because kids aren't adults, and school isn't optional work?
Teenagers are more adult than child, and if it isn't optional then it's effectively slavery.
And there's issues with the work ethics of slaves.
why do you think adults require motivation?
Because it's a rare adult who doesn't? There's all sorts of studies out there. Adults are more likely to have more complex motivations, but it's there.
I'll also note that a quick check showed his reward system to cost $350 per kid. In the end that's not a lot of money when you're spending more than $10k per student per year anyways in most areas.
From my reading, I don't think the added layers are going to add significant thickness. I'm picturing more like PCB boards - dozens of layers, not thousands. Each layer is still thin enough that the base substrate is still thicker than the rest of the layers, combined.
Still, even 10 layers would raise density by an order of magnitude, so it's not shabby. I'd think you'd have cost concerns if you're trying for hundreds, much less thousands of layers. Each layer would be another set of manufacturing steps, each with a chance of failure, after all.
The study I remember reading was a simpler radiation level and nesting success. Basically, on average birds nesting in the sarcophagus had almost the same success rate as birds not, despite there being double the birth defect rate. Remember, many of these species normally lay 4-6 eggs to get ONE adult bird at the end - the chicks pushing each other out of the nest when they're growing.
Other studies show that migrant birds have more troubles, like the brightly colored ones. Big eggs are also a problem. Still, we're looking at nests in the worst of the contaminated areas.
Deer and such that live further away do fine. Not that I'd recommend humans necessarily live that close, despite me not holding to the linear harm theory(the idea that if Radiation in amount X casues Y cancers, that X/2 will cause Y/2 cancers - I'm more like X/2 is more likely to cause Y/4 cancers).
The Japanese fought tooth and nail even when they were defending a speck of land in the Pacific. How much more so their homeland?
Going back, there were huge numbers of reports of Japanese fanatism.
Off the top of my head:
Kamikaze bombers, Japanese civilians commiting suicide rather than face occupation, suicide attacks by ground forces AND civilians. Reports of civilians being provided arms to resist occupation. Traps and bombs being set up. It was promised to be ugly.
Remember, it was less than a decade ago that they finally convinced the last Japanese soldier to come out of the jungle.
When Americans are taught about the bombing, is that ever mentioned, that they nuked their own soldiers?
It was mentioned in some of my military training. More as a foot note, really. You had to pay attention to the extended casualty figures.
Far more POWs were also killed during the more conventional attacks. We were trying to bomb Japan's war industry, and they were trying to use our POWs to work it.
I'm very much aware of how hollow points work, as compared to FMJ.
the point I'm trying to make is that the aim in war is to incapacitate the enemy and *NOT* kill them. the reason for this is to bind resources. all a dead soldier needs is a box and someone to slump him in it. A wounded soldier needs his buddies to carry him off the battlefield, a medevac, a doctor, treatment, rehab, his pay etc etc, all of which cost time, money, manpower and other valuable resources.
Goals vary. A dead soldier is also normally a demotivater, can't return to the battlefield once recovered, can't replace somebody still whole in body back in war industries.
In the case of those we're fighting today, even the wounded will often try to fight, they don't generally have a lot of medical care available, and the most effective way to be sure somebody stops attacking you is to kill them. The 5.56 round is still perfectly capable of killing, it is a rifle round, after all. Early versions tended to shatter, increasing the number of wound channels and energy deposit.
Oh, and from the studies I've seen, HP is not normally all that worse against body armor than FMJ.
having said that, seeing that the war in iraq and afghanistan are actually insurgencies and any resources bound by incapping insurgents come out of the west's pockets, it might make more sense to kill rather than incap. also, seeing as incapping is actually a form of weakening the enemy state and bringing about an end to the war, it might miss it's effectiveness against radical fundamentalist muslim insurgents, as it's an ideological war and not a conventional one.
Actually, I was thinking more along the lines of a sort of empirical study basically saying 'We have too many enemy soldiers still shooting at us after being shot once. Switching to HP ammunition decreased this by over 50%.'
Back during WWII we were still using far more powerful guns. FMJ/HP didn't matter as much.
