You're right. This is good news. Thanks for bringing this up.
I think the Army could certainly care more, in some cases. But stories like this tend to reinforce my general impression that the military does care, but also moves very slowly--especially when it comes to major new vehicle systems that the military must commit to for a twenty-year period.
At the rate the world changes these days, no military vehicle program is going to be fully prepared for the battles it will end up facing.
Not at all. I'm saying that even an un-up-armored Humvee is a huge survivability leap forward from the Jeep, which was the whole point of the Humvee program. Previous wars had a place for the Jeep, and the Jeep performed quite well in its place.
This particular conflict doesn't happen to be quite as Jeep-friendly as previous conflicts. The lessons the military is learning from this turn of events will be applied in the next conflict... At which point I'm sure some people will promptly complain that the lessons of the next conflict weren't learned in the previous conflict.
Your response was that of a boy who's spent too much time in his mommy's basement and has never ventured near the man's world of government and war.
I see. According to you "served in the Armed Forces" doesn't count as "ventured near the man's world of government and war".
So what are your qualifications, anyway? Can you describe any one of the many policies and procedures the military regularly rehearses and employs every day, to keep from becoming sitting ducks? Have you, in fact, been any closer to war and government than your favorite media outlet?
I generously respond to your original post, and I serve you up the perfect opportunity to trot out your cute little anti-Bush rantlet, and you call me a troll and an idiot?
Look at it this way: The military is a massive institution, that takes decades to complete any major change in its thinking and acting (this is as it should be, I think).
Today's Humvee armor problem stems from the parameters for the Humvee project, which were laid down fifteen or more years ago.
Since then, the nature of battle has changed dramatically, and the kinds of missions the military now faces aren't really ideally suited to the Humvee project the military had already committed to.
So in another ten years, you'll be able to recycle the same old schtick: "4 out of 5 swinging dicks say more lasers for the jets, and less armor for the groundpounders".
Of course, ten years from now that schtick won't be any more relevant or insightful or instructive than it is today, but hey, don't be discouraged: Not everybody can change the way they think and act over time the way the military can. Follow your heart, and I'm sure you will achieve your dream!
Some substances, when ingested, increase the burden on the ingestee's community.
Addictive substances, for example, that erode the ingestee's self-control and ability to contribute more to a community than what they take from a community.
Substances that require expert knowledge and a well-informed decision-making process, in order to be ingested safely, for another example. Take the right medicine the wrong way, and it's a trip to the emergency room at the community's expense.
The Constitution absolutely allows the government to regulate the boundary between your freedom and mine. I have no problem with whatever risks you decide to take, so long as those risks don't incur costs to me.
You want to put whatever substance you want into your body? Fine, but first renounce all claims on my society's social welfare system, please. In the meant time, consider yourself regulated.
Anyway, it seems like we're arguing at cross purposes. Your point is that the government shouldn't regulate pharmaceuticals. I disagree with that point, but it's not the point I was arguing originally: That, given that these things are regulated whether you like it or not, the morning-after pill strikes me as a good candidate for such regulation--especially compared to similar but apparently much less dangerous regulated substances.
I'm under the impression that the FDA's scientific panel is in the process of completing its scientific analysis of the drug, prior to issuing a (new? final? revised?) recommendation of its status.
Anyway, I'm one of those people who doesn't have an issue with "political" problems, as opposed to other kinds. Your position that "medical" problems are superior political problems is a political position itself.
But tell me, how many people have died of birth-control drugs lately? Not that the morning-after pill actually killed that poor girl a couple months ago, but presumably that's one of the questions the FDA's scientific panel is trying to answer right now.
Are you seriously arguing that an OTC morning-after pill would only ever be used once by each purchaser? Wouldn't it be more likely that a pill that removes all requirement for advance planning and common sense would be repeatedly abused by the very people least likely to be responsible about it? The problem isn't medical, it's social.
The FDA requires a prescription, preceded by a full examination by a certified medical practitioner, before you can buy birth control pills that simply regulate your hormone levels.
Please explain to me why a medication that artificially induces the flushing of the uterus should be less restrictive.
Or is the deadly failure rate of the "morning-after pill" really that much less than your typical birth control pill?
Actually, the real reason we suck is because in all these thousands of years, we still haven't figured out how to beam those cave paintings psychically into every schoolchild's mind, so they can apprehend the paintings directly without having to travel to the physical site itself.
It looks like just a spacial remapping (from cartesian to polar) of the standard table rather than a new layout.
Sure, but given that "layout" refers to the spacial mapping of visual elements, remapping from one to another would result, by definition, in a "new" layout.
In fact, you could say that "spatial remapping" is the method by which "new layouts" are achieved. It's not like a typesetter ever says, "let's spatially remap our content from three columns to four columns, but not change the layout. Spatial remapping is a layout change.
