Then again, speaking as a Jurassic Park's gatekeeper, a walk in the park is like trying to take out a 2bn dollar satellite armed with nothing but a dirty rag.
What this wikipedia article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCollum_memo about the Mccollum memo fails to make clear is that the McCollum memo made perfect sense and that it wasn't even necessary to read it in order to come to the same conclusions. Which explains why the recommendations were implemented. Have you never wondered why it was necessary not just to retaliate against the Japanese and make them pay dearly but actually conquer them in the fullest way possible?
The nuclear bombs didn't persuade Japan to surrender, it was Russia. The japanese were scared of the new weapon but they were really terrified by Russia entering the war. Most if not all the discussion in this thread is about variants of mythology. The US entered the war in order to get as big a piece of the cake as possible because the big players were dividing the world amongst them. It conquered Japan because it could and because it didn't want to share it with Russia.
They were allies, not publicly but in practice. You may have heard that Israel helped to arm Iran during the war.
In fact in the early nineties the Iranians got the impression that what got Israel to suddenly change their position was when in one of the secret meetings they asked the Israelis to help them restore relations with the US. So far for the hostility towards the US.
I agree that the 'wiped off the map' quote is a dishonest distortion. I am certain though that Ahmadinejad has made very crude statements about Israel. Only, these statements are for public consumption only and often the the louder the statements, the less they represent what is actually going on. Take the 'wiped off the map' statement. This is a reference to an older quote by Khomeini, but in Khomeini's days Iran was an ally of Israel. The alliance was broken off after the 1990 gulf war, because with Iraq gone and the USSR gone Israel had to change its strategy and Iran became a regional competitor. It's then that Israel started to float the story about Iran working on a bomb, and Netanyahu was on the first row then, so he's fully aware of the background. A good introduction can be had by viewing a Trita Parsi speech on the treacherous triangle such as this one http://video.google.com//videoplay?docid=-7506561148101946170 .
As for their nuclear weapons program, well, in one word I'd describe it as nonexistant. A good source for that would be Flynt Everett - Hillary Mann at raceforiran.com as well as the american experts that matter - for example the NIE.
If you check iranian officials, they want passive nuclear capability: having a general level of technological development such that there is a credible threat that if they one day the situation becomes that pressing that they have to start working on a bomb, then they would be successful in a reasonable time. Every developed country has this capability, and many countries go further. Japan has an official policy of threshold capability. That means everything is in place so they can make a bomb in the shortest possible time, in this case 2 months.
There are good reasons to believe Iran is telling the truth about this, because , while there can always be some research, such as before 2002, they have a lot of reasons not to go further. There is the religuous , of fundamentalist reason if you want, that nuclear bombs are haram. This is the reason Iran refused to use chemical weapons in the war with Iraq. There is the reason that Iran would become totally isolated. There is the reason that they have a regional advantage they would lose if they triggered proliferation and everyone would get a bomb.
It is interesting that when you press that issue it turns out that for western and Israeli officials the nuance doesn't matter. Whether they're trying to make a bomb or are just technologically advanced enough so they could if they wanted, it doesn't matter. In both cases Iran is a player. Even Hillary Clinton has said such a thing (but I lost the reference.)
I don't think I have seen a single car that didn't have SOME part fail within the first 10 years. My car needed a tiny bulb replaced in the dashboard during that time. Does that count?I have to say the safety belts don't roll up very well anymore.
Maybe - well , probably - the Atomic Scientists agenda explains why the writer is happy to point out -selectively- the things he does, but if you take a look at this thorough reference article http://www.phoenixprojectfoundation.us/uploads/IEEE_Solar_Hydrogen_Paper.pdf , which is not linked to the Atomic Scientists, there are very good reasons to look into the degree of renewability of renewable sources. Incidentally that article also treats the limited usability of atomic energy.
but any subject can be geeked. Or geekified. I've done the wine geek bit - thoroughly, and the hifi geek bit and other things. It's fun. It's fascinating how a subject can be so boring for one person and interesting for somebody else. Part of it is a skill: can you take any subject and make it interesting for you.
So what you're saying (and you're adding enough specifics to indicate you know what you're talking about) is that the chances of detecting an incoming piece of rock large enough to destroy a city, currently are very small. And to beef that up would be a huge undertaking. I'm not buying the argument about the manual work needed to analyze the data, I think it's different from the kepler project but ok, so the task is daunting , and the only aim would be to protect the military against themselves. So if the idea is worth pursuing at all then the least we can do is cheat. What's the detection rate for large meteorites entering the atmosphere? That is, how fast do you know that a large explosion was caused by a meteorite?
