Obviously they saw the laser spot in this particular instance, but I can't imagine it would take a very sophisticated electronics package to detect dangerous levels of incoming laser light.
Additionally, would it be too much trouble to carry some kind of goggles in the cockpit that block out the IR spectrum, in case such a laser was detected? Or they could just put cardboard over the windows until the aforementioned laser detector stopped alarming, if it was a visible spectrum laser.
Oh my, you have taught me the error of my ways./sarcasm
I've had these arguments several times before. And there's no point. So why should I have an argument with you? You came to play baseball, I was playing football.
Incidentally, you lay down (accurate) charges of ad-hominems towards me, while laying them on thick yourself. Shouldn't you abstain from behavior you criticize in me?
"Bush is in the pockets of the oil industry.... I can prove it to..."
No, you can't. You're welcome to try. I suspect your 'proof' will consist of many non-sequiters, an occasional texas sharpshooter problem, and many links to indymedia, stopwar, a PIRG or two, and some ANSWER website.
I've seen it all before. I've had my time on a college campus long enough to see all the shit Bush-haliburton-big-oil-saudi conspiracy theorists like yourself dig up, and had several of these arguments online before, where I was exposed to even more material that I'm sure I'll get more of from you.
trying to convince the world you give the guy a fair shake?
That never was really my intention from the start. I never thought there was any point in trying to convince YOU of anything. I do not think such a thing is possible. We could have traded paragraph long arguments and counter arguments on all things Bush, nuclear, and oil, but experience tells me it would be pointless. I'm no fanboy, but it takes alot of bad Kool-aid to start thinking Bush is the devil incarnate and everything he does is automatically wrong.
We've all hear the saying that arguing on the internet is like running in the special olympics- even if you win, you're still a retard.
You've spent most of this time arguing, under the misguided idea there's a point. I know there isn't, by experience.
If you're a slashdot subscriber, feel free to read every comment I've ever posted, and argue in your head against many of those, or tell your roommate or some sympathetic ear "look at what an idiot this guy is."
Actually arguing with you would be just as intelligent as banging my head against a wall.
"Q: Is Bush responsible for American energy policy? If there are criticisms to be made of same, who should shoulder responsibility for that criticism?"
you're a persistent little guy, so I'll answer your one question, which you could have answered yourself if you bothered to use google.
I'm sure Bush wields significant power over many agencies that he can appoint the head of, agencies that make rules that can inhibit or promote the construction of new nuclear power.
Other aspects of energy policy must be passed by congress and the house, such as:
*A $1.5 billion tax incentive package to promote the sale of nuclear power plants
*The expenditure of up to $2 billion over 10 years to develop environmentally sound methods for burning coal to generate electrical power
*Streamlining the bureaucratic process of licensing new nuclear power plants to speed their development
*A new study into the feasibility of reprocessing spent nuclear fuel, an idea abandoned in the 1980s due to projected high costs
*Continued study of deep underground storage of spent nuclear fuel
The energy policy act of 2003 covers all these bases, and is stuck in a committee somewhere.
So, Bush has been pushing a bill that's VERY FAVORABLE TO NUCLEAR POWER. If it hasn't been passed by the legislative branch, that's certainly not his fault. His executive powers have their limits.
This is why I don't take you seriously. Because you blame a Bush/Haliburton/Big oil conspiracy for the lack of new nuclear projects without even taking TWO DAMN seconds to search on google.
So, what's next? You gonna tell me that the bill is just for show, and he'll make sure it's never passed so his big oil buddies keep raking in the profits? If you start to believe in layers of duplicity like that, then there's no point in discussing anything with you (and I suspect this is the case) because any evidence I present to you will be dismissed because somehow, you 'know' it's just a cover story.
Here, I'll even give you a link to the other leg of this thread, which is much shorter and more intelligent: Click Here
My prediction: your response will validate my previous mocking of you.
