Saddam spent a lot of time near the end of his career in underground bunkers to prevent assassination: being able to destroy one, precisely and without having to send aircraft over the other country is appealing.
Because getting rid of Saddam made everything in Iraq shiny and happy!
The US military is already more capable than any other military on the face of the Earth at knocking over governments. Maybe they should spend their money to improve in areas they are not so good at?
Before the war General Shinseki was asked by Congress how many troops would be needed. He said three to four hundred thousand. He pointed out that the high number was not for defeating the Iraqi army, but for controlling the country afterward. Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz publicly ridiculed him (the Chief of Staff of the Army!), calling the notion that more troops would be needed after the fall of the regime ridiculous.
Rummy and Wolfie should be fired for that reason alone.
Just watch Iraq. The US have an overwhelming military advantage there. Nothing in the whole country can even dent an Abrams tank.
Guess again. And remember that very few troops are driving around in M1s. Most are in Humvee death traps.
The US soldiers have the best protection, the best fire power, the best communications, recon etc... Yet they are slowly losing control of the situation.
You are right about that. Some problems simply cannot be solved with more and better weapons.
Those futuristic weapons are designed to fight 20th century's wars, not today's or tomorrow's wars. What's the use of a gun that fires a million rounds per minute when you're trying to control a riot? How can space darts help you identify the terrorist hiding in the crowd?
I believe the US military (the military industrial complex) is still fighting (and losing) the Cold War. For all the talk of "transformation" and this "different kind of war" the paradigm remains the same: spend more money on high tech toys. Spend into bankruptcy just like the Soviet Union. The US did not win the Cold War, the Soviet Union just ran out of money first. So why keep spending on these ridiculous systems when more basic training and better armour protection for troops is what is really needed today?
These are not my ideas (I'm not that smart). I probably read them first on G2mil. Check it out, it has lots more interesting and insightful articles.
Remember, all the technology in the world cannot help you conquer a guy who is willing to die for a cause. The best you can do is try to minimize the damage he inflicts.
Now, the A10, which boasts a considerable firing rate off it's cannon already slows down a bit when firing...
Correct. If it wouldn't run out of ammo or melt its barrels an A-10 could keep firing until it actually stopped and reversed. Hmmm, barrels melting. That brings up a point I'll have to post elsewhere.
It seemed to be very expensive to live there. I live on the low side of middle class in a moderately priced West Coast USA city, and BC seemed to be rather expensive. Especially the provincial coupled with the federal sales tax, the various GSTs PSTs VATs whatever.
Come to Alberta. No PST (still have stupid 7% federal GST), flat 10% provincial income tax. Cost of living is among the lowest in the country. And the government is swimming in petro-dollars. On the downside a lot of Albertans are super-right-wing (by Canadian standards). And our Premier is a jerk (recently caught plagarizing).
I wasn't even thinking about opera... more along the lines of Firefly, My So-Called Life, etc. Shows that I thought were high quality, but did not succeed past a single season, and therefore, by your argument, were not very good.
At least with "TV On Demand", we'd be able to see if those who like such shows can generate enough capital to keep them running. Unfortunately, while the viewer base is small, the price would be rather high, but that seems fair.
There are several causes to the demise of those shows that would not be present in TVoD (it's time we had an acronym). Firefly got boned because of retarded scheduling. With TVoD there is no schedule (actually I bet Fox execs would still find a way to screw it up). And Neilsen ratings are a very artificial way of counting viewers. The only rating that matters in TVoD is the amount of money a show is pulling in, and that would be directly measured.
And remember that there is no reason why a network could not subsidize such shows with profits from the more popular shows. There may be a good marketing reason to have "boutique" shows. Take a loss on high quality shows that pick up awards and the buzz will draw viewers in. Unlike the broadcast model where it can be hard to break into an established high quality show (take "24" for an example) with TVoD the viewer always has the option of starting their experience with the very first episode.
Basically I am saying that there is no reason TVoD (pronounced tee-vod) would mean programming for the lowest common denominator.
In theory, could per-episode payment encourage higher quality shows? Alas, no one ever said the majority of people enjoy high quality shows, or even share a common sense of what "quality" is.
My gut feeling is that a completely pay-TV model will wipe out a lot of shows. Networks cannot have gaps in their schedule so a lot of what is on TV right now is just filler.
But your point about quality is right on: to thrive shows just need to be popular, not necessarily "good". Which is exactly how things are right now.
