The heat and exhaust generated from the lawnmower engine would make it difficult to fit into similar dimensions
I was thinking more horsepower-wise than actual lawnmowerness. I get the impression that the run of the mill lawnmower engine lacks a lot of the fuel efficiency technologies of their larger cousins.
Let me ask you this - when do you feel it is appropriate to apologize for past foreign policy, if ever? (Not a loaded question - I'm genuinely curious...)
And go probably 100. The interesting thing is that having super lightweight cars is really what this whole engineering problem is about. That benefits not just solar power, but any power. If you can run a car off the 1kw, then, that would follow that you could run one off of a 1.4 horsepower engine. That would be roughly the same as what the Amish do, except they just use big horses, so maybe we should just go ask them for fuel efficient designs.
Nevertheless IMO alliances like NATO or UN are good things because they bring people together around a table rather than on a battlefield ; I guess that's why UN was created in the first place
The UN and NATO are both useless. If people want to talk each other, they have these things called phones.
You act like we Europeans are depending on you to defend ourselves, but we don't
Well then fine then, let's dissolve this military alliance, bring the American troops home and be done with it. I'm down with that. If the Polish get scared because they have no real help, we can always give them the bomb or something. But the rest of it really isn't an American problem. Russia vs Europe... not an American concern whatsoever.
Maybe if you cared a bit more about what happened abroad your collective head
True. If Americans realized just how much the rest of the world has no intention of ever really having free trade, it would be much easier politically to get all the foreign goods kicked out of the US market place.
Look, I would hardly say that Obama is a Republican in sheep's clothing.
No Republican in his right mind would be running all around Europe and the Middle East apologizing for past American actions. Seriously, can you imagine Dick Cheney apologizing for, well, anything?
No Republican would offer to get rid of nuclear weapons.
No Republican would kill the F-22.
No Republican would argue that the USA needs national health care.
No Republican would argue that the USA should consider a carbon tax.
There are serious and deep differences between political parties and people saying that this one issue means that "Obama is the same as BushCo" just miss the entire point and tenor of his campaign and administration.
What do you want the guy to do to prove he's different? Wear really loud checkered golf pants and scream out "Beep" every now and then?
How's that going, by the way?
He's going to be off by three months out of sixteen. That's not too bad. He said responsible withdrawal and he meant it. The troops are leaving Iraq after the next Iraq election. IT's his trump card to play in the 2010 Congressional elections...
You know, as a Republican, I suppose I could take the cheap shot and say, "Hah, there you go, see, he's not really any different after all."
But...
Bashing Obama for doing something supposedly conservative is just silly. Conservatives bashing Obama for doing something conservative is even sillier still. If it was so right for Bush to wiretap, then, shouldn't conservatives be defending Obama at least on this issue? If it was so wrong for Bush to wiretap, well, conservatives, where were you for eight years?
The thing is, one could make the argument that Obama is defending Bush on warrantless wiretapping not necessarily because he plans on doing it himself, but because he wants to spare the USA the damage from some foreign policy implication of what Bush did.
If you look at his overall record, Obama is acting like the dyed in the wool hardcore liberal that he is. Come on, Obama has spent his last European trip apologizing for everything the USA has ever done - a typical liberal thing to do. Do you think Bush would ever apologize for American foreign policy? Don't think so.
And please stop using France as an excuse for not giving a shit about anything beyond your own borders.
Why SHOULD the USA should be concerned with ANYTHING beyond its borders? Why should the USA allow foreign goods? Why should the USA have troops overseas? This conventional wisdom is bleeding the USA dry. Why should the United States be in a military alliance with Europe?
The way I see things, if we accept the proposition that USA intervention is driving hostility to the USA, then, shouldn't the USA just let Eurasia fend for itself? That strategy worked pretty well for us for 150 years and I think we need to get back to it.
The EU is big kids now. You guys defend yourselves... from what threat, I honestly don't know. We don't need NATO any more.
I don't really advocate the deliberate killing of civilians.
I mean, if the USA wanted to, we could have just pulled the troops into a ring around Fallujah or any other Iraqi town and firebombed it. We could have issued the Iraqi equivalent of Commisar orders like the Nazis did - and incidentally, were followed by the Wermacht, and have shot any tribal leader or Islamic cleric on site. We could have had reprisal hangings in villages.
