Thanks for the information. It's definitely food for thought. Do you have references for your replies to the other points? I'd like to learn more about these things.
The evidence for the first point is further up in this thread.
Out of curiosity, how did you find out about this thread? It's a couple days old by now.
I don't deny global warming at all. I strongly suspect that the mainstream theories of Apocalyptic Anthropogenic Global Warming are seriously flawed, in part because of debacles like this recent AAGW-proponet arctic expedition, and in part because whenever I press true believers like you for more detailed explanations, all I get are insults, death wishes, and even threats of violence.
I honestly think that the best case scenario is a lot better than you think it is. I also think the worst case scenario might be the more likely scenario... not that you've given any evidence at all why it should be the more likely scenario. I'm willing to keep an open mind, though.
Meanwhile, speaking of evidence:
Arctic temperatures are lower than Global Warming experts predicted. Where's the refined model that accounts for that?
Arctic and antarctic ice formations are increasing. Where's the refined model that accounts for that?
Glaciation in the Himalayas is increasing. Where's the refined model that accounts for that?
The average temperatures on Mars are increasing. Where's the refined model that accounts for that?
Solar energy output is increasing. Do you think maybe it's the Sun that's causing Global Warming?
In fact, global average temperatures went down in the middle of the 20th century, even as man-made CO2 output went up.
Coincidentally, Solar energy output also went down during the same period. Do you think maybe it's the Sun that's causing Global Warming?
Not only that, but geological records show that increased levels of atmospheric CO2 trail behind Global Warming trends by 800 years or more. Where's the refined model that accounts for that?
I never thought you were debating, I don't find cum guzzling offensive, and I have yet to see you say anything worth understanding.
Remember when you said "as more is learned and as the models are refined, it's clear that things are going to change for the worse"?
When you said that, did you have any specific additional learning or refined models in mind? Have you ever shared that information with someone who asked for it, or have you always just skipped straight to insulting them?
Averages are for middle school. Out in the real world, the world these people are making predictions about and taking actions in, there are temperature ranges. And the real-world temperature range they predicted was much higher than the range they got. As a result, they were unprepared for the temperatures they got. They got frostbite they didnt' expect. Their batteries were drained prematurely by cold temperatures they didn't expect. They admit as much themselves: "But one of the things we see with global warming is unpredictability."
They made predictions, and those predictions were wrong. They expected one thing, and got something else. They acted on assumptions about global climate change, and they acted wrong, and they wasted time and money as a result. They even put their lives in danger, and risked losing body parts. All because they didn't just make a prediction about average temperatures, but because they made a prediction about temperature ranges, and they acted on those predictions, and those predictions were wrong. Also, please notice that these global warming "experts" didn't say "oh, well, the average temperature is going up". They said "we can't predict global warming accurately".
I find it amusing that every time I ask you to tell me more about the refined models and additional learning that validate your global warming claims, you just come back with insults, death wishes, and simplistic middle-school arithmetic. Admit it: you have nothing to back up your claims. You just blindly accept what the media tells you, and hope that anybody who suspects your weakness will die before they reveal it.
For someone supposedly on the side of saving the world, you sure do have a thing for wanting people dead.
You're a fucking moron who doesn't understand what an average is. Are you fucking joking? No, of course you're not. You really are that stupid. DOUBLE TAP apply directly to your forehead. DOUBLE TAP apply directly to your forehead.
AHAHAHAHAHA. How the fuck does one shoot oneself in the forhead TWICE? Do you ever stop to think about what you're saying, or does your brain just assemble insults out of random bits of pop culture and advertising slogans without any pause for reflection? The Man must be very proud of the brainwashing job he's done on you.
Let's try this one more time:
"They were experiencing temperatures that weren't expected with global warming," Atwood said. "But one of the things we see with global warming is unpredictability."
Pay close attention to what happened here: These people claim to know all about global warming. They made serious predictions about global warming. They acted on those predictions. Those predictions were WRONG. Do you have anything useful to say about "more learning" and "refined models", or are you going to resort yet again to empty catchphrases and pointless insults?
A North Pole expedition meant to bring attention to global warming was called off after one of the explorers got frostbite.
The explorers... called off what was intended to be a 530-mile trek across the Arctic Ocean after Arnesen suffered frostbite in three of her toes, and extreme cold temperatures drained the batteries in some of their electronic equipment...... One night they measured the temperature inside their tent at 58 degrees below zero, and outside temperatures were exceeding 100 below zero at times...... In contrast to Bancroft's 1986 trek across the Arctic with fellow Minnesota explorer Will Steger, this time she and Arnesen were prepared to don body suits and swim through areas where polar ice has melted.
Atwood said there was some irony that a trip to call attention to global warming was scuttled in part by extreme cold temperatures.