Re:So what if your standing IN FRONT of the wall?
on
Seeing Through Walls
·
· Score: 1
After thinking it over though I'm starting to doubt some things. It's very hard to heat up part of the body with a few degrees because we've got very good cooling. And we've got good cooling in part because it's very damaging if we heat up too much. So you'll need a lot of energy transfer before the heat builds up so quickly it can't be distributed fast enough - or you need a part of the body that has little blood flow - hence the warnings about fertility. So while the fire control radar of a fighter jet can be pretty powerful, I'm really starting to wonder if it can kill you. I can't find any references to it.
Re:So what if your standing IN FRONT of the wall?
on
Seeing Through Walls
·
· Score: 1
I wonder. Skin is always a bit different. What temperature would you consider too hot for tea? 60 degrees is well acceptable then. But then you drink it in small quantities that cool down quickly.
Re:So what if your standing IN FRONT of the wall?
on
Seeing Through Walls
·
· Score: 1
many proteins denaturate over 41 degrees celsius. It might be reversible when the temperature is not too high though. If you heat part of the body with microwaves up to 50 degrees celsius, that could already do a lot of permanent damage. And I doubt if you'll feel much heat when it happens.
Re:So what if your standing IN FRONT of the wall?
on
Seeing Through Walls
·
· Score: 1
Obviously. And also you don't need cooking temperature.
Re:So what if your standing IN FRONT of the wall?
on
Seeing Through Walls
·
· Score: 1
I doubt if it's 100 times larger. I don't have time to compare, but it will be a lot less. One trick to reduce the wattage is to take much more time measuring, and a predecessor of the radar in the article took many seconds. This radar also measures slower than the standard.
15% could be those who hate the EU enough to make it their main theme when voting. Which leads us to the question 'a majority who are against the EU how much exactly'. Maybe a poll where people are just asked for their opinion on the EU would be a good measure. Well, I'd be interested to see the numbers on that.
Point taken. So the detection is only modestly effective. I still suspect that the closer a large object gets to earth, the higher the chance it is detected. One hour advance warning is enough to warn the military of a country. Or even 10 minutes. If you have a good connection.
In the UK there seems to be a majority who thinks the EU is evil. This belief is fueled by a constant stream of anti-EU stories that are often nothing more than myths.
Re:So what if your standing IN FRONT of the wall?
on
Seeing Through Walls
·
· Score: 1
I don't know the power of the apparatus being tested in the article, but the person walking around was behind a wall, which reduces the dose to 1%.
Re:So what if your standing IN FRONT of the wall?
on
Seeing Through Walls
·
· Score: 0
The chart doesn't cover the problem at hand. If you walk in front of the (active) radar of a fighter plane, it will kill you , and it will do so inside out. It won't start by burning your skin.
Slashdot Mirror
Then again, speaking as a Jurassic Park's gatekeeper, a walk in the park is like trying to take out a 2bn dollar satellite armed with nothing but a dirty rag.
What this wikipedia article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCollum_memo about the Mccollum memo fails to make clear is that the McCollum memo made perfect sense and that it wasn't even necessary to read it in order to come to the same conclusions. Which explains why the recommendations were implemented.
Have you never wondered why it was necessary not just to retaliate against the Japanese and make them pay dearly but actually conquer them in the fullest way possible?
The nuclear bombs didn't persuade Japan to surrender, it was Russia. The japanese were scared of the new weapon but they were really terrified by Russia entering the war. Most if not all the discussion in this thread is about variants of mythology. The US entered the war in order to get as big a piece of the cake as possible because the big players were dividing the world amongst them.
It conquered Japan because it could and because it didn't want to share it with Russia.
The question is , who has the sickest mind. You or the guy who wrote this?
They were allies, not publicly but in practice. You may have heard that Israel helped to arm Iran during the war.
In fact in the early nineties the Iranians got the impression that what got Israel to suddenly change their position was when in one of the secret meetings they asked the Israelis to help them restore relations with the US. So far for the hostility towards the US.
I agree that the 'wiped off the map' quote is a dishonest distortion. /videoplay?docid=-7506561148101946170 .
I am certain though that Ahmadinejad has made very crude statements about Israel. Only, these statements are for public consumption only and often the the louder the statements, the less they represent what is actually going on. Take the 'wiped off the map' statement. This is a reference to an older quote by Khomeini, but in Khomeini's days Iran was an ally of Israel. The alliance was broken off after the 1990 gulf war, because with Iraq gone and the USSR gone Israel had to change its strategy and Iran became a regional competitor. It's then that Israel started to float the story about Iran working on a bomb, and Netanyahu was on the first row then, so he's fully aware of the background. A good introduction can be had by viewing a Trita Parsi speech on the treacherous triangle such as this one http://video.google.com/
As for their nuclear weapons program, well, in one word I'd describe it as nonexistant. A good source for that would be Flynt Everett - Hillary Mann at raceforiran.com as well as the american experts that matter - for example the NIE.
