The other person who replied to you was right on the money. Soldiers need to be able to start or swap vehicles as easily and quickly as possible. What do you do if your buddy who was carrying the keys in his pocket got blown apart and you need to bug out of a tight spot? Fish through his pockets for the keys? Or everyone gets a set of them? There should be physical security for all military vehicles which would be more useful than having a key. Of course a thief could hotwire it either way, but the challenge is actually getting into, and away with, the vehicle. If somebody manages that on a military installation, or even in the field, the military has bigger physical security issues to worry about than their stolen vehicle. If I had access to areas like that, I'd be stealing identification and documents left lying around, planting bombs, and sabotaging vehicles.
Of course the typical non-tactical vehicle will be a chevy truck used to check for FOD on a flight line or a van to shuttle people to and from certain locations, and will be a stock vehicle with a normal keyed ignition system. I'm not sure whether the transportation buses have keys or not, but I imagine it's the same as a normal bus. So you are somewhat correct. All tactical vehicles can not, by definition, use keys or similar security measures. All non-tactical, general purpose vehicles that I know of should still have standard keys and locks.
It is amazing to see in action. Works a hell of a lot better than tampons, too. The price is obviously worth it, but the damage done to the limb is pretty ugly too. Do you know of anyone keeping a limb after using quickclot?
Do you see many people living whose femoral arteries get slashed?
I'd take a missing leg over dead.
I agree entirely. I wish everyone had a packet in their glove compartments. There's only one extremity I would rather die than lose. I was just curious if anyone knew if there was anything that could be done to save the limb after quickclot was used. I haven't seen any data on it either way, but have been told that "you'll pretty much lose it." Of course that beats dying any day of the week.
You can get some of that military technology today, and it's not vaporware... Quikclot powder, comes in a packet designed to be large enough to quickly stop the bleeding from a severed femoral artery.
Useful stuff, stops bleeding very quickly. Expensive as hell though. It is amazing to see in action. Works a hell of a lot better than tampons, too. The price is obviously worth it, but the damage done to the limb is pretty ugly too. Do you know of anyone keeping a limb after using quickclot?
Also, there's a great splint that's basically a thin sheet of metal wrapped in foam, but I can't remember the name of it. Was that military in origin?
Besides, even if it did work, what the fuck are the cops going to do with a DNA sample? Look it up in that secret DNA file the Men in Black have compiled on every person in the world? Yes. Everybody who's ever joined the military or been arrested has DNA on file. Everybody who had a parent who cared enough to do so has their hand and footprints (and likely DNA at this point) registered with the FBI (in case the kids go missing). I'm sure the new database they're building already has some fields for something along the lines of a DNA hash. We're getting pretty damned close to having that database already.
yeah, but you can use a real swiss army knife instead of the ignition key of the swiss army armoured personnel carrier by design. Why would you even HAVE an ignition key for a tactical vehicle? That doesn't make any sense. If you're worried about someone stealing your armored personnel carriers, you've got bigger issues.
Even if it's perpetually a few years away, that's better than perpetually 20 years away, right?
Isn't that like saying that infinity+1 is bigger than infinity?
If it never materializes, then it never actually is there to help.
Upon initial examination, that does seem to be the case. But you have to look deeper into it than that. Study the historical trends. Take sarcasometers, for example. For centuries, writers have been telling us that the technology was 20 years away. Then, in 1958, Robert Heinlein predicted that the technology was only 10 years away. Guess what? My parents gave me one for my 5th birthday. As the perpetuality decreases, the "_ years away" prediction cycle is actually decreased.
Still, if a sarcasometer is out of your reach, you can actually build your own satirometer. It will take a lot of research and time, though.
If *everyone* had solar panels, sure. But what about those that can't afford them? I guess it would be credit to the rescue, and the lack of electricity bills could help pay it back.. very slowly. Is energy really expensive enough to justify covering your house in solar cells? How many years would it take before you made a 'profit' so to speak? Is it easy to sell power into the grid? There's already a company in the US offering rental solar service. Basically what they do is install them on your home and lock you in at a rate slightly lower than your current provider's. For 25 years. Sure, it's better to buy your own solar panels if you can afford it. But I think it'd be better to simply allow someone else to install them and share the rewards. The beauty for the person renting this is that they know their rates won't increase for 25 years. 25 years from now the solar panels will be nearing replacement age anyways, and much better technology should be available and more affordable. A lot of money could be saved if energy rates continue to climb, but the company stands to earn a decent dime on this too.
As for "is energy really expensive enough to justify..", yes, yes it is. When I lived around LA we had electricity bills as high as $600/month in the summer. Electricity cost a lot, the price went a lot higher in peak hours, but it was blazing hot and you had to have AC, especially if you were trying to sleep during the day! To top it off, they started rolling blackouts my last summer there, so the power would be off mid-day quite often. Also, we lost power and most utilities for a while after the big quake in... 95? It would've been a lot nicer if we could've used our electric stove or microwave.
