As for the F22, it's not obsolete; especially not in comparison
As for why we didn't drop it in favor of the F35; It's like comparing a F15 with a F16. While they do share many capabilities, there are some substantial differences. A quick review shows that the F22 beats the F35 in nearly all capabilities except maybe cost(there's some evidence that developments made in the F22 program were shared with the F35). The F22 is faster, has a longer range, better combat ability, may be stealthier, etc...
The AC, while rude, has a point - there are multiple modes of conflict.
In the case of Iraq(and Afghanistan), our air superiority makes it so that the insurgents can't concentrate. To many insurgents in one spot and we simply drop a bomb* on them. This is currently done with F15, F16, B52, A10, etc...
The maintenance costs on the first two are increasing fairly drastically, and we can't just make new ones anymore. We haven't made any B52s in ages, same with the A10.
Push came to crunch, the F22 is about the only combat plane we could churn out.
The dragonskin armor is also much heavier than intercepter armor. The military has been known to fix tests, but I'm not sure that's the case here. I have heard that a formal testing program has been ordered though.
As for removing the privately obtained armor, that was overblown. The actual thing was that a soldier might be liable for medical costs if the injury was worse with the private armor than it would have been if he'd been wearing the issue interceptor.
If the armor is actually superior than issue, then you don't have a problem. Thing is, issue is already extremely good. I did some research a while back and there was no way I was going to be able to get better* through private channels.
*At least in a cost/weight ratio I'd be able to afford/carry.
Second, the military budget is huge. 2% of a very large number is still a very large number. Each F-22 costs ~$200 million. That money could outfit a significant number of troops with better body armor and more heavily armored vehicles.
And a single F22 can eliminate the NEED for a significant number of troops, along with their equipment suh as body armor and AFVs.
The sea wolf submarine - it wasn't a white element at the time. The F22 has been in development since before the cold war ended.
With purely military vehicles, you have to remember that R&D costs end up being folded into the cost. The marginal cost of a F22 is a 'mere' $20 million or so, the other 180 million is the R&D and tooling costs, divided over a mere couple hundred planes, vs hundreds of thousands for a car like the honda civic.
Third, what is the overall cost of maintenance of these new toys? The stealth coatings and advanced avionics used in modern jets could conceivably require more maintenance and upgrades in the long term, nullifying the effects of being able to retire outdated aircraft.
Less than that of older craft, actually. The F22 was designed to be much easier to service. Older planes have to be disassembled much more frequently and to a greater extent, increasing costs. You also have difficulty with many parts, since they were designed so long ago the sub-parts aren't really made anymore, increasing costs because everything has to be custom manufactured.
Now if only congress would let us retire the craft we want to, such as the F117.
Finally, part of the problem for AFV's isn't money, it's manufacturing capacity - IE we don't have it. As for body armor - Our troops have effective body armor. It still pushes the limits of feasability. Right now to give soldiers body armor that protects better means giving them body armor that's heavier, more restrictive, and hotter. Soldier's loads are already heavy enough as it is.
Could more be done? Certainly. But in many cases it's not an either-or question.
The same argument could be used on wind power, you now. There's plenty of concrete involved in making the footings. Then you could get pedantic and count the vehicles and construction equipment running with IC engines, burning hydrocarbons.
Sure, concrete production emits a lot of CO2.
But that hardly makes a nuclear plant 'carbon intensive' because a 'lot' of concrete is used in it's production. Carbon intensive would be for things like coal - which produces carbon dioxide day in and day out in massive quantities to produce power.
For one thing, any large power plant is going to use a lot of concrete. I'd be suprised if your standard nuclear plant uses 20% more concrete than a similarly sized gas or coal plant in the same location would.
For another, the amount of concrete involved in building even a nuclear plant is a tiny fraction of concrete construction each year. Think about all the miles of road built each year. All the foundations poured. Many lar
Hoover Dam: 4.5 million cubic yards. Nuclear Plant: 400 thousand cubic yards Pentagon: 400k cubic yards Green Building: 15k cubic yards, for a nine story, 293,000 square feet structure.
I was unable to find a figure for roads, but I did find that a concrete truck can carry 10 cubic yards, and one of them only gets you a few feet of road. 165 cy for a bridge of unknown size, but assumed small(as they were building a lot of them).
Mickey Mouse is almost certainly copyrighted. According to US copyright law, all works before 1923 are in the public domain - Mickey Mouse, however, was created in 1928, so Disney has almost certainly renewed a few times since then. Plus, I'm not sure, but since they change how Mickey Mouse looks every so often to reflect changes in technology (black & white to color to digital, etc.), the original copyright on Mickey Mouse might expire in the next few years, but that might only be for "Steamboat Willy" Mickey Mouse. Like I said, though, I'm not sure about that one.
From my understanding of copyright law, it would indeed be the steamboat Mickey cartoon that would become public domain - and not the later works.
Depending on how they figure derivitive works, people would then be able to mix&match the very rodent looking(far more realistic than the mickey of today) mouse in your own works. However, distinct later works would not be covered.
From my readings, they're around 80% for lab grown carbon nanotubes.
However, we're talking millimeters here, not 32k miles.
So we're even further away from this than we are from fusion power. At least with fusion power we're to the point we just need to improve sustainability(going from seconds to years).
