Or, of course, the 3 or 4 big banana companies of the earth (which are all 'western'), will jump into the void and start exploiting African banana farmers, let them work in dangerous conditions, using chemicals, and not nearly paying them enough to make a proper living. So more or less re-create the current status quo in latin-american banana farming but now in africa... So what? You aren't going to give those people jobs. If it's so important to you, get everyone who feels like you together and pay them whatever you wish. Pay them $500K a year if you want to.
At least then you will be providing jobs and income and stability, whereas right now, you're doing nothing for them at all. Oh well, except, patting yourself on the back for showing everyone how much you care, and having pwn3d those eeeevil corporations.
You don't help anyone by posting here, you don't help anyone by not providing jobs that others are willing to (and then denigrating them for doing so) and you certainly don't help the poor people of anywhere by looking at their limited choices and then removing the one they actually chose.
"Their post called me "paranoid" and then went on as if it had an airtight case against nuke satellites existing. If that's not their implication, then what's the point of their argument?"
Again: He wasn't making an air tight case against nuke satellites existing. His point was clear, and he stated it explicitly, "You seem to start with the pre-judeged assumption that some sort of comic-book conspiracy of evil overlords runs the US Intelligence agencies and will irrationally choose evil nukes over engineering practicality, in order to be more menacing." He did not say he had an airtight case against nuke satellites existing--that you responded to an implication that you thought you saw is on you.
"So I responded in kind with "blah blah blah". So what? That's the level of respect they invoked, so they got it. What matters is that I completely countered their argument denying nuke satellites with facts and logic."
My god. Except that he didn't deny nuke satellites at all. You either read it wrong or didn't understand it and replied to an argument he didn't make.
"And if their argument wasn't that there are no nuke satellites, so what? What are they saying? It doesn't matter, because my argument shows that there are nuke satellites, there will continue to be arguments for them, the ones arguing will win when they want."
It doesn't matter that your argument shows that there are nuclear satellites, that was never in question. He never made the point that there weren't. He did make the point that by no means are they an effective way to accomplish intelligence missions--their costs are too high given the necessity of having as many eyes as possible.
"These satellites are a risk. If you're going to try arguing against that with arguments you yourself imply are irrelevant to the point, then don't bother."
That you say they are a risk isn't an argument. Walking outside your home each day is a MUCH higher risk, by orders of magnitude. However, I haven't taken a side either way--I've been demonstrating why your vague hand-waving is ineffective at convincing others.
"So I called you out as a nuke fetishist. Because I saw through you, as only nuke fetishists have the illogic and devotion to nukes to talk the way you both did. My "political ideology" is self preservation, underwritten by working logic and knowledge of history. Too bad that you're politically opposed to that. Because that puts you on the losing side. Especially when you try your own hand at the kind of obvious inferences I successfully derived from your posts, that you try to put down, but fail to pull off yourself."
Again, this is all empty speculation on your part--again suggesting that you read what you want to read, and are incapable of understanding that others can note your failures at presenting your point without addressing whether nuclear satellites are a risk or not. That you happen to make nearly non-existent arguments does not imply any position of mine. No matter what you choose to believe about me.
"People defending nuke deployments have a hallmark obsession with both cherrypicked logic and inability to relate to human nature. It's like you sat too close to the TV too long when you you were kids.
"Bottom line: nuke launches are a risk when secret, they've been launched in secret, they can be launched in secret. You both are defending that, with weak arguments."
This is just getting funny now. I have neither defended the use of any types of nuclear technology, nor have I referred to launching satellites in secret, nor have I defended those launches at all.
All I have noted is that your self-serving, ideological conclusions do not serve as effective arguments to convince others of your position. In fact, they suggest to others that your position is nothing more than blind ideology, and therefore they can easily dismiss it. Oh, hey, I've got an idea, why don't you make up a bunch more unfounded stuff about me and post that as if it's an argument for your position. I'm sure that THIS time that will *really* convince those that disagree with you.
Hey, should I reply to this post the same way you did? With "Blah, blah, blah" as if that actually conveys reasoning? I mean, you did it, so it must be effective, right?
