So if they do a raid at night they will be camouflaged and won't be shot.
Read my post - I already debunked that. No solid color is the best camouflage. That's why the army switched from solid color to patterned BDU's.
Furthermore, if all you're concerned about is "good enough", then the traditional police blue would be fine. It's a dark enough color that it would work almost as well as black at night. If they're so concerned about camo, why not paint their faces too? Any spec ops team would be embarrassed at the sloppy camo of a SWAT team.
Then why not pink or purple? If you believe black was chosen without regard to its appearance and impact, then I've got a bridge to sell you.
I've seen fire dept and service companies and chefs with black uniforms.
Fire dept. raincoats are black (w/ large reflective stripes) but I've never seen a black uniform (as opposed to firefighting gear). "Service companies" is too ambiguous for me to respond to. As for chefs, they're civilians. I've got a black suit too, but you know damn well it doesn't come across the same way.
Also, Godwin's Law. I win.
Godwin's law says that the probability of mentioning Nazis approaches 1. It doesn't say that stops the thread. I'm not given to offhand Nazi references, but those black uniforms have always reminded me of Gestapo. Few Americans didn't grow up watching old war movies, including those who chose the color of the uniforms.
the local swat decided it would be a good idea to use an ambulance to go in and conduct a raid
For which the genius who approved that idea should have been fired without pension, if not summarily executed. Even in a war zone they don't send in soldiers under cover of a red cross.
That's often the case. Everybody likes the folks who may save your life. A friend of mine used to work for NYC EMS, and she said that green uniform had an amazing effect. Every cop would treat you as an honored guest, and she could walk through the worst neighborhoods without a care in the world.
First, that statement can mean any number of things. If you believe that statement means anything, do you believe "hope and change" means anything? Politician's statements mean little to nothing. Look at what they do, not what they say.
vast databases on American citizens collected... as a provision of Obamacare
Does that mean that Canada is already a police state? They've had universal health care for decades.
I think that many trends, like the absurd (and often unconstitutional) collection of data on everyone, and the militarization of police forces, are a serious issue. Discussing it the way you do though makes people prone to dismissing you as a right wing conspiracy theorist.
What do you expect from the WSJ? They're a well known far left radical pacifist publication. It's not like this was in the mainstream media or anything.
Notice how swat usage skyrockets within a decade of the US Army replacing the M14 with the M16, a true assault rifle.
The M-14 was a fully automatic weapon that fired a large 7.62x51mm cartridge. By comparison the M-16 is a pop gun firing a 5.56x45mm cartridge. They switched because the M-14 and its ammo are heavy. Many people who were around at the time objected because they felt the M-16 lacked firepower.
theoretical is 875-1000 rpm for the M16
Actually they slowed it down a little to 850rpm to reduce fouling, but either way with a 30 round magazine you can't fire for long at that rate. Modern versions are limited to 3 round bursts for just that reason.
BTW, in the 1920's civilians could freely buy fully automatic weapons like BAR's and Tommy guns, so your screed about the choice of weapons makes no sense. You should also note that the military has a different job than the police.
Why do SWAT teams wear black? It may seem like a small point, but when designing uniforms symbolism and psychological effect are certainly considered. When I see a black uniform the first thing I think of is Gestapo. I'm sure that I'm not the only one. What other uniforms are black?
Don't say it's for camouflage, as any solid color is bad camo. Even at night straight black is far from the best - that was known as least as far back as WWII. The standard, and immediately recognizable, color for (local) police uniforms in this country has always been dark blue. State police and sheriffs deputies may wear grey or khaki. Recognizability is useful - that's why certain brands of products have "trademark" colors. It says much that they want black associated with SWAT.
The answer to why police have become more militaristic is because criminals have become more murderous against cops.
More murderous as compared to when? Crime rates have been falling in this country for years.
They are tired of being shot at... there is safety in numbers... I'm a medically retired cop... who was shot in the line of duty while investigating a massive marijuana grow... I was alone.
It sounds like you're talking about the opposite extreme. No reasonable person is going to complain about sending several officers when there is a potentially dangerous situation. Personally I'd complain if they didn't. But there is an enormous difference between that and sending fully militarized SWAT teams in under situations that clearly don't warrant it.