Again, all you do is brush off criticisms with ad hominems, all the while failing to address the underlying issue, and chalk this up as "success".
Success? I'm not arguing with you, where success would be defined as persuading you. I do not think such a thing is even possible, because you've attended a few too many anti-globalization 'teach-ins' to be taken seriously, or some similar trash.
I'm mocking and belittling you for my own amusement.
Dr. Badass posed some rational alternate theories to mine as to the stagnation in Nuke plant construction, and I responded to him. Go read that, instead of the latest indymedia trash.
I'm sorry this latest 'speaking truth to power' enterprise of yours isn't working out the way you like, but your petulance doesn't really count for much outside of whatever college campus you're on, or urban centers on the west coast.
Tell me, how does it feel not to be taken seriously?
If you want to see an actual discussion, read the thread that starts with the other guy who responded to my original post. Maybe you'll learn how to talk outside of campus espresso shop.
It just doesn't make financial sense to fossil fuel-based energy companies to spend tons of money on a plant that makes their existing plants and infrastructure obsolete and has the effect of making their product, energy, cheaper.
That's a good point, and I'm sure it's responsible for some of the stagnation. You must also keep in mind, though, that in the many de-regulated markets that exist in the country, new companies (or ones from different regions) can come in, build a new plant, and undercut old companies in the area by selling electricity at half the price.
Regulation and environmentalists of one stripe or another are responsible for a good deal of the sloth in nuclear plant construction. Until recently, the time it took, due to the myriad of regulatory bodies and their demands, to get a powerplant online was near a decade.
Additionally, starting a huge capital project that takes 10 years to begin to pay for itself is something that tends to drive down your stock price. Wall street hates new plants for that reason.
On the other hand, all those investors love already built plants. Nuclear plants are wildly profitable once they're running. Take my word for it, I work at one.
Recent developments at the NRC and companies such as Westinghouse and Bechtel have driven down the time from ground-breaking to completion to an estimated 5 years, and one company will be starting construction on the first new nuke project in two decades within a year or so- forgive me, I forget the energy company, but the plant itself will be a Bechtel CANDU plant, IIRC.
So, I'm sure your right in that some companies aren't eager to drive down their stock price or make their current equipment obsolete. On the other hand, you've got ever-expanding demand, cutt-throat competition (where available!), and desirable profit margins on the attractive side of the equation.
(I do not know the profitability of fossil fuel plants)
Hey, you forgot to blame 'haliburton', didn't say the term 'neocon', only implied a 'conspiracy' and left out the part how the republicans have been planning this all since the 70's, as proved by memos 'recreated' for CBS and dan rather.
Really, too many things missing from the standard moonbat screed to qualify for full points. You're almost there, though!
clean power? We have it. It's called nuclear. Trouble is, it's too 'imperfect' for all the types that cry 'save the earth!' at every inoppurtune moment.
If it wasn't for the idiot tree huggers who put a stop to nuclear power in the US, our air would be a lot cleaner right now.
there are crafting recipes that generate more G when the finished product is sold to an NPC, than requires to make them
This is what happens in the real world, too.
Ford takes a couple hundred dollars worth of raw material, adds a couple hundred hours of work by a lot of people, then sells a car for several thousand dollars. Ford profits and all the people who work for them have more money.
I don't know enough about the economics of FFXI to argue about wether the rate of inflation is acceptable, but inflation, as you describe it, is a perfectly normal thing.
Any references or is this just some made up statistic to support your view?
I didn't make it up, but I've never validated it either. I thought that would be clear by my qualifier of If that's true...
It seems, however, your understanding of the english language is different from mine. I intended you take that statement with a grain of salt, because i'm not going to bother to back it up. It's not like any of us are deciding policy here, so it doesn't really matter.
So, you're telling me that if you could afford an acre or a dozen, a nice 2000 sq ft house with a garage, and a quiet neighborhood, you'd pass it up because it was more than you absolutely, positively required?