"Their 'reasoning' consists of calling me paranoid, and denying that nuke powered satellites would ever be launched because of physics and engineering problems, and the superiority of solar alternatives."
No, wrong. Again. He was illustrating why there are a LOT of costs involved with nukes. He didn't "deny that nuke powered satellites would ever be launched..." he noted that their costs make them a far less likely choice given the nature of intelligence gathering--you need lots of eyes, not just one.
"So I showed not only cases where nukes would be used because solar isn't good enough, but actual examples of nuke satellites already used."
Which, of course, wasn't his point. He said that specifically when he said: "There are solid engineering and budgetary reasons at work here. No 'secrecy' can hide those issues, no matter the classification fo the satellite. Physics, like mathematics, sooner or later breaks attempts at classifying it. And there are limits on the money spent, even in a 'black' budget project. If things go bad, you can bet overspending will leak out." You see, he was using this as evidence of his assertion that you think that "the US Intelligence agencies... will irrationally choose evil nukes over engineering practicality, in order to be more menacing." They will not, for the reasons he noted. He did not say that no satellites would ever be nuclear.
"So what if you nuke fetishists cannot even bother to read the simple reasons that debunk your absolute assertions. You're incurable. But at least you are quickly and easily beaten in public - a public which has grown to expect your lies.
"Thanks for making it easy to not just win this argument, but to discredit the basic thinking skills of you people mesmerized by the nuke glow."
Then you make this unfounded, sweeping generalization. Read carefully: I didn't take a position either way, I simply noted that your empty response was just that. Empty. From there you decide that I am a "nuke fetishist[]," that I don't bother to read, and I'm "incurable" whatever the hell that means, and (in another unfounded generalization) you speak for all of the "public." Lovely. Except none of that has any bearing on what I said, nor can you rationally derive those conclusions from what I said.
Which simply suggests that you are too aligned with your political ideology for anyone to take seriously any arguments you do happen to make. That doesn't help your cause, it hurts your cause, because it calls into doubt your basic reading skills as well as your "basic thinking skills."
Here, have a link ~snip link~ Now, what were you saying about being secure? About the security of nuclear weapons? The same thing I said initially:
"While there have been any number of 'lost' nuclear weapons (meaning they generally aren't lost, they're considered unrecoverable), that has usually been due to mechanical failures, not systematic or structural failures.
"Although there are limits to safety with extremely dangerous devices, U.S. nuclear systems were/are extremely secure. So secure that the most powerful of them are left essentially unguarded in holes in the ground."
I wasn't referring to anything other than "nuclear weapons," which is why I used the phrase "nuclear weapons," and then I illustrated the point by mentioning the status of Minuteman III missiles.
That you provided a link the provides evidence of something I didn't even refer to is more evidence that you cannot read. Now, had you provided evidence of where someone (oh, say, some 14-year-old kid with a remote control) had taken even partial control of a nuclear weapons system, well, then you'd have a point.
Do you have evidence of someone taking remote control of American nuclear weapons systems?
You're new here, so let me point out that there's a story here on/. where REMOTE CONTROL OF A NUCLEAR POWER PLANT WAS ACHIEVED HERE IN THE USA. So you keep on thinking that and living in your little world. The search feature is your friend, as I mentioned in my previous post. USE IT.
You're having trouble reading so let me point out that my post noted specifically that I was referring to "nuclear weapons," in response to the phrase "defense and nuclear systems."
It's called context. It's reasonable to come to the conclusion that nuclear weapons systems are included in "defense and nuclear systems." Since that's reasonable, it's reasonable that a reader would comment in the context of nuclear weapons. Which I did.
Which is why replies to that particular post concerning the remote control of a "NUCLEAR POWER PLANT" has no bearing. Especially given that rational people should be FAR more concerned over the operational control of a ICBM than operational control of a power station.
"What other systems are out there created in the same context, i.e., with little thought to external interference?"
