Do what I did. Go to a neighboring state. Buy a used (2003) Jetta TDI there. Drive it back home. Be sure to flip off the California VW dealer, who will be stuck with the warranty coverage on a vehicle they were too chicken-shit to sell.
In brief, it was caused by improper maintenance, improper value lineups on reactor safety systems, material failures, an incredibly overcomplicated reactor control and indication system, operators not believing their indications, and improper operator training and operation.
Can you guarantee for me that this kind of thing will never happen again?
After the crash of Flight 191 in Chicago in 1979, it was determined that shoddy maintenence, airlines cutting corners, was the ultimate main cause (coupled with some other unfortunate factors). The airline industry was forced to make changes by government regulators. But the political climate changed and the air industry was "deregulated" - and the nation was gripped by deregulation and privatization failure.
And was anyone suprised when the Alaska Air flight dropped out of the sky into the Pacific Ocean a couple of years ago, due to faulty maintenance procedures on the rudder's jackscrew? Again, the airline was cutting corners on maintenance, in order to boost profitability.
Now- you may say that boosting the bottom line is far more important than the lives of several hundred airline passengers on the averaqe of every three years or so. Clearly, you've never lost a loved one in an air crash. But when there's a nuclear accident - it's often far, far worse than just a few hundred deaths. There's certainly the potential for huge loss of life, and health risks for people for hundreds of years afterwards. Not because we can't build a plant and operate it safely for a year or two - but because we CAN'T build a safe plant, and operate it over the course of 10-15 years without political structures changing, and sandbagging the regulatory structure that protects us. It appears to be an impossibility. If you want a nuclear plant in your backyard, please feel free to build one, and enjoy the electricity - but first, move at least 200 miles away from MY family.
There are many more uses Wal-Mart (and others) are touting for RFID, such as improving returns, inventory control etc. I still hate it, but anti-theft is just the tip of the iceberg.
How about firing all the checkout personnel? That's the ultimate goal, of course. You walk in the door, pick up stuff off the shelf, carry it to the door and swipe your card on the way out.
I reckon you'd use a small solid fuel booster of some kind (similar to a Pegasus? - unless you've got some kind of massive cryogenic fueling facility up there on the blimp) - to go from 20 miles to perhaps 80 or so (and the remaining 17,000 mph required to attain orbital velocity) - expend the booster, and use an ion "upper stage" to get the remaining 20-60 miles of altitude - and velocity.
Still, I doubt this would be in use to loft large payloads. I don't see an ultra-high-altitude blimp acting as way-station for 10,000 kg payloads.
Getting from 0 to 17,000 mph is a difficult task. Doing it from sea-level, dealing with the first 8 miles of atmosphere makes it difficult. But even launching from 20 miles up, atmosphere is still a big problem.
If there were a magical "super weapon" that could, at the press of a button, find each and every individual who is "in the fight", even if that person just has an ak-47 and rpg under their bed, and is thinking they might use it some day, and takes them "out of the fight" by making them happy and changing their minds - this would be within the "laws of war".
The question is - what would you do, to defend your own home? Would you stash weapons in your church? Would you set up a boobytrap in your kids' school, and have your 8 year old son or daughter trip the switch when the enemy soldiers came? If not - what if, your next door neighbor would, and thereby puts your son in danger, because now, 8 year olds are potential "enemy combatants" - so your son gets picked up in a random sweep, taken to a camp and tortured for information. Would THAT change your mind? Who would you fight against then? The torturers, or your next door neighbor who took the fight down to that level?
There ARE laws of war. They may be hard and fast on paper - but the degree to which a side may adhere to that law is nothing more than a political poker chip. If one wages war offensively within the law, one can probably count in diplomatic support, or at least non-interference. If one wages war - an OFFENSIVE war, outside of the bounds of international law, then diplomatic support, non-interference, legitimacy, are not certain things anymore.
In a defensive war, one has much more leeway.
This is where the Jihadists are right now. In radical Islam, a Jihad can be construed as a war to defend Islam from infidel attack. ANYTHING is permissible, as long as it's for Allah's glory, and defense of their right to worship Allah their way (including imposing the "harsh" laws we've all heard so much about, burqas, beatings, hand-chopping-offing, etc). That's their "freedom" that's what they want; the Jihadists. They take advantage of the defensive position they see themselves in, as justification for "taking off the gloves".
