It should be. UEFI should be fully user configurable. I found the switch option easily in mine.
Of course if you're someone who doesn't know how to configure BIOS/UEFI, it's going to be a problem. At which point the question becomes "why are you installing a first beta of an OS"?
As noted initially the article in question is written for a US essay competition. As a result, it dodges the nastier parts about NATO quite nicely.
Realities of the Cold War on the other hand were pretty clear. NATO and Warsaw Pact avoided direct conflict with one another at all costs, to the point of claiming that their people dying in proxy wars were actually "vietnamese", "koreans", "afghan" or "free agents" and so on. If you wish to look to see how little NATO cared about civilians during cold war, Vietnam and Indonesia would be good places to start.
That's because this stuff is not terribly useful for terrorism. Potential terrorist would do much better stealing dung from the same factories. That stuff can be made to blow up nicely.
Ah, Jukka Rislakki. Interesting. It's obviously going to slightly gloss over NATO's actions as it was written for US essay competition, he's quite a bit more neutral in his finnish material.
Regardless, I must admit I haven't read this particular essay of his. I have read several of his writings though, and he's fairly accurate.
That said, Cold War plans, while "not certain", are fairly well known. Like most things of the time, these things were open secrets, if for no other reason than to give them preventative meaning. This goes for a lot of things, such as Soviet tank rushes across Western Europe, NATO encirclement and "beheading strike" concept, MAD and so on.
The problem is that politicians who unlike writers have direct access to intelligence have to make decisions. When you read what people like Rislakki write, and then look at actions taken, you have to be fairly naive not to draw the obvious links.
Let's start with why Finland is an important connection point for both Warsaw Pact and NATO: 1. Access to one side of provenly effective form of blocading the entire USSR baltic fleet in Leningrad (currently St. Petersburg). Germans pulled this blockade successfully in WW2 by controlling both Estonia and Finland ends of the narrow passage out of the Leningrad and installing a creative net-like alarm system. Not a single submarine from Soviet Baltic fleet escaped it. 2. Mainland access to Sweden and Norway: a. Through Sweden and Norway, there's a very easy to access route to entire Northern Central Europe, which were not as reinforced as East/West borders. b. Access to Norway which accounted for loss of entire Northern Europe, including all the key ports for European side of Arctic. Norway is a NATO state, and it also offers a fairly easy naval assault path to UK. 3. Mainland access to St. Petersburg and Murmansk, locations for both Baltic and Arctic fleets of USSR. 4. Island province of Ahvenanmaa/Åland (currently demilitarized area) which controls the key junction in Baltic Sea. 5. The only neutral country proven to have the combat prowess to withstand full brunt of both Red army without any significant outside military assistance (the only country to be included in Molotov-Ribbentrop that did not get annexed by either signatory state in spite of two attempts by Red Army, first of which was against a completely unprepared agrarian state). After the war, Finland adopted "we may not be able to stop you, but we'll bleed you so much trying to take us that you'll remember why even Stalin decided we're not worth the cost", our military is one of the few that still has universal conscription and we have exceptional amount of various weapons, including heavy weapons stashed all across the country. Effectively too dangerous to attempt to push to join side by force without very significant motivator.
NATO had a problem in that Sweden was not a NATO member, and Norway did not offer an easy access to Finland, making direct assault exceptionally difficult. USSR has no such problem for obvious geographic reasons, and has massive vested interest in not exposing Leningrad and Murmansk to NATO, just like the had the problem exposing these to Nazi Germany, which caused the two wars between Finland and Russia.
As a result, the most feasibly scenario was that USSR would attempt to occupy Finland to secure both Leningrad and Murmansk. To counteract the risk of using Finland's infrastructure as a path to gain a new assault route on Europe (just like Nazi Germany did with France by going through Benelux instead of assaulting directly over mutual border), such infrastructure would need to be demolished as effectively as possible. Worst case scenario would mean that Finnish army would collapse within weeks of the conflict and go into guerrilla warfare mode, which would mean that cities and their infrastructure would become controlled by Red Army. That means that destruction of any city infrastructure would be a key NATO priority. This would have to be done in a way that would b
I have no idea which finnish author you're referencing. Kindly cite the author's name. Notably, I'm a finn.
