Maintenance costs on wind are insane in comparison to others (including most of the other renewables). One of the main problems with ROI on wind turbines is that they require massive amount of maintenance due to severe mechanical stress on certain key parts like the gearbox. It's the same reason why most of the turbine has be be removed and new one installed about every 12 to 15 years. Metal simply becomes too fatigued from massive amounts of stress it's put under during usage.
That is one of the parts that most people like myself that are warning that wind was rolled out en masse when it's not yet ready for it. We need better materials that can handle the stress so that plants can last at least reasonable amount of time compared to burner plants. That means at least 30-40 years with yearly maintenance.
Not really. Mozilla foundation has gone off the rails lately, and that is a real problem. It losing most of the resources and going back to sanity is a good outcome, not a bad one.
Right now, Mozilla is ruled by UI design idiots who like to use the browser to test their inane ideas instead of fixing engine bugs and let forkers handle the UI for each individual fork to suit people's needs. This is an issue of too much resources causing unwanted hires that take over the company.
Getting rid of them will do the exact opposite of "ruining mozilla". It's about the only chance we have to get it back on track from the current suicidal ChromeFox path it has taken.
Strange. I have no such problem with it. Adblock's "pseudo-static" version they have is simply adblock with one line of code changed to recognise palemoon's interface as acceptable. In fact, normal adblock works just fine on 25.0.x, the only problem is that it won't show interface elements on UI because it doesn't recognise PM's UI elements as FF elements. When I updated to 25.0.0, it blocked ads as usual, but I couldn't see the UI element.
Did you perhaps install it on top of old adblock without removing it first? That is a known problem, because if you do, you may confuse your browser.
While this is a "bloggish" site, this is still slashdot, not jezebel. I assume people around here have enough know how to be able to untick the first box on first page of ghostery's options menu.
And frankly as long as you run adblock, ghostery and if you're really paranoid noscript, you're not going to get owned unless you make a point of visiting every porn site on the web. I ran 3.6.28 on several machines until finding palemoon recently and didn't get hit by a single infection.
I think you're letting us know that you're in marketing a bit too clearly here. Normal slashdot user would simply leave FF for one of the forks. Not "object".
1. It's a well known fact that you will lose muscle mass rapidly if you diet and do not excercise. Our body is conditioned to keep the musculature at "minimum required" levels for sake of efficiency - it's largely why we won the evolutionary battle against other homo species such as homo neandethaliensis, who had far more musculature making them far less energy efficient. 2. Irrelevant to the topic.You do not need to "fight that", you merely need to adjust intake based on your own personal findings. There's a reason why a lot of people who did sports throughout their youth who stop gain weight rapidly and why a lot of people who are morbidly obese lose weight rapidly when they get a personal trainer that actually watches what they do. This is a question of will power and being able to stick to the eating and training regimen suitable for you. The only exceptions are people with severe metabolic diseases. And that doesn't mean "oh I gain weight fast if I overeat". That's not a metabolic illness. That's you not being able not to overeat. 3. This is not about "America". The same problem is clearly present in Europe, and arrives in any country worldwide that adopts Western style diet. It's been noticed even in Japan with their very healthy diet of fish and rice, it's been noted in Australia which is on the other side of the world and tends to use different staple foods as well. It's been noted in China which has its own cuisine and culture as well. This is in no way, shape or form "oh noes, 'murica". This is a problem of massive increase of availability of cheap food coupled with natural instincts and general human laziness that drives people to overeat and underexcercise.
The main reason why people are fat is not "healthy food" or "gut bacteria". The main reason why people are fat is because they simply eat too much and excercise too little. While the target for each person is unique and individual, unless you are suffering from a severe metabolic illness, the problem is typically in simple lack of willpower.
That is why stomach bypass surgery is so effective. Instead of relying on person who can't stop himself from eating too much, you just massively reduce the volume of his/her stomach so he/she cannot overeat. Massively reduced stomach volume simply prevents it from happening. If your argument was correct, stomach bypass would be wholly ineffective in many cases because "wrong gut bacteria" is not located in the stomach but in intestines.
Factually incorrect and easily proven false. Eat nothing but spinach. Shove yourself full of it. You'll lose weight faster.
Why? Because it takes more energy to break spinach down to digestible form than our metabolism can extract from it.
