"And Frank Lloyd Wright has a house where he ran the electrical and plumbing in the block - that way you don't have conduit attached to the walls."
Not that he gave a shit about practicality, though I find his work beautiful.
Custom block or ICF (Insulating Concrete Forms) would allow conduit in which replaceable plumbing could be run. Potting plumbing where you can't repair it can backfire, especially in cold climes.
"And yes, suggesting murder of someone just because they pronounce their adherence to an idea IS motherfucking insane."
That's an asserted conclusion. I defy you to support it. (Repetition is not support.)
Political conflict involves struggle, and liquidation of opponents has met with historic success. It is therefore "sane" to discuss legal measures (law is adjustable) to make that happen.
Americans during the Revolution killed Tories and thereby drove the rest out of the country. The French Revolution did a job of removing Royalists sufficient to make future monarchies constitutional instead of absolute. It can be argued that more Royalists should have had their necks shortened, but without liquidations none of the goals of the French Revolution would have been realised.
"Well, it would be hard for the next flu pandemic to not be worse that the last one, since the last flu pandemic killed fewer people in the U.S. than the flu usually kills each year (I do not have worldwide numbers, but my impression is that they were pretty low as well). "
They are too useful to outlaw, and since LAWS ONLY APPLY AT BEST TO NATIONS AND GROUPS WHO ENDORSE OR WISH TO APPEAR TO ENDORSE THEM, they are a severe disadvantage in war.
Laws are fine for conflict between "chivarous" adversaries. Opponents like A Qaeda, the Taiban, and so forth do not bend a knee before law, therefore law should not bother itself protecting them.
If terrrorists can use airliners as manned strike platforms by "hacking" them (via killing the crew), I have no reason to object to remote-manned systems killing them.
I support drone strikes and assassination. They help level the playing field in areas where manned police operations are impossible. Killing a hostile operative in the middle of an enemy country is best done without risking own-side personnel.
By being a self-declared Muslim Jihadist he met the definition of "existential enemy" on the field of (global) battle.
I'm not Muslim. I'm not Jihadist. I'm not interested in the idea that enemies are _not_ to be distinguished from friendlies and for some non-utilitarian "moral" reason to be treated the same.
I do not consider Muslims "Americans". Islam isn't an ethnicity, or a race, or a skin tone, or an accent.
Islam is by nature and doctrine and application a metastatic oppressive superstition unworthy of modern man.
I'm not interested in the idea of any obligation to yield to Muslims. That is not a tactical or strategic advantage.
I oppose their superstition. I've seen their societies (on a friendly basis, deployed to many of our pseudo-allies) and even given their vast wealth those societies impose restrictions I do not accept. I want Muslim influence reduced in the world by any means necessary.
That Islamists hold US passports makes them a political "Fifth Column", that is all. The "terrorists" aren't the problem. Muslim society is the problem. I support US government measures which resist global Islamism. I support measures which "divide and disrupt" Islamists by any expedient means.
Muslims and Communists are, literally by definition, enemies of US society because the first ideology demands Sharia law and theocracy, and the second cannot tolerate private property and must take it by violent force if the owner resists.
I support killing either one as they are EXISTENTIAL enemies of the US the moment they self-define as Communist or Muslim.
Many Americans agree with me, and that's why certain policies are implemented. This isn't happening in some vacuum.
"Of course you'd also need to fix the education side to it, compulsory education for kids, free education (maybe even up to undergraduate level), free meals for school-kids. That way you don't get stuck with 20% or more of your population being under-educated and not very competitive with the rest of the world in terms of cost/ability."
I had a colonoscopy with minimal anesthesia and watched the process on the monitor for a bit. Interesting, and NO PROBLEM.
Neither was not eating for a day, or dealing with the laxative.
Other people reading your post should know there is an alternative, non-crybaby view of the procedure!
I'd rather have periodic colonoscopy checks than unchecked colon cancer.
"Scary Borg conduit tubing"... The problem was that you find such things "scary". That's YOU, not the equipment. There is no necessity to be afraid of technology.
Slashdot Mirror
That's completely superior to "printing" a house onsite.
If there is a defect in prefab panels they can be fixed or replaced prior to shipment, and they allow for REPLACEMENT and MODIFICATION.
Great vid, thanks for posting it!
"Also, concrete on the Moon would never solidify without an atmosphere."
Concrete cures by hydration, even under water.
Wood is cheap and houses are disposable.
Concrete block and ICF (Insulating Concrete Form) construction cost more than pine. Game over.
I personally would prefer a poured concrete or block home, but a used wooden home was much less expensive.
"And Frank Lloyd Wright has a house where he ran the electrical and plumbing in the block - that way you don't have conduit attached to the walls."
Not that he gave a shit about practicality, though I find his work beautiful.
Custom block or ICF (Insulating Concrete Forms) would allow conduit in which replaceable plumbing could be run. Potting plumbing where you can't repair it can backfire, especially in cold climes.
"And yes, suggesting murder of someone just because they pronounce their adherence to an idea IS motherfucking insane."
That's an asserted conclusion. I defy you to support it. (Repetition is not support.)
Political conflict involves struggle, and liquidation of opponents has met with historic success. It is therefore "sane" to discuss legal measures (law is adjustable) to make that happen.