Your other points: 1. "Imminent" means Red Army will be there shortly. Finland is a neutral country, and NATO would not start a nuclear war with Warsaw Pact over attack on one. This is why tactical, rather than strategic weapons would be employed - and they would need to be employed before Red Army arrives. This way neither side gets into a nuclear war with one another, and yet another independent state gets shafted by two evil empires. Modus operandi of Cold War, minus the proximity and size of Finnish/Russian border, it's importance to USSR, and hence requirement to use tactical nukes. 2. We finns were effectively forced to play both sides to survive. We still have to. We always had our NATO lackeys, and our Warsaw Pact lackeys, while most people stood firmly on the side of independence. This is true even today, when our foregn minister is leaning towards Russia, while our European minister is a hardcore NATO apologist to the point where he actually badmouthed other Nordics. It's the way it has to be if a small nation of five million is to survive and thrive with its border just a few hundred kilometers from St.Petersburg, making it a desireable conquest for both pro and anti Russian forces in the world. 3. NATO's interest lied in stopping Red Army from using country's infrastructure. That included bridges AND large population centers with their ability to provide logistical support for conqueror. It obviously makes no sense to employ tactical nuclear weapons against bridges. It obviously does make sense to employ tactical nuclear weapons against cities to destroy their infrastructure.
Again, I have no clue which author you're referencing. I on the other hand am referencing my own country's history, and it's not like it's a huge secret around here - when pretty much every building except small homes has a bomb shelter that is mandated by law, you get used to it. NATO countries are obviously not going to advertise this stuff to their population any more than they will advertise any other things that would negatively impact the propaganda image of NATO being a "good empire".
Let me say this again, because clearly you are not listening due to your predisposition to thinking of NATO as "good guys".
The goal of NATO campaign was not to hit tank rush. It was to largely AVOID hitting USSR/Warsaw pact forces, and hit infrastructure BEFORE tanks arrived. This would accomplish the following goals:
1. Avoid direct conflict with USSR. 2. Destroy infrastructure to deny its usage to USSR.
The reason why they chose to use tactical nukes instead of conventional weaponry for this is because of required speed. NATO would need to essentially level key cities very quickly, before USSR tanks reached them. Conventional weapons were/are simply not powerful enough for the task.
Finnish answer to this threat was very pragmatic, as usual. Ever since the plan came to light back in Cold War, every new building had to include a bomb shelter. Additionally the cities most likely to be bombed had large shelters built into the bedrock designed to withstand tactical nuclear weapons that NATO would employ. Essentially the goal would be to rely on the fact that NATO didn't really care about finnish population in any way, it just wanted to destroy the infrastructure before USSR would arrive, and so you'd build shelters everywhere and try to save as many people as possible.
Problem being it would make a lot of business sense to fund green movement, and there's plenty of opportunity - I've seen several cases where prominent green movement leaders were called to "presentations of new clean coal technologies" in fine hotels. It would be pretty surprising if industry leaders in coal, who have to be specialists in bribery to survive in the industry would not see the massive potential in directing green movement to attack its main competitors.
Personally I'm not a fan of conspiracies, but I'm a fan of common sense and following the money. In this case, it both makes sense and would be financially smart to corrupt the green movement as much as possible to direct its wrath against competition.
We finns aren't pro anything. We fought russians, we were bombed by brits. And we had to fight Germans as a part of our peace deal. During cold war, our politics were to convince both sides that it's far better that they leave us alone. Considering that russians had plans to tank rush us, while US had plans to destroy the country using tactical nukes if that happened to prevent infrastructure being used by Soviets, you'll find that mots finns are very much neutral. Being the only country in the molotov-ribbentrop to not get conquered and to fight Red Army off with some of the craziest numbers in history (http://www.fanpop.com/clubs/finland/images/23423870/title/very-afraid-photo) makes you not like those who's stab you in the back with nukes in case the conflict started again.
There are some crazies that want into the NATO, and some even greater crazies that want some sort of an alliance with Russia. But most of us like status quo, where both of the great evils keep on fighting one another while the small country in the far north stands on the sidelines and doesn't interfere.
To be specific, most of the Russian traffic comes from Moscow and St. Petersburg, which if you look at the map are located fairly close to Finland which is not a "hostile NATO state" like most of the Eastern Europe is today.
The problem is that Finland has no other links to Central Europe except for one going through Sweden at the moment, and Sweden has openly become US/NATO bitch in recent past. Russian biggest search company Yandex is one of the big investors in this submarine cable. It's pretty much connect the dots on this one.