Hold on... I'm a "voter". Does mob psychology apply to me, or am I using my individual good sense to consider the problems before me and the solutions available?
And should I be concerned that you might be panicking me with your vague, unclear insinuations about the inefficacy of body scanners at subway entrances?
I mean, you say that as part of the mob, I'm being duped by a government that says that the scanners will work to some degree. But why should I trust you any more the government? What if you're just a member of some other mob, duped into your own little fantasy realm by some other set of unscrupulous non-mob individuals?
Don't get me wrong. You've got a really great schtick here: "Everyone else is part of an naive, ignorant mob, but I am a unique individual capable of reaching independent conclusions about things! And my conclusions are always right! If you disagree with me, it's because you're part of the mob!" But that's all it is, really: A schtick. At least the politician's schtick serves a clear and necessary role in our society. All you're doing is pretending to be superior to your fellow citizens.
Here's a newsflash: all your fellow citizens believe they are just as indepentent as you do--and with just as much reason to believe so.
Now your argument is going backwards.
I asked you, why we should believe the conspiracy theorists?
Because there's millions of them, you replied. How could millions of people be wrong?
I gave examples of millions of people believing things.
You said that those millions of people were wrong.
So, once again, why should we believe the conspiracy theorists?
Millions of people don't need to lie to you; they just need to believe the lie told by a few people, and repeat it as if it were the truth.
I believe that the government doesn't have a monopoly on lying, and that the herd mentality can apply just as easily to conspiracy theories as it can to the popularity of linen sport coats and five o'clock shadow.
Are you a Catholic? No? But millions of people believe in Catholicism. Millions believed Lenin when he told them that Communism would build a better tomorrow. Millions of people voted for George W. Bush last November. Who are you to say that those millions are wrong, and the millions of conspiracy theorists are right?
My theory is that current and future technology is based on heavy industrialization, which is then incrementally replaced by lighter and lighter post-industrial solutions that are all made possible by classic industrial principles like auotmation, mass production, and economies of scale.
So my answer to your question is "no". Fusion requires materials that can only be researched and developed using advanced (oil-powered) industrial techniques. Wood power just isn't efficient enough.
The police have plainclothes detectives. That doesn't mean I believe everything I see on Miami Vice. What it does mean is I don't take anybody seriously when their description of plainclothes detectives sounds suspiciously like Sonny Crockett.
Hey, I said I wasn't sure that ten years was a reasonable "corner-cutting" timeline for fusion.
But I do think that, push comes to shove, it'll be closer to ten years than fifty. And if we're at that point, the survival of the people within 50 miles of the reactor is probably going to be the very least of our worries.
The thing is, human history is about humanity meeting its needs and catering to its desires, despite the risks. Take industrialization, for example. It brings all sorts of benefits, improving both human survivability and quality of life. But it carries with it the risk of total destruction of the human race. It's not like human nature is going to make a special change just for fusion. We'll try, but in the end, it'll be be dire need that provides the motivation. And looking back over human history, I think you may be massively underestimating how much things can be sped up.
I don't think it's so much a question of "stalling" as it is a question of "cutting corners".
The Manahattan Project went ahead with its atomic pile testing before the smarty men had confirmed that the pile would not trigger an unstoppable world-destroying chain reaction. That's called cutting a corner, and that's probably why The Bomb was ready in time for its wartime application, instead of being ready ten or fifteen years later, after all the due diligence had been completed.
So I'm with the grandparent poster, really. Maybe ten years is unrealistic, but I'm betting that if it came down to an immediate, obvious question of survival of the human race, the fusion smarty men would find a LOT of corners to cut, and we'd have a quick-and-dirty humanity-saving solution rolled out just in time.
In other words: the main reason we don't have working alternative energy solutions today is because we're still not sufficiently motivated.
Also, it should be obvious by now that eco-nutjob screeching isn't what's going to toggle that motivation thing on. If Greenpeace really wanted us to care about solving the energy problem, they'd be leading the way in oil overconsumption. The sooner we start to seriously feel the oil shortage, the sooner we'll get off our asses and find a replacement. (As an alternative (eheh), the Greenpeace asshats could exercise just a little patience and self control, since they shouldn't have to wait too much longer for the oil shortage thing to really kick in.
Hey... maybe we could call it a Grand Jury, and make their approval a prerequisite to indictments in cases of serious crime... oh, wait. We already have one of those.
Slashdot Mirror
Which is as it should be.
You're right. This is good news. Thanks for bringing this up.
I think the Army could certainly care more, in some cases. But stories like this tend to reinforce my general impression that the military does care, but also moves very slowly--especially when it comes to major new vehicle systems that the military must commit to for a twenty-year period.