I would welcome the chance for you to charge a psycho - armed, ready and firing away
I'd much rather shoot him in the head from behind. It's effective, fast, and reasonably safe. If I'm the only one armed when a spree-shooter pops up, I'll be the only one around for a relatively long time(minutes, even seconds count here). You do the heroic thing when there's no other reasonable option available. If I have to shoot him while he's facing me, so be it. If I have to physically charge him, there's been a failure.
I'll agree that it'd be difficult. Still, we don't need anything near a 100% response rate - in many cases even a 10% chance would be plenty. In a classroom of 30, 3 would charge, preferably followed by others who move a little slower.
It only takes one person holding onto the shooter's arm to severly limit the effectivness of the weapon. Stabbing with a screwdriver or pounding with heavy object isn't necessary.
Hmmm... That novel was written a bit before I was up to reading it. Makes me wish there was an ebook version of itunes. Of course, that'd probably drive me broke very quickly.
Still, by your description I'm not sure it'd be that valuable. I'm very much a believer in KISS. Of course, I also believe that great complexities tend to come from simple principles, much like fractals.
So, from a combination of human fallibles, random chance, various things dependant upon the flapping of a butterfly's wings a continent away and a year ago you get a series of events that might seem like the plotting of a demented mastermind.
First, Firethorn, I take it you've never been in combat nor experienced any "live fire" situations?
Nope, have you? I consider myself lucky to have avoided that so far. Still, it's been a distinct possibility several times.
Nor do you appear to be experienced with assault rifles and other weaponry.
hehehehe... Award(don't have a scan): Gästeschießen 3./FmBtl 281 Beim Schießen mit dem Maschinengehr MG3 hat ***** ****** den 1. Platz belegt. Gees, im September 200* Reinhardt Hauptmann u. KpChef
I'm not a high-speed low drag individual, but I'm not unexperienced.
With the latest Sig automatic rifle I could take out most of a crowded football stadium in under five minutes - a slight exaggeration, but only slight! Are you talking about this rifle?
Still, Slight exaggeration? Surely not! It's a gross exaggeration! Unless you're talking about a non-college, non-professional stadium, occupancy for my example football stadium is 81,067. A standard 5.56 magazine is 30 rounds. I own a AR-15, and have a number of 30 round magazines. The rifle, combined with 10 magazines(300 rounds total) is fairly heavy. I would be able to carry substantially more, true, but I'd be encumbered carrying that much and not moving very quickly. After all, a loaded magazine weighs.45 kg. A hundred loaded magazines would be 100 pounds to carry. That gives me 3000 rounds. I consider 300 rounds to be a decent range trip. 3k rounds would also cost around a thouand dollars, buying cheap.
Even carrying a hundred pounds of ammo, and killing somebody with each shot, you'd only get 3.7% of the stadium goers. More realistically, they'd trample more of each other trying to flee than what you'd kill.
Besides, talking about automatic rifles is totally besides the point when we're talking about a shooter using semi-automatic handguns with 15 round magazines. One of them a.22!
Your suggestion as to what occurred at Virginia Tech is both highly insulting, highly ignorant and most obscene. There were unbelievable examples of heroism and valor on behalf of the faculty and students there - something sadly lacking from those politicians in elective office today
What, the truth? From what I've read, NOT ONE PERSON IN THE BUILDING WENT AFTER THE SHOOTER. Yes, there were heroic acts I can only hope I would be capable of- but barricading a door, while smart, is not precisely heroic or valorous. Two professors held the classroom doors closed while Seung-Hui Cho shot him, one succeeded, one did not, both died. One went to investigate - and ended up shot. Being a hero, perhaps unfortuantly, requires one to be successful.
I DO NOT CONSIDER HIDING UNDER A DESK to be heroic, much less valorous. Read some decorations for medals of honor for heroic and valorous acts. Do you consider hiding under a desk or jumping out a window to be equivalent to, while wounded, grasping a lit flare and hauling it, while it's burning you, to the back of the aircraft to throw it out, like A1C John L. Levitow?
All I was saying was that if we'd trained the students there to consider offensive actions in such a situation, it probably would of resulted in fewer casualties. Even a fatally wounded individual would have probably been able to disable Cho long enough for others to finish the job.
Heros still exist today - I'm just questioning if they're being trained for the correct responses.
Where does our current elected officials come into this? This sort of thing isn't going to be initiated by these individuals. Nice ranting though.
Secondly, choosing the most clueless sci-fi writers - especially at this rather late da
They're still prey, though. Just as deer do escape predators each year. They're the lucky ones. However, take more of a buffalo strategy. IE pound the predator into the mud. That's a predator that's not going to be coming again next week.
It takes ~18 years to raise an adult human. 'Run away or hide and hope you get lucky' is a strategy more for an animal that grows to adulthood in a year or less, not many times that.
I wouldn't always call it a lie - If you're not a trained and equipped fire fighter, for example, you have a better chance if you flee a forest fire.
On the other hand, us humans actually have a chance to stand up to lions, tigers, and bears almost bare handed. I wouldn't call it a good chance, but there's a chance. Give us something so little as a knife, and suddenly even 80 year old women can drive mountain lions away(she actually did it with a pen). There have been cases of mountain men killing bears with a knife.