The fundamental flaw with your dream is that on average, irrational religious people outbreed rational people by 10 to 1.
Since we both agree that natural selection and evolution exists, I think we should both see the natural conclusion. A population comprised 99%+ of irrational religious people. You're right. Luckily this doesn't matter much. While many parents are required by their religions to indoctrinate their children at a young age, even leave them to die if they don't agree with the religion, a hypocritical religious upbringing nearly ensures the adolescent will begin to have doubts. Some of the world's most outspoken atheists have the attitudes they have because they were raised in religious environments.
In addition, I believe that some religious memes have "evolved" ways to be immune to logic and science. In part by just killing people who don't believe that way but more importantly by certain concepts that redefine rational thought while people are too young to think logically. You just hit the nail so firmly on the head that I'm tempted to add you as a friend. This is commonly referred to by Christians as "challenging your faith". They are encouraged to find things which shake their beliefs and then overcome them. This is essentially logic resistance training. It is the reason why religious people are able to believe that statements like "God loves you" and "God hates you for being sinful" are not contradictory. They have actually trained themselves to set logic aside.
A Christian friend of mine defined it as "testing the solidity of your beliefs against overwhelming evidence". He used the comparison to Job, if you're familiar with that story. Basically God and the devil make a little bet about whether Job, this really upstanding and successful guy, will crack and curse God. God destroys his life, takes all his property, kills his kids, and gives him leprosy. Job refuses to doubt or curse his god. So God tells a prophet to tell Job that he did this all to him and he hates him and yadda yadda yadda. But Job says "oh, no, that doesn't make sense, I still love God!" God wins his bet, so he cures Job's leprosy and give his stuff back to him. But his ten kids stay dead. The moral of the story? Even if there's a world of evidence against you saying that your god is an evil bastard, you're supposed to stick with him. He's just testing you. He'll pay you back for it later, we promise!
Of course when you do things like this to a child so young he can not tell that Santa Clause is bogus, he ends up having a warped sense of reality and logical thought.
A measurement of gravity at a given location and time is a fact.
Right. As is the observation of species evolving. Evolution is a fact.
I've read that the word "Law" is really 1800's talk for "Theory".
The "Law" of gravity is really the "theory" of gravity.
The word "Law" basically means observation. The law of gravity says "things go down". The theories of gravity explain how and why, and make predictions. The fact that there are actually competing gravitational theories does not eliminate the fact that there is also a law of gravity, and we all know gravity does exist and is a fact of life. Likewise, the theories explaining how and why evolution works, which make predictions which have been accurate enough to be a great boon to other biological sciences, do not force evolution to cease to exist. They're simply answering different questions.
Certainly there are some small holes in the current models. There are also still some rather large holes in our understanding of gravity. By the logic which has been used by the Intelligent Design/Creationism movement, the existence of gravity should also be in question because we don't entirely understand everything about how it works. Perhaps the Intelligent Falling people were right after all?
What both ends always should realize: everything you say which you can't prove beyond reasonable doubt is a theory.
No. At that point all you have is something which can't be proven. You need a lot more to have a scientific theory.
At this point in time, macro-evolution seems the more likely theory. For others, Intelligent Design could seem the most likely. But these questions should always be regarded as a theory, not as facts, and should be considered from a scientific point of view, instead of a religious one. It's apparent that most creationists forget that rule, but to me it's also apparent that a bunch of evolutionists forget it: it almost is a sport to degrade monotheists with scientific theories.
Well, once again, you're being dishonest about scientists. You're acting as if the two are actually equal scientific theories, which they aren't. Gravity is a fact, and a law, but there are many theories which explain how it works. Likewise, evolution is a fact. It is observable. The modern versions of the theory predict things very accurately and it probably has more evidence for it than any other theory.
Let me say that again: The fact that evolution happens is an indisputable, irrefutable, observable FACT. And you wonder why scientists ridicule people who claim to have a "competing" theory? Intelligent Design isn't even a hypothesis, and even if it was supported by scientific evidence (which it's not), it would never be a scientific theory.
Bottomline is: when you mix up science and religion, you degrade the value of both.
Funny you mention that. I see it as strengthening science and weakening religion. It is proof that the religious know they cannot survive without resorting to impersonating science. When you attempt to make it a scientific debate you are going to lose every time. Science will survive because too many people already know there is a method for determining the truth about how the universe works.
Personally, I'm looking forward to the day when a person saying they believe in a god is as embarrassing as an adult saying that they believe in Santa Clause.