Heck, if you are really good you can write the program to simulate your daily digital life. In effect making it so people who only know you on the net think you are alive. He died on thursday? I IMed him on friday and he posted to/. on saturday!!!!
Oooh, this fits brilliantly with what I would like to accomplish (I've posted elsewhere in this story). You can smite your enemies from beyond the grave much better if they think you are still alive and on vacation in Belize.
I thought you said he was dead.
He is...
They why am I getting these emails from him in Belize?
The question is how do you give your buddy the access he needs after you have died (I will not give keys + passwords to ANYONE while I'm still alive) but before your family can act? This could be a very small window.
No, seriously, this is an interesting problem to me. It can be generalized to "When I become incapacitated, how do I set certain pre-planned events in motion?" Maybe I die and I want my porn buddy to clean up. Maybe I get really sick (coma) and I want bills to be paid. Maybe I get amnesia while on a secret mission and I want my ex-CIA buddy to find me (and bring me a suitcase full of spy-toys, natch). Maybe I die and want my enemies smited from beyond the grave.
The traditional method for this situation is a will (including living wills). But they do not cover enough situations, take too long to activate, require certain legal events to have occurred (death certificate, etc.) and are "public" ("...and to my brother I leave my DVDs. Now, a message for my ex-CIA buddy: SMITE!"). The mylastemail.com service mentioned elsewhere suffers from these faults. I want a system that I can secretly maintain that has flexible targets. Maybe it will give access to a safety deposit box to a trusted friend (I have a safety deposit box fetish, just ask my friends). Maybe it will forward info on an enemy's shady business deals to the government. It has to be fast, too. Ideally it will detect my demise and set things in motion well before my death/illness becomes public knowledge.
I could ramble on for a while (I have spent an unhealthy amount of time thinking about this). But I'll stop (for now). Any thoughts? Implementations? Cool things that you would like to see done after you die?
Good points. The really big question is: will we even need ads anymore?
Let's assume bandwidth is effectively free for the network. Some kind of fancy distributed system with racks in the affiliate offices or whatever. Remember that bandwidth costs continue to fall.
Now, on top of whatever you pay for your internet access, what are you willing to pay for an ad-free episode of your favourite TV show? How much are you willing to pay to see a two hour movie in a theatre?
How much are you paying for each per hour?
If a TV show draws a X viewers per episode now, how much per viewer does it cost? Would those viewers be willing to pay that?
The cool thing about TV on demand is that it allows the network to be flexible with what it charges. Put new episodes out at one price, then a few weeks later drop the price. Allow viewers to buy a subscription. Sell premium access (get it a day before your friends for only 50 cents more!). Need to promote a new show? Bundle the first episode free with episodes of a established show.
But by far the most interesting thing would be the change in viewer patterns that would result. The concept of prime time would disappear. Shows would no longer compete for a limited supply of eyeballs (no more time slots). I have no idea what affect that would have.
I know I would be willing to pay up to five (Canuck) bucks per new episode of Firefly.
I call bull$hit. It's a logical fallacy they are touting there. Just because there hasn't been an attack doesn't mean there won't be one.
Homer: Not a bear in sight. The Bear Patrol must be working like a charm. Lisa: That's spacious reasoning, Dad. Homer: Thank you, dear. Lisa: By your logic I could claim that this rock keeps tigers away. Homer: Oh, how does it work? Lisa: It doesn't work. Homer: Uh-huh. Lisa: It's just a stupid rock. Homer: Uh-huh. Lisa: But I don't see any tigers around, do you? Homer: Lisa, I want to buy your rock.
The whole Bear Patrol subplot in that episode is very relevant. Later on they do one of those spinning newspaper segues and if you look closely one of the smaller headlines is "Bear Patrol Steps Up Bombing Campaign". Great example of the finding any excuse to justify massive military spending: "We need the money! Look, we're bombing things!"
Bollocks. Scientific methodology can be applied to the task of proving anything, not just a law of nature.
No. Science cannot prove anything. It can select the best available explanation for an observed phenomenon, but it cannot eliminate the possibility of other future explanations. Another thing to understand is that certain areas of knowledge strongly resist investigation by the scientific method, especially history and religion.
Theory: The ark is there.
Please stop abusing the word "theory". I think a better word would be "prediction" or "conjecture".
Absense of proof is proof of absense.
You must be new to this planet. There is no evidence for the existence of a lot of things, but that doesn't stop a lot of people from believing in them. And science will say: "We have no evidence, but there might be something there that we cannot currently observe. It might have only existed in the past, or it might be beyond our technological capabilities to observe in the present."