But, the USA didn't do -any- of that.
If anything, the soldier in Iraq has been -more- fair with his opponents than ever before.
I mean, we hung the Nazi's at Nuremburg for waging war on civilians, when our own strategic bombing strategy was in fact to kill as many German civilians as possible to bring about a quicker end to the war. There was no military need to firebomb major German cities. Yet, the truth is, in the scale of the war, American firebombing was actually far less terrible than what the Germans did to everyone else, so the USA came off as far more humane.
If you don't want people to die the solution is to not get into a war in the first place
As someone who was there, F you man. It's easy to sit here at home and call us murderers and bastards for what we did, but the fact remains that the people we put down were bad people.
Actually, that was rather my point! My point is really simple. Everyone sees what the USA does, using advanced weapons, better training, tactics, etc, and concludes that so many lopsided victories are unfair. They look at the the invasion of Panama, Desert Storm I and the whole trail of death, bombings over Kosovo, the original battle of Iraq and the battle of Fallujah that its somehow not fair that the USA can go and blow away thousands of people for every man that it loses.
The point to decide whether or not to be "fair" is before the war starts, not during, that's what I'm saying.
We want our soldiers to come home alive, and if the other sides soldiers don't go home at all, well, that's a good thing. If the USA were able to kill 10,000 insurgents rather than a 1,000 for every man lost in Iraq, that's 3000 more Americans coming home alive, that's what I'm saying.
I don't seem to remember many countries (Apart from the Japanese) who have tried to fight the US in the last 100 years. It always seems to be the US deciding who to fight.
Germany declared war on the USA in World War II, otherwise, its very likely that the USA would not have fought Germany. Americans were very much opposed to going to war in Europe both in World War I and in World War II. In the case of World War I, the Germans were offering pieces of the USA to the Mexicans, and in World War II, Hitler declared war on the USA as a show of solidarity with Japan. Dumb on both counts.
Frankly though, I do agree with your premise. I really -don't- want the USA to have soldiers deployed anywhere except the UK and USA. UK because we have a meaningful military alliance with them, and USA because its my country. The rest of the world, all of NATO, South Korea, Japan and then some, can go defend itself.
Which is why I pray to the imaginary God that we will see the civil war the wing-nutters predict, so I can do to you what you so casually believe we should do to others.
I think you basically just can't admit that you are a killer yourself. You hold your righteousness up no differently than any of the bible thumping protestants you despise, and, at the end, when people walk away from your grandstanding and go get pizza, you can only clench your fists in frustration, and say, "that's why I'm going to kill you all". All of this stuff about saving the planet, cutting back on standards of living, being pro-choice, is just your expression of that... you want to people to be poorer, people to kill their unborn, people to die, all because nobody listens to you. Liberals the people of peace? They are the biggest murderers of them all and always have been.
So in your sick, sorry world, once we are at war we can kill all the civilians we want, and that is a good thing.
Dude, that's what war is. If you don't want war, then don't fight them. Don't sit there and pretend that war is a noble thing like a video game with so many rules. That only makes it more palatable to fight. I'd put this to you - if civilians understood that they would get killed in wars too, they might be a lot less likely to build, finance and cheer on the armies to fight them.
I'm actually not sure what sort of war it is when one side decides to simply pro-actively attack the other but it's surely not one I'd like to glorify in any way.
I don't think you need to glorify any sort of war. Indeed, perhaps the sickest vocabulary thing that has happened to humanity is that the word "glory" that comes from war was taken to be a good thing, when its really meant to describe a door that only some people pass through. Not necessarily that its a good door.
Um, it's not war, because you never declared war, precisely so that you could do things like break weapons treaties
Not declaring war is like splitting hairs. The President sought the permission of Congress to go and invade somebody else, and he got it. In my mind, that's a declaration of war sufficient for the other side to understand that trouble was coming.
That's great then! We should nuke North Korea then. I mean we have no treaty with them, right?
Read up on the Korean War. Last time the USA overran North Korea the Chinese roared to their defense with an army of roughly 300,000 men, and the Russians chipped in some of their fighter aircraft. Recall that in the face of this, Doug Macarthur wanted to start nuking the Chinese and there were some people that though that the thing to do. But Truman decided that he had had two world wars in his lifetime and he did not want a third.