The rest I dismiss on the very simple basis: what is being presented without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. Especially when claims are so absurd. I'm yet to hear of this magical person that started gaining weight by eating nothing or eating significantly less. In fact, the main reason why stomach bypass surgery works is because it reduces the volume of stomach dramatically, forcing overeating people to eat less. Simply because stomach can no longer accomodate their eat huge volumes of food eating habits due to limitations of physical volume of massively smaller stomach.
Ah yes, the standard strategy of US based populists who lose the argument. Ignore the argument entirely after losing it by accusing your opponent of being pro-rape. After all, if he/she is pro-rape, no one would listen to them and everyone would forget your spectacular failure in the argument.
In this case, you clearly demonstrated that your only interest in the matter is to be able to ignore your own hypocrisy and ignorance and not have your nice black and white world shaken with facts and reality. This is clearly demonstrated by the fact that we walked full circle, you have admitted to the fact that you don't actually mind rape, murder, terrorism and suicide bombings at all as long as "these people who I think are good guys that are blowing the bad guys up". And then, you go back to "well, I don't like rape, murder, terrorism and suicide bombings, and those guys I like, they probably won't do them".
In spite of being showed concrete examples that they have been doing this for decades, long before the current "bad guys" even formed their group.
Certainly. That is my entire point: the issue isn't whether a person can affect being overweight through his/her actions, but how much of an impact actions would have. Some people require more effort than others to drop weight, while some require more effort to fatten up.
This in no way shape of form provides the excuse pushed by many that being overweight is not a result of their own actions. It merely points out that it may be harder for them to stay reasonably fit.
And when it comes to being obese rather than overweight, even that excuse rarely flies, because being obese requires significant amount of overeating and underexcercising.
You appear to confuse concepts of "obesity" with "weight". Weight is a sum of all your body tissues. Obesity is about over abundance of fat tissue. If you reduce intake while retaining mainly "sitting" lifestyle, your body should nominally switch to reduced energy expenditure to maintain fat levels and start burning off muscle mass in addition to fat. While this will reduce fat tissue a significant degree, it will also atrophy your musculature.
With small exception of people that suffer from severe forms of metabolic disorders, we have full control of us being fat or not being fat. Fat is a tissue which obeys laws of physics just like everything else in our body, and not providing energy for it to form while expending energy causing body to utilize existing fat tissues as source of energy is a functional way to combat obesity for essentially everyone except people with aforementioned extremely rare conditions.
This is why obesity is largely a problem in societies where lifestyle switches to Western style consumption and diet and is not a problem elsewhere.
Incorrect. What it shows is that volume of change needs to be different for each person. In general, reduced intake will reduce weight. Increased anaerobic muscular activity will increase energy burn and reduce fat levels. And so on.
There is no structural difference here. The difference is merely in how much change results in how much results.
And yet, you are blaming Sunnis in the region for that very same thing.
Which gets us to my final inevitable point, which is always were the discussion about "evil terrorists" with your average uninformed person arrives. Hypocrisy and double standards.
Not even hard. Western media doesn't talk about it, but Shiite militias in Iraq are currently doing the exact same thing IS is doing. There are reports of entire Sunni villages wiped out by them all over the Iraq that is still controlled by the Iraqi government in revenge to IS. And before IS came, same militias were wiping out entire villages in the Northern and Western Iraq, which is what made it so easy for IS to take over. Sunni in the region were widely oppressed and welcomed pro-Sunni IS with open arms.
Kurds would do the exactly same thing if they got guns and manpower. The only reason they look reasonable now is because they are relatively powerless. For example, their military is called "Peshmerga". Literally "those in front of death". Western interpretation of the translation has been "those who face death" to give it a positive spin.
In reality however, same term can be applied to suicide bombers of IS, and it is in fact well documented that Kurds have used suicide bombings to achieve their objectives in Turkey, just like IS did in Syria and Iraq. And Kurds already have carried suicide attacks against IS, even using women. Last such attack occurred last week.
Reducing intake will reduce weight regardless of state of your gut. Microbes don't generate energy out of nothing.
This is a story about the fact that microbiome of the gut is being widely recognised as essentially another organ of the body, and differences in microbiome can affect things like how well your gut absorbs energy and so on. However reducing intake will cause weight loss regardless of it. The only question is, "how much of a weight loss per reduced intake".
Obvious mistake: "why Turkey thinks that Kurds are a greater threat than IS".