Besides, if they do find an ark, that revolutionises the entire way we think about the universe and ourselves.
"We"? Speak for yourself. For others it means nothing more than that there is a boat on a mountain. If you choose to jump to conclusions about who built it and how it got there that's your view, not mine.
This is great! We can finally get an idea of how many homeless people there actually are. How do we know there aren't just a few who are really mobile?
Weather: Walking in general is not fun in the snow. Getting takeout food is a pain in this situation, and I don't really have much option since I didn't buy groceries (see above).
Get used to it. Seriously, your body will adapt. Ever notice how the first warm spring day will see people out in t-shirts and shorts but the same temperature day in the fall will see people in coats? We notice the change, get used to it and then notice the change happening the other way.
I've been pedestrian/public transit all my life (never owned a car). Lots of folks I know are the same. Dress appropriately and take private pride in the fact that a chilly day is nothing you (the Mighty Pedestrian!) can't handle.
That's right. I perhaps incorrectly inferred that the parent expected increasing urban density to be categorically true as a city grows.
I was going to point that out about the parent as well. Urban density is not increasing. It may actually be decreasing with sprawl.
Because of an existing pattern of urban sprawl, Houston can't significantly support an increase in urban density -- it'd just be a logjam of cars because everything is too far for walking.
Not true. Urban density can be increased by forcing redevelopment of existing urban areas. If the city boundaries were fixed then any increase in population would require low density construction to be torn down and replaced with high density construction. It used to happen all the time, and still does in some parts. Take Manhattan as an example. It has boundaries but people want to live there so the population increases. As a result the density is increasing: small buildings are being torn down and replaced with taller buildings. As the density of buildings increases so does the density of services available. The next thing you know there are shops and offices very close to you and you don't need a car for everything.
They key is setting the boundaries of the city and not allowing development outside of that boundary. This usually requires laws at state/provincial levels as there needs to be a way to stop growth happening outside a city's boundaries. Otherwise you just end up with a growing cluster of low density cities.
The people at the wheel seem saner, more composed and less twitchy, it doesn't seem as absolutely imperative to pay attention the news...
Am I the only person who thought this referred to the government? Everybody else seems to be taking it as a literal comment on the quality of drivers...
I think I know what country I'll go to college in now.
You're an American? A Canadian university ("college" tends to refer to smaller schools up here) is a good choice. Not too far from home, similar culture (on the surface), population friendly to Americans (really! we like you as individuals).
The real benefit kicks in after you've been up here for half a year. I've talked to many Americans who have done this and they all say how getting "outside" opened their eyes to how the rest of the world sees the world. But that takes time, it's not something you can pick up with just a vacation.
So you have no problem with FTL, which is something that is, as far as we know currently, impossible, but having some people using projectile weapons while others use more sophisticated weapons bothers you? Even though if you just look around on Earth, you can find societies that still use rocks and pointed sticks?
Exactly right. This is actually directly addressed in the episode "Heart of Gold" (and hinted at in several other episodes). Those in power hoard technology to maintain their status. Just one of many metaphors in Firefly.
Also in "Heart of Gold" we are shown that good old fashioned metal meets propulsion is more reliable than energy guzzling ultra high tech lasers.
Slashdot Mirror
Because getting rid of Saddam made everything in Iraq shiny and happy!
The US military is already more capable than any other military on the face of the Earth at knocking over governments. Maybe they should spend their money to improve in areas they are not so good at?
Rummy and Wolfie should be fired for that reason alone.
Guess again. And remember that very few troops are driving around in M1s. Most are in Humvee death traps.
The US soldiers have the best protection, the best fire power, the best communications, recon etc... Yet they are slowly losing control of the situation.
You are right about that. Some problems simply cannot be solved with more and better weapons.
Those futuristic weapons are designed to fight 20th century's wars, not today's or tomorrow's wars. What's the use of a gun that fires a million rounds per minute when you're trying to control a riot? How can space darts help you identify the terrorist hiding in the crowd?
I believe the US military (the military industrial complex) is still fighting (and losing) the Cold War. For all the talk of "transformation" and this "different kind of war" the paradigm remains the same: spend more money on high tech toys. Spend into bankruptcy just like the Soviet Union. The US did not win the Cold War, the Soviet Union just ran out of money first. So why keep spending on these ridiculous systems when more basic training and better armour protection for troops is what is really needed today?
These are not my ideas (I'm not that smart). I probably read them first on G2mil. Check it out, it has lots more interesting and insightful articles.