On America's side, there are radicals who also have framed this war as a "Defensive war" against Terrorists - who "started it" on 9/11. In their mind, the US does not need to adhere to the Geneva Conventions, because we're fighting a defensive war, so WE should likewise, have leeway. (We know that people with this mindset are currently in charge in the Bush administration - because they were the ones who argued so strongly to exempt Camp X Ray prisoners from POW status). Taken to extremes - suicide bombers is an acceptible tactic. If the roles were reversed, and if the US were fighting an invasion force on our own territory of millions of Jihadists, who had supplanted our legitimate government, OF COURSE there'd be American Suicide bombers. Look at the history of the Revolutionary War. Our Founding Fathers were risking VERY harsh punishment from the British - some very horrific torture and death, for our national independence. For those that the Torries captured - it *was* suicide. For those who fought and died in the face of tactical overwhelming odds, it *was* suicide.
Personally, I like to believe the whole "we're spreading democracy" meme. I wish that that were the case, from a pragmatic standpoint. I absolutely pray that that will be the end result (though I doubt it). With that as our lofty goal and justification for the Iraq invasion, I tend to believe that since we're spreading a Western Ideal - the onus is upon us even MORE, to adhere to ideas like Due Process, and the Geneva Conventions. Otherwise, it's like a parent trying to tell his teen to stay away from drugs, as he chugs half a bottle of scotch, behind the wheel of his car, and then smacks his teen upside the head, warning him that he'll be beaten if he disobeys. Teens would be less likely to do drugs if they're implored by a sober parent. Leading by example is so much more effective. Of course in this case, leading by negative example might work. The teen's less likely to get involved in drugs
China was given open access to the WTO by President Clinton who called them a "strategic ally".
You mispelled "Nixon".
And if Clinton made such and awful mistake - why has not Bush undone it? He's had 3+ years. Apparently Bush agrees. Bush Sr. certainly agreed with Clinton's China policy. He set the groundwork.
Or are you one of those neocons who believes Clinton sold missile technology to the Chinese. BUZZZ! wrong. Clinton's State Department fined the contractor 13 million dollars (plus other concessions) for violating the rules. Try again.
IF the last 30 years hav taught us anything, it's that electronic components start expensive, and get cheap, then cheaper, then trivial so as to be an afterthought.
What might fall out of all this is a system that uses signals from BOTH constellations of satellites, and compares them for even better accuracy, and then in the case where one system might go down (for instance, if an enemy or a natural disaster like an interplanetary dust storm or massive solar flare) were to disable one system, it would automatically fail over and use the other system as a source (assuming IT survived).
THe issue on cars is; each car needs to have an energy STORAGE system.
Currently, gasoline powered cars use gasoline. Most gasoline cars could easily be switched to ethanol or even methanol (minor hardware changes, injectors, reprogramming). Diesel could be switched to biodiesel. Not as versatile as electricity, but the energy density of gasoline and diesel are much much better than batteries.
If Fusion were to be deployed for industrial power generation on a wide basis, this would reduce demand for gasoline, leaving more crude oil available for cars. At the same time, Fusion power could be used to "store" energy in the form of ethanol or methanol, or biodiesel, and those fuels could be used to power the legacy "fossil fuel" cars. Those three sources, ethanol, methanol, biodiesel, generated by fusion-powered whatever (farm equipment, grow lights, etc), have the benefit of keeping carbon in the carbon cycle, instead of pulling it out of the ground where it's been sequestered for hundreds of millions of years.
Additionally, if battery technology does not "improve" - the Fusion sourced methanol, or ethanol, can be used in fuel-cell cars. (or even hydrogen, but I'm not convinced that that will be the ultimate power-storage solution, due to all of the technical problems).
It's true that gasoline has about twice the density of methanol, so many people will take a huge hit in performance and range in the initial switchover. Those will be the people who will likely opt to continue consuming gasoline. This is why I believe that even when demand drops due to higher adoption of alternative fuels, that the price for gasoline will continue to ramp as it becomes a "specialty" fuel for those who want to maintain higher performance. For at least another 20-30 years.