And P.S. Kurds are fanatical followers of that same god. They just rarely got to be the top dogs who needed religion to base brutality on, when they had their statehood as a suitable driver for men to join their military.
I love your assumption that Kurds are somehow different and that when they get the power, they won't just start grabbing land and killing those who oppose them. Though considering the angle pushed in Western mass media, I can understand where this misunderstanding would come from.
There's a reason why Turkey is so afraid of even allowing Kurds through to give them combat experience and why it's so adamantly thinking that Kurds are a lesser threat to it than IS. Same goes for Iran, and even Iraq is weary, even though it has been basically split apart by IS. Kurds are the old school terrorists when they got the upper hand, who slaughtered non-Kurdish civilians from time long before 9/11 if they got the chance to do so on the lands they claim to be theirs. Just like Turks, Iranians and Iraqis did to them when they got the upper hand. There's enough bad blood running in the region to ensure that arming any entity to fight against another will cause a genocide. Just like arming Shiites against Sunni cause effective genocide in Iraq over last ten or so years, which resulted in IS taking the pro-Sunni mantle and taking over Sunni lands in Syria and Iraq with most of the locals' blessing.
Shadow of Mordor had insane system requirements for ultra settings. Not "recommended" but "minimum" settings. For example, it was said to require 6 gigs of video ram. Similar issue with Watchdogs.
In reality, people are reporting no problems running ultra with about half that. It seems that this console gen, devs don't even bother testing their own software on PCs and just throw out whatever requirement they think will sell Maxwell. For example, I could run Mordor on mostly high settings with just a 560Ti that has 1 gig of onboard VRAM at stable ~45fps. Game whined at me that I don't have enough VRAM for the quality I was running it on when I set the settings, I ignored it and never saw any problems.
I fully expect new AC to have the exactly same issue. Overblown system specs that will actually run fine on a much weaker machine. After all, these games have to run on consoles that have slower GPUs than my 560Ti, and I do have enough of system RAM to buffer into if needed - these games have engines optimized to utilize DDR3 on XBone as video memory after all. Essentially if you have a machine that is close to being on par with PS4 (around 3 year old low to mid end gaming machine), you'll run games of this gen fine on medium/high at 1080p.
Faster hardware is only needed if you: 1. Want a very stable =>60fps no matter what and therefore need a lot of overhead for minimum fps. 2. Want stereoscopy/VR (essentially same issue as #1). 3. Want to run at resolutions significantly higher than 1080p (i.e 1440p or 2160p). 4. Absolutely must run the latest games on highest possible settings. 5. Feel the need to compensate for something. Considering the advertising campaign, I can understand why many would feel this right now.
Personally I've looked at the offerings, salivated at GTX970 from Asus for a while (fans don't even start until card is under load and barely push 43dB under heavy load) and then did my usual thing and thought about the benefits of getting it. Most of the games I currently play run fine on my current 560Ti at maximum settings (Smite, Warframe, Star Conflict, Hearthstone, LoL, PoE, occasional SC2 and Firefall run). That means no benefit at all other than decreased noise levels.
The few games that I would like to have more bang for like Star Citizen are woefully unoptimized and frankly, not ready to be played. I'd rather leave testing to others. No rush for update for that one at least for a year.
This leaves out those few of the latest and greatest like Shadow of Mordor. But those run fine on high, with some really nasty exceptions requiring medium in some places of advanced settings. And I just don't view paying almost 400€ for such a minor upgrade as worth the money.
Personally, I think I'll skip this gen and wait for maxwell on 20nm or whatever transistor size nvidia moves to after 28nm.Or at the very least see if 960Ti is going to be more interesting.
Your idea is to arm people who have been oppressed for centuries if not millenia with weapons far better than what their ethnically divergent opposition has and then sic them on this opposition.
Your pretentious attempt at not seeing the obvious consequence of such actions in no way absolves you of fault.
Slashdot Mirror
We're not talking about sunlight. We are talking about electricity. Photons vs electrons and all that jazz.
Maintenance costs on wind are insane in comparison to others (including most of the other renewables). One of the main problems with ROI on wind turbines is that they require massive amount of maintenance due to severe mechanical stress on certain key parts like the gearbox. It's the same reason why most of the turbine has be be removed and new one installed about every 12 to 15 years. Metal simply becomes too fatigued from massive amounts of stress it's put under during usage.