Some do, some don't. There's a pretty big discussion about the topic right now, and there's no consensus within the organisation or parliament about the issue at the moment.
Finland is having a huge discussion right now about two facts:
1. Intelligence service cannot perform such functions as they would be strictly illegal. 2. Intelligence service is not funded sufficiently to enable such surveillance even if it was legal.
It comes from decades of being in between two evil empires during cold war, when it didn't make sense to have a big intelligence agency - both adversaries far outstripped its abilities anyway. So instead if focused on a small core of functions, such as counter espionage and VIP protection, which is does fairly well.
Underwater fibre will be tapped shortly as a matter of routine. This is what US/UK submarines do.
This does however circumvent Sweden, meaning their fairly recent law making it completely legal to tap all of internet traffic going through the country is not going to be as effective. And it helps reliability as well as latency, as Finland currently serves as a major transit point for Asian, and more specifically Russian traffic (which is often stated as the biggest reason for Swedish law).
I'm not so naive as to think that "The Cause" as you so pompously put it will be driven or not driven by random people discussing it on the internet forums.
In general however, power industry is by necessity linked to government agencies like no other, including governments on the very bottom of the TI's corruption index. When you have to plan ROI that is over 40 years at the very least, and need functional grid to sell your electricity as well as stable supply routes for fuel and replacement parts, while local government will need you to produce power in a stable fashion with reasonable prices, you're going to end up very much intertwined.
What I'm talking about however, is not corruption of governments, but internal corruption of the green movement. Driven by both logical and correct "coal is bad", which was largely responsible for the fact that major coal builder designed their modern burners in the way that doesn't even generate NOx and SO2, the acid rain causing nasties, and irrational fear of nuclear mostly driven by popular demand of population severely traumatized by cold war propaganda, they are torn between the two. This makes them easy targets for donations that swing their activists one way or another, and nuclear in general is just too small and too monitored of an industry in comparison to coal or oil.
And by the way, as it stands, utility companies have a lot of mothballed coal plants all over the world, and coal is cheap, reliable, very profitable to burn and we have hundreds of years of known supply. Nuclear while more efficient and about as profitable but tends to require more costly plant off the bat (but potentially better ROI over time) and requires a whole lot more of government oversight.
The real force here however are the builders of the plants and fuel suppliers, and in this particular competition, coal trumps everyone. Even oil has problems competing.
Err, they didn't because McArthur was in charge. Their first uplifting on the other hand back in late 1800 and early 1900 pretty much followed that particular form.
Wait, you seriously think that Japanese wouldn't do the same back in the 50s and 60s? Country with millenia worth of sacrificial culture, country that has existed in one of the least certain environments in the world leading many japanese to still adopt a very nihilistic view on life?
They'd have done it in a heartbeat. And their public would have supported it. Wholeheartedly. They'd just shout "for the empire" and bury the kids, like they've done countless times before.McArthur had to do some very nasty cultural brutalizing to get Japanese "civilized" into more Western levels of respect of life of those of lower status.
If you took down every single wind mill in the world tomorrow, humanity would not really even notice for most part. At worst, we may have to start using some of the mothballed coal/oil/gas plants to compensate.
And even "I'm so high I think I can walk across oceans" level of babbling would probably not try to claim that wind power is a "question of survival of human civilization".
Actually medical research advances on other things. All it has been able to do for last century or so against viral diseases is to just strengthen the body to fight the virus and defend against opportunistic diseases. There are some retroviral treatments available, but they are generally ineffective against things like mumps or rubella (not to mention side effects, that are often as nasty if not more nasty than disease itself). If you actually contract it, you're rolling the dice.
Another problem is that we have picked all the low hanging fruit quite a while ago. Medical research advanced significantly less in terms absolute power to combat various diseases in last ten years than ten years before that. Most of the medical research that still has low hanging fruit available is generally more about complex physiological problems such as artificial limb technology.
We're still progressing, but we're unlikely to ever see any breakthroughs on the level of what we've seen in 1920s and 1950s (antibiotics and vaccination). It's more of incremental advancement now.
Slashdot Mirror
It should be. UEFI should be fully user configurable. I found the switch option easily in mine.
Of course if you're someone who doesn't know how to configure BIOS/UEFI, it's going to be a problem. At which point the question becomes "why are you installing a first beta of an OS"?
Steambian. For some reason, reminds me of symbian.