You seem to be under the delusion that wars are meant to be fair. That, somehow, an equal number of people should be killed on both sides and that's the good way to do a war.
That is stupidest thing imaginable.
The fact is, we spend 500B a year on the military so that when we do fight people, it is a massacre. We do not want our guys to die. We want their guys to die.
If you don't want massacres, then don't fight the USA. That the USA can massacre its opponents is a GOOD thing, as it brings more American soldiers home alive.
Now, if you don't want this, then don't send soldiers off to war, but that's a different debate. Once they are there, you want Americans to be able to kill enemies like a Power'd up dude in a video game.
Honestly though this is sick. It was a wholesale slaughter of people. Burning corpses hanging in chunks from buildings. People having their flesh burned to the bone while they are alive. I'm normally ok with this sort of thing but this is up there on the offensive scale. Not going to leave out the fact that the US violated weapons treaties are we?
What the fuck do you think war is dude? A bunch of people running around like in Unreal Tournament or HALO with fake manly voices going "Roger Roger" and shooting all the time?
Phosphorus bombs are not a violation of any weapons treaty. And besides, we had no treaty with the insurgency, so screw them.
I think its good that Americans who fought Fallujah get to tell their story. We've had plenty of insurgent friendly lefties tell theirs for long enough, indeed, some are posting here. The fact of the matter is that Fallujah was the one place where insurgents tried to make a pitched battle rather than hit and run as normal. Urban fighting ensued, and the insurgents ultimately lost.
Slashdot Mirror
The heat and exhaust generated from the lawnmower engine would make it difficult to fit into similar dimensions
I was thinking more horsepower-wise than actual lawnmowerness. I get the impression that the run of the mill lawnmower engine lacks a lot of the fuel efficiency technologies of their larger cousins.
Let me ask you this - when do you feel it is appropriate to apologize for past foreign policy, if ever? (Not a loaded question - I'm genuinely curious...)
Over drinks with the other head of state.
And go probably 100. The interesting thing is that having super lightweight cars is really what this whole engineering problem is about. That benefits not just solar power, but any power. If you can run a car off the 1kw, then, that would follow that you could run one off of a 1.4 horsepower engine. That would be roughly the same as what the Amish do, except they just use big horses, so maybe we should just go ask them for fuel efficient designs.
Nevertheless IMO alliances like NATO or UN are good things because they bring people together around a table rather than on a battlefield ; I guess that's why UN was created in the first place
The UN and NATO are both useless. If people want to talk each other, they have these things called phones.
You act like we Europeans are depending on you to defend ourselves, but we don't
Well then fine then, let's dissolve this military alliance, bring the American troops home and be done with it. I'm down with that. If the Polish get scared because they have no real help, we can always give them the bomb or something. But the rest of it really isn't an American problem. Russia vs Europe... not an American concern whatsoever.
Maybe if you cared a bit more about what happened abroad your collective head
True. If Americans realized just how much the rest of the world has no intention of ever really having free trade, it would be much easier politically to get all the foreign goods kicked out of the US market place.
Look, I would hardly say that Obama is a Republican in sheep's clothing.
No Republican in his right mind would be running all around Europe and the Middle East apologizing for past American actions. Seriously, can you imagine Dick Cheney apologizing for, well, anything?
No Republican would offer to get rid of nuclear weapons.
No Republican would kill the F-22.
No Republican would argue that the USA needs national health care.
No Republican would argue that the USA should consider a carbon tax.
There are serious and deep differences between political parties and people saying that this one issue means that "Obama is the same as BushCo" just miss the entire point and tenor of his campaign and administration.
What do you want the guy to do to prove he's different? Wear really loud checkered golf pants and scream out "Beep" every now and then?
How's that going, by the way?
He's going to be off by three months out of sixteen. That's not too bad. He said responsible withdrawal and he meant it. The troops are leaving Iraq after the next Iraq election. IT's his trump card to play in the 2010 Congressional elections...
You know, as a Republican, I suppose I could take the cheap shot and say, "Hah, there you go, see, he's not really any different after all."
But...
