As cool as his follow-up actions may be, don't forget he WAS in a group of douchebags, participating in an act of general douchebaggery, when arrested.
"I was waiting for someone speak out against all this liberal drivel..."
What a way to begin...
And you've shown where you stand on the political spectrum.
Where? Centrally and with open eyes and mind?
"War sucks. Period. The problem we have here, is terrorist scum hiding amongst the population and using them as shields."
No, the problem we have here is a helicopter GUNSHIP, manned by soldiers eager to kill, taking on civilians. At best, they might have been taking on a rag-tag group of ne'er-do-wells. But, really, what does a gunship have to fear from AKs?
Really, are you that dense? That gunship is protecting American lives on ground. Do you want our troops patrolling that part of the city, knowing that there are armed enemy combatants in the area? Or do you want more combat casualties because our people walked somewhere, where we had the ability to act and save those troops?
Not really all that dense, but thanks for asking.
Assuming your argument is true (troops on ground, heli protecting), it would seem the logical thing to do is get confirmation from those troops on the ground. I assume there are better ways to do this on the ground than from a moving platform, especially if you want accurate information. I assume, further, it would include heli crew calling down to WARN the ground troops, who would reconnoiter and report back. Your question proposes a false choice.
"You still want to blame them for making the wrong call that ultimately is trying to save Iraqi and American lives?"
Yes. Who else do you blame for making the wrong call? Santa Claus? Lenin? No, you blame the eager beavers begging that they be allowed to shoot, and who then have a chuckle in the process. If they were indeed trying to save lives, I think, as the kids would say, they were "Full of fail."
Again, you're missing it. After careful scrutiny of the video after the fact, coupled with on the scene intelligence, it becomes more clear that those that died should have not. From the air, in a combat zone, it most certainly looks like an RPG on that street corner, and you have people congregating in a combat zone with things slung over their shoulders. So, should our soldiers let those guys walk, in a combat zone, carrying possible weapons, and let them ambush one of our troop convoys?
"Once again, war sucks, and mistakes get made. Its easy to judge when you're here on American soil in your damn easy-chair."
As you have shown.
Be glad we took the fight overseas. God forbid terrorists do anything in your city that causes you to get out of that chair.
No chair here, but thanks for remote viewing anyhow.
Oh, and, by the way, dickwit, NO IRAQIS WERE INVOLVED IN 9/11, and no amount of spinning from Fox, newsmax, etc., etc., ad nauseum, will change that. I assume those are your info sources.
Of course, I could be wrong. That is where we differ, I guess.
"I was waiting for someone speak out against all this liberal drivel..."
What a way to begin...
"War sucks. Period. The problem we have here, is terrorist scum hiding amongst the population and using them as shields."
No, the problem we have here is a helicopter GUNSHIP, manned by soldiers eager to kill, taking on civilians. At best, they might have been taking on a rag-tag group of ne'er-do-wells. But, really, what does a gunship have to fear from AKs?
"I am proud of the soldiers we have in our armed forces. Would you be willing to do what they do, for the pay they receive, the time away from your family, and the thanks they get from our newspapers and the public? Sounds like a suck job now doesn't it?"
To be honest, they weren't drafted, and their reasons for choosing such a line of work is beyond the magisteria of most people back home. It seems, however, that you are countering the "liberal drivel" with "conservative drivel." Fair and balanced, I guess: accuse those critical of a wartime clusterfuck of not being sufficiently proud of the troops.
"You still want to blame them for making the wrong call that ultimately is trying to save Iraqi and American lives?"
Yes. Who else do you blame for making the wrong call? Santa Claus? Lenin? No, you blame the eager beavers begging that they be allowed to shoot, and who then have a chuckle in the process. If they were indeed trying to save lives, I think, as the kids would say, they were "Full of fail."
"I'm not even sure I really blame the military for trying to cover this up"
Yeah, cuz at home, they don't have a helicopter-fucking-gunship to defend (HA!) themselves.
"...reading the reactions of MOST of the slashdot crowd, it was best for them to cover this up and hope it never got out, because everyone is yelling about how savage and murderous our soldiers are."
No, they are yelling about how savage and murderous THESE PARTICULAR SOLDIERS were, and how the Iraq War was a masterful piece of clusterfuckery from the very beginning. And why is this best covered up? To protect people who fucked up? To project a false image of a clean war? To protect the archetype of the honorable soldier?
"Once again, war sucks, and mistakes get made. Its easy to judge when you're here on American soil in your damn easy-chair."