"They were experiencing temperatures that weren't expected with global warming," Atwood said. "But one of the things we see with global warming is unpredictability."
See, I think that "as more is learned and the models are refined", we're going to discover that people with a political agenda about global warming are going to get themselves killed, on account of having no fucking clue what they're talking about.
Anyway, I didn't say that my best-case scenario was a likely scenario, only that it was a best-case scenario. But please, feel free to tell me more about the "improved models" and "more understanding" that led these global warming activists to embark on such an ill-advised and comically tragic expedition.
Best: Do you live in Boston? Why not move to Atlanta Don't have time to move to Atlanta? Not to worry, you can retire in a similar climate without having to leave your house.
Actually, I'm pretty sure that the best-case scenario is that it turns out we don't really understand climate change mechanisms at all, and the climate starts cooling down on its own as part of a natural cycle before we waste too much resources trying to change something that's beyond our control anyway.
So visual stimuli are processed by the visual cortex?
Groundbreaking science! Good work, gentlemen!
Now all we have to do is show that images glimpsed for a fraction of a second have more effect than images viewed for noticeable lengths of time, and we'll know for sure! Subliminal advertising ahoy!
You paid $9 for the privilege of watching the movie.
You paid time and advertising viewership for the privilege of getting a good seat. If the good seats aren't worth that much to you, show up later and let the chumps suffer through the commercials from the best seats in the house. If it is worth that much to you, then admit to yourself that you're making a profitable business transaction, congratulate yourself on your good business sense, and complaining that you're being robbed. Why be sad when you could be happy?
Wouldnt all satellites need to be modular and use similar components that are compatible to take advantage of this?
Indeed. But there's no point in building modular satellites out of similar components until after you've mastered the relevant refeuling and reparing technologies. Test missions like this one help us to figure out which modules and which components work best for this sort of thing. This isn't about fixing or refueling existing satellites at all. It's about how our whole approach to satellite design, manufacture, and mission profile will change if we can make this system work.
Seriously, i doubt the extremists these systems are targeting run their operations like a corporation, or care about economics.
Of course they're not. But their activities still require resources--time, money, tools, research, training, etc. It's not that terrorists care about economics, so much as economics cares about everything, including terrorism.
Actually, upon closer reading of the article, I now realize NASA doesn't have the resources to provide the necessary legal support. So they bumped her back to her parent organization, the U. S. Navy, which does have the necessary resources. Which, the more I think about it, is probably exactly as it should be. NASA is an underbudgeted aerospace R&D organization. If a Navy pilot gets into legal trouble while working on aerospace R&D projects for NASA, the right thing to do is to take them off the projects and send them back to their parent organization until their troubles are resolved.
So you're saying that NASA should keep someone totally unqualified for any kind of high-stress, high-risk work on the payroll?
Besides, it's more like she's a Navy pilot seconded to the National Aeronautics and Space Administration for space research projects. If she's no longer suited to work on such projects, the right thing to do is to take her off those projects and return her to her regular Navy pilot duties--or such of those duties as her parent organization finds her still fit to perform. It's not like NASA tossed her out on the street.
Also, this is the first time an Astronaut has "snapped" like this. How do you know it's the training program, and not a personality quirk in the candidate? Astronauts are typically chosen from among a pool of people who have already proven their aptitude for high-stress, high-risk work. Most of the candidates eithe wash out or pass through the qualification tests. The ones that pass through almost never snap, but as manning increases, the occasional ringer is bound to slip through. The right thing to do is not to keep the ringer, but to wash them out as soon as you become aware of them.
It may also depend on how accessible the RC station is, and how widely publicized. Commercial airliners, by design, have to allow all kinds of people to crowd right up into it.
On the other hand, you don't see a lot of terrorists successfully raiding military bases or other high-security areas. Indeed, one of their core strategies is to go after soft targets, disguised as ordinary civilians. That kind of thing probably won't work for taking over an RC station.
I'm sure many people have... including the mental health professionals responsible for certifying that the astronauts are maintaining the presence of mind and emotional stability necessary to perform what is a very demanding, stressful, and risky job.
I'd imagine that it takes very little in the way of strange behavior to disqualify a person for astronaut duty, regardless of what their explanation is. Even if her behavior was totally justified and not in any way her fault, the fact that she ended up behaving this way probably means she's not good astronaut material anymore. Astronauts should generally not respond to environmental or emotional stress by flipping out and committing crimes.
It's a real sense of security. A fully-fueled airliner is a powerful weapon, capable of being directed towards a range of high-value targets at the discretion of the hijacker.
You can't aim a train at a skyscraper packed with thousands of people.
Other kinds of hijackings will take place, of course. And of course other technologies will be developed to counter those kinds of hijackings--commensurate with the level of risk they represent. This technology counters this type of hijacking, which is one of the riskier kinds, for the passengers aboard and the people within range of the vehicle.