Our defense and nuclear systems, for one example. I'm sure a/. search would turn up many such incidents. That's simply ignorant. While there have been any number of "lost" nuclear weapons (meaning they generally aren't lost, they're considered unrecoverable), that has usually been due to mechanical failures, not systematic or structural failures.
Although there are limits to safety with extremely dangerous devices, U.S. nuclear systems were/are extremely secure. So secure that the most powerful of them are left essentially unguarded in holes in the ground.
Which one weighs 18 billion times our sun, and which ones weighs 100 million times our sun? See, my first thought was Oprah orbiting Maya Angelou. Now THAT'S two black ho's!
Slashdot Mirror
Have you ever heard a properly executed Yakov Smirnoff?
Does it sound like the trap-door on a gallows dropping or a gun-shot?
No, it's sounds like a cough in a quiet, but filled lecture hall, or a lone cricket.
Barack Hussein.
And the chocolate ration has been raised to 20 grams!!
(See how a correct parenthetical expression uses both open and close parenthesis?)
"Their post called me "paranoid" and then went on as if it had an airtight case against nuke satellites existing. If that's not their implication, then what's the point of their argument?"
Again: He wasn't making an air tight case against nuke satellites existing. His point was clear, and he stated it explicitly, "You seem to start with the pre-judeged assumption that some sort of comic-book conspiracy of evil overlords runs the US Intelligence agencies and will irrationally choose evil nukes over engineering practicality, in order to be more menacing." He did not say he had an airtight case against nuke satellites existing--that you responded to an implication that you thought you saw is on you.
"So I responded in kind with "blah blah blah". So what? That's the level of respect they invoked, so they got it. What matters is that I completely countered their argument denying nuke satellites with facts and logic."
My god. Except that he didn't deny nuke satellites at all. You either read it wrong or didn't understand it and replied to an argument he didn't make.
"And if their argument wasn't that there are no nuke satellites, so what? What are they saying? It doesn't matter, because my argument shows that there are nuke satellites, there will continue to be arguments for them, the ones arguing will win when they want."
It doesn't matter that your argument shows that there are nuclear satellites, that was never in question. He never made the point that there weren't. He did make the point that by no means are they an effective way to accomplish intelligence missions--their costs are too high given the necessity of having as many eyes as possible.
"These satellites are a risk. If you're going to try arguing against that with arguments you yourself imply are irrelevant to the point, then don't bother."
That you say they are a risk isn't an argument. Walking outside your home each day is a MUCH higher risk, by orders of magnitude. However, I haven't taken a side either way--I've been demonstrating why your vague hand-waving is ineffective at convincing others.
"So I called you out as a nuke fetishist. Because I saw through you, as only nuke fetishists have the illogic and devotion to nukes to talk the way you both did. My "political ideology" is self preservation, underwritten by working logic and knowledge of history. Too bad that you're politically opposed to that. Because that puts you on the losing side. Especially when you try your own hand at the kind of obvious inferences I successfully derived from your posts, that you try to put down, but fail to pull off yourself."
Again, this is all empty speculation on your part--again suggesting that you read what you want to read, and are incapable of understanding that others can note your failures at presenting your point without addressing whether nuclear satellites are a risk or not. That you happen to make nearly non-existent arguments does not imply any position of mine. No matter what you choose to believe about me.
"People defending nuke deployments have a hallmark obsession with both cherrypicked logic and inability to relate to human nature. It's like you sat too close to the TV too long when you you were kids.
"Bottom line: nuke launches are a risk when secret, they've been launched in secret, they can be launched in secret. You both are defending that, with weak arguments."
This is just getting funny now. I have neither defended the use of any types of nuclear technology, nor have I referred to launching satellites in secret, nor have I defended those launches at all.
All I have noted is that your self-serving, ideological conclusions do not serve as effective arguments to convince others of your position. In fact, they suggest to others that your position is nothing more than blind ideology, and therefore they can easily dismiss it. Oh, hey, I've got an idea, why don't you make up a bunch more unfounded stuff about me and post that as if it's an argument for your position. I'm sure that THIS time that will *really* convince those that disagree with you.