As noted initially the article in question is written for a US essay competition. As a result, it dodges the nastier parts about NATO quite nicely.
Realities of the Cold War on the other hand were pretty clear. NATO and Warsaw Pact avoided direct conflict with one another at all costs, to the point of claiming that their people dying in proxy wars were actually "vietnamese", "koreans", "afghan" or "free agents" and so on. If you wish to look to see how little NATO cared about civilians during cold war, Vietnam and Indonesia would be good places to start.
That's because this stuff is not terribly useful for terrorism. Potential terrorist would do much better stealing dung from the same factories. That stuff can be made to blow up nicely.
Ah, Jukka Rislakki. Interesting. It's obviously going to slightly gloss over NATO's actions as it was written for US essay competition, he's quite a bit more neutral in his finnish material.
Regardless, I must admit I haven't read this particular essay of his. I have read several of his writings though, and he's fairly accurate.
That said, Cold War plans, while "not certain", are fairly well known. Like most things of the time, these things were open secrets, if for no other reason than to give them preventative meaning. This goes for a lot of things, such as Soviet tank rushes across Western Europe, NATO encirclement and "beheading strike" concept, MAD and so on.
The problem is that politicians who unlike writers have direct access to intelligence have to make decisions. When you read what people like Rislakki write, and then look at actions taken, you have to be fairly naive not to draw the obvious links.
Let's start with why Finland is an important connection point for both Warsaw Pact and NATO:
1. Access to one side of provenly effective form of blocading the entire USSR baltic fleet in Leningrad (currently St. Petersburg). Germans pulled this blockade successfully in WW2 by controlling both Estonia and Finland ends of the narrow passage out of the Leningrad and installing a creative net-like alarm system. Not a single submarine from Soviet Baltic fleet escaped it.
2. Mainland access to Sweden and Norway:
a. Through Sweden and Norway, there's a very easy to access route to entire Northern Central Europe, which were not as reinforced as East/West borders.
b. Access to Norway which accounted for loss of entire Northern Europe, including all the key ports for European side of Arctic. Norway is a NATO state, and it also offers a fairly easy naval assault path to UK.
3. Mainland access to St. Petersburg and Murmansk, locations for both Baltic and Arctic fleets of USSR.
4. Island province of Ahvenanmaa/Åland (currently demilitarized area) which controls the key junction in Baltic Sea.
5. The only neutral country proven to have the combat prowess to withstand full brunt of both Red army without any significant outside military assistance (the only country to be included in Molotov-Ribbentrop that did not get annexed by either signatory state in spite of two attempts by Red Army, first of which was against a completely unprepared agrarian state). After the war, Finland adopted "we may not be able to stop you, but we'll bleed you so much trying to take us that you'll remember why even Stalin decided we're not worth the cost", our military is one of the few that still has universal conscription and we have exceptional amount of various weapons, including heavy weapons stashed all across the country. Effectively too dangerous to attempt to push to join side by force without very significant motivator.
NATO had a problem in that Sweden was not a NATO member, and Norway did not offer an easy access to Finland, making direct assault exceptionally difficult. USSR has no such problem for obvious geographic reasons, and has massive vested interest in not exposing Leningrad and Murmansk to NATO, just like the had the problem exposing these to Nazi Germany, which caused the two wars between Finland and Russia.
As a result, the most feasibly scenario was that USSR would attempt to occupy Finland to secure both Leningrad and Murmansk. To counteract the risk of using Finland's infrastructure as a path to gain a new assault route on Europe (just like Nazi Germany did with France by going through Benelux instead of assaulting directly over mutual border), such infrastructure would need to be demolished as effectively as possible. Worst case scenario would mean that Finnish army would collapse within weeks of the conflict and go into guerrilla warfare mode, which would mean that cities and their infrastructure would become controlled by Red Army. That means that destruction of any city infrastructure would be a key NATO priority. This would have to be done in a way that would b
I have no idea which finnish author you're referencing. Kindly cite the author's name.
Notably, I'm a finn.
Your other points:
1. "Imminent" means Red Army will be there shortly. Finland is a neutral country, and NATO would not start a nuclear war with Warsaw Pact over attack on one. This is why tactical, rather than strategic weapons would be employed - and they would need to be employed before Red Army arrives. This way neither side gets into a nuclear war with one another, and yet another independent state gets shafted by two evil empires. Modus operandi of Cold War, minus the proximity and size of Finnish/Russian border, it's importance to USSR, and hence requirement to use tactical nukes.