If you check iranian officials, they want passive nuclear capability: having a general level of technological development such that there is a credible threat that if they one day the situation becomes that pressing that they have to start working on a bomb, then they would be successful in a reasonable time. Every developed country has this capability, and many countries go further. Japan has an official policy of threshold capability. That means everything is in place so they can make a bomb in the shortest possible time, in this case 2 months.
There are good reasons to believe Iran is telling the truth about this, because , while there can always be some research, such as before 2002, they have a lot of reasons not to go further. There is the religuous , of fundamentalist reason if you want, that nuclear bombs are haram. This is the reason Iran refused to use chemical weapons in the war with Iraq. There is the reason that Iran would become totally isolated. There is the reason that they have a regional advantage they would lose if they triggered proliferation and everyone would get a bomb.
It is interesting that when you press that issue it turns out that for western and Israeli officials the nuance doesn't matter. Whether they're trying to make a bomb or are just technologically advanced enough so they could if they wanted, it doesn't matter. In both cases Iran is a player. Even Hillary Clinton has said such a thing (but I lost the reference.)
that would be a 500m by 500m room.
I guess the point of the beer cooler is that it will cause most -casually taken- pictures to fail, not necessarily all pictures.
Because I need guaranteed anonymity I always wear a baklava at parties. Or should that have been a balaklava - no wonder it didn't work.
I don't think I have seen a single car that didn't have SOME part fail within the first 10 years. My car needed a tiny bulb replaced in the dashboard during that time. Does that count?I have to say the safety belts don't roll up very well anymore.
Maybe - well , probably - the Atomic Scientists agenda explains why the writer is happy to point out -selectively- the things he does, but if you take a look at this thorough reference article http://www.phoenixprojectfoundation.us/uploads/IEEE_Solar_Hydrogen_Paper.pdf
, which is not linked to the Atomic Scientists, there are very good reasons to look into the degree of renewability of renewable sources. Incidentally that article also treats the limited usability of atomic energy.
but any subject can be geeked. Or geekified. I've done the wine geek bit - thoroughly, and the hifi geek bit and other things. It's fun. It's fascinating how a subject can be so boring for one person and interesting for somebody else. Part of it is a skill: can you take any subject and make it interesting for you.
Wine tasting is all about getting sloshed.
So what you're saying (and you're adding enough specifics to indicate you know what you're talking about) is that the chances of detecting an incoming piece of rock large enough to destroy a city, currently are very small. And to beef that up would be a huge undertaking. I'm not buying the argument about the manual work needed to analyze the data, I think it's different from the kepler project but ok, so the task is daunting , and the only aim would be to protect the military against themselves. So if the idea is worth pursuing at all then the least we can do is cheat. What's the detection rate for large meteorites entering the atmosphere? That is, how fast do you know that a large explosion was caused by a meteorite?
After thinking it over though I'm starting to doubt some things. It's very hard to heat up part of the body with a few degrees because we've got very good cooling. And we've got good cooling in part because it's very damaging if we heat up too much. So you'll need a lot of energy transfer before the heat builds up so quickly it can't be distributed fast enough - or you need a part of the body that has little blood flow - hence the warnings about fertility. So while the fire control radar of a fighter jet can be pretty powerful, I'm really starting to wonder if it can kill you. I can't find any references to it.
I wonder. Skin is always a bit different. What temperature would you consider too hot for tea? 60 degrees is well acceptable then. But then you drink it in small quantities that cool down quickly.
there's a wiki about euroscepticism in the UK . Several numbers around 50%.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euroscepticism_in_the_United_Kingdom
many proteins denaturate over 41 degrees celsius. It might be reversible when the temperature is not too high though. If you heat part of the body with microwaves up to 50 degrees celsius, that could already do a lot of permanent damage. And I doubt if you'll feel much heat when it happens.
Obviously. And also you don't need cooking temperature.
I doubt if it's 100 times larger. I don't have time to compare, but it will be a lot less. One trick to reduce the wattage is to take much more time measuring, and a predecessor of the radar in the article took many seconds. This radar also measures slower than the standard.
15% could be those who hate the EU enough to make it their main theme when voting. Which leads us to the question 'a majority who are against the EU how much exactly'. Maybe a poll where people are just asked for their opinion on the EU would be a good measure. Well, I'd be interested to see the numbers on that.
Point taken. So the detection is only modestly effective. I still suspect that the closer a large object gets to earth, the higher the chance it is detected. One hour advance warning is enough to warn the military of a country. Or even 10 minutes. If you have a good connection.
In the UK there seems to be a majority who thinks the EU is evil. This belief is fueled by a constant stream of anti-EU stories that are often nothing more than myths.
I don't know the power of the apparatus being tested in the article, but the person walking around was behind a wall, which reduces the dose to 1%.
The chart doesn't cover the problem at hand. If you walk in front of the (active) radar of a fighter plane, it will kill you , and it will do so inside out. It won't start by burning your skin.
In the end they'll still be able to weaponize it though, and put the enemy into a very deep sleep.