Predators like easy targets - which is why in the wild they go after the weak - the young, the sick, the injured. This is usually true even for human predators. Note where mass shooting usually occur - schools and other areas were weapons in the hands of civilians are not allowed. Note where mass shootings don't happen - police stations*, gun shows(and jewelry**), gun stores aren't robbed much in comparison to banks, etc...
*outside of movies **Almost as many guns as at a gun show, and more of them are loaded.
Then first of all you have to start practicing what you preach. But this is exactly what does not happen. I see it every day, first hand.
I do try to practice what I preach, it's a little difficult to demonstrate this aspect through the internet though.
After WW2, we really had Grade A politicians. "Perfect" people. Well, as perfect as human beings can be, some had their issues... but generally, they did what politicians are here for: Acting for the benefit of the country they represent.
Heh... They most certainly weren't perfect. But they kept their imperfections to themselves and people didn't look too closely.
They declined. In fact, they went out of their way and I know at least of one person who actually decided to bring the peace talk to an end instead of tending to his own health, knowing that Molotov would not trust any other person and that it would put our treaty in peril if he didn't go. He went. He died a few months later. He could have lived longer, but the country was more important to him.
Patriots still exist. What I'm proposing is a return to a time when we tried to make our children patriots as well. Please note that I'm not talking blind patriotism, but a honest pride in our country, a desire to make it better, combined with the belief that we can do so.
Today, whenever I hear a politician talk, the first thing that comes to my mind is "How's he gonna rip us off now?" Because it simply is true! Politicians today aren't anything but puppets of some corporations that want to maximize their profits. With that last subordinate clause fitting to both, corporations and politicians.
Then run for office, to make it better!
If you want to instill people with some "pride" (I'd rather call it some sense of responsibility) for their country, start at those people who act as our leaders. They're quick with the call for putting the countries interest before yours, but themselves, they only care about their own pockets.
I used the word pride, but in my mind a sense of responsibility comes with it. You make a good point though. I've frequently thought about our system of government, and possible methods to increase accountability, reduce the benefit of incumbence* in elections, etc...
*Once you make a house/senate office, odds are you'll stay there until you decide that you don't want to be their anymore.
Humans are thinking beings, and both strategies are in our genetic 'programming'. However, culture and training has a large effect on which strategy we choose, so I'm proposing, for increased overall survivability, we train ourselves to select the 'fight' part a bit more often. As long as we're at it, we might as well push the 'do the right thing' a little more often.
Like I was saying - we're teaching flight in schools and classes, and therefore life. The adrenal response is called 'flight or fight' for a reason. Sometimes fighting is the correct choice.
Real easy to be smart alec with perfect hindsight.
What makes me a smart alec?
Let's put it this way. Most people are not violent by nature. They may get really angry over something and/or drunk and start a fight but generally people have fairly high treshold to physically assault someone. This does not apply to children, of course..
Please note that I said resistance not violence. I'll fully admit that violent resistance would indeed be part of the equation, but as a general philosophy, it would be one of not tolerating wrongs.
So generally speaking you're advocating mandatory training that will desensitize people to violence. Meaning physical bone-crunching gouging other person's eye out -violence. That's perfectly possible of course. Most self defence classes train this at least to some degree as do military branches with more than a little hand-to-hand training. Heck, it's classic terrorist training item since times immemorial.
Actually I was figuring mostly on bum-rushing criminals and restraining them. While not the most effective of strategies, it can become very effective when you have a number of people. It's been used successfully a number of times in the news, including on airplanes. The bad guys are generally vastly outnumbered by the good guys. Now, as for self defense classes in school, why the heck not? We have driver's ed, sex ed, there are even classes in many schools to teach basic housework, since that's no longer taught in many homes. Many schools hold swimming lessons. Why shouldn't basic self defense be a class?
You would promote behavior in the general populace which matches the worst 5-10% scumbags out there. Bar fights become hell of a more lethal for participants when everyone has been trained to see any sharp and/or hard object as a potential weapon and does not hesitate to apply it in most damaging way possible (eyes, throat, knees..) Domestic violence becomes bit more intense as well. Hope you have lots of riot police lined up too as people start see violent demonstration as perfectly normal and generally fight a lot harder.
Sheesh... Sorry, it's nothing personal, but why does so many people seem to think that teaching people about violence will make them more violent? I've been a CCW permit holder since 2003. To date, I have not shot anyone, haven't even pointed any of my weapons at anyone. I've put a heck of a lot of holes in paper, but that's about it. From my conversations with other people who carry weapons for self defense, it results in them being more cautious about getting into potentially violent situations, because they know just how dangerous it could be.
To put it another way, there'd likely be fewer bar fights. In the world I envision, you'd have the more sober patrons assisting the bouncers in restraining the drunks. How the heck you believe that teaching people to resist wrongs violently if necessary would lead to violent demonstrations is beyond me. That'd be like expecting women who've taken an anti-rape defense class to suddenly start kicking anyone they're annoyed with in the nuts.
Remember, I'm talking about changing culural moores a little bit. Right along with any training in applied violence would be instruction on determining the right time and direction to use it.
My own less positive and less politically correct take on things is that we have become a nation of cowards.