Being destructive is easy for any country with long range nukes, it's the defending and sustaining as you say. America's military doesn't help much against natural disasters either.. I'd dare to say that the world itself is the most destructive power the world has seen? That's just me trying to be contrary, but seriously, what's with the attitude thinking you are going to be able to dominate the rest of the world, assuming the 'populace allowed it'. Your vote for which one of two presidents you get is really going to tell them whether you want to subdue the rest of the world...Well, I was referring to conventional and unconventional warfare and excluding nuclear destruction:). My point was simply that there is no modern alliance or country that can defend itself from a full American attack, and there is no country that could actually destroy or occupy the United States without resorting to nuclear weapons. Certainly natural disasters can be more destructive, but if you exclude droughts, pandemics, and famine (which are all really human failures instead of nature directly killing people), natural disasters are not even close to as deadly as wars. Sure, nearly 300,000 people died in the Indian Ocean earthquake in 2004, but World War II was a lot worse.
As far as defending and sustaining, the US has an incredible staying power in terms of resources, it's simply the political will that would end it first, and I think that's a good thing. I'm not trying to get into a pissing contest about it with a whole "well our military can crush _____" argument. It's just that the American military really is incredible. Maybe other nations will catch up, maybe other nations will surpass it, but right now, no military can really equal the American military and it would take a hell of an international effort to actually occupy the states. I really don't think the American military is even capable of suppressing an all-out rebellion, and Americans would certainly have one hell of a resistance movement.
As far as helping with natural disasters, that's kind of insulting to a few of the people I know who helped with the relief efforts in Thailand and Indonesia. While they are completely unable to actually defend against a natural disaster, their airlift capability saved thousands of lives. It's pretty amazing when thousands of tons of food and medical supplies arrive in an area less than a day after a natural disaster from a country on the other side of the planet. Of course the same logistics capabilities were created to deliver bombs and ammunition, but we're talking about the capabilities here, not intentions.
I guess what I'm saying is that I don't in any way support or condone the idea of America actually trying to dominate or take over the world, but I am in awe of its incredible military capability. It would be pure bullshit to say that anyone can compete with it. Personally, I'd rather go back to the days of simply having our leaders duel each other to determine the winner, and I don't want to see America completely dominate the world. It's good to have a balance.
Goddamn you're right! Awesome, thanks. Any idea when they added it? I've been using the new discussion system since the day they offered the option, and this is the first time I've seen it! Yeah, the quote button must have appeared the last few days. Shame it's clear already that very few people who use the quoting will bother to edit the quote so that its in context, without huge swathes of quoted text. It'll be like how usenet was 10 years ago.... (Then MS came along and decided that quoting the wrong way round was best!)
Goddamn you're right! Awesome, thanks. Any idea when they added it? I've been using the new discussion system since the day they offered the option, and this is the first time I've seen it! Yeah, the quote button must have appeared the last few days. Shame it's clear already that very few people who use the quoting will bother to edit the quote so that its in context, without huge swathes of quoted text. It'll be like how usenet was 10 years ago.... (Then MS came along and decided that quoting the wrong way round was best!)You're right again! It's too much work to edit all that code and text!:). But you're right, this is going to get ugly. As long as they don't enable a blink tag, or change the default reply color to an ugly shade of blue like Outlook did, I'll still be happy.
Oh yeah, it's even more fun when someone accidentally hits the quote button a few times...
That's Europe, you know, which has population as large as the US and an awfully more experienced military record (i'm being quite serious). Besides, Italy and Spain's military power aren't to be underestimated, the US has had a rocky ride capturing a small isolated middle eastern country, let alone a well developed, wealthy western nation, or an entire coalition of them.
This is just laughably stupid. Sure, Germany has a great historical experience in war, but that's not what matters. How many of Germany's soldiers have actually fought in a war? How many of the people who trained them actually fought in a war (except for their US trainers)? Very, very few. The same goes for pretty much every military in Europe. There are probably a few balkans vets still serving, and a few who were in Iraq, but I doubt there are more than 50,000 soldiers in Europe who have been within 50 miles of a war recently. Compare this with the US military, the majority of whom have served in either Iraq or Afghanistan. Many of the "middle-ranking" people fought in the first Gulf War. There are still quite a few people who fought in Somalia and Panama, not to mention the countless other "conflicts" the US has been involved in. Sure, Europe has a bloodier history, but Americans have been at war nearly constantly since the founding of the country. Most of its present soldiers have not only learned from combat-hardened instructors, but served in combat themselves. It is laughable to think that Europe's history trumps America's first-hand experience.
As for your comment about the US having a "hard time capturing a small isolated middle eastern country", that's FUD at best. The US effortlessly obliterated Iraq's military. The US is simply a shitty occupier, partially because it always attempts to be so humane. This worked out well after WWII, but it all depends on the attitudes of the local populations.
This point is in no way meant to support EU-US hostilities. It bothers me that anyone would actually want to see one destroy the other. But no good will come from underestimating somebody else's military, even if you're looking for things to dislike them for.