2. We finns were effectively forced to play both sides to survive. We still have to. We always had our NATO lackeys, and our Warsaw Pact lackeys, while most people stood firmly on the side of independence. This is true even today, when our foregn minister is leaning towards Russia, while our European minister is a hardcore NATO apologist to the point where he actually badmouthed other Nordics. It's the way it has to be if a small nation of five million is to survive and thrive with its border just a few hundred kilometers from St.Petersburg, making it a desireable conquest for both pro and anti Russian forces in the world.
3. NATO's interest lied in stopping Red Army from using country's infrastructure. That included bridges AND large population centers with their ability to provide logistical support for conqueror. It obviously makes no sense to employ tactical nuclear weapons against bridges. It obviously does make sense to employ tactical nuclear weapons against cities to destroy their infrastructure.
Again, I have no clue which author you're referencing. I on the other hand am referencing my own country's history, and it's not like it's a huge secret around here - when pretty much every building except small homes has a bomb shelter that is mandated by law, you get used to it. NATO countries are obviously not going to advertise this stuff to their population any more than they will advertise any other things that would negatively impact the propaganda image of NATO being a "good empire".
Let me say this again, because clearly you are not listening due to your predisposition to thinking of NATO as "good guys".
The goal of NATO campaign was not to hit tank rush. It was to largely AVOID hitting USSR/Warsaw pact forces, and hit infrastructure BEFORE tanks arrived. This would accomplish the following goals:
1. Avoid direct conflict with USSR.
2. Destroy infrastructure to deny its usage to USSR.
The reason why they chose to use tactical nukes instead of conventional weaponry for this is because of required speed. NATO would need to essentially level key cities very quickly, before USSR tanks reached them. Conventional weapons were/are simply not powerful enough for the task.
Finnish answer to this threat was very pragmatic, as usual. Ever since the plan came to light back in Cold War, every new building had to include a bomb shelter. Additionally the cities most likely to be bombed had large shelters built into the bedrock designed to withstand tactical nuclear weapons that NATO would employ. Essentially the goal would be to rely on the fact that NATO didn't really care about finnish population in any way, it just wanted to destroy the infrastructure before USSR would arrive, and so you'd build shelters everywhere and try to save as many people as possible.
Not answering tank rush with nukes. Attacking key infrastructure with nukes to deny USSR its usage.
The entire point of this game is to be a fast paced low entry cost game.
A polar opposite of what MTG is.
Problem being it would make a lot of business sense to fund green movement, and there's plenty of opportunity - I've seen several cases where prominent green movement leaders were called to "presentations of new clean coal technologies" in fine hotels. It would be pretty surprising if industry leaders in coal, who have to be specialists in bribery to survive in the industry would not see the massive potential in directing green movement to attack its main competitors.
Personally I'm not a fan of conspiracies, but I'm a fan of common sense and following the money. In this case, it both makes sense and would be financially smart to corrupt the green movement as much as possible to direct its wrath against competition.
We finns aren't pro anything. We fought russians, we were bombed by brits. And we had to fight Germans as a part of our peace deal. During cold war, our politics were to convince both sides that it's far better that they leave us alone. Considering that russians had plans to tank rush us, while US had plans to destroy the country using tactical nukes if that happened to prevent infrastructure being used by Soviets, you'll find that mots finns are very much neutral. Being the only country in the molotov-ribbentrop to not get conquered and to fight Red Army off with some of the craziest numbers in history (http://www.fanpop.com/clubs/finland/images/23423870/title/very-afraid-photo) makes you not like those who's stab you in the back with nukes in case the conflict started again.
There are some crazies that want into the NATO, and some even greater crazies that want some sort of an alliance with Russia. But most of us like status quo, where both of the great evils keep on fighting one another while the small country in the far north stands on the sidelines and doesn't interfere.
To be specific, most of the Russian traffic comes from Moscow and St. Petersburg, which if you look at the map are located fairly close to Finland which is not a "hostile NATO state" like most of the Eastern Europe is today.
The problem is that Finland has no other links to Central Europe except for one going through Sweden at the moment, and Sweden has openly become US/NATO bitch in recent past. Russian biggest search company Yandex is one of the big investors in this submarine cable. It's pretty much connect the dots on this one.