I put it the way I did to both avoid angering people and to suggest a solution. Yelling 'We've become a nation of cowards' is likely to close ears before they have a chance to hear, and doesn't really suggest a solution. Saying we need to 'change to a culture of resistance' implies that the problem can be fixed.
I think absentee fathers, a dearth of lawyers willing to sue over anything (combined with a judiciary afraid to slow/stop them) and an educational system based on self-esteem rather than performance are some of the most significant factors.
I think you meant a glut of lawyers. Dearth means you don't have enough of them. As for the educational system, it's varied in the USA, we do indeed have many schools with problems with worrying too much about self esteem*. Still, I think that it's more of a problem because schools teach so much non-confrontation, get an adult/teacher/official type lessons that that's what they automatically do in a confrontation. If they were taught to intercede to stop a fight if they can, to assist police, to help, we'd be better off as a nation.
*Fixing self esteem problems calls for counseling, not non-confrontational, non-competitive classes/events. The way I put it: For the average person, the occasional success far outweighs even frequent losses. In addition, self-esteem in helped more when true effort is recognized. IE A person takes a class and doesn't try hard, he gets a D. He decides to work on it more, put more effort into it, and his grade improves to a B. That's more of a self esteem builder.
When asked to be a "detector", I would immediately ask what's in for me, when I should risk my sweet li'l ass for the country.
To be honest: Primarily I'd go back to instilling pride for our nation in the schools; with emphasis on that it takes individuals to keep it on the right path(IE we're proud of our country, but do not blindly believe that it's perfect, that it CAN be improved, and it's up to me/us to improve it).
Secondly I'd institute a reward system for reporting/stopping true threats.
Finally, being a detector doesn't really place you in any extra hazard. If you see somebody placing a bomb on the subway it's in your best interests to report it. After all, if you're seeing the bomb being placed, you probably use the subway. Do you really want your line closed down for a month? Do you really want a derailment around your area? Depending on the train's cargo, it can affect quite an area. Some industrial chemicals can release gasses hazardous for miles in the quantities loaded on a train.
Ya know, watching a criminal too closely usually convinces him that you'd be better be disposed of.
Most criminals are petty, and know full well that bodies get way too much attention. For terrorist type stuff, I'm talking more about being a tripwire than a camera. You see something suspicious - report it, you don't need to personally stay there and try to pull a Jack Bauer.
Of course, I'd personally love to legalize drugs. Since it wouldn't be acceptable to just fire all the WoD officers, I'd redirect them towards fighting what I consider real crimes. IE those with victims, or at least an obvious intent to create victims, such as planting bombs.
I once theorized about a plan - involving about a hundred people, that would of had far more effect than 9/11. And it involved no planes.
It was remarkably similar to what the Beltway snipers were planning. I figured 100 people, 50 2 man teams. Each is given an overlapping area and tasks to do. Call them 'dirty tricks'. Sniping, bombing, random destruction. How difficult is it to disrail a train?
By keeping a cell structure, each team can't help in the catching of other teams.
Fact is, our civilization is incredibly dependant upon people playing by the rules. It has limited resources for stopping those that don't. I think that the idea of 'everyone's a detector', and everybody has a chance to stop is a good one. A sniper immediately tracked by armed resources in the area has little chance of escape. Observing the vehicle is of limited use - it can be disposed of.
Personally, much of my solution to the problem involves a shift in our teaching process. For years we've taught 'let the professionals handle it'. IE the police.
Even the police had been infected with this - during Columbine they secured a perimeter and waited for SWAT. This cost lives. Now standard procedure for many departments is that police go in when they get there. Officer Dan might not be SWAT, but he has a gun he should be competent with, and he's what's there, not what's going to take another 15 minutes(and possibly another 60 dead).
We saw the ultimate failure at Viginia Tech - Students hid under desks and tried to flee - from a single assailant. Far fewer lives would have been lost if they'd done the same thing flight 93 had done - attacked back.
I think that a cultural change to one of resistance, one that venerates the 'one who stood first' would be a good thing, in many ways.
I believe there's a lot of truth to the saying: The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.
As for using scifi authers, I figure it's brainstorming, and a scifi author is generally both inventive and cheap. I can think of far worse things to spend ~30k on.
Not trying to be an ass or anything, but many times it's fear that'll keep people in abusive situations like this. As bad as it is, it's what they know, and they fear the unknown.
What will they do once they leave? How will they get food/shelter? Do they have any skills, will they be able to get a job?
Think of it as the difference between a reference guide and a address book.
The guy isn't suing because somebody posted a direct link to the news article, but instead to a site containing a link to the news article. Kinda like the difference between me linking to a news article on cnn, or linking to cnn's homepage because I visit there frequently.
Here in the states, I'd of suggested that the trainer go to small claims court with the evidence from the labor board saying that the YMCA was paying wrong. Even if they declined to do anything further about it, it's a heck of a piece of evidence in court.
Slashdot Mirror
I can't say as for the submarine, I'm not navy.
As for the F22, it's not obsolete; especially not in comparison
As for why we didn't drop it in favor of the F35; It's like comparing a F15 with a F16. While they do share many capabilities, there are some substantial differences. A quick review shows that the F22 beats the F35 in nearly all capabilities except maybe cost(there's some evidence that developments made in the F22 program were shared with the F35). The F22 is faster, has a longer range, better combat ability, may be stealthier, etc...