You realize that in this climate, that means: Disappeared, stripped, beaten, ridden like a donkey, forced to pose naked for pictures, humiliated, deprived of sleep, sexually abused, and in some cases, killed.
# Almost the entire car-chase scene was shot in a manner which is VERY reminiscent of the Death-Star trench scene in Star Wars, right down to the cuts from the driver/pilot, to the beeping computer display, to the pursuing baddies (whose motorcycles SOUND like tie fighters), to the cutaways to the "drones in the control room watching the whole thing" - same timing, same camera angles, same sound effects.
Considering how much better air quality in LA has become (I should know, I live here too) perhaps the rest of the nation should adopt the same boutique blend.
That way, all refineries would be making the same stuff and the regional demand issues could go away. Refineries can be built. They're easier to build in TX than in CA, true, but they can be built.
. . . true - but the way it stands now, the Oil Industry would be happier to just pump it out of the ground, have you pay for it and put it directly in your car. They don't want another leaded/unleaded debacle.
The necessity of a stupid "tool" actually belittles the magnatude of Palpatine as a threat and a "classic villain".
Similarly - Ahmed Chalabi needed a stooge like Bush (and his neocon buddies) to stage his little coup in Iraq. Had Chalabi fooled a more mentally acute US Presidential Administration, I could respect him as a truly legendary evil, like Hitler or Stalin. But as it stands now, he's just a low-life thug. Seems now that the Bush Administration has finally caught on to Chalabi. One wonders when Bush will stop fellating Bandar and Sharon. . .
Because I've got a kickass deck of Pokemon cards that's centered around Dark Energy. . . that's right, I'm baaaad.
Re:How many crops per year?
on
Out of Gas
·
· Score: 1
I've often wondered if we're so screwed we can't feed ourselves when we run out of oil.
Well, the very few ultra rich will likely have no problem paying the mercenaries it will take to guard the farms and convoys to deliver them (and their servants) ample food.
The rest are targets.
Re:you won't have any choice, you'll pay it
on
Out of Gas
·
· Score: 1
but since people are already taking steps to reduce fuel costs (e.g. hybrids and other high mileage vehicles) I doubt that will be a significant problem.
It's ALREADY a significant problem. Or don't you believe our little misadventure in Iraq is about oil. Oh yeah, that's right. It's about that one artillary shell with sarin in it that injured all of ZERO people. $200 BILLION and 800 troops lives (never mind the civillian brownies). For ONE artillary shell which was probably left behind as a bureucratic mistake, and probably sourced from Rumsfeld back in the 80's when Saddam was doing his bidding attacking Iran.
For every person you can cite buying a hybrid or whatever, I'll show you 100 others buying the latest biggest H2 behemoth money can buy.
When things get as bad as the gloom and doomers say they will, feel free to stop by my house, and hide behind the sandbags while I pick off looters with my rifle.
Well - ENRON, for one, overestimated it's sources.
Also Saudi Arabia is not pumping at their CLAIMED capacity. Most analysts believe this is because their Claimed Capacity is bullshit. But nobody knows for sure, because the Saudis have been very secretive for the past couple of years, about specifics.
1. Invent and patent bioengineered corn. 2. Eat said corn, take a standard airline flight over Iowa. 3. Use the air-lav. - FLUSH. 4. Sue every farmer in Iowa for copyright infringement. 5. PROFIT.
The only possible use I see for this plane, and one in which it is probably well-suited for, is in protecting man made structures from large, fast moving fires. Let's say there was a fire bearing down on Denver and threatening a rather pricey subdivision.
And that functionality is KEY. Insurance-industry lobbyists don't give a crap about the 50,000 acres of wilderness that get burned up. They care about the $500 Million payout they'll have to make when 20 acres of overpriced subdivision gets burned.
Since they pay our lawmaker's bribes, this is the solution that is more likely to get pushed.
This strikes the nail on the head in so many ways.
Over the past 30 years in America, (or perhaps longer?) I've seen th business climate move sharply towards an attitude that: Rules cause business inefficiency, and minimalist legal environment should be sought after. People who are "shrewd bargainers" or "Stiff Negotiators" are more important and valuable to a successful business, than innovators, particularly when they are skilled at bending the rules or finding loopholes. Crooked dealings are WRONG only if you get caught, and are equivalent to "shrewd bargaining" if you don't get caught (buyer beware!).