If that was the case, then one could get a "personal" 1kW pebble bed reactor for $1000.
And I'd be lined up to get one.;)
Seriously, we're looking at serious economy of scale. For $1k per KW, you're looking at around a GW power plant. A million kilowatts, in other words.
It's not until you get into the hundreds of megawatts that economy of scale starts leveling out. Big steam turbines are just that much cheaper per watt for both purchase and maintenance.
Haven't the Mythbusters proven again and again that operating a vehicle from 'non standard' driving perspectives is quite difficult?
Pretty much. If you've paid attention, you'll note that when they remotely control a vehicle they do it on closed tracks/areas and don't do any complicated maneuvering - normally they only travel in a straight line with them. Despite having steering control.
In all honesty, a tragic misjudgment was made by a group of almost certainly stressed, shocked, heavily armed soldiers. That happens rather a lot in wars.
That's one reason why wars are bad, And being that they're bad, wards should be avoided if at all possible.
This was about what I suggested. My point would be that those who are calling for trials and murder sentences aren't considering that this was most likely primarily a mistake. Personally, I'd want to interview those involved before I'd go making a determination on intent, knowledge, and perception. Hindsight is 20/20, but we have to consider if their decisions were reasonable given the situation.
I'm sure you'll see the same people who are currently argue that a country's citizens shouldn't be allowed to fight against an occupying force, will be the first ones to tell their countrymen to put down their weapons and surrender.
While it hasn't come up here by me, this is why I'll draw a line between 'insurgents' and 'terrorists', and at least try to keep them seperate.
Iraqi/Afghan citizens who attack a US military convey are insurgents. They get geneva convention protections as long as they follow around half a dozen rules.
Iraqi/Afghan/Foreign peoples who attack the local citizens at a market, water treatment plant, whatever, they're terrorists, and this weakens their protections if they're caught.
It can be hard to tell between the two. A person can be both a terrorist and a insurgent. Just depends on who they're targeting this time.
They don't 'specifically exclude', but you'd better hope you have access to a good lawyer if you're going around not following the rules laid out, including such things as wearing a uniform and open carrying of weapons.
Also, if you're in a medically/religiously marked building or vehicle you'd better not have heavy weapons and you aren't to engage uniformed enemy forces. You're allowed to have some small arms for self defense against looters and such.
Basically, you have to read into the conventions to find the protections for 'other than lawful' combatants. Failing that, well, you're basically not covered, and bad things happen.
When you're in a legally grey area when it comes to usage of arms, generally those with the most guns win.
Look at Gitmo. Did illegal things happen there, committed by US Government employees? Yes. Did the fact that it was illegal really help the prisoners that experienced the violations? No, because there's no country with a big enough stick to make the USA pay attention at this point. At least, no country willing to swing the stick for those captured.
In such a case you're falling back on the ethics of the country holding you, and that's iffy even with the USA. There are a number of countries that would have been better, a number worse, on average.
I need to remember to seperate out the various treaties.
The Hague Convention is the one that prohibits: 'To employ arms, projectiles, or material of a nature to cause superfluous injury;'
When it comes to hollowpoints, in order to meet this standard all they have to do is prove that hollowpoints are more effective at stopping an enemy than standard FMJ. For handguns, there is plenty of evidence to show this is true. Heck, there's even some evidence that people tend to survive being shot with HP more often, because you're more likely to be shot fewer times. The increased lethality of hollowpoints is outweighed by it's increased stopping power; such that you'll end up with fewer holes, thus are more likely to survive.
You wouldn't consider a mis-fired 30mm hitting the ground and blowing off a person's foot, thus causing unnecessary suffering, 'needlessly cruel?'
You have to think more like a lawyer. The intent of the 30mm round was to neutralize a threat. That it wasn't a threat and that it didn't kill is irrelevent for the purposes of the Law of War.
It takes a very deliberate act to violate it. If he was aiming at the foot, then it could be considered a violation. If he knew he was targeting non-combatants, then it's a violation.
If nothing else, remember that helocoptors aren't the most stable of platforms.
You're confusing ROE - Rules of Engagement with LOAC - Law of Armed Conflict.
