members can be found among the "general public" as well-those who have no grounds whatsoever for that elitist attitude.
Most people may not be blathering idiots, but they sure act like it....
"You're assuming that the police did shut them down. Wouldn't it fit perfectly with an "independant" media group to have your stuff shutdown by "the evil government". No one seems to know why they were shut down."
Well, authorities (aka police) seized some equipment (hard drives at a minimum) using a legal document (warrant, supeona, etc) provided by a government. While they may have the equipment back, they would have to assume it is compromised (it was not in their possession) and it takes time to check. In any case, you can't run a server without data.
So, in review. The police acting for a government DID shut them down. Only their MOTIVES are in question....
"This is patently false. There is no correlation between security and liberty."
If people perceive there to be a correlation between security and liberty, it will tend to become a reality. Thus, if they think reducing liberty will increase security they will often go for it.
The perception of reality is far more important than the reality itself. Why do you think all those pieces of green paper/cloth (or ones and zeros) have value? Because people think they do and/or want them to.
"The real lesson learned is maybe it'd be smart to put a "THIS SIDE UP" with a large arrow pointing up."
Better to design the sensor only to install the CORRECT way. But that could be screwed up also....
Hmm, maybe things should be double checked? By persons somewhat unfamiliar with the procedure. So they actually check if things are installed correctly and not just think they are.
"is a managerial salary in some other countries. Hack it is even more than my salary and I am supporting a 3000 employees IT operation from backend to frontend."
Every hear of the term "cost of living" ? Apparently not.... It's just a tad higher in the US.
Hopefully you manage/support better than you reason.
Take home pay will be closer to 1250 (at least in Ohio)-based on about 20% taxes on a person making about $10 an hour.
No, they only realize that their processors are not scaling as well as they used to. As a result, they run very hot, hotter than AMD chips. This makes them very hard to cool. OEM's don't like that. Therefore, it's time to change course, and make it sound like it was planned all along....
If they (and AMD) weren't having a heat problem, it WOULD be business as usual....
"So how does this sound: I propose to release novel self-replicating entities into your environment, and I don't know what the consequences will be. I can be almost certain they won't lead to the end of the world as we know it, but on the other hand it isn't a great strech to imagine that my self-replicating entities are going to have a significant effect on the ecosystem you live in and depend upon.
:)
Personally, I'd be very unhappy with someone making this proposal,...."
So, you are unhappy with people having children? And the continued existence of the human race? Because that is what you just described.... Not that I blame you some days
"GM "products" should be engineered to be sterile . . ."
Read the news much, do you? I seem to recall a very large US company trying to do that and getting raked over the coals in the press... So they bowed to "public" opinion with predictable results. And now people are complaining....
The people who complain about contamination AND sterile GM products are OPPOSED to GM products. But don't want to seem that way. Probably because they can't win an argument against GM foods on merits...
Well, they are already using very fast growing varieties of trees in the US for pulp. Probably from selective breeding rather than "GM". But if you are growing a "crop" why wouldn't you use GM trees? Assuming the economics were there.
"Seed contamination becomes a health issue here. I'm allergic to protiens in wheat flour. If a company decides to put some part of wheat flour in say corn flour, then I can't eat either."
:)
Egads! Someone with a halfway valid argument! That would be a problem IF you were allergic to the wheat proteins they put in corn.
But why would they put wheat proteins in corn? It is an allergen issue (they DO check for these things-it does eliminate many potential hybrids-nothing kills regulatory approval faster than your product killing people, even in the current administration....). What would be the benefit of the wheat proteins? Finally, if you are allergic to flour, you already have to worry about cross-contamination in processing plants. I suspect this is a much larger and actually REAL problem. Good luck, because it must suck.
"... I want to be able to trust my food."
Well, with all due respect, unless you have grown it yourself, you can't. And even then... Food is always a potential hazard (associated chemicals, bacteria, viruses, etc) but the hazards are generally outweighed by the need for it
"I'm all for science (I am a scientist), but I'm not for wantonly letting genies out of bottles."
This is a very strange comment for a scientist to make. A scientist understands there are risks and tries to minimize them. But most science carries risk and this risk may be unknown but that doesn't mean the science shouldn't be done. Perhaps you are not as much a scientist as you think you are? The title of "scientist" and the embodiment of "scientist" are two different things....
"It's a lot more than conjecture, if not a "proof beyond all doubt" and, I think, clearly worth giving up your SUVs and air conditioning for."
....
Well, it's not "proof beyond all doubt" but certainly a hypothesis. It probably isn't a scientific theory yet (humans causing global warming) due to a lot of missing data. But reasonable people could believe human released CO2 is a large problem.
But what to do about it? Is it worth giving up AC for? Considering that WILL cause the deaths of many (see heat wave deaths...) It will impact our economy NOW. Look, if the current levels of CO2 are "bad" then we need to reduce them, yes? The only way to reduce them is to go to technology that doesn't release CO2. There isn't much-hydro and nuclear-and these won't solve our energy needs. Because our population has grown immensely, we would have to throttle back our energy use immensely. Getting rid of SUV's and AC won't cut it. Try getting rid of ALL IC cars for a start. That won't happen short of a nuclear war.
The problem with reducing CO2 levels is that it has REAL COSTS NOW for hard to quantify benefits (what, we gave up our tech and it's STILL warming!?!). And a lot of countries (China, India) may not be too concerned about the consequences-after all when you are trying to feed/modernize a few billion people, CO2 effects can wait...
And if we have reached the tipping point, I don't think there is a lot we can do....
Here's a question for you. For those scientists and others who believe that CO2 is a problem what have they done to SIGNIFICANTLY lower their releases? I would say very little. If that is the case, is there really a large concern ?