And that you couldn't imagine how anyone would choose what I've described?
Then why not have effective public transportation?
Gaaakk! Same reason! It isn't cheap to lay rail, maintain it, and run a train on it. You need a lot of people using it to pay for it. In certain areas and certain routes, this is quite economical- Boston-NY-DC rail lines work well, as well as a line that goes from Boston up to Portland, Maine. I'm sure there are more examples, but they'll all run between major metropolitin areas.
Get more than 10-20 miles away from a huge city, and it's unaffordable. There are simply not enough people who need to routinely shuttle between the same two places (or places on a line)
Oh yeah, I've heard somewhere that Buses cost more per passenger mile than cars and take longer. If that's true, and I can understand how it might be, it takes the wind out of those sails a bit too.
To build all this public transporation, it costs money, and it ultimately comes from you and your neighbors. A private company won't come in unless there is profit to be made. Your neighbors won't vote for a project that increases their taxes and doesn't benefit them.
As to why your neigborhood doesn't have sidewalks-bring that up with your town. Doesn't make much sense to me either.
Why not just build cities to a proper human scale?
Because we have the land, and we want to use it. Is that so hard to understand? Have you looked at a map lately? Do you realize how huge the United States is?
They don't have 300 stations, the place only has about 3 dozen.
The 300 figure is what they figure they may be able to open in the future. The place in hampton NH is a prototype/concept store to work everything out before going bigtime. It's purposely placed in an industrial park so as not to attract drive by customers.
The place is great. Though right now they have only 2-3 dozen stations, and the big sphere and surround screen are works in progress. And they're only open three days a week.
The place is in an industrial park that doesn't attract any drive-by customers, and they put it there on purpose so they can tweak everything without getting overrun.
It's kind of a prototype shop for a chain they'd like to open, and the parent company is a robotics firm that makes motion platforms for simulatars and a bunch of other stuff.
Anyway, the place is hot. If you live near the seacoast area in NH, it's worth a trip.
My take on religion is that you can judge the quality of a religion by wether or not it's practioners become better people by following it. In that regard, Buhdism is just as good as christianity. Moreover, Buddhism is not incompatible with Christianity, and I am under the impression that there are many dual practioners. Buddha was not a savior, only a guide to a model of living.
Moreover, you cannot compare the number of people who chose to vote for Bush to those who live under chinese authoritarian rule. The number of people living in China does not demonstrate that there's anything wrong with America, and indeed, there are other gauges as by which to measure which country's way of life is more successful. Is that your trap, big boy?
So, again, you're comparing apples to oranges. The American electorial system has led the country to become the world's sole superpower. This alone demonstrates that the system works sufficiently well.
Incidentally, all you lefty whiners who claim to be smarter than everyone else survived Reagan, and I heard he was as hated by you folks as Bush is now. You'll survive Bush. Nowadays, most democratic politicians have the common sense to talk kindly of Reagan. The same will become true of Bush.
Look, your analogies suck. If you wanted to say "just because everyone chooses it doesn't mean it's good", you'd be smarter to point out Britney Spears or all the boy bands, to which I'd respond most of their fans are either too young to vote, or don't vote.
Slashdot Mirror
Obviously they saw the laser spot in this particular instance, but I can't imagine it would take a very sophisticated electronics package to detect dangerous levels of incoming laser light.
Additionally, would it be too much trouble to carry some kind of goggles in the cockpit that block out the IR spectrum, in case such a laser was detected? Or they could just put cardboard over the windows until the aforementioned laser detector stopped alarming, if it was a visible spectrum laser.
Oh my, you have taught me the error of my ways. /sarcasm
... I can prove it to..."
I've had these arguments several times before. And there's no point. So why should I have an argument with you? You came to play baseball, I was playing football.
Incidentally, you lay down (accurate) charges of ad-hominems towards me, while laying them on thick yourself. Shouldn't you abstain from behavior you criticize in me?