The AC, while rude, has a point - there are multiple modes of conflict.
In the case of Iraq(and Afghanistan), our air superiority makes it so that the insurgents can't concentrate. To many insurgents in one spot and we simply drop a bomb* on them. This is currently done with F15, F16, B52, A10, etc...
The maintenance costs on the first two are increasing fairly drastically, and we can't just make new ones anymore. We haven't made any B52s in ages, same with the A10.
Push came to crunch, the F22 is about the only combat plane we could churn out.
*Or other munition, as appropriate
The dragonskin armor is also much heavier than intercepter armor. The military has been known to fix tests, but I'm not sure that's the case here. I have heard that a formal testing program has been ordered though.
As for removing the privately obtained armor, that was overblown. The actual thing was that a soldier might be liable for medical costs if the injury was worse with the private armor than it would have been if he'd been wearing the issue interceptor.
If the armor is actually superior than issue, then you don't have a problem. Thing is, issue is already extremely good. I did some research a while back and there was no way I was going to be able to get better* through private channels.
*At least in a cost/weight ratio I'd be able to afford/carry.
Second, the military budget is huge. 2% of a very large number is still a very large number. Each F-22 costs ~$200 million. That money could outfit a significant number of troops with better body armor and more heavily armored vehicles.
And a single F22 can eliminate the NEED for a significant number of troops, along with their equipment suh as body armor and AFVs.
The sea wolf submarine - it wasn't a white element at the time. The F22 has been in development since before the cold war ended.
With purely military vehicles, you have to remember that R&D costs end up being folded into the cost. The marginal cost of a F22 is a 'mere' $20 million or so, the other 180 million is the R&D and tooling costs, divided over a mere couple hundred planes, vs hundreds of thousands for a car like the honda civic.
Third, what is the overall cost of maintenance of these new toys? The stealth coatings and advanced avionics used in modern jets could conceivably require more maintenance and upgrades in the long term, nullifying the effects of being able to retire outdated aircraft.
Less than that of older craft, actually. The F22 was designed to be much easier to service. Older planes have to be disassembled much more frequently and to a greater extent, increasing costs. You also have difficulty with many parts, since they were designed so long ago the sub-parts aren't really made anymore, increasing costs because everything has to be custom manufactured.
Now if only congress would let us retire the craft we want to, such as the F117.
Finally, part of the problem for AFV's isn't money, it's manufacturing capacity - IE we don't have it. As for body armor - Our troops have effective body armor. It still pushes the limits of feasability. Right now to give soldiers body armor that protects better means giving them body armor that's heavier, more restrictive, and hotter. Soldier's loads are already heavy enough as it is.
Could more be done? Certainly. But in many cases it's not an either-or question.
The same argument could be used on wind power, you now. There's plenty of concrete involved in making the footings. Then you could get pedantic and count the vehicles and construction equipment running with IC engines, burning hydrocarbons.
Sure, concrete production emits a lot of CO2.
But that hardly makes a nuclear plant 'carbon intensive' because a 'lot' of concrete is used in it's production. Carbon intensive would be for things like coal - which produces carbon dioxide day in and day out in massive quantities to produce power.
For one thing, any large power plant is going to use a lot of concrete. I'd be suprised if your standard nuclear plant uses 20% more concrete than a similarly sized gas or coal plant in the same location would.
For another, the amount of concrete involved in building even a nuclear plant is a tiny fraction of concrete construction each year. Think about all the miles of road built each year. All the foundations poured. Many lar
Hoover Dam: 4.5 million cubic yards.
Nuclear Plant: 400 thousand cubic yards
Pentagon: 400k cubic yards
Green Building: 15k cubic yards, for a nine story, 293,000 square feet structure.
I was unable to find a figure for roads, but I did find that a concrete truck can carry 10 cubic yards, and one of them only gets you a few feet of road. 165 cy for a bridge of unknown size, but assumed small(as they were building a lot of them).
Mickey Mouse is almost certainly copyrighted. According to US copyright law, all works before 1923 are in the public domain - Mickey Mouse, however, was created in 1928, so Disney has almost certainly renewed a few times since then. Plus, I'm not sure, but since they change how Mickey Mouse looks every so often to reflect changes in technology (black & white to color to digital, etc.), the original copyright on Mickey Mouse might expire in the next few years, but that might only be for "Steamboat Willy" Mickey Mouse. Like I said, though, I'm not sure about that one.
From my understanding of copyright law, it would indeed be the steamboat Mickey cartoon that would become public domain - and not the later works.
Depending on how they figure derivitive works, people would then be able to mix&match the very rodent looking(far more realistic than the mickey of today) mouse in your own works. However, distinct later works would not be covered.
From my readings, they're around 80% for lab grown carbon nanotubes.
However, we're talking millimeters here, not 32k miles.
So we're even further away from this than we are from fusion power. At least with fusion power we're to the point we just need to improve sustainability(going from seconds to years).
Yes, I tend to be long. I like to cover many angles. No substantial arguement? How about looking at your posts?
those gods you worship, Bush, Cheney, Boehner, Boortz and the rest of the rodger-dodgers
Sheesh... When have I ever said that I even like the current administration? A very quick summary of my beliefs.