It's this ideological atmosphere that is killing American competitiveness. I've worked for companies run by the founder, who's an engineer. I've seen the founder replaced by a "business savvy" exec - by investors. The first order of business was to scam some other company into buying us at a premium, to watch as first, a round of layoffs, then the best technical people left, until there was nothing left of the former company but the scammers, and a few naive people (like myself) hoping that all the hype about us going public and getting rich was true (it wasn't).
But the basic criticism here - this is the result of letting Marketing or Accounting people make Engineering decisions.
There is no point for a company to be cutting costs if all it does is starve the consumers - it will create a vicious cycle whereby the more you cut costs, the smaller your market.
The thing is - that equilibrium point hasn't been met yet. A few million ex-web designers whose salary has been decimated doesn't have much of an effect compared to the tens of millions of retirees with huge amounts of savings. This is what's currently driving the housing boom, (as they scramble to sink that savings into the one investment that *shouldn't* collapse under them) - and which, in turn, has driven the "refinancing boom" - and the easy credit that comes with it. THAT is the only thing propping up the economy. In 5-10 years, when we hit the "rich retiree" peak, (baby boomers, who got rich because of progressive worker policies that were in effect in the 1960's and 1970's) - and oil will be $60/bbl, expect some economic pain here. But until the supply of "rich retirees" runs out, industry can decimate the workforce with impunity. Because the economic numbers will look good, and "unemployment always lags a recovery" (we've been hearing that for 3 years now. . . )
Seems to me a simple wooden Viking Longship would have about the same low-radar visibility. And shallower draft means they can launch attacks up rivers and rocky shores.
Slashdot Mirror
It's the Eco-Nazis.
Do what I did. Go to a neighboring state. Buy a used (2003) Jetta TDI there. Drive it back home. Be sure to flip off the California VW dealer, who will be stuck with the warranty coverage on a vehicle they were too chicken-shit to sell.
In brief, it was caused by improper maintenance, improper value lineups on reactor safety systems, material failures, an incredibly overcomplicated reactor control and indication system, operators not believing their indications, and improper operator training and operation.
Can you guarantee for me that this kind of thing will never happen again?
After the crash of Flight 191 in Chicago in 1979, it was determined that shoddy maintenence, airlines cutting corners, was the ultimate main cause (coupled with some other unfortunate factors). The airline industry was forced to make changes by government regulators.
But the political climate changed and the air industry was "deregulated" - and the nation was gripped by deregulation and privatization failure.
And was anyone suprised when the Alaska Air flight dropped out of the sky into the Pacific Ocean a couple of years ago, due to faulty maintenance procedures on the rudder's jackscrew? Again, the airline was cutting corners on maintenance, in order to boost profitability.
Now- you may say that boosting the bottom line is far more important than the lives of several hundred airline passengers on the averaqe of every three years or so. Clearly, you've never lost a loved one in an air crash. But when there's a nuclear accident - it's often far, far worse than just a few hundred deaths. There's certainly the potential for huge loss of life, and health risks for people for hundreds of years afterwards. Not because we can't build a plant and operate it safely for a year or two - but because we CAN'T build a safe plant, and operate it over the course of 10-15 years without political structures changing, and sandbagging the regulatory structure that protects us. It appears to be an impossibility. If you want a nuclear plant in your backyard, please feel free to build one, and enjoy the electricity - but first, move at least 200 miles away from MY family.
There are many more uses Wal-Mart (and others) are touting for RFID, such as improving returns, inventory control etc. I still hate it, but anti-theft is just the tip of the iceberg.
How about firing all the checkout personnel?
That's the ultimate goal, of course.
You walk in the door, pick up stuff off the shelf, carry it to the door and swipe your card on the way out.
Minimum wage isn't low enough for these people.
Your legal guarantees to privacy are not spelled out in the Constitution.
.
I have to say this again and again lately. .
What part of Article IX do you not understand?