That is one of the parts that most people like myself that are warning that wind was rolled out en masse when it's not yet ready for it. We need better materials that can handle the stress so that plants can last at least reasonable amount of time compared to burner plants. That means at least 30-40 years with yearly maintenance.
Very strange. I can't recall ever hearing of anyone having this problem. You may have been dealt a really bad RNG in there :(
I've tried the comodo dragon one, but it was just a reskinned chromium with some minor tweaks.
Not really. Mozilla foundation has gone off the rails lately, and that is a real problem. It losing most of the resources and going back to sanity is a good outcome, not a bad one.
Right now, Mozilla is ruled by UI design idiots who like to use the browser to test their inane ideas instead of fixing engine bugs and let forkers handle the UI for each individual fork to suit people's needs. This is an issue of too much resources causing unwanted hires that take over the company.
Getting rid of them will do the exact opposite of "ruining mozilla". It's about the only chance we have to get it back on track from the current suicidal ChromeFox path it has taken.
Strange. I have no such problem with it. Adblock's "pseudo-static" version they have is simply adblock with one line of code changed to recognise palemoon's interface as acceptable. In fact, normal adblock works just fine on 25.0.x, the only problem is that it won't show interface elements on UI because it doesn't recognise PM's UI elements as FF elements. When I updated to 25.0.0, it blocked ads as usual, but I couldn't see the UI element.
Did you perhaps install it on top of old adblock without removing it first? That is a known problem, because if you do, you may confuse your browser.
While this is a "bloggish" site, this is still slashdot, not jezebel. I assume people around here have enough know how to be able to untick the first box on first page of ghostery's options menu.
I do. I also know that unticking one box makes it stop.
I also know that the first time I install ghostery, it specifically asks me in a pop up if I want to disable it.
Why not just run it in sandboxie?
And frankly as long as you run adblock, ghostery and if you're really paranoid noscript, you're not going to get owned unless you make a point of visiting every porn site on the web. I ran 3.6.28 on several machines until finding palemoon recently and didn't get hit by a single infection.
FYI: They fixed a lot of broken stuff in 25.0.1 and 25.0.2. If you haven't done so, you may want to check if your specific qualms have been fixed.
You "would object"?
I think you're letting us know that you're in marketing a bit too clearly here. Normal slashdot user would simply leave FF for one of the forks. Not "object".
1. It's a well known fact that you will lose muscle mass rapidly if you diet and do not excercise. Our body is conditioned to keep the musculature at "minimum required" levels for sake of efficiency - it's largely why we won the evolutionary battle against other homo species such as homo neandethaliensis, who had far more musculature making them far less energy efficient.
2. Irrelevant to the topic.You do not need to "fight that", you merely need to adjust intake based on your own personal findings. There's a reason why a lot of people who did sports throughout their youth who stop gain weight rapidly and why a lot of people who are morbidly obese lose weight rapidly when they get a personal trainer that actually watches what they do. This is a question of will power and being able to stick to the eating and training regimen suitable for you. The only exceptions are people with severe metabolic diseases. And that doesn't mean "oh I gain weight fast if I overeat". That's not a metabolic illness. That's you not being able not to overeat.
3. This is not about "America". The same problem is clearly present in Europe, and arrives in any country worldwide that adopts Western style diet. It's been noticed even in Japan with their very healthy diet of fish and rice, it's been noted in Australia which is on the other side of the world and tends to use different staple foods as well. It's been noted in China which has its own cuisine and culture as well. This is in no way, shape or form "oh noes, 'murica". This is a problem of massive increase of availability of cheap food coupled with natural instincts and general human laziness that drives people to overeat and underexcercise.
The main reason why people are fat is not "healthy food" or "gut bacteria". The main reason why people are fat is because they simply eat too much and excercise too little. While the target for each person is unique and individual, unless you are suffering from a severe metabolic illness, the problem is typically in simple lack of willpower.
That is why stomach bypass surgery is so effective. Instead of relying on person who can't stop himself from eating too much, you just massively reduce the volume of his/her stomach so he/she cannot overeat. Massively reduced stomach volume simply prevents it from happening. If your argument was correct, stomach bypass would be wholly ineffective in many cases because "wrong gut bacteria" is not located in the stomach but in intestines.
Which still doesn't let you generate energy out of nothing.