Bashing Obama for doing something supposedly conservative is just silly. Conservatives bashing Obama for doing something conservative is even sillier still. If it was so right for Bush to wiretap, then, shouldn't conservatives be defending Obama at least on this issue? If it was so wrong for Bush to wiretap, well, conservatives, where were you for eight years?
The thing is, one could make the argument that Obama is defending Bush on warrantless wiretapping not necessarily because he plans on doing it himself, but because he wants to spare the USA the damage from some foreign policy implication of what Bush did.
If you look at his overall record, Obama is acting like the dyed in the wool hardcore liberal that he is. Come on, Obama has spent his last European trip apologizing for everything the USA has ever done - a typical liberal thing to do. Do you think Bush would ever apologize for American foreign policy? Don't think so.
And please stop using France as an excuse for not giving a shit about anything beyond your own borders.
Why SHOULD the USA should be concerned with ANYTHING beyond its borders? Why should the USA allow foreign goods? Why should the USA have troops overseas? This conventional wisdom is bleeding the USA dry. Why should the United States be in a military alliance with Europe?
The way I see things, if we accept the proposition that USA intervention is driving hostility to the USA, then, shouldn't the USA just let Eurasia fend for itself? That strategy worked pretty well for us for 150 years and I think we need to get back to it.
The EU is big kids now. You guys defend yourselves... from what threat, I honestly don't know. We don't need NATO any more.
The Netherlands has been working together with the US for the last few years in Afghanistan and has had it's casualties too
My apologies. On the Continent, the French tend to drown everyone else out.
I don't really advocate the deliberate killing of civilians.
I mean, if the USA wanted to, we could have just pulled the troops into a ring around Fallujah or any other Iraqi town and firebombed it. We could have issued the Iraqi equivalent of Commisar orders like the Nazis did - and incidentally, were followed by the Wermacht, and have shot any tribal leader or Islamic cleric on site. We could have had reprisal hangings in villages.
But, the USA didn't do -any- of that.
If anything, the soldier in Iraq has been -more- fair with his opponents than ever before.
I mean, we hung the Nazi's at Nuremburg for waging war on civilians, when our own strategic bombing strategy was in fact to kill as many German civilians as possible to bring about a quicker end to the war. There was no military need to firebomb major German cities. Yet, the truth is, in the scale of the war, American firebombing was actually far less terrible than what the Germans did to everyone else, so the USA came off as far more humane.
If you don't want people to die the solution is to not get into a war in the first place
Bingo.
As someone who was there, F you man. It's easy to sit here at home and call us murderers and bastards for what we did, but the fact remains that the people we put down were bad people.
Actually, that was rather my point! My point is really simple. Everyone sees what the USA does, using advanced weapons, better training, tactics, etc, and concludes that so many lopsided victories are unfair. They look at the the invasion of Panama, Desert Storm I and the whole trail of death, bombings over Kosovo, the original battle of Iraq and the battle of Fallujah that its somehow not fair that the USA can go and blow away thousands of people for every man that it loses.
The point to decide whether or not to be "fair" is before the war starts, not during, that's what I'm saying.
We want our soldiers to come home alive, and if the other sides soldiers don't go home at all, well, that's a good thing. If the USA were able to kill 10,000 insurgents rather than a 1,000 for every man lost in Iraq, that's 3000 more Americans coming home alive, that's what I'm saying.
Nobody listens to me? I just got you to blow your whole troll wad. You've been neutralized. I win
The whole point is that you think a discussion like this is about winning or losing. Like I said, you are a warmonger.
It's just sad, it really is, that a people who argue so much for self-examination never have the guts to really do it themselves. Look at yourself.
I don't seem to remember many countries (Apart from the Japanese) who have tried to fight the US in the last 100 years. It always seems to be the US deciding who to fight.
Germany declared war on the USA in World War II, otherwise, its very likely that the USA would not have fought Germany. Americans were very much opposed to going to war in Europe both in World War I and in World War II. In the case of World War I, the Germans were offering pieces of the USA to the Mexicans, and in World War II, Hitler declared war on the USA as a show of solidarity with Japan. Dumb on both counts.