And of course the US couldn't survive a war against the entire world at the same time. All countries are dependent upon other countries for materials, products, and resources that are scarce within their borders. The US is extremely dependent upon other countries for oil; it may be able to sustain itself for many years by reducing its consumption, increasing its production, and eating into its reserves, but eventually the nation as a whole would put pressure on itself to end the war so that the country could progress and refocus its resources on other things. Of course Europe is also extremely dependent upon the US, not only for its military training, supplies, advice, and technology, but also for its scientific and production capabilities. Neither organization would benefit from a scenario like this, but I think it's safe to say that Europe would have more casualties and destruction by the time the cease fire was signed. The rest of the world would simply collapse economically, and many of the governments would likely be overthrown as a result.
If Saudi Arabia declares war... and actually does something about it, they'd last about 30 minutes.
Make me laugh. Wasn't Iraq supposed to last, hrrm... 10 seconds?
Italy? Please. Spain. HAHAHAHHHAHAHAHA
I can picture Homeland security rounding up all the Italians and Hispanics (people speaking suspiciously in a Spanish sounding language) in the US... waitaminute... there goes half of America!Yes, Iraq was supposed to last about 10 seconds, and the military was caught off guard by it only lasting about 5 seconds. The invasion and toppling of Iraq was most likely the most successful military campaign in the history of the world. As another poster already replied, occupation is the hard part. This is even more true when there is waning public support within weeks of the war and the media has already begun a daily "Death Toll".
A lot of criticism is yet to be levied upon the American military for the way the occupation was handled, but keep in mind that it's the civilian leadership and politicians who decide those policies. The military just attempts to do what they're told as well as they can. Don't let that lead you to believe the American military is anything but the most capable destructive power the world has ever seen. An all-out war against the rest of the world would simply be unsustainable. This is not because the military isn't capable of it, but because the populace would never allow it.
Hint: Use the quote button before posting - it'll save you the grief.:)
There's a quote button? I'm doing this by hand, and you're telling me I can be lazy somehow?There is - but you have to be using slashdot's new discussion system to use it. It appears next to the "Preview" and "Submit" buttons, and saves all that cumbersome html formatting (it does it all for you, including quoting quotes, as above).
One of the best new features, I feel.:)Goddamn you're right! Awesome, thanks. Any idea when they added it? I've been using the new discussion system since the day they offered the option, and this is the first time I've seen it!
Coming Soon via Your TiVo: Internet Video on Television. And you can bet the Internet/Cable TV companies like Comcast won't be far behind.
Actually, you can bet they will be far behind, but they will likely use bandwidth throttling, port blocking, and legislation to force their competition out of their markets.
Tell me you don't see a problem with another company providing "Television" in an area already legally monopolized by a different company.
Control of midway was crucial, but the destruction of a limited number of ships was much more important than that. That being said, the original idea IS stupid. Why waste energy/fuel/time accelerating and decelerating when you're already traveling very quickly in a frictionless environment? A staging point from the moon could maybe sort of make sense, but not a halfway point from the moon to mars.
If we could humanely euthanize a fetus, then it wouldn't be an issue. But any kind of injection would be passed onto the mother as well, so we are left with abortion methods that *will* cause some measure of pain to a late-term fetus.
That's just my take on it. I thought I was a freak at first, but I've found a surprising number of liberal animal welfare activists, including some who have had abortions, who feel the same way.
You're no freak, I feel exactly the same as you and I hate animal activists with a passion. The only thing I disagree with is that you're basing it off of pain instead of life, which I define as consciousness. Sure, plants are alive, but they're not aware of anything. Also, they don't feel pain. I don't give a damn about people eating meat, because it's really just the natural way for things to be (from an atheist's viewpoint, not some religious crackpot ideology).
But it does bother me that someone would kill a conscious, living, breathing human baby whether or not the baby can actually feel the pain. If you kill my mother in her sleep, you can do it without her knowing it, but I'm still going to be pissed. I haven't looked into it enough to know the answer, but I'm sure there's a point at which babies become conscious while in the womb. I'm guessing it's during the third trimester, but I really don't know. I know they've captured video of babies masturbating while in the womb. Don't tell me that's not a sign of a genuinely alive human being. Basically, when they're just a chemical and biological reaction, like a fertilized egg, feel free to just vacuum it out. But if you let it get to the point of consciousness, well, you can't change your mind AFTER delivering the baby. You shouldn't be allowed to change it two weeks before delivering the baby, regardless of whether or not the method is humane.
In America, it is indispensable that every well wisher of true liberty should understand that acts of tyranny can only proceed from the publick. The publick, then, is to be watched, in this country, as, in other countries kings and aristocrats are to be watched.