Some do, some don't. There's a pretty big discussion about the topic right now, and there's no consensus within the organisation or parliament about the issue at the moment.
Finland is having a huge discussion right now about two facts:
1. Intelligence service cannot perform such functions as they would be strictly illegal.
2. Intelligence service is not funded sufficiently to enable such surveillance even if it was legal.
It comes from decades of being in between two evil empires during cold war, when it didn't make sense to have a big intelligence agency - both adversaries far outstripped its abilities anyway. So instead if focused on a small core of functions, such as counter espionage and VIP protection, which is does fairly well.
Underwater fibre will be tapped shortly as a matter of routine. This is what US/UK submarines do.
This does however circumvent Sweden, meaning their fairly recent law making it completely legal to tap all of internet traffic going through the country is not going to be as effective. And it helps reliability as well as latency, as Finland currently serves as a major transit point for Asian, and more specifically Russian traffic (which is often stated as the biggest reason for Swedish law).
I'm not so naive as to think that "The Cause" as you so pompously put it will be driven or not driven by random people discussing it on the internet forums.
In general however, power industry is by necessity linked to government agencies like no other, including governments on the very bottom of the TI's corruption index. When you have to plan ROI that is over 40 years at the very least, and need functional grid to sell your electricity as well as stable supply routes for fuel and replacement parts, while local government will need you to produce power in a stable fashion with reasonable prices, you're going to end up very much intertwined.
What I'm talking about however, is not corruption of governments, but internal corruption of the green movement. Driven by both logical and correct "coal is bad", which was largely responsible for the fact that major coal builder designed their modern burners in the way that doesn't even generate NOx and SO2, the acid rain causing nasties, and irrational fear of nuclear mostly driven by popular demand of population severely traumatized by cold war propaganda, they are torn between the two. This makes them easy targets for donations that swing their activists one way or another, and nuclear in general is just too small and too monitored of an industry in comparison to coal or oil.
And by the way, as it stands, utility companies have a lot of mothballed coal plants all over the world, and coal is cheap, reliable, very profitable to burn and we have hundreds of years of known supply. Nuclear while more efficient and about as profitable but tends to require more costly plant off the bat (but potentially better ROI over time) and requires a whole lot more of government oversight.
The real force here however are the builders of the plants and fuel suppliers, and in this particular competition, coal trumps everyone. Even oil has problems competing.
Ah yes, that OTHER "I have a dream" speech.
Ah, another "I don't understand this whole infectious thing" person.
Err, they didn't because McArthur was in charge. Their first uplifting on the other hand back in late 1800 and early 1900 pretty much followed that particular form.
Wait, you seriously think that Japanese wouldn't do the same back in the 50s and 60s? Country with millenia worth of sacrificial culture, country that has existed in one of the least certain environments in the world leading many japanese to still adopt a very nihilistic view on life?
They'd have done it in a heartbeat. And their public would have supported it. Wholeheartedly. They'd just shout "for the empire" and bury the kids, like they've done countless times before.McArthur had to do some very nasty cultural brutalizing to get Japanese "civilized" into more Western levels of respect of life of those of lower status.
You know, even Jenny McCarthy pretty much gave up on that bullshit. Shouldn't you follow her example?
It's just like Japan in the 50s and 60s.
If you took down every single wind mill in the world tomorrow, humanity would not really even notice for most part. At worst, we may have to start using some of the mothballed coal/oil/gas plants to compensate.
And even "I'm so high I think I can walk across oceans" level of babbling would probably not try to claim that wind power is a "question of survival of human civilization".
Actually medical research advances on other things. All it has been able to do for last century or so against viral diseases is to just strengthen the body to fight the virus and defend against opportunistic diseases. There are some retroviral treatments available, but they are generally ineffective against things like mumps or rubella (not to mention side effects, that are often as nasty if not more nasty than disease itself). If you actually contract it, you're rolling the dice.
Another problem is that we have picked all the low hanging fruit quite a while ago. Medical research advanced significantly less in terms absolute power to combat various diseases in last ten years than ten years before that. Most of the medical research that still has low hanging fruit available is generally more about complex physiological problems such as artificial limb technology.
We're still progressing, but we're unlikely to ever see any breakthroughs on the level of what we've seen in 1920s and 1950s (antibiotics and vaccination). It's more of incremental advancement now.
It is that in large part. But you would have to be massively deluded to believe that it's only about that.