Americans during the Revolution killed Tories and thereby drove the rest out of the country. The French Revolution did a job of removing Royalists sufficient to make future monarchies constitutional instead of absolute. It can be argued that more Royalists should have had their necks shortened, but without liquidations none of the goals of the French Revolution would have been realised.
"In the end, cyber warfare or physical warfare, there are no winners. You lose less badly than your opponent, that is all."
That is considerable. Would you rather be on the worse end of a war or the better?
There isn't much historic record of "winners" crying themselves to sleep over "not losing"/
"Well, it would be hard for the next flu pandemic to not be worse that the last one, since the last flu pandemic killed fewer people in the U.S. than the flu usually kills each year (I do not have worldwide numbers, but my impression is that they were pretty low as well). "
Depends on what sort of flu:
http://virus.stanford.edu/uda/
and damage millions of people every year.
http://motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2011/08/graphic-day-hospital-infections
They are too useful to outlaw, and since LAWS ONLY APPLY AT BEST TO NATIONS AND GROUPS WHO ENDORSE OR WISH TO APPEAR TO ENDORSE THEM, they are a severe disadvantage in war.
Laws are fine for conflict between "chivarous" adversaries. Opponents like A Qaeda, the Taiban, and so forth do not bend a knee before law, therefore law should not bother itself protecting them.
If terrrorists can use airliners as manned strike platforms by "hacking" them (via killing the crew), I have no reason to object to remote-manned systems killing them.
I support drone strikes and assassination. They help level the playing field in areas where manned police operations are impossible. Killing a hostile operative in the middle of an enemy country is best done without risking own-side personnel.
By being a self-declared Muslim Jihadist he met the definition of "existential enemy" on the field of (global) battle.
I'm not Muslim. I'm not Jihadist. I'm not interested in the idea that enemies are _not_ to be distinguished from friendlies and for some non-utilitarian "moral" reason to be treated the same.
I do not consider Muslims "Americans". Islam isn't an ethnicity, or a race, or a skin tone, or an accent.
Islam is by nature and doctrine and application a metastatic oppressive superstition unworthy of modern man.
I'm not interested in the idea of any obligation to yield to Muslims.
That is not a tactical or strategic advantage.
I oppose their superstition. I've seen their societies (on a friendly basis, deployed to many of our pseudo-allies) and even given their vast wealth those societies impose restrictions I do not accept. I want Muslim influence reduced in the world by any means necessary.
That Islamists hold US passports makes them a political "Fifth Column", that is all. The "terrorists" aren't the problem. Muslim society is the problem. I support US government measures which resist global Islamism. I support measures which "divide and disrupt"
Islamists by any expedient means.
You are confusing "holding unfashionable opinions" with "insane", and your post makes no argument to support your expressed contention.
Politics is war. Discuss:
Law is fine among members in a shared, local society.
The idea that it should scale globally is questionable, but has become a religion.
Muslims and Communists are, literally by definition, enemies of US society because the first ideology demands Sharia law and theocracy, and the second cannot tolerate private property and must take it by violent force if the owner resists.
I support killing either one as they are EXISTENTIAL enemies of the US the moment they self-define as Communist or Muslim.
Many Americans agree with me, and that's why certain policies are implemented. This isn't happening in some vacuum.
The root cause is the War On Some Drugs, but copper is expensive and WELL worth legally collecting and scrapping.
"Of course you'd also need to fix the education side to it, compulsory education for kids, free education (maybe even up to undergraduate level), free meals for school-kids. That way you don't get stuck with 20% or more of your population being under-educated and not very competitive with the rest of the world in terms of cost/ability."
The Free Market will fix this!
Oh.....wait.....
SIGNAGE in English and Spanish would help, as would rolling "not copper core, no scrap value" on the insulation when applying the other markings.
I had a colonoscopy with minimal anesthesia and watched the process on the monitor for a bit. Interesting, and NO PROBLEM.
Neither was not eating for a day, or dealing with the laxative.
Other people reading your post should know there is an alternative, non-crybaby view of the procedure!
I'd rather have periodic colonoscopy checks than unchecked colon cancer.
"Scary Borg conduit tubing"...
The problem was that you find such things "scary". That's YOU, not the equipment. There is no necessity to be afraid of technology.
At high enough frequencies you don't even need a center conductor. Make aircraft radar systems much lighter, among other things.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waveguide_(electromagnetism)
"They're easily replaceable too!"
That, and they don't evoke sympathy like mechanical hardware when it breaks.
"If we need plasma fire in spark plugs and engines to be stainless steel
Re-Tool it
if we need to design RF to hit the resonant freq's of water
Re-Tool it."
Build it yourself and get rich. Also, you can sleeve engines with stainless and add stainless valves if you like.
What could possibly go wrong?
"You think the any of the previous powers were "respected citizens" that "minded their own business"
Examine how Islam itself spread. No unicorns involved.
"That explains how Dick Cheney manages to hang on so long; he's been sucking the life force from local villagers at night."
Worked for Jerry Sandusky until he got caught!
"Urinating on someone who is dead and won't care is a big outrage,"
Not compared to being shot, but it gets milked for all it's worth.
"Why have they not been welcomed as liberators?"
Because they are not changing things in ways the locals WANT.
Religionist tribal societies don't WANT secular democracy and merely see it as a bridge to theocractic, tribalist governments.
Stupid Americans think others want to be like them. No, they envy our WEALTH, not our society.