I reckon you'd use a small solid fuel booster of some kind (similar to a Pegasus? - unless you've got some kind of massive cryogenic fueling facility up there on the blimp) - to go from 20 miles to perhaps 80 or so (and the remaining 17,000 mph required to attain orbital velocity) - expend the booster, and use an ion "upper stage" to get the remaining 20-60 miles of altitude - and velocity.
Still, I doubt this would be in use to loft large payloads. I don't see an ultra-high-altitude blimp acting as way-station for 10,000 kg payloads.
Getting from 0 to 17,000 mph is a difficult task. Doing it from sea-level, dealing with the first 8 miles of atmosphere makes it difficult. But even launching from 20 miles up, atmosphere is still a big problem.
If there were a magical "super weapon" that could, at the press of a button, find each and every individual who is "in the fight", even if that person just has an ak-47 and rpg under their bed, and is thinking they might use it some day, and takes them "out of the fight" by making them happy and changing their minds - this would be within the "laws of war".
The question is - what would you do, to defend your own home? Would you stash weapons in your church? Would you set up a boobytrap in your kids' school, and have your 8 year old son or daughter trip the switch when the enemy soldiers came?
If not - what if, your next door neighbor would, and thereby puts your son in danger, because now, 8 year olds are potential "enemy combatants" - so your son gets picked up in a random sweep, taken to a camp and tortured for information. Would THAT change your mind? Who would you fight against then? The torturers, or your next door neighbor who took the fight down to that level?
There ARE laws of war. They may be hard and fast on paper - but the degree to which a side may adhere to that law is nothing more than a political poker chip. If one wages war offensively within the law, one can probably count in diplomatic support, or at least non-interference. If one wages war - an OFFENSIVE war, outside of the bounds of international law, then diplomatic support, non-interference, legitimacy, are not certain things anymore.
In a defensive war, one has much more leeway.
This is where the Jihadists are right now. In radical Islam, a Jihad can be construed as a war to defend Islam from infidel attack. ANYTHING is permissible, as long as it's for Allah's glory, and defense of their right to worship Allah their way (including imposing the "harsh" laws we've all heard so much about, burqas, beatings, hand-chopping-offing, etc). That's their "freedom" that's what they want; the Jihadists. They take advantage of the defensive position they see themselves in, as justification for "taking off the gloves".
On America's side, there are radicals who also have framed this war as a "Defensive war" against Terrorists - who "started it" on 9/11. In their mind, the US does not need to adhere to the Geneva Conventions, because we're fighting a defensive war, so WE should likewise, have leeway. (We know that people with this mindset are currently in charge in the Bush administration - because they were the ones who argued so strongly to exempt Camp X Ray prisoners from POW status). Taken to extremes - suicide bombers is an acceptible tactic. If the roles were reversed, and if the US were fighting an invasion force on our own territory of millions of Jihadists, who had supplanted our legitimate government, OF COURSE there'd be American Suicide bombers. Look at the history of the Revolutionary War. Our Founding Fathers were risking VERY harsh punishment from the British - some very horrific torture and death, for our national independence. For those that the Torries captured - it *was* suicide. For those who fought and died in the face of tactical overwhelming odds, it *was* suicide.
Personally, I like to believe the whole "we're spreading democracy" meme. I wish that that were the case, from a pragmatic standpoint. I absolutely pray that that will be the end result (though I doubt it).
With that as our lofty goal and justification for the Iraq invasion, I tend to believe that since we're spreading a Western Ideal - the onus is upon us even MORE, to adhere to ideas like Due Process, and the Geneva Conventions.
Otherwise, it's like a parent trying to tell his teen to stay away from drugs, as he chugs half a bottle of scotch, behind the wheel of his car, and then smacks his teen upside the head, warning him that he'll be beaten if he disobeys.
Teens would be less likely to do drugs if they're implored by a sober parent. Leading by example is so much more effective.
Of course in this case, leading by negative example might work.
The teen's less likely to get involved in drugs
Chinese economic growth in the future is dependent on the same thing US economic growth is dependent on.
Cheap Oil.
If recent events haven't proven to you that that is a thing of the past - then sit tight and watch for a few more months.
China was given open access to the WTO by President Clinton who called them a "strategic ally".
You mispelled "Nixon".