I would welcome the chance for you to charge a psycho - armed, ready and firing away
I'd much rather shoot him in the head from behind. It's effective, fast, and reasonably safe. If I'm the only one armed when a spree-shooter pops up, I'll be the only one around for a relatively long time(minutes, even seconds count here). You do the heroic thing when there's no other reasonable option available. If I have to shoot him while he's facing me, so be it. If I have to physically charge him, there's been a failure.
I'll agree that it'd be difficult. Still, we don't need anything near a 100% response rate - in many cases even a 10% chance would be plenty. In a classroom of 30, 3 would charge, preferably followed by others who move a little slower.
It only takes one person holding onto the shooter's arm to severly limit the effectivness of the weapon. Stabbing with a screwdriver or pounding with heavy object isn't necessary.
Hmmm... That novel was written a bit before I was up to reading it. Makes me wish there was an ebook version of itunes. Of course, that'd probably drive me broke very quickly.
Still, by your description I'm not sure it'd be that valuable. I'm very much a believer in KISS. Of course, I also believe that great complexities tend to come from simple principles, much like fractals.
So, from a combination of human fallibles, random chance, various things dependant upon the flapping of a butterfly's wings a continent away and a year ago you get a series of events that might seem like the plotting of a demented mastermind.
Why do you think that I keep pointing out that this shouldn't be a blind patriotism? That we need to teach people that it can be improved?
A real patriot will campaign against a candidate that he believes unworthy of the office.
First, Firethorn, I take it you've never been in combat nor experienced any "live fire" situations?
.45 kg. A hundred loaded magazines would be 100 pounds to carry. That gives me 3000 rounds. I consider 300 rounds to be a decent range trip. 3k rounds would also cost around a thouand dollars, buying cheap.
.22!
Nope, have you? I consider myself lucky to have avoided that so far. Still, it's been a distinct possibility several times.
Nor do you appear to be experienced with assault rifles and other weaponry.
hehehehe...
Award(don't have a scan):
Gästeschießen
3./FmBtl 281
Beim Schießen mit dem Maschinengehr MG3 hat ***** ****** den 1. Platz belegt.
Gees, im September 200*
Reinhardt
Hauptmann u.
KpChef
I'm not a high-speed low drag individual, but I'm not unexperienced.
With the latest Sig automatic rifle I could take out most of a crowded football stadium in under five minutes - a slight exaggeration, but only slight!
Are you talking about this rifle?
Still, Slight exaggeration? Surely not! It's a gross exaggeration! Unless you're talking about a non-college, non-professional stadium, occupancy for my example football stadium is 81,067. A standard 5.56 magazine is 30 rounds. I own a AR-15, and have a number of 30 round magazines. The rifle, combined with 10 magazines(300 rounds total) is fairly heavy. I would be able to carry substantially more, true, but I'd be encumbered carrying that much and not moving very quickly. After all, a loaded magazine weighs
Even carrying a hundred pounds of ammo, and killing somebody with each shot, you'd only get 3.7% of the stadium goers. More realistically, they'd trample more of each other trying to flee than what you'd kill.
Besides, talking about automatic rifles is totally besides the point when we're talking about a shooter using semi-automatic handguns with 15 round magazines. One of them a
Your suggestion as to what occurred at Virginia Tech is both highly insulting, highly ignorant and most obscene. There were unbelievable examples of heroism and valor on behalf of the faculty and students there - something sadly lacking from those politicians in elective office today
What, the truth? From what I've read, NOT ONE PERSON IN THE BUILDING WENT AFTER THE SHOOTER. Yes, there were heroic acts I can only hope I would be capable of- but barricading a door, while smart, is not precisely heroic or valorous. Two professors held the classroom doors closed while Seung-Hui Cho shot him, one succeeded, one did not, both died. One went to investigate - and ended up shot. Being a hero, perhaps unfortuantly, requires one to be successful.
I DO NOT CONSIDER HIDING UNDER A DESK to be heroic, much less valorous. Read some decorations for medals of honor for heroic and valorous acts. Do you consider hiding under a desk or jumping out a window to be equivalent to, while wounded, grasping a lit flare and hauling it, while it's burning you, to the back of the aircraft to throw it out, like A1C John L. Levitow?
All I was saying was that if we'd trained the students there to consider offensive actions in such a situation, it probably would of resulted in fewer casualties. Even a fatally wounded individual would have probably been able to disable Cho long enough for others to finish the job.
Heros still exist today - I'm just questioning if they're being trained for the correct responses.
Where does our current elected officials come into this? This sort of thing isn't going to be initiated by these individuals. Nice ranting though.
Secondly, choosing the most clueless sci-fi writers - especially at this rather late da
They're still prey, though. Just as deer do escape predators each year. They're the lucky ones. However, take more of a buffalo strategy. IE pound the predator into the mud. That's a predator that's not going to be coming again next week.
It takes ~18 years to raise an adult human. 'Run away or hide and hope you get lucky' is a strategy more for an animal that grows to adulthood in a year or less, not many times that.
Humans should not be prey.
I wouldn't always call it a lie - If you're not a trained and equipped fire fighter, for example, you have a better chance if you flee a forest fire.
On the other hand, us humans actually have a chance to stand up to lions, tigers, and bears almost bare handed. I wouldn't call it a good chance, but there's a chance. Give us something so little as a knife, and suddenly even 80 year old women can drive mountain lions away(she actually did it with a pen). There have been cases of mountain men killing bears with a knife.