Rules of Engagement are the rules by which we fight. They dictate things like when we engage, how we engage, where we go and all that. It tends to be theater specific. They're supposed to be within LOAC - IE more restrictive.
LOAC is the Geneva Conventions, Hague, etc... They're the actual laws.
It's a matter of something can be both 'not right' and 'legal'.
Open an apache door, pull out a sniper rifle and take out the target you can discern has an RPG or AK-47.
Apaches aren't stable enough platforms for sniper rifles. This isn't the movies. Sorry, pretty much any response from an aircraft is going to cause collateral damage to a crowd.
The 30mm is more accurate than that sniper rifle will be. It's got at least some motion compensation built in. And you're over-estimating the discerning capabilities of the craft. It's definetly more discriminatory than a rocket, missile, or bomb.
That's the chance they take when they put on the badge. That's what they're supposed to do: hold their fire if they're not sure. That's what they get paid for. Not to stay alive no matter what, and the heck with whoever gets killed in the process if they 'think' someone has a gun.
And you're sadly misled on what cops and soldiers actually do.
You can rarely afford to wait until you're 100% sure. Instead you wait until you're somewhere around 90-99% sure. That does mean that, occasionally, you're going to shoot when you're not supposed to. That's what they have training for, to minimize the time you need to make that assessment.
this was sadistic murder for entertainment. everyone on the scene should be charged with war crimes and murder, and everyone who helped cover it up and harass wikileaks should be charged with conspiracy and accessory to murder after the fact
I'd suggest looking up 'graveyard humor' sometime. Soldiers who've been in combat, who expect combat get into wierd moods due to the stress and adrenaline dumps and all that. It's also the reason that you need to make an orderly, perhaps even leisurely transition back to civilian life.
I wouldn't trust your gauge of feelings and motivations because of it. There are other factors at work.
Yes, that's right, shooting unarmed civilian people (Protocol I, Article 50,51), some of the journalists (Protocol I, Article 79) is considered war crime.
Haven't I mentioned, multiple times, that I object to targeting non-combatants?
I will fully admit that I have a hard time believing soldiers will deliberately target unarmed civilians. I actually tend to vote for harsher punishment than the courts generally hand out for soldiers who do. For example, the soldiers who raped a girl and murdered her and her family? I was for the death penalty for all of them. They got life.
Think about all the cases where police officers have shot people because they 'thought' the person had a gun - the victims in this case vary from having cell phones, food, to even being bare handed.
It's no different in combat. In either case, to make a bad 'no shoot' call can end up with you or your fellow team members ending up dead.
That doesn't mean that I don't support investigating these cases, prosecuting where appropriate, counseling and giving remedial training when appropriate, changing procedures to preclude the situation happening again where possible.
Again, I haven't seen the video, thus have restricted my comments to correcting errors and generic cases. Errors such as the erronious belief that there are caliber limitations on shooting at enemy combatants and that 'gunships' are not properly used against combatants. It's spiraled from there.
I've been informed multiple times that the USA never signed the treaty/convention that banned Dum-dums, that our observance of it is more traditional than binding.
We're even using 'non-expanding' hollowpoints with our designated marksmen/snipers.
Though several people have commented that firing on the people getting the wounded out is a violation.
You're allowed to shoot at retreating combatants. From what I've heard reported, the van didn't have medical markers, and the ground reporter said that they were collecting weapons. Part of the problem of fighting non-uniformed combatants - you have to become less discriminatory in your fire.
If those we're currently fighting actually wore uniforms like the conventions call for, we'd shoot a lot less civilians. That's the primary reason I think the conventions call for uniforms.
Slashdot Mirror
because kids aren't adults, and school isn't optional work?
Teenagers are more adult than child, and if it isn't optional then it's effectively slavery.
And there's issues with the work ethics of slaves.
why do you think adults require motivation?
Because it's a rare adult who doesn't? There's all sorts of studies out there. Adults are more likely to have more complex motivations, but it's there.
I'll also note that a quick check showed his reward system to cost $350 per kid. In the end that's not a lot of money when you're spending more than $10k per student per year anyways in most areas.
Try another 10 years or so until it's more like 1km * 1km for any realistic measures of safety.