Remember, all the technology in the world cannot help you conquer a guy who is willing to die for a cause. The best you can do is try to minimize the damage he inflicts.
Correct. If it wouldn't run out of ammo or melt its barrels an A-10 could keep firing until it actually stopped and reversed. Hmmm, barrels melting. That brings up a point I'll have to post elsewhere.
Mod parent up. Mod any Star Control 2 reference up.
Come to Alberta. No PST (still have stupid 7% federal GST), flat 10% provincial income tax. Cost of living is among the lowest in the country. And the government is swimming in petro-dollars. On the downside a lot of Albertans are super-right-wing (by Canadian standards). And our Premier is a jerk (recently caught plagarizing).
At least with "TV On Demand", we'd be able to see if those who like such shows can generate enough capital to keep them running. Unfortunately, while the viewer base is small, the price would be rather high, but that seems fair.
There are several causes to the demise of those shows that would not be present in TVoD (it's time we had an acronym). Firefly got boned because of retarded scheduling. With TVoD there is no schedule (actually I bet Fox execs would still find a way to screw it up). And Neilsen ratings are a very artificial way of counting viewers. The only rating that matters in TVoD is the amount of money a show is pulling in, and that would be directly measured.
And remember that there is no reason why a network could not subsidize such shows with profits from the more popular shows. There may be a good marketing reason to have "boutique" shows. Take a loss on high quality shows that pick up awards and the buzz will draw viewers in. Unlike the broadcast model where it can be hard to break into an established high quality show (take "24" for an example) with TVoD the viewer always has the option of starting their experience with the very first episode.
Basically I am saying that there is no reason TVoD (pronounced tee-vod) would mean programming for the lowest common denominator.
My gut feeling is that a completely pay-TV model will wipe out a lot of shows. Networks cannot have gaps in their schedule so a lot of what is on TV right now is just filler.
But your point about quality is right on: to thrive shows just need to be popular, not necessarily "good". Which is exactly how things are right now.
Oooh, this fits brilliantly with what I would like to accomplish (I've posted elsewhere in this story). You can smite your enemies from beyond the grave much better if they think you are still alive and on vacation in Belize.
I thought you said he was dead.
He is...
They why am I getting these emails from him in Belize?
Hey boss, this package just came for you...
No, seriously, this is an interesting problem to me. It can be generalized to "When I become incapacitated, how do I set certain pre-planned events in motion?" Maybe I die and I want my porn buddy to clean up. Maybe I get really sick (coma) and I want bills to be paid. Maybe I get amnesia while on a secret mission and I want my ex-CIA buddy to find me (and bring me a suitcase full of spy-toys, natch). Maybe I die and want my enemies smited from beyond the grave.
The traditional method for this situation is a will (including living wills). But they do not cover enough situations, take too long to activate, require certain legal events to have occurred (death certificate, etc.) and are "public" ("...and to my brother I leave my DVDs. Now, a message for my ex-CIA buddy: SMITE!"). The mylastemail.com service mentioned elsewhere suffers from these faults. I want a system that I can secretly maintain that has flexible targets. Maybe it will give access to a safety deposit box to a trusted friend (I have a safety deposit box fetish, just ask my friends). Maybe it will forward info on an enemy's shady business deals to the government. It has to be fast, too. Ideally it will detect my demise and set things in motion well before my death/illness becomes public knowledge.
I could ramble on for a while (I have spent an unhealthy amount of time thinking about this). But I'll stop (for now). Any thoughts? Implementations? Cool things that you would like to see done after you die?
Let's assume bandwidth is effectively free for the network. Some kind of fancy distributed system with racks in the affiliate offices or whatever. Remember that bandwidth costs continue to fall.
Now, on top of whatever you pay for your internet access, what are you willing to pay for an ad-free episode of your favourite TV show? How much are you willing to pay to see a two hour movie in a theatre? How much are you paying for each per hour?
If a TV show draws a X viewers per episode now, how much per viewer does it cost? Would those viewers be willing to pay that?
The cool thing about TV on demand is that it allows the network to be flexible with what it charges. Put new episodes out at one price, then a few weeks later drop the price. Allow viewers to buy a subscription. Sell premium access (get it a day before your friends for only 50 cents more!). Need to promote a new show? Bundle the first episode free with episodes of a established show.
But by far the most interesting thing would be the change in viewer patterns that would result. The concept of prime time would disappear. Shows would no longer compete for a limited supply of eyeballs (no more time slots). I have no idea what affect that would have.