And if Clinton made such and awful mistake - why has not Bush undone it? He's had 3+ years. Apparently Bush agrees. Bush Sr. certainly agreed with Clinton's China policy. He set the groundwork.
Or are you one of those neocons who believes Clinton sold missile technology to the Chinese. BUZZZ! wrong. Clinton's State Department fined the contractor 13 million dollars (plus other concessions) for violating the rules. Try again.
IF the last 30 years hav taught us anything, it's that electronic components start expensive, and get cheap, then cheaper, then trivial so as to be an afterthought.
What might fall out of all this is a system that uses signals from BOTH constellations of satellites, and compares them for even better accuracy, and then in the case where one system might go down (for instance, if an enemy or a natural disaster like an interplanetary dust storm or massive solar flare) were to disable one system, it would automatically fail over and use the other system as a source (assuming IT survived).
THe issue on cars is;
each car needs to have an energy STORAGE system.
Currently, gasoline powered cars use gasoline. Most gasoline cars could easily be switched to ethanol or even methanol (minor hardware changes, injectors, reprogramming). Diesel could be switched to biodiesel. Not as versatile as electricity, but the energy density of gasoline and diesel are much much better than batteries.
If Fusion were to be deployed for industrial power generation on a wide basis, this would reduce demand for gasoline, leaving more crude oil available for cars.
At the same time, Fusion power could be used to "store" energy in the form of ethanol or methanol, or biodiesel, and those fuels could be used to power the legacy "fossil fuel" cars. Those three sources, ethanol, methanol, biodiesel, generated by fusion-powered whatever (farm equipment, grow lights, etc), have the benefit of keeping carbon in the carbon cycle, instead of pulling it out of the ground where it's been sequestered for hundreds of millions of years.
Additionally, if battery technology does not "improve" - the Fusion sourced methanol, or ethanol, can be used in fuel-cell cars. (or even hydrogen, but I'm not convinced that that will be the ultimate power-storage solution, due to all of the technical problems).
It's true that gasoline has about twice the density of methanol, so many people will take a huge hit in performance and range in the initial switchover. Those will be the people who will likely opt to continue consuming gasoline. This is why I believe that even when demand drops due to higher adoption of alternative fuels, that the price for gasoline will continue to ramp as it becomes a "specialty" fuel for those who want to maintain higher performance. For at least another 20-30 years.
Even if you DO find Monsanto Canola on your land, how the fuck do you get rid of it? It's fucking immune to Round Up!
Arrested?
ARRESTED?!
You realize that in this climate, that means:
Disappeared, stripped, beaten, ridden like a donkey, forced to pose naked for pictures, humiliated, deprived of sleep, sexually abused, and in some cases, killed.
THEN tried in a secret tribunal.
# Almost the entire car-chase scene was shot in a manner which is VERY reminiscent of the Death-Star trench scene in Star Wars, right down to the cuts from the driver/pilot, to the beeping computer display, to the pursuing baddies (whose motorcycles SOUND like tie fighters), to the cutaways to the "drones in the control room watching the whole thing" - same timing, same camera angles, same sound effects.
Considering how much better air quality in LA has become (I should know, I live here too) perhaps the rest of the nation should adopt the same boutique blend.
That way, all refineries would be making the same stuff and the regional demand issues could go away. Refineries can be built. They're easier to build in TX than in CA, true, but they can be built.
. . . true - but the way it stands now, the Oil Industry would be happier to just pump it out of the ground, have you pay for it and put it directly in your car. They don't want another leaded/unleaded debacle.
The necessity of a stupid "tool" actually belittles the magnatude of Palpatine as a threat and a "classic villain".
Similarly - Ahmed Chalabi needed a stooge like Bush (and his neocon buddies) to stage his little coup in Iraq. Had Chalabi fooled a more mentally acute US Presidential Administration, I could respect him as a truly legendary evil, like Hitler or Stalin. But as it stands now, he's just a low-life thug. Seems now that the Bush Administration has finally caught on to Chalabi. One wonders when Bush will stop fellating Bandar and Sharon. . .
Surfing on Lava is SOOOOO last century.
What about Lava Jet-skis?
Because I've got a kickass deck of Pokemon cards that's centered around Dark Energy. . . that's right, I'm baaaad.