Frankly though, I do agree with your premise. I really -don't- want the USA to have soldiers deployed anywhere except the UK and USA. UK because we have a meaningful military alliance with them, and USA because its my country. The rest of the world, all of NATO, South Korea, Japan and then some, can go defend itself.
Which is why I pray to the imaginary God that we will see the civil war the wing-nutters predict, so I can do to you what you so casually believe we should do to others.
I think you basically just can't admit that you are a killer yourself. You hold your righteousness up no differently than any of the bible thumping protestants you despise, and, at the end, when people walk away from your grandstanding and go get pizza, you can only clench your fists in frustration, and say, "that's why I'm going to kill you all". All of this stuff about saving the planet, cutting back on standards of living, being pro-choice, is just your expression of that... you want to people to be poorer, people to kill their unborn, people to die, all because nobody listens to you. Liberals the people of peace? They are the biggest murderers of them all and always have been.
This was more or less the reasoning behind the 2005 bombings on the London Undergroun
This is why we say that terrorism is an act of war, not a police matter.
So in your sick, sorry world, once we are at war we can kill all the civilians we want, and that is a good thing.
Dude, that's what war is. If you don't want war, then don't fight them. Don't sit there and pretend that war is a noble thing like a video game with so many rules. That only makes it more palatable to fight. I'd put this to you - if civilians understood that they would get killed in wars too, they might be a lot less likely to build, finance and cheer on the armies to fight them.
I'm actually not sure what sort of war it is when one side decides to simply pro-actively attack the other but it's surely not one I'd like to glorify in any way.
I don't think you need to glorify any sort of war. Indeed, perhaps the sickest vocabulary thing that has happened to humanity is that the word "glory" that comes from war was taken to be a good thing, when its really meant to describe a door that only some people pass through. Not necessarily that its a good door.
Um, it's not war, because you never declared war, precisely so that you could do things like break weapons treaties
Not declaring war is like splitting hairs. The President sought the permission of Congress to go and invade somebody else, and he got it. In my mind, that's a declaration of war sufficient for the other side to understand that trouble was coming.
That's great then! We should nuke North Korea then. I mean we have no treaty with them, right?
Read up on the Korean War. Last time the USA overran North Korea the Chinese roared to their defense with an army of roughly 300,000 men, and the Russians chipped in some of their fighter aircraft. Recall that in the face of this, Doug Macarthur wanted to start nuking the Chinese and there were some people that though that the thing to do. But Truman decided that he had had two world wars in his lifetime and he did not want a third.
You seem to be under the delusion that wars are meant to be fair. That, somehow, an equal number of people should be killed on both sides and that's the good way to do a war.
That is stupidest thing imaginable.
The fact is, we spend 500B a year on the military so that when we do fight people, it is a massacre. We do not want our guys to die. We want their guys to die.
If you don't want massacres, then don't fight the USA. That the USA can massacre its opponents is a GOOD thing, as it brings more American soldiers home alive.
Now, if you don't want this, then don't send soldiers off to war, but that's a different debate. Once they are there, you want Americans to be able to kill enemies like a Power'd up dude in a video game.
Honestly though this is sick. It was a wholesale slaughter of people. Burning corpses hanging in chunks from buildings. People having their flesh burned to the bone while they are alive. I'm normally ok with this sort of thing but this is up there on the offensive scale. Not going to leave out the fact that the US violated weapons treaties are we?
What the fuck do you think war is dude? A bunch of people running around like in Unreal Tournament or HALO with fake manly voices going "Roger Roger" and shooting all the time?
Phosphorus bombs are not a violation of any weapons treaty. And besides, we had no treaty with the insurgency, so screw them.
I think its good that Americans who fought Fallujah get to tell their story. We've had plenty of insurgent friendly lefties tell theirs for long enough, indeed, some are posting here. The fact of the matter is that Fallujah was the one place where insurgents tried to make a pitched battle rather than hit and run as normal. Urban fighting ensued, and the insurgents ultimately lost.
I am completely unimpressed by this common sense "discovery." They pay people to come up with this?
Totally true, but you can't buy a new '68 Covrette C3 StingRay from the GM Factory.
That's the Feds that make that deal impossible.
lighter/more properly written software for such slow machines. Abiword/Gnumeric or KOffice
Are you really sure you want to call K-anything lightweight?