"Bush is in the pockets of the oil industry.
No, you can't. You're welcome to try. I suspect your 'proof' will consist of many non-sequiters, an occasional texas sharpshooter problem, and many links to indymedia, stopwar, a PIRG or two, and some ANSWER website.
I've seen it all before. I've had my time on a college campus long enough to see all the shit Bush-haliburton-big-oil-saudi conspiracy theorists like yourself dig up, and had several of these arguments online before, where I was exposed to even more material that I'm sure I'll get more of from you.
trying to convince the world you give the guy a fair shake?
That never was really my intention from the start. I never thought there was any point in trying to convince YOU of anything. I do not think such a thing is possible. We could have traded paragraph long arguments and counter arguments on all things Bush, nuclear, and oil, but experience tells me it would be pointless. I'm no fanboy, but it takes alot of bad Kool-aid to start thinking Bush is the devil incarnate and everything he does is automatically wrong.
We've all hear the saying that arguing on the internet is like running in the special olympics- even if you win, you're still a retard.
You've spent most of this time arguing, under the misguided idea there's a point. I know there isn't, by experience.
If you're a slashdot subscriber, feel free to read every comment I've ever posted, and argue in your head against many of those, or tell your roommate or some sympathetic ear "look at what an idiot this guy is."
Actually arguing with you would be just as intelligent as banging my head against a wall.
Is Bush responsible for American energy policy? If there are criticisms to be made of same, who should shoulder responsibility for that criticism?"
I suppose i used too many words for you,
PARTIALLY
and
BUSH and LEGISLATIVE BRANCH
"Q: Is Bush responsible for American energy policy? If there are criticisms to be made of same, who should shoulder responsibility for that criticism?"
you're a persistent little guy, so I'll answer your one question, which you could have answered yourself if you bothered to use google.
I'm sure Bush wields significant power over many agencies that he can appoint the head of, agencies that make rules that can inhibit or promote the construction of new nuclear power.
Other aspects of energy policy must be passed by congress and the house, such as:
*A $1.5 billion tax incentive package to promote the sale of nuclear power plants
*The expenditure of up to $2 billion over 10 years to develop environmentally sound methods for burning coal to generate electrical power
*Streamlining the bureaucratic process of licensing new nuclear power plants to speed their development
*A new study into the feasibility of reprocessing spent nuclear fuel, an idea abandoned in the 1980s due to projected high costs
*Continued study of deep underground storage of spent nuclear fuel
The energy policy act of 2003 covers all these bases, and is stuck in a committee somewhere.
So, Bush has been pushing a bill that's VERY FAVORABLE TO NUCLEAR POWER. If it hasn't been passed by the legislative branch, that's certainly not his fault. His executive powers have their limits.
This is why I don't take you seriously. Because you blame a Bush/Haliburton/Big oil conspiracy for the lack of new nuclear projects without even taking TWO DAMN seconds to search on google.
So, what's next? You gonna tell me that the bill is just for show, and he'll make sure it's never passed so his big oil buddies keep raking in the profits? If you start to believe in layers of duplicity like that, then there's no point in discussing anything with you (and I suspect this is the case) because any evidence I present to you will be dismissed because somehow, you 'know' it's just a cover story.
Here, I'll even give you a link to the other leg of this thread, which is much shorter and more intelligent: Click Here
My prediction: your response will validate my previous mocking of you.
Cry me a river. Out with the old, in with the new.
Again, all you do is brush off criticisms with ad hominems, all the while failing to address the underlying issue, and chalk this up as "success".
Success? I'm not arguing with you, where success would be defined as persuading you. I do not think such a thing is even possible, because you've attended a few too many anti-globalization 'teach-ins' to be taken seriously, or some similar trash.
I'm mocking and belittling you for my own amusement.