Predators like easy targets - which is why in the wild they go after the weak - the young, the sick, the injured. This is usually true even for human predators. Note where mass shooting usually occur - schools and other areas were weapons in the hands of civilians are not allowed. Note where mass shootings don't happen - police stations*, gun shows(and jewelry**), gun stores aren't robbed much in comparison to banks, etc...
*outside of movies
**Almost as many guns as at a gun show, and more of them are loaded.
Then first of all you have to start practicing what you preach. But this is exactly what does not happen. I see it every day, first hand.
I do try to practice what I preach, it's a little difficult to demonstrate this aspect through the internet though.
After WW2, we really had Grade A politicians. "Perfect" people. Well, as perfect as human beings can be, some had their issues... but generally, they did what politicians are here for: Acting for the benefit of the country they represent.
Heh... They most certainly weren't perfect. But they kept their imperfections to themselves and people didn't look too closely.
They declined. In fact, they went out of their way and I know at least of one person who actually decided to bring the peace talk to an end instead of tending to his own health, knowing that Molotov would not trust any other person and that it would put our treaty in peril if he didn't go. He went. He died a few months later. He could have lived longer, but the country was more important to him.
Patriots still exist. What I'm proposing is a return to a time when we tried to make our children patriots as well. Please note that I'm not talking blind patriotism, but a honest pride in our country, a desire to make it better, combined with the belief that we can do so.
Today, whenever I hear a politician talk, the first thing that comes to my mind is "How's he gonna rip us off now?" Because it simply is true! Politicians today aren't anything but puppets of some corporations that want to maximize their profits. With that last subordinate clause fitting to both, corporations and politicians.
Then run for office, to make it better!
If you want to instill people with some "pride" (I'd rather call it some sense of responsibility) for their country, start at those people who act as our leaders. They're quick with the call for putting the countries interest before yours, but themselves, they only care about their own pockets.
I used the word pride, but in my mind a sense of responsibility comes with it. You make a good point though. I've frequently thought about our system of government, and possible methods to increase accountability, reduce the benefit of incumbence* in elections, etc...
*Once you make a house/senate office, odds are you'll stay there until you decide that you don't want to be their anymore.
Humans are thinking beings, and both strategies are in our genetic 'programming'. However, culture and training has a large effect on which strategy we choose, so I'm proposing, for increased overall survivability, we train ourselves to select the 'fight' part a bit more often. As long as we're at it, we might as well push the 'do the right thing' a little more often.
Like I was saying - we're teaching flight in schools and classes, and therefore life. The adrenal response is called 'flight or fight' for a reason. Sometimes fighting is the correct choice.
Real easy to be smart alec with perfect hindsight.
What makes me a smart alec?
Let's put it this way. Most people are not violent by nature. They may get really angry over something and/or drunk and start a fight but generally people have fairly high treshold to physically assault someone. This does not apply to children, of course..
Please note that I said resistance not violence. I'll fully admit that violent resistance would indeed be part of the equation, but as a general philosophy, it would be one of not tolerating wrongs.
So generally speaking you're advocating mandatory training that will desensitize people to violence. Meaning physical bone-crunching gouging other person's eye out -violence. That's perfectly possible of course. Most self defence classes train this at least to some degree as do military branches with more than a little hand-to-hand training. Heck, it's classic terrorist training item since times immemorial.
Actually I was figuring mostly on bum-rushing criminals and restraining them. While not the most effective of strategies, it can become very effective when you have a number of people. It's been used successfully a number of times in the news, including on airplanes. The bad guys are generally vastly outnumbered by the good guys. Now, as for self defense classes in school, why the heck not? We have driver's ed, sex ed, there are even classes in many schools to teach basic housework, since that's no longer taught in many homes. Many schools hold swimming lessons. Why shouldn't basic self defense be a class?
You would promote behavior in the general populace which matches the worst 5-10% scumbags out there. Bar fights become hell of a more lethal for participants when everyone has been trained to see any sharp and/or hard object as a potential weapon and does not hesitate to apply it in most damaging way possible (eyes, throat, knees..) Domestic violence becomes bit more intense as well. Hope you have lots of riot police lined up too as people start see violent demonstration as perfectly normal and generally fight a lot harder.
Sheesh... Sorry, it's nothing personal, but why does so many people seem to think that teaching people about violence will make them more violent? I've been a CCW permit holder since 2003. To date, I have not shot anyone, haven't even pointed any of my weapons at anyone. I've put a heck of a lot of holes in paper, but that's about it. From my conversations with other people who carry weapons for self defense, it results in them being more cautious about getting into potentially violent situations, because they know just how dangerous it could be.
To put it another way, there'd likely be fewer bar fights. In the world I envision, you'd have the more sober patrons assisting the bouncers in restraining the drunks. How the heck you believe that teaching people to resist wrongs violently if necessary would lead to violent demonstrations is beyond me. That'd be like expecting women who've taken an anti-rape defense class to suddenly start kicking anyone they're annoyed with in the nuts.
Remember, I'm talking about changing culural moores a little bit. Right along with any training in applied violence would be instruction on determining the right time and direction to use it.
My own less positive and less politically correct take on things is that we have become a nation of cowards.