I know I would be willing to pay up to five (Canuck) bucks per new episode of Firefly.
Dammit! That's what I get for cutting and pasting from SNPP!
Homer: Not a bear in sight. The Bear Patrol must be working like a charm.
Lisa: That's spacious reasoning, Dad.
Homer: Thank you, dear.
Lisa: By your logic I could claim that this rock keeps tigers away.
Homer: Oh, how does it work?
Lisa: It doesn't work.
Homer: Uh-huh.
Lisa: It's just a stupid rock.
Homer: Uh-huh.
Lisa: But I don't see any tigers around, do you?
Homer: Lisa, I want to buy your rock.
The whole Bear Patrol subplot in that episode is very relevant. Later on they do one of those spinning newspaper segues and if you look closely one of the smaller headlines is "Bear Patrol Steps Up Bombing Campaign". Great example of the finding any excuse to justify massive military spending: "We need the money! Look, we're bombing things!"
What WOULD that look like:
Well, I think :-* is someone who just sucked on a lemon, and :-^ is Jean Chretien.
No. Science cannot prove anything. It can select the best available explanation for an observed phenomenon, but it cannot eliminate the possibility of other future explanations. Another thing to understand is that certain areas of knowledge strongly resist investigation by the scientific method, especially history and religion.
Theory: The ark is there.
Please stop abusing the word "theory". I think a better word would be "prediction" or "conjecture".
Absense of proof is proof of absense.
You must be new to this planet. There is no evidence for the existence of a lot of things, but that doesn't stop a lot of people from believing in them. And science will say: "We have no evidence, but there might be something there that we cannot currently observe. It might have only existed in the past, or it might be beyond our technological capabilities to observe in the present."
Besides, if they do find an ark, that revolutionises the entire way we think about the universe and ourselves.
"We"? Speak for yourself. For others it means nothing more than that there is a boat on a mountain. If you choose to jump to conclusions about who built it and how it got there that's your view, not mine.
Er, no. Occam's Razor has become a key element in scientific study. See the Wikipedia.
Pepsi?
Maybe I set my TV standards too high...
<turns on TV>
Nope.
And we can plot their migration patterns:
welfare...
liquor store...
welfare...
liquor store...
welfare...
(shamelessly ripped from Glen Foster)
Get used to it. Seriously, your body will adapt. Ever notice how the first warm spring day will see people out in t-shirts and shorts but the same temperature day in the fall will see people in coats? We notice the change, get used to it and then notice the change happening the other way.
I've been pedestrian/public transit all my life (never owned a car). Lots of folks I know are the same. Dress appropriately and take private pride in the fact that a chilly day is nothing you (the Mighty Pedestrian!) can't handle.
I was going to point that out about the parent as well. Urban density is not increasing. It may actually be decreasing with sprawl.
Because of an existing pattern of urban sprawl, Houston can't significantly support an increase in urban density -- it'd just be a logjam of cars because everything is too far for walking.
Not true. Urban density can be increased by forcing redevelopment of existing urban areas. If the city boundaries were fixed then any increase in population would require low density construction to be torn down and replaced with high density construction. It used to happen all the time, and still does in some parts. Take Manhattan as an example. It has boundaries but people want to live there so the population increases. As a result the density is increasing: small buildings are being torn down and replaced with taller buildings. As the density of buildings increases so does the density of services available. The next thing you know there are shops and offices very close to you and you don't need a car for everything.
They key is setting the boundaries of the city and not allowing development outside of that boundary. This usually requires laws at state/provincial levels as there needs to be a way to stop growth happening outside a city's boundaries. Otherwise you just end up with a growing cluster of low density cities.
Am I the only person who thought this referred to the government? Everybody else seems to be taking it as a literal comment on the quality of drivers...
You're an American? A Canadian university ("college" tends to refer to smaller schools up here) is a good choice. Not too far from home, similar culture (on the surface), population friendly to Americans (really! we like you as individuals).
The real benefit kicks in after you've been up here for half a year. I've talked to many Americans who have done this and they all say how getting "outside" opened their eyes to how the rest of the world sees the world. But that takes time, it's not something you can pick up with just a vacation.
But there is the small matter of the climate...
*cough*electionyear*cough*
Exactly right. This is actually directly addressed in the episode "Heart of Gold" (and hinted at in several other episodes). Those in power hoard technology to maintain their status. Just one of many metaphors in Firefly.
Also in "Heart of Gold" we are shown that good old fashioned metal meets propulsion is more reliable than energy guzzling ultra high tech lasers.