At the rate the world changes these days, no military vehicle program is going to be fully prepared for the battles it will end up facing.
What if what I'm reading doesn't sound funny, or sarcastic?
Not at all. I'm saying that even an un-up-armored Humvee is a huge survivability leap forward from the Jeep, which was the whole point of the Humvee program. Previous wars had a place for the Jeep, and the Jeep performed quite well in its place.
This particular conflict doesn't happen to be quite as Jeep-friendly as previous conflicts. The lessons the military is learning from this turn of events will be applied in the next conflict... At which point I'm sure some people will promptly complain that the lessons of the next conflict weren't learned in the previous conflict.
Your response was that of a boy who's spent too much time in his mommy's basement and has never ventured near the man's world of government and war.
I see. According to you "served in the Armed Forces" doesn't count as "ventured near the man's world of government and war".
So what are your qualifications, anyway? Can you describe any one of the many policies and procedures the military regularly rehearses and employs every day, to keep from becoming sitting ducks? Have you, in fact, been any closer to war and government than your favorite media outlet?
Oh, please.
I generously respond to your original post, and I serve you up the perfect opportunity to trot out your cute little anti-Bush rantlet, and you call me a troll and an idiot?
That's gratitude for you.
Look at it this way: The military is a massive institution, that takes decades to complete any major change in its thinking and acting (this is as it should be, I think).
Today's Humvee armor problem stems from the parameters for the Humvee project, which were laid down fifteen or more years ago.
Since then, the nature of battle has changed dramatically, and the kinds of missions the military now faces aren't really ideally suited to the Humvee project the military had already committed to.
So in another ten years, you'll be able to recycle the same old schtick: "4 out of 5 swinging dicks say more lasers for the jets, and less armor for the groundpounders".
Of course, ten years from now that schtick won't be any more relevant or insightful or instructive than it is today, but hey, don't be discouraged: Not everybody can change the way they think and act over time the way the military can. Follow your heart, and I'm sure you will achieve your dream!
Well, it was expected that the hard thinking would get done, and would lead to solutions.
Some substances, when ingested, increase the burden on the ingestee's community. Addictive substances, for example, that erode the ingestee's self-control and ability to contribute more to a community than what they take from a community. Substances that require expert knowledge and a well-informed decision-making process, in order to be ingested safely, for another example. Take the right medicine the wrong way, and it's a trip to the emergency room at the community's expense. The Constitution absolutely allows the government to regulate the boundary between your freedom and mine. I have no problem with whatever risks you decide to take, so long as those risks don't incur costs to me. You want to put whatever substance you want into your body? Fine, but first renounce all claims on my society's social welfare system, please. In the meant time, consider yourself regulated. Anyway, it seems like we're arguing at cross purposes. Your point is that the government shouldn't regulate pharmaceuticals. I disagree with that point, but it's not the point I was arguing originally: That, given that these things are regulated whether you like it or not, the morning-after pill strikes me as a good candidate for such regulation--especially compared to similar but apparently much less dangerous regulated substances.
I'm under the impression that the FDA's scientific panel is in the process of completing its scientific analysis of the drug, prior to issuing a (new? final? revised?) recommendation of its status.
Anyway, I'm one of those people who doesn't have an issue with "political" problems, as opposed to other kinds. Your position that "medical" problems are superior political problems is a political position itself.
But tell me, how many people have died of birth-control drugs lately? Not that the morning-after pill actually killed that poor girl a couple months ago, but presumably that's one of the questions the FDA's scientific panel is trying to answer right now.
Are you seriously arguing that an OTC morning-after pill would only ever be used once by each purchaser? Wouldn't it be more likely that a pill that removes all requirement for advance planning and common sense would be repeatedly abused by the very people least likely to be responsible about it? The problem isn't medical, it's social.
The FDA requires a prescription, preceded by a full examination by a certified medical practitioner, before you can buy birth control pills that simply regulate your hormone levels.
Please explain to me why a medication that artificially induces the flushing of the uterus should be less restrictive.
Or is the deadly failure rate of the "morning-after pill" really that much less than your typical birth control pill?
Actually, the real reason we suck is because in all these thousands of years, we still haven't figured out how to beam those cave paintings psychically into every schoolchild's mind, so they can apprehend the paintings directly without having to travel to the physical site itself.
Ideally, one should use language in such a way that the audience knows, rather than guesses, at what is meant.
It looks like just a spacial remapping (from cartesian to polar) of the standard table rather than a new layout.
Sure, but given that "layout" refers to the spacial mapping of visual elements, remapping from one to another would result, by definition, in a "new" layout.
In fact, you could say that "spatial remapping" is the method by which "new layouts" are achieved. It's not like a typesetter ever says, "let's spatially remap our content from three columns to four columns, but not change the layout. Spatial remapping is a layout change.