I put it the way I did to both avoid angering people and to suggest a solution. Yelling 'We've become a nation of cowards' is likely to close ears before they have a chance to hear, and doesn't really suggest a solution. Saying we need to 'change to a culture of resistance' implies that the problem can be fixed.
I think absentee fathers, a dearth of lawyers willing to sue over anything (combined with a judiciary afraid to slow/stop them) and an educational system based on self-esteem rather than performance are some of the most significant factors.
I think you meant a glut of lawyers. Dearth means you don't have enough of them. As for the educational system, it's varied in the USA, we do indeed have many schools with problems with worrying too much about self esteem*. Still, I think that it's more of a problem because schools teach so much non-confrontation, get an adult/teacher/official type lessons that that's what they automatically do in a confrontation. If they were taught to intercede to stop a fight if they can, to assist police, to help, we'd be better off as a nation.
*Fixing self esteem problems calls for counseling, not non-confrontational, non-competitive classes/events. The way I put it: For the average person, the occasional success far outweighs even frequent losses. In addition, self-esteem in helped more when true effort is recognized. IE A person takes a class and doesn't try hard, he gets a D. He decides to work on it more, put more effort into it, and his grade improves to a B. That's more of a self esteem builder.
When asked to be a "detector", I would immediately ask what's in for me, when I should risk my sweet li'l ass for the country.
To be honest: Primarily I'd go back to instilling pride for our nation in the schools; with emphasis on that it takes individuals to keep it on the right path(IE we're proud of our country, but do not blindly believe that it's perfect, that it CAN be improved, and it's up to me/us to improve it).
Secondly I'd institute a reward system for reporting/stopping true threats.
Finally, being a detector doesn't really place you in any extra hazard. If you see somebody placing a bomb on the subway it's in your best interests to report it. After all, if you're seeing the bomb being placed, you probably use the subway. Do you really want your line closed down for a month? Do you really want a derailment around your area? Depending on the train's cargo, it can affect quite an area. Some industrial chemicals can release gasses hazardous for miles in the quantities loaded on a train.
Ya know, watching a criminal too closely usually convinces him that you'd be better be disposed of.
Most criminals are petty, and know full well that bodies get way too much attention. For terrorist type stuff, I'm talking more about being a tripwire than a camera. You see something suspicious - report it, you don't need to personally stay there and try to pull a Jack Bauer.
Of course, I'd personally love to legalize drugs. Since it wouldn't be acceptable to just fire all the WoD officers, I'd redirect them towards fighting what I consider real crimes. IE those with victims, or at least an obvious intent to create victims, such as planting bombs.
I once theorized about a plan - involving about a hundred people, that would of had far more effect than 9/11. And it involved no planes.
It was remarkably similar to what the Beltway snipers were planning. I figured 100 people, 50 2 man teams. Each is given an overlapping area and tasks to do. Call them 'dirty tricks'. Sniping, bombing, random destruction. How difficult is it to disrail a train?
By keeping a cell structure, each team can't help in the catching of other teams.
Fact is, our civilization is incredibly dependant upon people playing by the rules. It has limited resources for stopping those that don't. I think that the idea of 'everyone's a detector', and everybody has a chance to stop is a good one. A sniper immediately tracked by armed resources in the area has little chance of escape. Observing the vehicle is of limited use - it can be disposed of.
Personally, much of my solution to the problem involves a shift in our teaching process. For years we've taught 'let the professionals handle it'. IE the police.
Even the police had been infected with this - during Columbine they secured a perimeter and waited for SWAT. This cost lives. Now standard procedure for many departments is that police go in when they get there. Officer Dan might not be SWAT, but he has a gun he should be competent with, and he's what's there, not what's going to take another 15 minutes(and possibly another 60 dead).
We saw the ultimate failure at Viginia Tech - Students hid under desks and tried to flee - from a single assailant. Far fewer lives would have been lost if they'd done the same thing flight 93 had done - attacked back.
I think that a cultural change to one of resistance, one that venerates the 'one who stood first' would be a good thing, in many ways.
I believe there's a lot of truth to the saying: The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.
As for using scifi authers, I figure it's brainstorming, and a scifi author is generally both inventive and cheap. I can think of far worse things to spend ~30k on.
Not trying to be an ass or anything, but many times it's fear that'll keep people in abusive situations like this. As bad as it is, it's what they know, and they fear the unknown.
What will they do once they leave? How will they get food/shelter? Do they have any skills, will they be able to get a job?
Think of it as the difference between a reference guide and a address book.
The guy isn't suing because somebody posted a direct link to the news article, but instead to a site containing a link to the news article. Kinda like the difference between me linking to a news article on cnn, or linking to cnn's homepage because I visit there frequently.
Sardines in the locker room...
Here in the states, I'd of suggested that the trainer go to small claims court with the evidence from the labor board saying that the YMCA was paying wrong. Even if they declined to do anything further about it, it's a heck of a piece of evidence in court.
but they involve a hell of a lot more than than ZFS and HA Linux!
I wasn't so much worrying about the operating and file system, instead concentrating on hardware.
As for you other concerns - when I did the research, the complete backup solution came up cheaper than the tape drives we'd need alone.
As for the other things - we don't do long term archiving of electronic data. If it's from much more than three months ago you're out of luck.