I wonder if the SWAT teams don't make things more dangerous for the police, especially in the long run. If you know you may come up against a military assault team, it's tempting to arm yourself likewise. Unless perhaps you're wanted for murder or something, the dumbest thing you can do is shoot a cop. I know many criminals aren't the brightest of people, but if military assault teams weren't the norm even they might come to realize that. Hey Charlie, you may do some time for growing pot or jacking cars, but it's a lot less time than for shooting a cop.
Arms races go both ways, and I suspect that this militarization, in addition to making police lose the respect of the public, ultimately may make things more dangerous for the police.
Then there is the little detail that many of our power plants use ocean water!
Well, they WERE designed to use ocean water. But California's State Water Resources Control Board has ordered them to stop using ocean water, in a phased plan starting soon and finishing by 2024.
Last I checked, California was REALLY broke, and this will cost billions, so I question whether this is really the time. But the costs will simply be passed along to the people of California who will just have to pay more for power.
Also, the power plant operators prefer to mitigate the harm to fish by just putting screens over the water intakes, rather than by scrapping the ocean cooling and switching to fresh water. This was not permitted.
Wow, I'm pretty strongly pro-environmental and I think that's nuts. I've heard of requiring things like mile(?) long inlet/outlet pipes to avoid thermal pollution near the shoreline, but requiring them to switch to fresh water (in dry-as-a-bone California no less)? That's crazy.
Last time I checked the US has "only" a little over 300M people. The article is about the US. Cooling water availability is a local issue - on the coasts you can always use seawater. The oceans are pretty big.
No nuclear reactor is directly cooled with river water.
The GP didn't say it was directly cooled with river water.
All nuclear power plants however are just fancy ways of creating lots of steam to drive a turbine, and your beloved Thorium Reactor is no exception.
Wrong. An LFTR can operate at much higher temperatures than a conventional reactor, making the Brayton cycle practical.
That part of the power plant is roughly 40 percent efficient due to thermodynamic limits.
Wrong again. A conventional reactor is maybe 33% efficient, but due to the higher operating temperature an LFTR could be over 50% efficient. It would also make air cooling practical, which is what the GP was saying.
P.S. I admit to cheating - I read the links the GP provided.
What good does it do J. Random Writer to know he writes books with an average review rating of 73.8 while J.K.Rowling's average is rated 62.5?
Probably none, in which case we'll have to chalk this all up to intellectual curiosity. Apparently that's a category that's now considered frivolous on Slashdot.
[Carter] also listened to Nobel-winning economists who told him stagflation was fine for the working man, given nobody, Carter, Ford "WIN whip Inflation Now", nor Richard "Wage and Price Control" Nixon could seem to halt it. Then Reagan did.
Reagan did nothing to halt inflation. There were two factors in its decline - high interest rates from the Fed and dropping oil prices. The Fed did what it did because Carter appointed Volcker as chairman. The oil prices were not under the control of any president. If anything Reagan's budget deficits contributed to inflation (though I'm not claiming that was nearly as big of a factor as the others).
Partly it's image. He ran with a big smile saying "I believe America is a wonderful country". In 1976, after Nixon, Vietnam, Watergate and Ford, it sold real well. In 1980 it had passed it's sell-by date. By then people wanted a tough guy president to deal with the Iranians holding the hostages. Jimmy had the wrong image (never mind that he was actually much tougher about such things than Reagan). Also, people wanted a scapegoat.
Slashdot Mirror
Now Russians and Chinese are our business partners.
So were Germans and Japanese in 1939.
So if they do a raid at night they will be camouflaged and won't be shot.
Read my post - I already debunked that. No solid color is the best camouflage. That's why the army switched from solid color to patterned BDU's.
Furthermore, if all you're concerned about is "good enough", then the traditional police blue would be fine. It's a dark enough color that it would work almost as well as black at night. If they're so concerned about camo, why not paint their faces too? Any spec ops team would be embarrassed at the sloppy camo of a SWAT team.
Because, maybe, it has to be *some* color.
Then why not pink or purple? If you believe black was chosen without regard to its appearance and impact, then I've got a bridge to sell you.