Hold on... I'm a "voter". Does mob psychology apply to me, or am I using my individual good sense to consider the problems before me and the solutions available?
And should I be concerned that you might be panicking me with your vague, unclear insinuations about the inefficacy of body scanners at subway entrances?
I mean, you say that as part of the mob, I'm being duped by a government that says that the scanners will work to some degree. But why should I trust you any more the government? What if you're just a member of some other mob, duped into your own little fantasy realm by some other set of unscrupulous non-mob individuals?
Don't get me wrong. You've got a really great schtick here: "Everyone else is part of an naive, ignorant mob, but I am a unique individual capable of reaching independent conclusions about things! And my conclusions are always right! If you disagree with me, it's because you're part of the mob!" But that's all it is, really: A schtick. At least the politician's schtick serves a clear and necessary role in our society. All you're doing is pretending to be superior to your fellow citizens.
Here's a newsflash: all your fellow citizens believe they are just as indepentent as you do--and with just as much reason to believe so.
I want to see. . . a national map of the worst, funniest tourist traps across the U.S.
This will satisfy all your "worst, funniest tourist trap" needs.
Now your argument is going backwards. I asked you, why we should believe the conspiracy theorists? Because there's millions of them, you replied. How could millions of people be wrong? I gave examples of millions of people believing things. You said that those millions of people were wrong. So, once again, why should we believe the conspiracy theorists?
Millions of people don't need to lie to you; they just need to believe the lie told by a few people, and repeat it as if it were the truth. I believe that the government doesn't have a monopoly on lying, and that the herd mentality can apply just as easily to conspiracy theories as it can to the popularity of linen sport coats and five o'clock shadow. Are you a Catholic? No? But millions of people believe in Catholicism. Millions believed Lenin when he told them that Communism would build a better tomorrow. Millions of people voted for George W. Bush last November. Who are you to say that those millions are wrong, and the millions of conspiracy theorists are right?
My theory is that current and future technology is based on heavy industrialization, which is then incrementally replaced by lighter and lighter post-industrial solutions that are all made possible by classic industrial principles like auotmation, mass production, and economies of scale.
So my answer to your question is "no". Fusion requires materials that can only be researched and developed using advanced (oil-powered) industrial techniques. Wood power just isn't efficient enough.
The police have plainclothes detectives. That doesn't mean I believe everything I see on Miami Vice. What it does mean is I don't take anybody seriously when their description of plainclothes detectives sounds suspiciously like Sonny Crockett.
Hey, I said I wasn't sure that ten years was a reasonable "corner-cutting" timeline for fusion.
But I do think that, push comes to shove, it'll be closer to ten years than fifty. And if we're at that point, the survival of the people within 50 miles of the reactor is probably going to be the very least of our worries.
The thing is, human history is about humanity meeting its needs and catering to its desires, despite the risks. Take industrialization, for example. It brings all sorts of benefits, improving both human survivability and quality of life. But it carries with it the risk of total destruction of the human race. It's not like human nature is going to make a special change just for fusion. We'll try, but in the end, it'll be be dire need that provides the motivation. And looking back over human history, I think you may be massively underestimating how much things can be sped up.
You say "subversive", I say "watched one too many episodes of X-Files, and now nobody takes their alleged subversion seriously".
I don't think it's so much a question of "stalling" as it is a question of "cutting corners".
The Manahattan Project went ahead with its atomic pile testing before the smarty men had confirmed that the pile would not trigger an unstoppable world-destroying chain reaction. That's called cutting a corner, and that's probably why The Bomb was ready in time for its wartime application, instead of being ready ten or fifteen years later, after all the due diligence had been completed.
So I'm with the grandparent poster, really. Maybe ten years is unrealistic, but I'm betting that if it came down to an immediate, obvious question of survival of the human race, the fusion smarty men would find a LOT of corners to cut, and we'd have a quick-and-dirty humanity-saving solution rolled out just in time.
In other words: the main reason we don't have working alternative energy solutions today is because we're still not sufficiently motivated.
Also, it should be obvious by now that eco-nutjob screeching isn't what's going to toggle that motivation thing on. If Greenpeace really wanted us to care about solving the energy problem, they'd be leading the way in oil overconsumption. The sooner we start to seriously feel the oil shortage, the sooner we'll get off our asses and find a replacement. (As an alternative (eheh), the Greenpeace asshats could exercise just a little patience and self control, since they shouldn't have to wait too much longer for the oil shortage thing to really kick in.
Weird. I also live in SD, and I never hear "freedom fries", or any other obviously conservative thing, except on AM talk radio (Air America excepted).
Hey... maybe we could call it a Grand Jury, and make their approval a prerequisite to indictments in cases of serious crime... oh, wait. We already have one of those.