And even quicker/less if they fix the sarcophagus. It's leaky.
Now that I think about it more, I think it was more like back when I was a teenager - IE the '80s.
Still, I'll admit that I might be remembering wrong, but even the truth is pretty crazy.
From my reading, I don't think the added layers are going to add significant thickness. I'm picturing more like PCB boards - dozens of layers, not thousands. Each layer is still thin enough that the base substrate is still thicker than the rest of the layers, combined.
Still, even 10 layers would raise density by an order of magnitude, so it's not shabby. I'd think you'd have cost concerns if you're trying for hundreds, much less thousands of layers. Each layer would be another set of manufacturing steps, each with a chance of failure, after all.
not to say birds are thriving, but they arent extinct in the exclusion zone (and keep in mind pripyat is very close to the reactor)
Not only are they not extinct in the zone, they are relatively thriving. Enough that there's a bunch of studies on them, at least.
I didn't find the study I was looking for, but I did find this one mentioned.
Brightly colored birds most affected by Chernobyl radiation
The study I remember reading was a simpler radiation level and nesting success. Basically, on average birds nesting in the sarcophagus had almost the same success rate as birds not, despite there being double the birth defect rate. Remember, many of these species normally lay 4-6 eggs to get ONE adult bird at the end - the chicks pushing each other out of the nest when they're growing.
Other studies show that migrant birds have more troubles, like the brightly colored ones. Big eggs are also a problem. Still, we're looking at nests in the worst of the contaminated areas.
Deer and such that live further away do fine. Not that I'd recommend humans necessarily live that close, despite me not holding to the linear harm theory(the idea that if Radiation in amount X casues Y cancers, that X/2 will cause Y/2 cancers - I'm more like X/2 is more likely to cause Y/4 cancers).
The Japanese fought tooth and nail even when they were defending a speck of land in the Pacific. How much more so their homeland?
Going back, there were huge numbers of reports of Japanese fanatism.
Off the top of my head:
Kamikaze bombers, Japanese civilians commiting suicide rather than face occupation, suicide attacks by ground forces AND civilians. Reports of civilians being provided arms to resist occupation. Traps and bombs being set up. It was promised to be ugly.
Remember, it was less than a decade ago that they finally convinced the last Japanese soldier to come out of the jungle.
It wasn't classified as a war crime simply because the perpetrators of said attack were on the winning side.
This has tended to be the way it worked out over the centuries...
When Americans are taught about the bombing, is that ever mentioned, that they nuked their own soldiers?
It was mentioned in some of my military training. More as a foot note, really. You had to pay attention to the extended casualty figures.
Far more POWs were also killed during the more conventional attacks. We were trying to bomb Japan's war industry, and they were trying to use our POWs to work it.
I'm very much aware of how hollow points work, as compared to FMJ.
the point I'm trying to make is that the aim in war is to incapacitate the enemy and *NOT* kill them. the reason for this is to bind resources. all a dead soldier needs is a box and someone to slump him in it. A wounded soldier needs his buddies to carry him off the battlefield, a medevac, a doctor, treatment, rehab, his pay etc etc, all of which cost time, money, manpower and other valuable resources.
Goals vary. A dead soldier is also normally a demotivater, can't return to the battlefield once recovered, can't replace somebody still whole in body back in war industries.
In the case of those we're fighting today, even the wounded will often try to fight, they don't generally have a lot of medical care available, and the most effective way to be sure somebody stops attacking you is to kill them. The 5.56 round is still perfectly capable of killing, it is a rifle round, after all. Early versions tended to shatter, increasing the number of wound channels and energy deposit.
Oh, and from the studies I've seen, HP is not normally all that worse against body armor than FMJ.
having said that, seeing that the war in iraq and afghanistan are actually insurgencies and any resources bound by incapping insurgents come out of the west's pockets, it might make more sense to kill rather than incap.
also, seeing as incapping is actually a form of weakening the enemy state and bringing about an end to the war, it might miss it's effectiveness against radical fundamentalist muslim insurgents, as it's an ideological war and not a conventional one.