Factually incorrect and easily proven false. Eat nothing but spinach. Shove yourself full of it. You'll lose weight faster.
Why? Because it takes more energy to break spinach down to digestible form than our metabolism can extract from it.
The rest I dismiss on the very simple basis: what is being presented without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. Especially when claims are so absurd. I'm yet to hear of this magical person that started gaining weight by eating nothing or eating significantly less. In fact, the main reason why stomach bypass surgery works is because it reduces the volume of stomach dramatically, forcing overeating people to eat less. Simply because stomach can no longer accomodate their eat huge volumes of food eating habits due to limitations of physical volume of massively smaller stomach.
Ah yes, the standard strategy of US based populists who lose the argument. Ignore the argument entirely after losing it by accusing your opponent of being pro-rape. After all, if he/she is pro-rape, no one would listen to them and everyone would forget your spectacular failure in the argument.
In this case, you clearly demonstrated that your only interest in the matter is to be able to ignore your own hypocrisy and ignorance and not have your nice black and white world shaken with facts and reality. This is clearly demonstrated by the fact that we walked full circle, you have admitted to the fact that you don't actually mind rape, murder, terrorism and suicide bombings at all as long as "these people who I think are good guys that are blowing the bad guys up". And then, you go back to "well, I don't like rape, murder, terrorism and suicide bombings, and those guys I like, they probably won't do them".
In spite of being showed concrete examples that they have been doing this for decades, long before the current "bad guys" even formed their group.
Certainly. That is my entire point: the issue isn't whether a person can affect being overweight through his/her actions, but how much of an impact actions would have. Some people require more effort than others to drop weight, while some require more effort to fatten up.
This in no way shape of form provides the excuse pushed by many that being overweight is not a result of their own actions. It merely points out that it may be harder for them to stay reasonably fit.
And when it comes to being obese rather than overweight, even that excuse rarely flies, because being obese requires significant amount of overeating and underexcercising.
None of which circumvents laws of physics that clearly state that you cannot generate energy from nowhere.
You appear to confuse concepts of "obesity" with "weight". Weight is a sum of all your body tissues. Obesity is about over abundance of fat tissue. If you reduce intake while retaining mainly "sitting" lifestyle, your body should nominally switch to reduced energy expenditure to maintain fat levels and start burning off muscle mass in addition to fat. While this will reduce fat tissue a significant degree, it will also atrophy your musculature.
With small exception of people that suffer from severe forms of metabolic disorders, we have full control of us being fat or not being fat. Fat is a tissue which obeys laws of physics just like everything else in our body, and not providing energy for it to form while expending energy causing body to utilize existing fat tissues as source of energy is a functional way to combat obesity for essentially everyone except people with aforementioned extremely rare conditions.
This is why obesity is largely a problem in societies where lifestyle switches to Western style consumption and diet and is not a problem elsewhere.
Incorrect. What it shows is that volume of change needs to be different for each person. In general, reduced intake will reduce weight. Increased anaerobic muscular activity will increase energy burn and reduce fat levels. And so on.
There is no structural difference here. The difference is merely in how much change results in how much results.
And yet, you are blaming Sunnis in the region for that very same thing.
Which gets us to my final inevitable point, which is always were the discussion about "evil terrorists" with your average uninformed person arrives. Hypocrisy and double standards.
Not even hard. Western media doesn't talk about it, but Shiite militias in Iraq are currently doing the exact same thing IS is doing. There are reports of entire Sunni villages wiped out by them all over the Iraq that is still controlled by the Iraqi government in revenge to IS. And before IS came, same militias were wiping out entire villages in the Northern and Western Iraq, which is what made it so easy for IS to take over. Sunni in the region were widely oppressed and welcomed pro-Sunni IS with open arms.
Kurds would do the exactly same thing if they got guns and manpower. The only reason they look reasonable now is because they are relatively powerless. For example, their military is called "Peshmerga". Literally "those in front of death". Western interpretation of the translation has been "those who face death" to give it a positive spin.
In reality however, same term can be applied to suicide bombers of IS, and it is in fact well documented that Kurds have used suicide bombings to achieve their objectives in Turkey, just like IS did in Syria and Iraq. And Kurds already have carried suicide attacks against IS, even using women. Last such attack occurred last week.
In case you're doubting it: http://www.abc.net.au/news/201...