Dr. Badass posed some rational alternate theories to mine as to the stagnation in Nuke plant construction, and I responded to him. Go read that, instead of the latest indymedia trash.
I'm sorry this latest 'speaking truth to power' enterprise of yours isn't working out the way you like, but your petulance doesn't really count for much outside of whatever college campus you're on, or urban centers on the west coast.
Tell me, how does it feel not to be taken seriously?
If you want to see an actual discussion, read the thread that starts with the other guy who responded to my original post. Maybe you'll learn how to talk outside of campus espresso shop.
It just doesn't make financial sense to fossil fuel-based energy companies to spend tons of money on a plant that makes their existing plants and infrastructure obsolete and has the effect of making their product, energy, cheaper.
That's a good point, and I'm sure it's responsible for some of the stagnation. You must also keep in mind, though, that in the many de-regulated markets that exist in the country, new companies (or ones from different regions) can come in, build a new plant, and undercut old companies in the area by selling electricity at half the price.
Regulation and environmentalists of one stripe or another are responsible for a good deal of the sloth in nuclear plant construction. Until recently, the time it took, due to the myriad of regulatory bodies and their demands, to get a powerplant online was near a decade.
Additionally, starting a huge capital project that takes 10 years to begin to pay for itself is something that tends to drive down your stock price. Wall street hates new plants for that reason.
On the other hand, all those investors love already built plants. Nuclear plants are wildly profitable once they're running. Take my word for it, I work at one.
Recent developments at the NRC and companies such as Westinghouse and Bechtel have driven down the time from ground-breaking to completion to an estimated 5 years, and one company will be starting construction on the first new nuke project in two decades within a year or so- forgive me, I forget the energy company, but the plant itself will be a Bechtel CANDU plant, IIRC.
So, I'm sure your right in that some companies aren't eager to drive down their stock price or make their current equipment obsolete. On the other hand, you've got ever-expanding demand, cutt-throat competition (where available!), and desirable profit margins on the attractive side of the equation.
(I do not know the profitability of fossil fuel plants)
I guess we'll see in the next few years.
Hey, you forgot to blame 'haliburton', didn't say the term 'neocon', only implied a 'conspiracy' and left out the part how the republicans have been planning this all since the 70's, as proved by memos 'recreated' for CBS and dan rather.
Really, too many things missing from the standard moonbat screed to qualify for full points. You're almost there, though!
clean power? We have it. It's called nuclear. Trouble is, it's too 'imperfect' for all the types that cry 'save the earth!' at every inoppurtune moment.
If it wasn't for the idiot tree huggers who put a stop to nuclear power in the US, our air would be a lot cleaner right now.
there are crafting recipes that generate more G when the finished product is sold to an NPC, than requires to make them
This is what happens in the real world, too.
Ford takes a couple hundred dollars worth of raw material, adds a couple hundred hours of work by a lot of people, then sells a car for several thousand dollars. Ford profits and all the people who work for them have more money.
I don't know enough about the economics of FFXI to argue about wether the rate of inflation is acceptable, but inflation, as you describe it, is a perfectly normal thing.
So, who's gonna post the crack?
But can you understand & be sympathetic to someone who might take the reverse choice?
Any references or is this just some made up statistic to support your view?
I didn't make it up, but I've never validated it either. I thought that would be clear by my qualifier of If that's true...
It seems, however, your understanding of the english language is different from mine. I intended you take that statement with a grain of salt, because i'm not going to bother to back it up. It's not like any of us are deciding policy here, so it doesn't really matter.
So, you're telling me that if you could afford an acre or a dozen, a nice 2000 sq ft house with a garage, and a quiet neighborhood, you'd pass it up because it was more than you absolutely, positively required?
And that you couldn't imagine how anyone would choose what I've described?
Then why not have effective public transportation?
Gaaakk!
Same reason!
