Yes, but this research was invested in by big newspaper in order to create an artificial demand for newspaper. Pretty soon you'll see newspaper ads being ran that point out you can stuff newspaper in your gas tank to fuel your car at a cost cheaper than shoving oil into it.
Roughly 4,477 soldiers died in Iraq from March '03 to the end of June '11. That is 100 months or averaging 44.77 deaths a month. If I use the 4,000 death toll figure that puts me at March '08. That would be 61 months or an average of around 65.57 deaths a month. The time frame between March '08 and June '11 would be around 477 deaths from 39 months in Iraq or 12.23 deaths per month.
We know that about 50,000 people die annually in the US from a population of 308 million. That's 4166.66 deaths a month. That's a death rate each month of approximately 0.001% of the population.
The tough part I'm having trouble with is figuring out the average number of troops deployed to Iraq over this time frame. Here's what I do know due to the Huffington Post.
March 2003 - U.S. troops invade Iraq: 192,000. May 2003 - President Bush declares the end of major combat: 146,000. January 2005 - First post-invasion Iraqi election: 159,000. October 2005 - Iraqi referendum on the constitution: 157,000. December 2005 - Iraqi parliamentary elections: 152,000. June 2006 - Lowest troop level since July 2004: 125,000. September 2006 - Escalating insurgent violence: 147,000. Mid-January 2007 - Bush announces troop "surge" plan: 132,000. End-January 2007 - Troops begin moving into Iraq: 137,000 October 2007 - Troop buildup peaks: 170,000. March 2008 - U.S. troop deaths reach 4,000: 158,000.
I'm going to say it's an average of 130,000. Most due to know that during 2004 they had levels that were lower than 125,000. So a death toll of 65.57 per month among a population of 125,000 is 0.0005%. For the record, you would need an average troop level of around 62,500 troops to achieve the same 0.001% death rate among the soldier population as the death rate in auto accidents in the US at large.
I doubt that the Iraq war lowered the overall death rate among the US population by not having the soldiers out driving, mostly because their death rate is half the rate of dying in an auto accident essentially requiring that about half the fatal care accidents in a year are caused by people in the 18-25 range. Beyond that, we would have seen a significant decrease in auto accident rates if the deployment would have been true. It may have been another conflict, possibly the Gulf War, that you're thinking about. However, it is true that based on the death rates, you're more likely to get killed in a car accident than die in the Iraq War (though those figures don't include people who are evacuated out of Iraq and die elsewhere from combat injuries).
I've only ever held the Japanese robot perception when it came to human acting robots. They make bi pedal robots that can walk up stairs, robots that can play the violin, or robots that are intended to help care for the elderly or infirmed. While these types of robotics are highly advanced that are about as useful to helping at Fukushima as an infant child.
And upset the atheists that rely on the literalist interpretation to attack Christianity. That's basically their only form of attack and once you start pointing out how the Bible isn't too terribly different from how many ancient texts were written that we accept as truth the start to come up with anything worthwhile to continue attacking with.
I had the fortune of witnessing first hand how unions protest government actions. I saw protesters holding signs. Fine. People do that all the time. They weren't the ones that I had problems with.
The ones I had problems with were the teamsters. Their form of protest was to drive semi-tractor trailers in slow circles around the capital building. Again fine but annoying that you have semi (with trailers) driving slowly around one block in a city. What crossed the line was the fact that they would straddle two lanes which would prevent any traffic from bypassing them (normally three lanes but the right most had construction) and they would stop and talk to people. This would impede all flow of traffic. The worst part is seeing police officers who were supposed to be keeping the peace during the protest that saw the truckers but invariably wouldn't issue a citation of violating a law.
This is my problem with unions, they (I don't care if it's individual members choosing to do so the union obviously gives tacit support of these actions by not trying to suppress them) encourage committing illegal acts to try to win. Then they get offended that people will go against them because of those types of acts?
How can this idea even be sustainable? You're going to find a sufficient number of people willing to give up their time to do these things for complete strangers with no guarantee of compensation?
It is a library, right? Free to join, no cost to check out? Where are the revenues going to come from?
It's a highly customize automobile which means there's a lot of cool stuff that went into making it. Taking apart would be a dream of any gear-head nerd.
It depends on which grade of crude Exxon is dealing with, but you only get 5-30% of 42gal as gasoline in the straight run distillation. You have to go through further refining to get more gas from the remaining products but that is more expenses. It's also a reason why we have such a huge thirst for the Saudi oil. That's one of the grades that we get 30% with the first pass. The Venezuelan stuff? 5%
Do you really believe that if we dropped 4 more people at random places on the moon we would suddenly glean everything we could possibly know? The truth is that we don't need to send humans up in space. Robots and probes satisfy our current needs and they're cheaper and easier to get into LEO.