I notice that all your other examples are either very limited in their target choices, or else very slow moving, or both. Diverting hijacker's efforts to such targets would be an excellent side benefit of this technology, I think.
If you're going to crack jokes, can you at least crack jokes that aren't so obvious I already thought of them, failed to laugh, and then moved on to serious discussion?
More difficult problem for the terrorists. Now, instead of just having to figure out
a. how to hijack the plane b. how to fly it to the destination of their choice
they also have to figure out
c. how to override the remote control system
This increases their planning overhead, their budget overhead, and possibly their coordination overhead. They also have to acquire more information from more sources, and possibly design, manufacture, and smuggle aboard additional equipment.
It's certainly not a foolproof solution, but even a half-ass implementation will force would-be hijackers to escalate their own operations, to the detriment of their overall chances of success.
Slashdot Mirror
Thanks for the information. It's definitely food for thought. Do you have references for your replies to the other points? I'd like to learn more about these things.
The evidence for the first point is further up in this thread.
Out of curiosity, how did you find out about this thread? It's a couple days old by now.
I honestly think that the best case scenario is a lot better than you think it is. I also think the worst case scenario might be the more likely scenario... not that you've given any evidence at all why it should be the more likely scenario. I'm willing to keep an open mind, though.
Meanwhile, speaking of evidence:
"I'm going to kick your ass"?
Middle school, indeed.
I never thought you were debating, I don't find cum guzzling offensive, and I have yet to see you say anything worth understanding.
Remember when you said "as more is learned and as the models are refined, it's clear that things are going to change for the worse"?
When you said that, did you have any specific additional learning or refined models in mind? Have you ever shared that information with someone who asked for it, or have you always just skipped straight to insulting them?
Averages are for middle school. Out in the real world, the world these people are making predictions about and taking actions in, there are temperature ranges. And the real-world temperature range they predicted was much higher than the range they got. As a result, they were unprepared for the temperatures they got. They got frostbite they didnt' expect. Their batteries were drained prematurely by cold temperatures they didn't expect. They admit as much themselves: "But one of the things we see with global warming is unpredictability."
They made predictions, and those predictions were wrong. They expected one thing, and got something else. They acted on assumptions about global climate change, and they acted wrong, and they wasted time and money as a result. They even put their lives in danger, and risked losing body parts. All because they didn't just make a prediction about average temperatures, but because they made a prediction about temperature ranges, and they acted on those predictions, and those predictions were wrong. Also, please notice that these global warming "experts" didn't say "oh, well, the average temperature is going up". They said "we can't predict global warming accurately".
I find it amusing that every time I ask you to tell me more about the refined models and additional learning that validate your global warming claims, you just come back with insults, death wishes, and simplistic middle-school arithmetic. Admit it: you have nothing to back up your claims. You just blindly accept what the media tells you, and hope that anybody who suspects your weakness will die before they reveal it.
For someone supposedly on the side of saving the world, you sure do have a thing for wanting people dead.
AHAHAHAHAHA. How the fuck does one shoot oneself in the forhead TWICE? Do you ever stop to think about what you're saying, or does your brain just assemble insults out of random bits of pop culture and advertising slogans without any pause for reflection? The Man must be very proud of the brainwashing job he's done on you.
Let's try this one more time:
Pay close attention to what happened here: These people claim to know all about global warming. They made serious predictions about global warming. They acted on those predictions. Those predictions were WRONG. Do you have anything useful to say about "more learning" and "refined models", or are you going to resort yet again to empty catchphrases and pointless insults?
See, I think that "as more is learned and the models are refined", we're going to discover that people with a political agenda about global warming are going to get themselves killed, on account of having no fucking clue what they're talking about.
Anyway, I didn't say that my best-case scenario was a likely scenario, only that it was a best-case scenario. But please, feel free to tell me more about the "improved models" and "more understanding" that led these global warming activists to embark on such an ill-advised and comically tragic expedition.
Actually, I'm pretty sure that the best-case scenario is that it turns out we don't really understand climate change mechanisms at all, and the climate starts cooling down on its own as part of a natural cycle before we waste too much resources trying to change something that's beyond our control anyway.
Hrm. Good point. People might walk around with Coca-Cola on their mind, and not even be aware they'd been exposed to any Coca-Cola advertising...
So visual stimuli are processed by the visual cortex?
Groundbreaking science! Good work, gentlemen!
Now all we have to do is show that images glimpsed for a fraction of a second have more effect than images viewed for noticeable lengths of time, and we'll know for sure! Subliminal advertising ahoy!
Indeed I am. It's nice to get recognition for it, every so often. Thanks!
You paid $9 for the privilege of watching the movie.