No, democracy is the tyranny of the majority. The politicians, and the laws they enact, then, should be watched to ensure their compliance with the constitution. I would favor some sort of law that made it a crime to create a law that could reasonably be known to be in violation of the constitution, with punishments such as being barred from running for public office for the next ten years.
True, but I see no reason why handguns and assault rifles should be banned. Unless California lifted that silly ban. I'm guessing you're from somewhere in the Ventura County area. Say hi to the sandy beaches and beautiful ladies for me.
So, they are not fronting for the crazy backwoods militias, but for having people arm to prepare for when the British come?
I know you're probably just trolling, but I'm going to respond in case someone else reads it and actually wants to hear the response.
The right to bear arms has nothing to do with hunting. It has nothing to do with repelling foreign invasions. Have you ever heard the phrase "might = right"? There's a serious imbalance of power when only the government has weapons. Weapons belong in the hands of the people in case the government ever needs to be overthrown. The founding fathers knew that, and wrote quite often on the issue. Would you rather see a bloody revolution every 500 years or an absolute dictatorship, theocracy, or kleptocracy after 1000 years? Be it by martial law, insane alien mind control technology, or the simple political acquisition of power, established governments and "leaders" do get more powerful over time. Sometimes they're simply impossible to replace by peaceful means.
Think about it. Right now, there is absolutely nothing the government can do that would rile the complacent American public up enough to get them on the streets demanding a change in government. And, even if they did, there is enough police and military power in the country to absolutely crush any mass demonstrations they care to stop. There is absolutely nothing the public could do, short of guerrilla warfare, if the current administration decided to ignore the elections.
I don't know about the GP, but I'm definitely not poor, and I don't own a TV. I've been considering buying a good projector for gaming and the occasional movie, but I have no desire to watch any of the junk I see friends watching on TV at their houses. I'd rather read a book, go scuba diving, or do pretty much anything else. I guess I just don't see any benefit to having television. The only show I've seen in the last five years that entertained me was Stargate, and I'd rather just download it. If they offered it online at $1/episode I'd definitely pay for it. Why have a big, useless TV taking up space? Just so I can have a reason to pay $30-100 every month on a cable or satellite bill?
Slashdot Mirror
The other person who replied to you was right on the money. Soldiers need to be able to start or swap vehicles as easily and quickly as possible. What do you do if your buddy who was carrying the keys in his pocket got blown apart and you need to bug out of a tight spot? Fish through his pockets for the keys? Or everyone gets a set of them? There should be physical security for all military vehicles which would be more useful than having a key. Of course a thief could hotwire it either way, but the challenge is actually getting into, and away with, the vehicle. If somebody manages that on a military installation, or even in the field, the military has bigger physical security issues to worry about than their stolen vehicle. If I had access to areas like that, I'd be stealing identification and documents left lying around, planting bombs, and sabotaging vehicles.
Of course the typical non-tactical vehicle will be a chevy truck used to check for FOD on a flight line or a van to shuttle people to and from certain locations, and will be a stock vehicle with a normal keyed ignition system. I'm not sure whether the transportation buses have keys or not, but I imagine it's the same as a normal bus. So you are somewhat correct. All tactical vehicles can not, by definition, use keys or similar security measures. All non-tactical, general purpose vehicles that I know of should still have standard keys and locks.
Do you see many people living whose femoral arteries get slashed?
I'd take a missing leg over dead.
I agree entirely. I wish everyone had a packet in their glove compartments. There's only one extremity I would rather die than lose. I was just curious if anyone knew if there was anything that could be done to save the limb after quickclot was used. I haven't seen any data on it either way, but have been told that "you'll pretty much lose it." Of course that beats dying any day of the week.Useful stuff, stops bleeding very quickly. Expensive as hell though. It is amazing to see in action. Works a hell of a lot better than tampons, too. The price is obviously worth it, but the damage done to the limb is pretty ugly too. Do you know of anyone keeping a limb after using quickclot?
Also, there's a great splint that's basically a thin sheet of metal wrapped in foam, but I can't remember the name of it. Was that military in origin?
Isn't that like saying that infinity+1 is bigger than infinity?
If it never materializes, then it never actually is there to help.
Upon initial examination, that does seem to be the case. But you have to look deeper into it than that. Study the historical trends. Take sarcasometers, for example. For centuries, writers have been telling us that the technology was 20 years away. Then, in 1958, Robert Heinlein predicted that the technology was only 10 years away. Guess what? My parents gave me one for my 5th birthday. As the perpetuality decreases, the "_ years away" prediction cycle is actually decreased.Still, if a sarcasometer is out of your reach, you can actually build your own satirometer. It will take a lot of research and time, though.