Reducing intake will reduce weight regardless of state of your gut. Microbes don't generate energy out of nothing.
This is a story about the fact that microbiome of the gut is being widely recognised as essentially another organ of the body, and differences in microbiome can affect things like how well your gut absorbs energy and so on. However reducing intake will cause weight loss regardless of it. The only question is, "how much of a weight loss per reduced intake".
Obvious mistake: "why Turkey thinks that Kurds are a greater threat than IS".
And P.S. Kurds are fanatical followers of that same god. They just rarely got to be the top dogs who needed religion to base brutality on, when they had their statehood as a suitable driver for men to join their military.
I love your assumption that Kurds are somehow different and that when they get the power, they won't just start grabbing land and killing those who oppose them. Though considering the angle pushed in Western mass media, I can understand where this misunderstanding would come from.
There's a reason why Turkey is so afraid of even allowing Kurds through to give them combat experience and why it's so adamantly thinking that Kurds are a lesser threat to it than IS. Same goes for Iran, and even Iraq is weary, even though it has been basically split apart by IS. Kurds are the old school terrorists when they got the upper hand, who slaughtered non-Kurdish civilians from time long before 9/11 if they got the chance to do so on the lands they claim to be theirs. Just like Turks, Iranians and Iraqis did to them when they got the upper hand. There's enough bad blood running in the region to ensure that arming any entity to fight against another will cause a genocide. Just like arming Shiites against Sunni cause effective genocide in Iraq over last ten or so years, which resulted in IS taking the pro-Sunni mantle and taking over Sunni lands in Syria and Iraq with most of the locals' blessing.
Here's something for you to chew on.
Shadow of Mordor had insane system requirements for ultra settings. Not "recommended" but "minimum" settings. For example, it was said to require 6 gigs of video ram.
Similar issue with Watchdogs.
In reality, people are reporting no problems running ultra with about half that. It seems that this console gen, devs don't even bother testing their own software on PCs and just throw out whatever requirement they think will sell Maxwell. For example, I could run Mordor on mostly high settings with just a 560Ti that has 1 gig of onboard VRAM at stable ~45fps. Game whined at me that I don't have enough VRAM for the quality I was running it on when I set the settings, I ignored it and never saw any problems.
I fully expect new AC to have the exactly same issue. Overblown system specs that will actually run fine on a much weaker machine. After all, these games have to run on consoles that have slower GPUs than my 560Ti, and I do have enough of system RAM to buffer into if needed - these games have engines optimized to utilize DDR3 on XBone as video memory after all. Essentially if you have a machine that is close to being on par with PS4 (around 3 year old low to mid end gaming machine), you'll run games of this gen fine on medium/high at 1080p.
Faster hardware is only needed if you:
1. Want a very stable =>60fps no matter what and therefore need a lot of overhead for minimum fps.
2. Want stereoscopy/VR (essentially same issue as #1).
3. Want to run at resolutions significantly higher than 1080p (i.e 1440p or 2160p).
4. Absolutely must run the latest games on highest possible settings.
5. Feel the need to compensate for something. Considering the advertising campaign, I can understand why many would feel this right now.
Personally I've looked at the offerings, salivated at GTX970 from Asus for a while (fans don't even start until card is under load and barely push 43dB under heavy load) and then did my usual thing and thought about the benefits of getting it. Most of the games I currently play run fine on my current 560Ti at maximum settings (Smite, Warframe, Star Conflict, Hearthstone, LoL, PoE, occasional SC2 and Firefall run). That means no benefit at all other than decreased noise levels.
The few games that I would like to have more bang for like Star Citizen are woefully unoptimized and frankly, not ready to be played. I'd rather leave testing to others. No rush for update for that one at least for a year.
This leaves out those few of the latest and greatest like Shadow of Mordor. But those run fine on high, with some really nasty exceptions requiring medium in some places of advanced settings. And I just don't view paying almost 400€ for such a minor upgrade as worth the money.
Personally, I think I'll skip this gen and wait for maxwell on 20nm or whatever transistor size nvidia moves to after 28nm.Or at the very least see if 960Ti is going to be more interesting.
Your idea is to arm people who have been oppressed for centuries if not millenia with weapons far better than what their ethnically divergent opposition has and then sic them on this opposition.
Your pretentious attempt at not seeing the obvious consequence of such actions in no way absolves you of fault.