You paid time and advertising viewership for the privilege of getting a good seat. If the good seats aren't worth that much to you, show up later and let the chumps suffer through the commercials from the best seats in the house. If it is worth that much to you, then admit to yourself that you're making a profitable business transaction, congratulate yourself on your good business sense, and complaining that you're being robbed. Why be sad when you could be happy?
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
A good geostationary satellite and a good refuel/repair satbot may be cheaper than a near-perfect satellite and no repairbot.
Indeed. But there's no point in building modular satellites out of similar components until after you've mastered the relevant refeuling and reparing technologies. Test missions like this one help us to figure out which modules and which components work best for this sort of thing. This isn't about fixing or refueling existing satellites at all. It's about how our whole approach to satellite design, manufacture, and mission profile will change if we can make this system work.
At what point in your investigation did you become certain the files were at Area 51?
Of course they're not. But their activities still require resources--time, money, tools, research, training, etc. It's not that terrorists care about economics, so much as economics cares about everything, including terrorism.
Actually, upon closer reading of the article, I now realize NASA doesn't have the resources to provide the necessary legal support. So they bumped her back to her parent organization, the U. S. Navy, which does have the necessary resources. Which, the more I think about it, is probably exactly as it should be. NASA is an underbudgeted aerospace R&D organization. If a Navy pilot gets into legal trouble while working on aerospace R&D projects for NASA, the right thing to do is to take them off the projects and send them back to their parent organization until their troubles are resolved.
I favor a Geofront solution, personally.
So you're saying that NASA should keep someone totally unqualified for any kind of high-stress, high-risk work on the payroll?
Besides, it's more like she's a Navy pilot seconded to the National Aeronautics and Space Administration for space research projects. If she's no longer suited to work on such projects, the right thing to do is to take her off those projects and return her to her regular Navy pilot duties--or such of those duties as her parent organization finds her still fit to perform. It's not like NASA tossed her out on the street.
Also, this is the first time an Astronaut has "snapped" like this. How do you know it's the training program, and not a personality quirk in the candidate? Astronauts are typically chosen from among a pool of people who have already proven their aptitude for high-stress, high-risk work. Most of the candidates eithe wash out or pass through the qualification tests. The ones that pass through almost never snap, but as manning increases, the occasional ringer is bound to slip through. The right thing to do is not to keep the ringer, but to wash them out as soon as you become aware of them.
I guess you may have a point here.
It may also depend on how accessible the RC station is, and how widely publicized. Commercial airliners, by design, have to allow all kinds of people to crowd right up into it.
On the other hand, you don't see a lot of terrorists successfully raiding military bases or other high-security areas. Indeed, one of their core strategies is to go after soft targets, disguised as ordinary civilians. That kind of thing probably won't work for taking over an RC station.
I'm sure many people have... including the mental health professionals responsible for certifying that the astronauts are maintaining the presence of mind and emotional stability necessary to perform what is a very demanding, stressful, and risky job.
I'd imagine that it takes very little in the way of strange behavior to disqualify a person for astronaut duty, regardless of what their explanation is. Even if her behavior was totally justified and not in any way her fault, the fact that she ended up behaving this way probably means she's not good astronaut material anymore. Astronauts should generally not respond to environmental or emotional stress by flipping out and committing crimes.
Okay, I guess technically they've never fired an astronaut before, so it is "unprecedented" in that sense.
But it's not like it's unusual to fire someone who is incapable of doing the job you hired them to do.
Sensationalism at its "finest".
It's a real sense of security. A fully-fueled airliner is a powerful weapon, capable of being directed towards a range of high-value targets at the discretion of the hijacker.
You can't aim a train at a skyscraper packed with thousands of people.
Other kinds of hijackings will take place, of course. And of course other technologies will be developed to counter those kinds of hijackings--commensurate with the level of risk they represent. This technology counters this type of hijacking, which is one of the riskier kinds, for the passengers aboard and the people within range of the vehicle.
I notice that all your other examples are either very limited in their target choices, or else very slow moving, or both. Diverting hijacker's efforts to such targets would be an excellent side benefit of this technology, I think.
If you're going to crack jokes, can you at least crack jokes that aren't so obvious I already thought of them, failed to laugh, and then moved on to serious discussion?
More difficult problem for the terrorists. Now, instead of just having to figure out
a. how to hijack the plane
b. how to fly it to the destination of their choice
they also have to figure out
c. how to override the remote control system
This increases their planning overhead, their budget overhead, and possibly their coordination overhead. They also have to acquire more information from more sources, and possibly design, manufacture, and smuggle aboard additional equipment.
It's certainly not a foolproof solution, but even a half-ass implementation will force would-be hijackers to escalate their own operations, to the detriment of their overall chances of success.