Your house analogy is completely off base. I can still resell that house. There are people who will want it. The sunk cost is the cost of your time you put into building it. Who in the heck was NASA going to sell a Saturn V rocket to? No one had a need to send 130 tons into LEO. Other rockets were capable of delivering payloads into LEO and other orbits and were cheaper to use.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't it Obama who got Constellation canceled and Bush Jr that got it into place? Conservatives really tried to kill that, didn't they? Additionally, the Space Shuttle and the Apollo program were conceived during Eisenhower's Presidency. It was only Kennedy's Presidency that energized the populace towards Apollo. It also happened to be Nixon that gave the final go ahead with the Shuttle. With the exception of Kennedy it seems like Democrats have been at best ambivalent and at worst destructive towards the manned space program while it was Republicans that have at least pushed it through.
However thanks for proving my point that humans allow romantic notions to overrule common sense.
Now all we need is a process called "Frelling" and I'll be happy. Preferably have frelling be somewhat related to fracking so I can see both words used in the same sentence.
Do you know why there is a Saturn V baking in the sun outside the Cape Canaveral visitor center?
I believe they moved that Saturn V into a shelter or constructed one around it. I believe there's also a Saturn V in an enclosure at the Johnson Space Center. However neither of those Saturn Vs had parts which were intended for the same launch. I think both have pieces from 3 different missions that never launched.
They are a prime example of sunk costs. With the exception of maybe the fuel, every other piece you named in constructing a Saturn V is a sunk cost. NASA cannot recuperate those costs. It becomes a question then of whether you go ahead with the minor cost of launching as well as placing the Apollo astronauts at risk or if you cut it and save those incremental costs.
What more was there to accomplish by sending more people to the moon? Haul back some more moon rocks? We had already proven that we could do it 6, nearly 7, times over.
The truth is that we humans allow our common sense to be overruled by romantic notions.
More appropriately under false advertising. Was there anything to indicate that the shirt changes after washing or any indication of what it changed to?
Slashdot Mirror
That would probably make colonizing Mars much easier....
Yes, but this research was invested in by big newspaper in order to create an artificial demand for newspaper. Pretty soon you'll see newspaper ads being ran that point out you can stuff newspaper in your gas tank to fuel your car at a cost cheaper than shoving oil into it.
It's good to know the spirit of Taco still remains.
Roughly 4,477 soldiers died in Iraq from March '03 to the end of June '11. That is 100 months or averaging 44.77 deaths a month. If I use the 4,000 death toll figure that puts me at March '08. That would be 61 months or an average of around 65.57 deaths a month. The time frame between March '08 and June '11 would be around 477 deaths from 39 months in Iraq or 12.23 deaths per month.
We know that about 50,000 people die annually in the US from a population of 308 million. That's 4166.66 deaths a month. That's a death rate each month of approximately 0.001% of the population.
The tough part I'm having trouble with is figuring out the average number of troops deployed to Iraq over this time frame. Here's what I do know due to the Huffington Post.
March 2003 - U.S. troops invade Iraq: 192,000.
May 2003 - President Bush declares the end of major combat: 146,000.
January 2005 - First post-invasion Iraqi election: 159,000.
October 2005 - Iraqi referendum on the constitution: 157,000.
December 2005 - Iraqi parliamentary elections: 152,000.
June 2006 - Lowest troop level since July 2004: 125,000.
September 2006 - Escalating insurgent violence: 147,000.
Mid-January 2007 - Bush announces troop "surge" plan: 132,000.
End-January 2007 - Troops begin moving into Iraq: 137,000
October 2007 - Troop buildup peaks: 170,000.
March 2008 - U.S. troop deaths reach 4,000: 158,000.
I'm going to say it's an average of 130,000. Most due to know that during 2004 they had levels that were lower than 125,000. So a death toll of 65.57 per month among a population of 125,000 is 0.0005%. For the record, you would need an average troop level of around 62,500 troops to achieve the same 0.001% death rate among the soldier population as the death rate in auto accidents in the US at large.
I doubt that the Iraq war lowered the overall death rate among the US population by not having the soldiers out driving, mostly because their death rate is half the rate of dying in an auto accident essentially requiring that about half the fatal care accidents in a year are caused by people in the 18-25 range. Beyond that, we would have seen a significant decrease in auto accident rates if the deployment would have been true. It may have been another conflict, possibly the Gulf War, that you're thinking about. However, it is true that based on the death rates, you're more likely to get killed in a car accident than die in the Iraq War (though those figures don't include people who are evacuated out of Iraq and die elsewhere from combat injuries).
Soon.
I would say it stems from envy rather than a lack of empathy.
I've only ever held the Japanese robot perception when it came to human acting robots. They make bi pedal robots that can walk up stairs, robots that can play the violin, or robots that are intended to help care for the elderly or infirmed. While these types of robotics are highly advanced that are about as useful to helping at Fukushima as an infant child.
If people are evading taxes, the proper response is to put them in prison, not give them a tax break.