As for "is energy really expensive enough to justify..", yes, yes it is. When I lived around LA we had electricity bills as high as $600/month in the summer. Electricity cost a lot, the price went a lot higher in peak hours, but it was blazing hot and you had to have AC, especially if you were trying to sleep during the day! To top it off, they started rolling blackouts my last summer there, so the power would be off mid-day quite often. Also, we lost power and most utilities for a while after the big quake in... 95? It would've been a lot nicer if we could've used our electric stove or microwave.
irrational religious people outbreed rational people by 10 to 1.
Since we both agree that natural selection and evolution exists, I think we should both see the natural conclusion.
A population comprised 99%+ of irrational religious people. You're right. Luckily this doesn't matter much. While many parents are required by their religions to indoctrinate their children at a young age, even leave them to die if they don't agree with the religion, a hypocritical religious upbringing nearly ensures the adolescent will begin to have doubts. Some of the world's most outspoken atheists have the attitudes they have because they were raised in religious environments. In addition, I believe that some religious memes have "evolved" ways to be immune to logic and science. In part by just killing people who don't believe that way but more importantly by certain concepts that redefine rational thought while people are too young to think logically. You just hit the nail so firmly on the head that I'm tempted to add you as a friend. This is commonly referred to by Christians as "challenging your faith". They are encouraged to find things which shake their beliefs and then overcome them. This is essentially logic resistance training. It is the reason why religious people are able to believe that statements like "God loves you" and "God hates you for being sinful" are not contradictory. They have actually trained themselves to set logic aside.
A Christian friend of mine defined it as "testing the solidity of your beliefs against overwhelming evidence". He used the comparison to Job, if you're familiar with that story. Basically God and the devil make a little bet about whether Job, this really upstanding and successful guy, will crack and curse God. God destroys his life, takes all his property, kills his kids, and gives him leprosy. Job refuses to doubt or curse his god. So God tells a prophet to tell Job that he did this all to him and he hates him and yadda yadda yadda. But Job says "oh, no, that doesn't make sense, I still love God!" God wins his bet, so he cures Job's leprosy and give his stuff back to him. But his ten kids stay dead. The moral of the story? Even if there's a world of evidence against you saying that your god is an evil bastard, you're supposed to stick with him. He's just testing you. He'll pay you back for it later, we promise!
Of course when you do things like this to a child so young he can not tell that Santa Clause is bogus, he ends up having a warped sense of reality and logical thought.
Right. As is the observation of species evolving. Evolution is a fact.
The word "Law" basically means observation. The law of gravity says "things go down". The theories of gravity explain how and why, and make predictions. The fact that there are actually competing gravitational theories does not eliminate the fact that there is also a law of gravity, and we all know gravity does exist and is a fact of life. Likewise, the theories explaining how and why evolution works, which make predictions which have been accurate enough to be a great boon to other biological sciences, do not force evolution to cease to exist. They're simply answering different questions.
Certainly there are some small holes in the current models. There are also still some rather large holes in our understanding of gravity. By the logic which has been used by the Intelligent Design/Creationism movement, the existence of gravity should also be in question because we don't entirely understand everything about how it works. Perhaps the Intelligent Falling people were right after all?
No. At that point all you have is something which can't be proven. You need a lot more to have a scientific theory.
Well, once again, you're being dishonest about scientists. You're acting as if the two are actually equal scientific theories, which they aren't. Gravity is a fact, and a law, but there are many theories which explain how it works. Likewise, evolution is a fact. It is observable. The modern versions of the theory predict things very accurately and it probably has more evidence for it than any other theory.
Let me say that again: The fact that evolution happens is an indisputable, irrefutable, observable FACT. And you wonder why scientists ridicule people who claim to have a "competing" theory? Intelligent Design isn't even a hypothesis, and even if it was supported by scientific evidence (which it's not), it would never be a scientific theory.
Funny you mention that. I see it as strengthening science and weakening religion. It is proof that the religious know they cannot survive without resorting to impersonating science. When you attempt to make it a scientific debate you are going to lose every time. Science will survive because too many people already know there is a method for determining the truth about how the universe works.
Personally, I'm looking forward to the day when a person saying they believe in a god is as embarrassing as an adult saying that they believe in Santa Clause.
Being destructive is easy for any country with long range nukes, it's the defending and sustaining as you say. America's military doesn't help much against natural disasters either.. I'd dare to say that the world itself is the most destructive power the world has seen? That's just me trying to be contrary, but seriously, what's with the attitude thinking you are going to be able to dominate the rest of the world, assuming the 'populace allowed it'. Your vote for which one of two presidents you get is really going to tell them whether you want to subdue the rest of the world...Well, I was referring to conventional and unconventional warfare and excluding nuclear destruction :). My point was simply that there is no modern alliance or country that can defend itself from a full American attack, and there is no country that could actually destroy or occupy the United States without resorting to nuclear weapons. Certainly natural disasters can be more destructive, but if you exclude droughts, pandemics, and famine (which are all really human failures instead of nature directly killing people), natural disasters are not even close to as deadly as wars. Sure, nearly 300,000 people died in the Indian Ocean earthquake in 2004, but World War II was a lot worse.