I've often wondered if we're so screwed we can't feed ourselves when we run out of oil.
Well, the very few ultra rich will likely have no problem paying the mercenaries it will take to guard the farms and convoys to deliver them (and their servants) ample food.
The rest are targets.
but since people are already taking steps to reduce fuel costs (e.g. hybrids and other high mileage vehicles) I doubt that will be a significant problem.
It's ALREADY a significant problem.
Or don't you believe our little misadventure in Iraq is about oil. Oh yeah, that's right. It's about that one artillary shell with sarin in it that injured all of ZERO people. $200 BILLION and 800 troops lives (never mind the civillian brownies). For ONE artillary shell which was probably left behind as a bureucratic mistake, and probably sourced from Rumsfeld back in the 80's when Saddam was doing his bidding attacking Iran.
For every person you can cite buying a hybrid or whatever, I'll show you 100 others buying the latest biggest H2 behemoth money can buy.
When things get as bad as the gloom and doomers say they will, feel free to stop by my house, and hide behind the sandbags while I pick off looters with my rifle.
Well - ENRON, for one, overestimated it's sources.
Also Saudi Arabia is not pumping at their CLAIMED capacity. Most analysts believe this is because their Claimed Capacity is bullshit. But nobody knows for sure, because the Saudis have been very secretive for the past couple of years, about specifics.
for that matter:
1. Invent and patent bioengineered corn.
2. Eat said corn, take a standard airline flight over Iowa.
3. Use the air-lav. - FLUSH.
4. Sue every farmer in Iowa for copyright infringement.
5. PROFIT.
The only possible use I see for this plane, and one in which it is probably well-suited for, is in protecting man made structures from large, fast moving fires. Let's say there was a fire bearing down on Denver and threatening a rather pricey subdivision.
And that functionality is KEY.
Insurance-industry lobbyists don't give a crap about the 50,000 acres of wilderness that get burned up. They care about the $500 Million payout they'll have to make when 20 acres of overpriced subdivision gets burned.
Since they pay our lawmaker's bribes, this is the solution that is more likely to get pushed.
This strikes the nail on the head in so many ways.
Over the past 30 years in America, (or perhaps longer?) I've seen th business climate move sharply towards an attitude that:
Rules cause business inefficiency, and minimalist legal environment should be sought after.
People who are "shrewd bargainers" or "Stiff Negotiators" are more important and valuable to a successful business, than innovators, particularly when they are skilled at bending the rules or finding loopholes.
Crooked dealings are WRONG only if you get caught, and are equivalent to "shrewd bargaining" if you don't get caught (buyer beware!).
It's this ideological atmosphere that is killing American competitiveness. I've worked for companies run by the founder, who's an engineer. I've seen the founder replaced by a "business savvy" exec - by investors. The first order of business was to scam some other company into buying us at a premium, to watch as first, a round of layoffs, then the best technical people left, until there was nothing left of the former company but the scammers, and a few naive people (like myself) hoping that all the hype about us going public and getting rich was true (it wasn't).
But the basic criticism here - this is the result of letting Marketing or Accounting people make Engineering decisions.
There is no point for a company to be cutting costs if all it does is starve the consumers - it will create a vicious cycle whereby the more you cut costs, the smaller your market.
The thing is - that equilibrium point hasn't been met yet. A few million ex-web designers whose salary has been decimated doesn't have much of an effect compared to the tens of millions of retirees with huge amounts of savings. This is what's currently driving the housing boom, (as they scramble to sink that savings into the one investment that *shouldn't* collapse under them) - and which, in turn, has driven the "refinancing boom" - and the easy credit that comes with it. THAT is the only thing propping up the economy. In 5-10 years, when we hit the "rich retiree" peak, (baby boomers, who got rich because of progressive worker policies that were in effect in the 1960's and 1970's) - and oil will be $60/bbl, expect some economic pain here. But until the supply of "rich retirees" runs out, industry can decimate the workforce with impunity. Because the economic numbers will look good, and "unemployment always lags a recovery" (we've been hearing that for 3 years now. . . )
Seems to me a simple wooden Viking Longship would have about the same low-radar visibility. And shallower draft means they can launch attacks up rivers and rocky shores.