Actually, I was thinking more along the lines of a sort of empirical study basically saying 'We have too many enemy soldiers still shooting at us after being shot once. Switching to HP ammunition decreased this by over 50%.'
Back during WWII we were still using far more powerful guns. FMJ/HP didn't matter as much.
If that was the case, then one could get a "personal" 1kW pebble bed reactor for $1000.
And I'd be lined up to get one. ;)
Seriously, we're looking at serious economy of scale. For $1k per KW, you're looking at around a GW power plant. A million kilowatts, in other words.
It's not until you get into the hundreds of megawatts that economy of scale starts leveling out. Big steam turbines are just that much cheaper per watt for both purchase and maintenance.
Haven't the Mythbusters proven again and again that operating a vehicle from 'non standard' driving perspectives is quite difficult?
Pretty much. If you've paid attention, you'll note that when they remotely control a vehicle they do it on closed tracks/areas and don't do any complicated maneuvering - normally they only travel in a straight line with them. Despite having steering control.
In all honesty, a tragic misjudgment was made by a group of almost certainly stressed, shocked, heavily armed soldiers. That happens rather a lot in wars.
That's one reason why wars are bad, And being that they're bad, wards should be avoided if at all possible.
This was about what I suggested. My point would be that those who are calling for trials and murder sentences aren't considering that this was most likely primarily a mistake. Personally, I'd want to interview those involved before I'd go making a determination on intent, knowledge, and perception. Hindsight is 20/20, but we have to consider if their decisions were reasonable given the situation.
I'm sure you'll see the same people who are currently argue that a country's citizens shouldn't be allowed to fight against an occupying force, will be the first ones to tell their countrymen to put down their weapons and surrender.
While it hasn't come up here by me, this is why I'll draw a line between 'insurgents' and 'terrorists', and at least try to keep them seperate.
Iraqi/Afghan citizens who attack a US military convey are insurgents. They get geneva convention protections as long as they follow around half a dozen rules.
Iraqi/Afghan/Foreign peoples who attack the local citizens at a market, water treatment plant, whatever, they're terrorists, and this weakens their protections if they're caught.
It can be hard to tell between the two. A person can be both a terrorist and a insurgent. Just depends on who they're targeting this time.
They don't 'specifically exclude', but you'd better hope you have access to a good lawyer if you're going around not following the rules laid out, including such things as wearing a uniform and open carrying of weapons.
Also, if you're in a medically/religiously marked building or vehicle you'd better not have heavy weapons and you aren't to engage uniformed enemy forces. You're allowed to have some small arms for self defense against looters and such.
Basically, you have to read into the conventions to find the protections for 'other than lawful' combatants. Failing that, well, you're basically not covered, and bad things happen.
When you're in a legally grey area when it comes to usage of arms, generally those with the most guns win.
Look at Gitmo. Did illegal things happen there, committed by US Government employees? Yes. Did the fact that it was illegal really help the prisoners that experienced the violations? No, because there's no country with a big enough stick to make the USA pay attention at this point. At least, no country willing to swing the stick for those captured.
In such a case you're falling back on the ethics of the country holding you, and that's iffy even with the USA. There are a number of countries that would have been better, a number worse, on average.
White Phosphorous isn't to be used as a weapon; it's still allowed to be used for smoke screens and markers though.
You're not supposed to shoot it at people.
I need to remember to seperate out the various treaties.
The Hague Convention is the one that prohibits: 'To employ arms, projectiles, or material of a nature to cause superfluous injury;'
When it comes to hollowpoints, in order to meet this standard all they have to do is prove that hollowpoints are more effective at stopping an enemy than standard FMJ. For handguns, there is plenty of evidence to show this is true. Heck, there's even some evidence that people tend to survive being shot with HP more often, because you're more likely to be shot fewer times. The increased lethality of hollowpoints is outweighed by it's increased stopping power; such that you'll end up with fewer holes, thus are more likely to survive.
You wouldn't consider a mis-fired 30mm hitting the ground and blowing off a person's foot, thus causing unnecessary suffering, 'needlessly cruel?'
You have to think more like a lawyer. The intent of the 30mm round was to neutralize a threat. That it wasn't a threat and that it didn't kill is irrelevent for the purposes of the Law of War.