As far as defending and sustaining, the US has an incredible staying power in terms of resources, it's simply the political will that would end it first, and I think that's a good thing. I'm not trying to get into a pissing contest about it with a whole "well our military can crush _____" argument. It's just that the American military really is incredible. Maybe other nations will catch up, maybe other nations will surpass it, but right now, no military can really equal the American military and it would take a hell of an international effort to actually occupy the states. I really don't think the American military is even capable of suppressing an all-out rebellion, and Americans would certainly have one hell of a resistance movement.
As far as helping with natural disasters, that's kind of insulting to a few of the people I know who helped with the relief efforts in Thailand and Indonesia. While they are completely unable to actually defend against a natural disaster, their airlift capability saved thousands of lives. It's pretty amazing when thousands of tons of food and medical supplies arrive in an area less than a day after a natural disaster from a country on the other side of the planet. Of course the same logistics capabilities were created to deliver bombs and ammunition, but we're talking about the capabilities here, not intentions.
I guess what I'm saying is that I don't in any way support or condone the idea of America actually trying to dominate or take over the world, but I am in awe of its incredible military capability. It would be pure bullshit to say that anyone can compete with it. Personally, I'd rather go back to the days of simply having our leaders duel each other to determine the winner, and I don't want to see America completely dominate the world. It's good to have a balance.
Goddamn you're right! Awesome, thanks. Any idea when they added it? I've been using the new discussion system since the day they offered the option, and this is the first time I've seen it! :). But you're right, this is going to get ugly. As long as they don't enable a blink tag, or change the default reply color to an ugly shade of blue like Outlook did, I'll still be happy.
Yeah, the quote button must have appeared the last few days. Shame it's clear already that very few people who use the quoting will bother to edit the quote so that its in context, without huge swathes of quoted text. It'll be like how usenet was 10 years ago.... (Then MS came along and decided that quoting the wrong way round was best!) Goddamn you're right! Awesome, thanks. Any idea when they added it? I've been using the new discussion system since the day they offered the option, and this is the first time I've seen it!
Yeah, the quote button must have appeared the last few days. Shame it's clear already that very few people who use the quoting will bother to edit the quote so that its in context, without huge swathes of quoted text. It'll be like how usenet was 10 years ago.... (Then MS came along and decided that quoting the wrong way round was best!)You're right again! It's too much work to edit all that code and text!
Oh yeah, it's even more fun when someone accidentally hits the quote button a few times...
This is just laughably stupid. Sure, Germany has a great historical experience in war, but that's not what matters. How many of Germany's soldiers have actually fought in a war? How many of the people who trained them actually fought in a war (except for their US trainers)? Very, very few. The same goes for pretty much every military in Europe. There are probably a few balkans vets still serving, and a few who were in Iraq, but I doubt there are more than 50,000 soldiers in Europe who have been within 50 miles of a war recently. Compare this with the US military, the majority of whom have served in either Iraq or Afghanistan. Many of the "middle-ranking" people fought in the first Gulf War. There are still quite a few people who fought in Somalia and Panama, not to mention the countless other "conflicts" the US has been involved in. Sure, Europe has a bloodier history, but Americans have been at war nearly constantly since the founding of the country. Most of its present soldiers have not only learned from combat-hardened instructors, but served in combat themselves. It is laughable to think that Europe's history trumps America's first-hand experience.
As for your comment about the US having a "hard time capturing a small isolated middle eastern country", that's FUD at best. The US effortlessly obliterated Iraq's military. The US is simply a shitty occupier, partially because it always attempts to be so humane. This worked out well after WWII, but it all depends on the attitudes of the local populations.
This point is in no way meant to support EU-US hostilities. It bothers me that anyone would actually want to see one destroy the other. But no good will come from underestimating somebody else's military, even if you're looking for things to dislike them for.
And of course the US couldn't survive a war against the entire world at the same time. All countries are dependent upon other countries for materials, products, and resources that are scarce within their borders. The US is extremely dependent upon other countries for oil; it may be able to sustain itself for many years by reducing its consumption, increasing its production, and eating into its reserves, but eventually the nation as a whole would put pressure on itself to end the war so that the country could progress and refocus its resources on other things. Of course Europe is also extremely dependent upon the US, not only for its military training, supplies, advice, and technology, but also for its scientific and production capabilities. Neither organization would benefit from a scenario like this, but I think it's safe to say that Europe would have more casualties and destruction by the time the cease fire was signed. The rest of the world would simply collapse economically, and many of the governments would likely be overthrown as a result.