I didn't realize that electing to not buy a product which had taxes raised on it qualifies as tax evasion.
Seams you can give people low prices just to get the big bucks from the idiots who call them.
You stay away from me. I don't want any of your seams. That's some regular wacky doctor shit.
And upset the atheists that rely on the literalist interpretation to attack Christianity. That's basically their only form of attack and once you start pointing out how the Bible isn't too terribly different from how many ancient texts were written that we accept as truth the start to come up with anything worthwhile to continue attacking with.
One one of O'Neill's common lines was to say his name "with two I's". to point out the difference between him and the Stargate movie O'Neil.
Call me crazy, but only about 2.2 million Americans are incarcerated out of the population of 307 million.
Going by that it seems to me that less than 1% of the American population commit criminal acts.
Can't really blame it on the American justice system when less than 1% of the population are committing criminal acts.
I had the fortune of witnessing first hand how unions protest government actions. I saw protesters holding signs. Fine. People do that all the time. They weren't the ones that I had problems with.
The ones I had problems with were the teamsters. Their form of protest was to drive semi-tractor trailers in slow circles around the capital building. Again fine but annoying that you have semi (with trailers) driving slowly around one block in a city. What crossed the line was the fact that they would straddle two lanes which would prevent any traffic from bypassing them (normally three lanes but the right most had construction) and they would stop and talk to people. This would impede all flow of traffic. The worst part is seeing police officers who were supposed to be keeping the peace during the protest that saw the truckers but invariably wouldn't issue a citation of violating a law.
This is my problem with unions, they (I don't care if it's individual members choosing to do so the union obviously gives tacit support of these actions by not trying to suppress them) encourage committing illegal acts to try to win. Then they get offended that people will go against them because of those types of acts?
How can this idea even be sustainable? You're going to find a sufficient number of people willing to give up their time to do these things for complete strangers with no guarantee of compensation?
It is a library, right? Free to join, no cost to check out? Where are the revenues going to come from?
That's two i's?
Madness.
Pretty soon you'll be suggesting that we make combustible lemons.
It's a highly customize automobile which means there's a lot of cool stuff that went into making it. Taking apart would be a dream of any gear-head nerd.
Or did you think that "nerd = computer stuff"?
It depends on which grade of crude Exxon is dealing with, but you only get 5-30% of 42gal as gasoline in the straight run distillation. You have to go through further refining to get more gas from the remaining products but that is more expenses. It's also a reason why we have such a huge thirst for the Saudi oil. That's one of the grades that we get 30% with the first pass. The Venezuelan stuff? 5%
Speak for yourself, but I have a philosopher's stone.
Do you really believe that if we dropped 4 more people at random places on the moon we would suddenly glean everything we could possibly know? The truth is that we don't need to send humans up in space. Robots and probes satisfy our current needs and they're cheaper and easier to get into LEO.
Your house analogy is completely off base. I can still resell that house. There are people who will want it. The sunk cost is the cost of your time you put into building it. Who in the heck was NASA going to sell a Saturn V rocket to? No one had a need to send 130 tons into LEO. Other rockets were capable of delivering payloads into LEO and other orbits and were cheaper to use.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't it Obama who got Constellation canceled and Bush Jr that got it into place? Conservatives really tried to kill that, didn't they? Additionally, the Space Shuttle and the Apollo program were conceived during Eisenhower's Presidency. It was only Kennedy's Presidency that energized the populace towards Apollo. It also happened to be Nixon that gave the final go ahead with the Shuttle. With the exception of Kennedy it seems like Democrats have been at best ambivalent and at worst destructive towards the manned space program while it was Republicans that have at least pushed it through.
However thanks for proving my point that humans allow romantic notions to overrule common sense.
I certainly can't believe that Microsoft had a security leader named "Window".
Now all we need is a process called "Frelling" and I'll be happy. Preferably have frelling be somewhat related to fracking so I can see both words used in the same sentence.
Do you know why there is a Saturn V baking in the sun outside the Cape Canaveral visitor center?
I believe they moved that Saturn V into a shelter or constructed one around it. I believe there's also a Saturn V in an enclosure at the Johnson Space Center. However neither of those Saturn Vs had parts which were intended for the same launch. I think both have pieces from 3 different missions that never launched.
They are a prime example of sunk costs. With the exception of maybe the fuel, every other piece you named in constructing a Saturn V is a sunk cost. NASA cannot recuperate those costs. It becomes a question then of whether you go ahead with the minor cost of launching as well as placing the Apollo astronauts at risk or if you cut it and save those incremental costs.
What more was there to accomplish by sending more people to the moon? Haul back some more moon rocks? We had already proven that we could do it 6, nearly 7, times over.
The truth is that we humans allow our common sense to be overruled by romantic notions.
Is quality of life with HIV worse than that with cancer?
More appropriately under false advertising. Was there anything to indicate that the shirt changes after washing or any indication of what it changed to?
This is a pretty classic bait and switch.