It isn't cheap to lay rail, maintain it, and run a train on it. You need a lot of people using it to pay for it. In certain areas and certain routes, this is quite economical- Boston-NY-DC rail lines work well, as well as a line that goes from Boston up to Portland, Maine. I'm sure there are more examples, but they'll all run between major metropolitin areas.
Get more than 10-20 miles away from a huge city, and it's unaffordable. There are simply not enough people who need to routinely shuttle between the same two places (or places on a line)
Oh yeah, I've heard somewhere that Buses cost more per passenger mile than cars and take longer. If that's true, and I can understand how it might be, it takes the wind out of those sails a bit too.
To build all this public transporation, it costs money, and it ultimately comes from you and your neighbors. A private company won't come in unless there is profit to be made. Your neighbors won't vote for a project that increases their taxes and doesn't benefit them.
As to why your neigborhood doesn't have sidewalks-bring that up with your town. Doesn't make much sense to me either.
Why not just build cities to a proper human scale?
Because we have the land, and we want to use it. Is that so hard to understand? Have you looked at a map lately? Do you realize how huge the United States is?
They don't have 300 stations, the place only has about 3 dozen.
The 300 figure is what they figure they may be able to open in the future. The place in hampton NH is a prototype/concept store to work everything out before going bigtime. It's purposely placed in an industrial park so as not to attract drive by customers.
I was just there, the place is great.
The place is great. Though right now they have only 2-3 dozen stations, and the big sphere and surround screen are works in progress. And they're only open three days a week.
The place is in an industrial park that doesn't attract any drive-by customers, and they put it there on purpose so they can tweak everything without getting overrun.
It's kind of a prototype shop for a chain they'd like to open, and the parent company is a robotics firm that makes motion platforms for simulatars and a bunch of other stuff.
Anyway, the place is hot. If you live near the seacoast area in NH, it's worth a trip.
...and you will see why this law is a good thing.
Wether or not a law is a good idea is an entirely seperate question from wether or not it's constitutionally permissible. Never forget that.
In this case, I think the law falls well under interstate commerce powers clause of the federal government, but I am not a lawyer.
Of course, you assume that people who voted for Bush think Kerry has any credibility in the arenas of Jobs, war, or the economy.
Does saying it's all about gay marriage make you feel any better about your side's solid loss?
Kuuumm-by-yaaaaa, my lord, kuuum-by-yaaaaa
now let's all hold hands in a global circle of love!
Moron. The funny thing is, that if it wasn't for pacifists, we could acheive peace.
In manchester, New Hampshire, around 5pm EST saturday.
Half Life 2 was all over the shelves, normal and collector's editions.
oops. Well, Bestbuy is big enough to make valve their bitch.
You dodged my challenge to your entire premise.
My take on religion is that you can judge the quality of a religion by wether or not it's practioners become better people by following it. In that regard, Buhdism is just as good as christianity. Moreover, Buddhism is not incompatible with Christianity, and I am under the impression that there are many dual practioners. Buddha was not a savior, only a guide to a model of living.
Moreover, you cannot compare the number of people who chose to vote for Bush to those who live under chinese authoritarian rule. The number of people living in China does not demonstrate that there's anything wrong with America, and indeed, there are other gauges as by which to measure which country's way of life is more successful. Is that your trap, big boy?
So, again, you're comparing apples to oranges. The American electorial system has led the country to become the world's sole superpower. This alone demonstrates that the system works sufficiently well.
Incidentally, all you lefty whiners who claim to be smarter than everyone else survived Reagan, and I heard he was as hated by you folks as Bush is now. You'll survive Bush. Nowadays, most democratic politicians have the common sense to talk kindly of Reagan. The same will become true of Bush.
Look, your analogies suck. If you wanted to say "just because everyone chooses it doesn't mean it's good", you'd be smarter to point out Britney Spears or all the boy bands, to which I'd respond most of their fans are either too young to vote, or don't vote.
So what's your trap, then?
If you weren't AC I'd respond.