I can picture Homeland security rounding up all the Italians and Hispanics (people speaking suspiciously in a Spanish sounding language) in the US... waitaminute... there goes half of America!Yes, Iraq was supposed to last about 10 seconds, and the military was caught off guard by it only lasting about 5 seconds. The invasion and toppling of Iraq was most likely the most successful military campaign in the history of the world. As another poster already replied, occupation is the hard part. This is even more true when there is waning public support within weeks of the war and the media has already begun a daily "Death Toll".
A lot of criticism is yet to be levied upon the American military for the way the occupation was handled, but keep in mind that it's the civilian leadership and politicians who decide those policies. The military just attempts to do what they're told as well as they can. Don't let that lead you to believe the American military is anything but the most capable destructive power the world has ever seen. An all-out war against the rest of the world would simply be unsustainable. This is not because the military isn't capable of it, but because the populace would never allow it.
One of the best new features, I feel.
Actually, you can bet they will be far behind, but they will likely use bandwidth throttling, port blocking, and legislation to force their competition out of their markets.
Tell me you don't see a problem with another company providing "Television" in an area already legally monopolized by a different company.
Control of midway was crucial, but the destruction of a limited number of ships was much more important than that. That being said, the original idea IS stupid. Why waste energy/fuel/time accelerating and decelerating when you're already traveling very quickly in a frictionless environment? A staging point from the moon could maybe sort of make sense, but not a halfway point from the moon to mars.
Followed by...
Obviously you haven't met very many IT people. Most of the IT people I know would rather give up the toilet.
You're no freak, I feel exactly the same as you and I hate animal activists with a passion. The only thing I disagree with is that you're basing it off of pain instead of life, which I define as consciousness. Sure, plants are alive, but they're not aware of anything. Also, they don't feel pain. I don't give a damn about people eating meat, because it's really just the natural way for things to be (from an atheist's viewpoint, not some religious crackpot ideology).
But it does bother me that someone would kill a conscious, living, breathing human baby whether or not the baby can actually feel the pain. If you kill my mother in her sleep, you can do it without her knowing it, but I'm still going to be pissed. I haven't looked into it enough to know the answer, but I'm sure there's a point at which babies become conscious while in the womb. I'm guessing it's during the third trimester, but I really don't know. I know they've captured video of babies masturbating while in the womb. Don't tell me that's not a sign of a genuinely alive human being. Basically, when they're just a chemical and biological reaction, like a fertilized egg, feel free to just vacuum it out. But if you let it get to the point of consciousness, well, you can't change your mind AFTER delivering the baby. You shouldn't be allowed to change it two weeks before delivering the baby, regardless of whether or not the method is humane.
No, democracy is the tyranny of the majority. The politicians, and the laws they enact, then, should be watched to ensure their compliance with the constitution. I would favor some sort of law that made it a crime to create a law that could reasonably be known to be in violation of the constitution, with punishments such as being barred from running for public office for the next ten years.
True, but I see no reason why handguns and assault rifles should be banned. Unless California lifted that silly ban. I'm guessing you're from somewhere in the Ventura County area. Say hi to the sandy beaches and beautiful ladies for me.
I know you're probably just trolling, but I'm going to respond in case someone else reads it and actually wants to hear the response.
The right to bear arms has nothing to do with hunting. It has nothing to do with repelling foreign invasions. Have you ever heard the phrase "might = right"? There's a serious imbalance of power when only the government has weapons. Weapons belong in the hands of the people in case the government ever needs to be overthrown. The founding fathers knew that, and wrote quite often on the issue. Would you rather see a bloody revolution every 500 years or an absolute dictatorship, theocracy, or kleptocracy after 1000 years? Be it by martial law, insane alien mind control technology, or the simple political acquisition of power, established governments and "leaders" do get more powerful over time. Sometimes they're simply impossible to replace by peaceful means.
Think about it. Right now, there is absolutely nothing the government can do that would rile the complacent American public up enough to get them on the streets demanding a change in government. And, even if they did, there is enough police and military power in the country to absolutely crush any mass demonstrations they care to stop. There is absolutely nothing the public could do, short of guerrilla warfare, if the current administration decided to ignore the elections.
Too late. The democrats already banned that. Of course the republicans opposed them, but I haven't seen them actually repeal any of the bans...
I don't know about the GP, but I'm definitely not poor, and I don't own a TV. I've been considering buying a good projector for gaming and the occasional movie, but I have no desire to watch any of the junk I see friends watching on TV at their houses. I'd rather read a book, go scuba diving, or do pretty much anything else. I guess I just don't see any benefit to having television. The only show I've seen in the last five years that entertained me was Stargate, and I'd rather just download it. If they offered it online at $1/episode I'd definitely pay for it. Why have a big, useless TV taking up space? Just so I can have a reason to pay $30-100 every month on a cable or satellite bill?