It takes a very deliberate act to violate it. If he was aiming at the foot, then it could be considered a violation. If he knew he was targeting non-combatants, then it's a violation.
If nothing else, remember that helocoptors aren't the most stable of platforms.
You're confusing ROE - Rules of Engagement with LOAC - Law of Armed Conflict.
Rules of Engagement are the rules by which we fight. They dictate things like when we engage, how we engage, where we go and all that. It tends to be theater specific. They're supposed to be within LOAC - IE more restrictive.
LOAC is the Geneva Conventions, Hague, etc... They're the actual laws.
It's a matter of something can be both 'not right' and 'legal'.
Open an apache door, pull out a sniper rifle and take out the target you can discern has an RPG or AK-47.
Apaches aren't stable enough platforms for sniper rifles. This isn't the movies. Sorry, pretty much any response from an aircraft is going to cause collateral damage to a crowd.
The 30mm is more accurate than that sniper rifle will be. It's got at least some motion compensation built in. And you're over-estimating the discerning capabilities of the craft. It's definetly more discriminatory than a rocket, missile, or bomb.
That's the chance they take when they put on the badge. That's what they're supposed to do: hold their fire if they're not sure. That's what they get paid for. Not to stay alive no matter what, and the heck with whoever gets killed in the process if they 'think' someone has a gun.
And you're sadly misled on what cops and soldiers actually do.
You can rarely afford to wait until you're 100% sure. Instead you wait until you're somewhere around 90-99% sure. That does mean that, occasionally, you're going to shoot when you're not supposed to. That's what they have training for, to minimize the time you need to make that assessment.
Believe it or not, the Air Force has less experience with choppers than the Army.
Still, besides the other two answers there's also the problem with enemy fire - a moving target is much harder to hit with an RPG.
this was sadistic murder for entertainment. everyone on the scene should be charged with war crimes and murder, and everyone who helped cover it up and harass wikileaks should be charged with conspiracy and accessory to murder after the fact
I'd suggest looking up 'graveyard humor' sometime. Soldiers who've been in combat, who expect combat get into wierd moods due to the stress and adrenaline dumps and all that. It's also the reason that you need to make an orderly, perhaps even leisurely transition back to civilian life.
I wouldn't trust your gauge of feelings and motivations because of it. There are other factors at work.
Yes, that's right, shooting unarmed civilian people (Protocol I, Article 50,51), some of the journalists (Protocol I, Article 79) is considered war crime.
Haven't I mentioned, multiple times, that I object to targeting non-combatants?
I will fully admit that I have a hard time believing soldiers will deliberately target unarmed civilians. I actually tend to vote for harsher punishment than the courts generally hand out for soldiers who do. For example, the soldiers who raped a girl and murdered her and her family? I was for the death penalty for all of them. They got life.
Think about all the cases where police officers have shot people because they 'thought' the person had a gun - the victims in this case vary from having cell phones, food, to even being bare handed.
It's no different in combat. In either case, to make a bad 'no shoot' call can end up with you or your fellow team members ending up dead.
That doesn't mean that I don't support investigating these cases, prosecuting where appropriate, counseling and giving remedial training when appropriate, changing procedures to preclude the situation happening again where possible.
Again, I haven't seen the video, thus have restricted my comments to correcting errors and generic cases. Errors such as the erronious belief that there are caliber limitations on shooting at enemy combatants and that 'gunships' are not properly used against combatants. It's spiraled from there.
Citation?
I've been informed multiple times that the USA never signed the treaty/convention that banned Dum-dums, that our observance of it is more traditional than binding.
We're even using 'non-expanding' hollowpoints with our designated marksmen/snipers.
Though several people have commented that firing on the people getting the wounded out is a violation.
You're allowed to shoot at retreating combatants. From what I've heard reported, the van didn't have medical markers, and the ground reporter said that they were collecting weapons. Part of the problem of fighting non-uniformed combatants - you have to become less discriminatory in your fire.
If those we're currently fighting actually wore uniforms like the conventions call for, we'd shoot a lot less civilians. That's the primary reason I think the conventions call for uniforms.