I've seen fire dept and service companies and chefs with black uniforms.
Fire dept. raincoats are black (w/ large reflective stripes) but I've never seen a black uniform (as opposed to firefighting gear). "Service companies" is too ambiguous for me to respond to. As for chefs, they're civilians. I've got a black suit too, but you know damn well it doesn't come across the same way.
Also, Godwin's Law. I win.
Godwin's law says that the probability of mentioning Nazis approaches 1. It doesn't say that stops the thread. I'm not given to offhand Nazi references, but those black uniforms have always reminded me of Gestapo. Few Americans didn't grow up watching old war movies, including those who chose the color of the uniforms.
the local swat decided it would be a good idea to use an ambulance to go in and conduct a raid
For which the genius who approved that idea should have been fired without pension, if not summarily executed. Even in a war zone they don't send in soldiers under cover of a red cross.
ambulances went in without molestation
That's often the case. Everybody likes the folks who may save your life. A friend of mine used to work for NYC EMS, and she said that green uniform had an amazing effect. Every cop would treat you as an honored guest, and she could walk through the worst neighborhoods without a care in the world.
but Obama's statement is completely new
First, that statement can mean any number of things. If you believe that statement means anything, do you believe "hope and change" means anything? Politician's statements mean little to nothing. Look at what they do, not what they say.
vast databases on American citizens collected ... as a provision of Obamacare
Does that mean that Canada is already a police state? They've had universal health care for decades.
I think that many trends, like the absurd (and often unconstitutional) collection of data on everyone, and the militarization of police forces, are a serious issue. Discussing it the way you do though makes people prone to dismissing you as a right wing conspiracy theorist.
What do you expect from the WSJ? They're a well known far left radical pacifist publication. It's not like this was in the mainstream media or anything.
Notice how swat usage skyrockets within a decade of the US Army replacing the M14 with the M16, a true assault rifle.
The M-14 was a fully automatic weapon that fired a large 7.62x51mm cartridge. By comparison the M-16 is a pop gun firing a 5.56x45mm cartridge. They switched because the M-14 and its ammo are heavy. Many people who were around at the time objected because they felt the M-16 lacked firepower.
theoretical is 875-1000 rpm for the M16
Actually they slowed it down a little to 850rpm to reduce fouling, but either way with a 30 round magazine you can't fire for long at that rate. Modern versions are limited to 3 round bursts for just that reason.
BTW, in the 1920's civilians could freely buy fully automatic weapons like BAR's and Tommy guns, so your screed about the choice of weapons makes no sense. You should also note that the military has a different job than the police.
Most of the bad trends tend to drift in here from the US and this is one.
Then borrow one of our better ideas and declare independence.
Why do SWAT teams wear black? It may seem like a small point, but when designing uniforms symbolism and psychological effect are certainly considered. When I see a black uniform the first thing I think of is Gestapo. I'm sure that I'm not the only one. What other uniforms are black?
Don't say it's for camouflage, as any solid color is bad camo. Even at night straight black is far from the best - that was known as least as far back as WWII. The standard, and immediately recognizable, color for (local) police uniforms in this country has always been dark blue. State police and sheriffs deputies may wear grey or khaki. Recognizability is useful - that's why certain brands of products have "trademark" colors. It says much that they want black associated with SWAT.
The answer to why police have become more militaristic is because criminals have become more murderous against cops.
More murderous as compared to when? Crime rates have been falling in this country for years.
They are tired of being shot at ... there is safety in numbers ... I'm a medically retired cop ... who was shot in the line of duty while investigating a massive marijuana grow ... I was alone.
It sounds like you're talking about the opposite extreme. No reasonable person is going to complain about sending several officers when there is a potentially dangerous situation. Personally I'd complain if they didn't. But there is an enormous difference between that and sending fully militarized SWAT teams in under situations that clearly don't warrant it.
I wonder if the SWAT teams don't make things more dangerous for the police, especially in the long run. If you know you may come up against a military assault team, it's tempting to arm yourself likewise. Unless perhaps you're wanted for murder or something, the dumbest thing you can do is shoot a cop. I know many criminals aren't the brightest of people, but if military assault teams weren't the norm even they might come to realize that. Hey Charlie, you may do some time for growing pot or jacking cars, but it's a lot less time than for shooting a cop.