"Huh, most cops make quick assessments of situations and make life and death decisions based on limited information in a very short time frame."
:)
So in other words they make life and death decisions based on (potentially) crappy data? Gee, that makes me feel better
"To say that they don't "think outside the square" is either ignorant, insulting or both."
Umm, I don't think police as a whole are of significantly above average intelligence. But I could be wrong. Many (most?) are educated, but that has little to do with intelligence.
Frankly, in my experience, they aren't very good at what they do. But that may be no different than any employee in any field-of course most people can't really screw up your life... When a friend who is a cop tells me most of them are "idiots", that doesn't tend to instill confidence... Of course, all of my observations, and yours, are only anecdotal. And may very well be wrong. And I sincerely hope I am, but I have yet to find any convincing evidence to the contrary....
"Speeding is a real crime."
Well, it is a minor one for the most part. In fact, I suspect nearly everyone breaks it. When everyone breaks a law, you had better consider the reasons for it....
"You only have to look at real world case studies to see that speed reduction on USA highways was the major factor in 9000 fewer road deaths in 1974."
Well, I can't read the case studies so I will take your word for it. But it is currently 2004, so those statistics are out of date.
"In 2002 the USA road toll exceeded 43,000 deaths. One-sixth of those deaths were solely due to unsafe driving speeds and speed was a contributing factor in more than one-half of the fatalities"
Over 7000 deaths due to unsafe driving speeds? Sorry, I don't believe you. Citations please. Despite your beliefs to the contrary, speed does NOT kill. Going to fast for conditions may result in an accident that MAY kill. Those are NOT the same things.
BTW, where were the predicted massive increases in deaths due to increasing US speed limits? Lots of people are still waiting.... This indicates that speeding is NOT a major factor in traffic fatalities.
Ah, here is some REAL data (http://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/). Traffic fatalities per million miles travelled in 2003: 1.48 deaths. This is a HISTORIC low.
Some quotes from the annual NHSTA report (2002) "Unfortunately, impaired driving and failure to use safety belts continued to be major contributors to fatalities on our highways." and We will focus our efforts on increasing safety belt use, reducing impaired driving, improving inter-vehicle compatibility, reducing fatalities and injuries from rollover collisions,..."
Gee, speeding isn't even mentioned. So much for speeding and death rates....
"Cops should be arresting those Real Criminals instead of poor little old me when I was only exceeding the speed limit by 5mph in my 2500kg V8 4WD truck."
Well, yes they should. Murderers actually kill people. Other criminals haved caused REAL harm. If someone's speed has caused harm, then by all means arrest them. If it is LIKELY to cause harm, then ticket them.
"So the message is clear: STOP SPEEDING."
No it isn't. But, hey, never let the facts get in the way of your beliefs.
"Income from traffic tickets helps to pay for police."
Well, they could use taxes like everybody else. At least this would result in all voters having a say in how many police they want. Second, how much of that revenue goes back into paying for the cops writing the tickets? If there is no "net gain" your argument is worthless. Finally, what happens if everyone obeys the traffice laws? Are we going to fire all those police? I think not....
"Why do you think traffic laws shouldn't be enforced?"
Reasonable ones should be. For instance, speed limits based on road conditions-not concerns of residents or the desire for ticket income. Ones that directly relate to safety such as failure to yield (running stop signs, lights) and reckless driving. But how often do you see those enforced? Or police in a POSITION to enforce those laws? Not often. I have observed more than once an officer IGNORE those offences when they could have SAFELY stopped the vehicle. Now you tell me, do they REALLY care about safety or do they want easy revenue?
"Traffic fatalities are a MAJOR cause of death..."
And what does speeding have to do with traffic fatalities? Not much. Now, going too fast for conditions, that has a LOT to do with accidents and POSSIBLY fatalities. But going too fast for conditions and speeding ARE NOT THE SAME THING.
More important considerations for fatalities would be things like wearing seat belts and available air bags. A belted passenger with air bag will likely survive a high speed crash whereas a person without either could die in a low speed one....
Finally, if speeding is a safety issue, why do cops hide? Shouldn't they be in plain view at all times? Heck, it would be better if they drove the roads at the speed limit. This has an amazing compliance rate. Granted, now the cars are probably tailgating each other....
"Do you really want traffic cops to become detectives?"
Ah, agreement! Considering the ability of the last officer(s) I met to accurately fill out a police report, I wouldn't trust them to investigate a cat trapped in a tree....
"I'm sure this is stated in their computer use policy, as it is in ours. Firing the employee was probably the correct action."
Don't be so sure it is stated in their computer use policy. It may well be. I don't know. I have no doubt it would be GROUNDS for termination. But just because you can do something, doesn't mean you should.
I suspect they had the right to fire him. I believe they can make a good case for it. However, I think much of the problem is the unprofessional conduct of Tom Hayes, head of the agency. I suspect (having interned with an Ohio agency and read the standard boilerplate that passes for an employee handbook-not that they actually gave me one for a few years....) that his comments are also GROUNDS for termination. But due to his position he won't be, even though it should be EASIER to remove him.
The problem with employee handbooks (and why I look at them with amusement and derision-I imagine many others do also) is that they tend to be employer propaganda rather than a useful document. They are generally filled with vague policies. Other policies may be quite specific. But these policies and handbooks have one thing in common-they are things that have consequences ONLY WHEN and IF the company WANTS to enforce them.
They are quite similar to traffic laws-nearly everyone breaks them because there are so many of them (and some are contrary to common sense) but they are only enforced when the police (aka management) FEEL like it or want to make an example or get rid of someone.... If they were actively enforced, the company/organization would be losing employees left and right, from CEO's/directors on down. Of course, I would have great respect for that organization. I don't think any such organization exists (though many may get close...)