I'll repeat myself: smart plan.
Hey, should I reply to this post the same way you did? With "Blah, blah, blah" as if that actually conveys reasoning? I mean, you did it, so it must be effective, right?
... will irrationally choose evil nukes over engineering practicality, in order to be more menacing." They will not, for the reasons he noted. He did not say that no satellites would ever be nuclear.
"Their 'reasoning' consists of calling me paranoid, and denying that nuke powered satellites would ever be launched because of physics and engineering problems, and the superiority of solar alternatives."
No, wrong. Again. He was illustrating why there are a LOT of costs involved with nukes. He didn't "deny that nuke powered satellites would ever be launched..." he noted that their costs make them a far less likely choice given the nature of intelligence gathering--you need lots of eyes, not just one.
"So I showed not only cases where nukes would be used because solar isn't good enough, but actual examples of nuke satellites already used."
Which, of course, wasn't his point. He said that specifically when he said: "There are solid engineering and budgetary reasons at work here. No 'secrecy' can hide those issues, no matter the classification fo the satellite. Physics, like mathematics, sooner or later breaks attempts at classifying it. And there are limits on the money spent, even in a 'black' budget project. If things go bad, you can bet overspending will leak out." You see, he was using this as evidence of his assertion that you think that "the US Intelligence agencies
"So what if you nuke fetishists cannot even bother to read the simple reasons that debunk your absolute assertions. You're incurable. But at least you are quickly and easily beaten in public - a public which has grown to expect your lies.
"Thanks for making it easy to not just win this argument, but to discredit the basic thinking skills of you people mesmerized by the nuke glow."
Then you make this unfounded, sweeping generalization. Read carefully: I didn't take a position either way, I simply noted that your empty response was just that. Empty. From there you decide that I am a "nuke fetishist[]," that I don't bother to read, and I'm "incurable" whatever the hell that means, and (in another unfounded generalization) you speak for all of the "public." Lovely. Except none of that has any bearing on what I said, nor can you rationally derive those conclusions from what I said.
Which simply suggests that you are too aligned with your political ideology for anyone to take seriously any arguments you do happen to make. That doesn't help your cause, it hurts your cause, because it calls into doubt your basic reading skills as well as your "basic thinking skills."
What a smart plan.
Doc Paranoid, you probably could have just said, "you win, EQ, I concede."
At least he presented his reasoning. You just present your own self-serving conclusions as if they are self-evident.
"While there have been any number of 'lost' nuclear weapons (meaning they generally aren't lost, they're considered unrecoverable), that has usually been due to mechanical failures, not systematic or structural failures.
"Although there are limits to safety with extremely dangerous devices, U.S. nuclear systems were/are extremely secure. So secure that the most powerful of them are left essentially unguarded in holes in the ground."
I wasn't referring to anything other than "nuclear weapons," which is why I used the phrase "nuclear weapons," and then I illustrated the point by mentioning the status of Minuteman III missiles.
That you provided a link the provides evidence of something I didn't even refer to is more evidence that you cannot read. Now, had you provided evidence of where someone (oh, say, some 14-year-old kid with a remote control) had taken even partial control of a nuclear weapons system, well, then you'd have a point.
Do you have evidence of someone taking remote control of American nuclear weapons systems?
You're having trouble reading so let me point out that my post noted specifically that I was referring to "nuclear weapons," in response to the phrase "defense and nuclear systems."
It's called context. It's reasonable to come to the conclusion that nuclear weapons systems are included in "defense and nuclear systems." Since that's reasonable, it's reasonable that a reader would comment in the context of nuclear weapons. Which I did.
Which is why replies to that particular post concerning the remote control of a "NUCLEAR POWER PLANT" has no bearing. Especially given that rational people should be FAR more concerned over the operational control of a ICBM than operational control of a power station.
Our defense and nuclear systems, for one example. I'm sure a
Although there are limits to safety with extremely dangerous devices, U.S. nuclear systems were/are extremely secure. So secure that the most powerful of them are left essentially unguarded in holes in the ground.