Arms races go both ways, and I suspect that this militarization, in addition to making police lose the respect of the public, ultimately may make things more dangerous for the police.
We've moved from debugging to robotic psychoanalysis. It was expected to happen as systems became more complex.
Emacs Psychiatrist has been a standard feature for years.
Then there is the little detail that many of our power plants use ocean water!
Well, they WERE designed to use ocean water. But California's State Water Resources Control Board has ordered them to stop using ocean water, in a phased plan starting soon and finishing by 2024.
Last I checked, California was REALLY broke, and this will cost billions, so I question whether this is really the time. But the costs will simply be passed along to the people of California who will just have to pay more for power.
Also, the power plant operators prefer to mitigate the harm to fish by just putting screens over the water intakes, rather than by scrapping the ocean cooling and switching to fresh water. This was not permitted.
http://www.calwatchdog.com/2011/03/23/ca-water-boards-%E2%80%98animal-farm%E2%80%99-policy/
http://www.americanwaterintel.com/archive/1/11/general/california-orders-plants-cut-intake-flow-93.html
Wow, I'm pretty strongly pro-environmental and I think that's nuts. I've heard of requiring things like mile(?) long inlet/outlet pipes to avoid thermal pollution near the shoreline, but requiring them to switch to fresh water (in dry-as-a-bone California no less)? That's crazy.
Good to know the solutions are trivial.
Last time I checked the US has "only" a little over 300M people. The article is about the US. Cooling water availability is a local issue - on the coasts you can always use seawater. The oceans are pretty big.
No nuclear reactor is directly cooled with river water.
The GP didn't say it was directly cooled with river water.
All nuclear power plants however are just fancy ways of creating lots of steam to drive a turbine, and your beloved Thorium Reactor is no exception.
Wrong. An LFTR can operate at much higher temperatures than a conventional reactor, making the Brayton cycle practical.
That part of the power plant is roughly 40 percent efficient due to thermodynamic limits.
Wrong again. A conventional reactor is maybe 33% efficient, but due to the higher operating temperature an LFTR could be over 50% efficient. It would also make air cooling practical, which is what the GP was saying.
P.S. I admit to cheating - I read the links the GP provided.
What's depressing? I hope I make it to 97.
What good does it do J. Random Writer to know he writes books with an average review rating of 73.8 while J.K.Rowling's average is rated 62.5?
Probably none, in which case we'll have to chalk this all up to intellectual curiosity. Apparently that's a category that's now considered frivolous on Slashdot.
more than that amazon ALREADY has a review pushing system similar to this, doesn't it?
I believe Amazon lists authors' names.
My own theory about the stellar popularity of particular authors is that many people just want to share the experience of reading ...
That would feed into the snowball effect the author mentions. Your theory and his jibe quite nicely.
[Carter] also listened to Nobel-winning economists who told him stagflation was fine for the working man, given nobody, Carter, Ford "WIN whip Inflation Now", nor Richard "Wage and Price Control" Nixon could seem to halt it. Then Reagan did.
Reagan did nothing to halt inflation. There were two factors in its decline - high interest rates from the Fed and dropping oil prices. The Fed did what it did because Carter appointed Volcker as chairman. The oil prices were not under the control of any president. If anything Reagan's budget deficits contributed to inflation (though I'm not claiming that was nearly as big of a factor as the others).
I feel like when people are really angry at kids, the kids just get scared, not cute
The trick is to get cute just before the adults hit that stage. As to whether this approach works, the proof is that my daughter is still alive.
Revenge is a dish best served cold (though hopefully w/ family "revenge" just means "I told you so").
Let Henry the War Criminal keep his. It's a reminder of how meaningful the prize is.
So, why the dislike?
Partly it's image. He ran with a big smile saying "I believe America is a wonderful country". In 1976, after Nixon, Vietnam, Watergate and Ford, it sold real well. In 1980 it had passed it's sell-by date. By then people wanted a tough guy president to deal with the Iranians holding the hostages. Jimmy had the wrong image (never mind that he was actually much tougher about such things than Reagan). Also, people wanted a scapegoat.