Because that's exactly how it would be. I used to work in libraries. They're just suffering an existential crisis, and will react this way each time someone comes up with a better idea than they can make good on themselves.
First, I am not a biochemist, so don't flog me too harshly if I grossly overlook important elements of this biofuel process...
That said, need the process be commercialized? From what I can gather, having followed this a bit, is that they are looking for ways to mass-produce fuel from algae. Is 'microbrewing' not possible, or is it just not profitable for energy companies?
It is dispersed throughout a large volume, certainly. But with an automated craft, provided with ion engines and enough time, it seems you one be able to achieve a considerable collection of debris.
As much of a fan of NASA as I am (and have been, since the mid-70s), I am seriously beginning to doubt the agency's ability to get back into the business of taking big trips. Even if NASA gets us back to the moon, we're likely to be greeted by the Chinese, or some commercial operation's management (welcome to Bigelow at Tranquility!).
It seems almost silly to be developing a return to space program, when commercial space is doing the same thing, for less money, and is closer to actually ACHIEVING it.
It certainly seems so. It would be interesting to see of there is something cyclical in society that makes January a bad month to fly to/from space. Like personal cabin fever driving rocketry go fever, etc.
Not only did it involve pre-setting equipment and habitats, it's launch framework was shuttle-derived, thus precluding a need for new (potentially troubled) launch system. Such a shuttle-derived system is reflected in the Direct proposal: http://www.directlauncher.com./
For my money, the whole Ares launch system is a waste of time, money, and effort, too. We could probably be on Mars in ten years if they followed the Mars Direct/Direct Launcher path.
Another problem with overbloated systems running simple tasks is the huge draw of electricity. How much power could we save (and, therefore, money) by using bloated systems less for simple things?
An obvious observation, but I thought I'd make it.
I have yet to RTFA, but I have been anticipating a time when M$ abandons the legacy OS and follows Apple's lead, building a new Windows GUI wrapped around some Unix variant.
And, from the "what-am-I-smoking" department, how about this one: M$ dumps the Windows OS entirely and adopts/licenses OS X, focusing more on the applications front? Yes, I know, fat chance. A lad can dream, though, can't he?
Slashdot Mirror
This, or more generally, large-scale carbon fiber construction.
The Shuttle program was started under Nixon.
As cool as his follow-up actions may be, don't forget he WAS in a group of douchebags, participating in an act of general douchebaggery, when arrested.
"I was waiting for someone speak out against all this liberal drivel..."
What a way to begin...
And you've shown where you stand on the political spectrum.
Where? Centrally and with open eyes and mind?
"War sucks. Period. The problem we have here, is terrorist scum hiding amongst the population and using them as shields."
No, the problem we have here is a helicopter GUNSHIP, manned by soldiers eager to kill, taking on civilians. At best, they might have been taking on a rag-tag group of ne'er-do-wells. But, really, what does a gunship have to fear from AKs?
Really, are you that dense? That gunship is protecting American lives on ground. Do you want our troops patrolling that part of the city, knowing that there are armed enemy combatants in the area? Or do you want more combat casualties because our people walked somewhere, where we had the ability to act and save those troops?
Not really all that dense, but thanks for asking.
Assuming your argument is true (troops on ground, heli protecting), it would seem the logical thing to do is get confirmation from those troops on the ground. I assume there are better ways to do this on the ground than from a moving platform, especially if you want accurate information. I assume, further, it would include heli crew calling down to WARN the ground troops, who would reconnoiter and report back. Your question proposes a false choice.
"You still want to blame them for making the wrong call that ultimately is trying to save Iraqi and American lives?"
Yes. Who else do you blame for making the wrong call? Santa Claus? Lenin? No, you blame the eager beavers begging that they be allowed to shoot, and who then have a chuckle in the process. If they were indeed trying to save lives, I think, as the kids would say, they were "Full of fail."
Again, you're missing it. After careful scrutiny of the video after the fact, coupled with on the scene intelligence, it becomes more clear that those that died should have not. From the air, in a combat zone, it most certainly looks like an RPG on that street corner, and you have people congregating in a combat zone with things slung over their shoulders. So, should our soldiers let those guys walk, in a combat zone, carrying possible weapons, and let them ambush one of our troop convoys?
"Once again, war sucks, and mistakes get made. Its easy to judge when you're here on American soil in your damn easy-chair."
As you have shown.
Be glad we took the fight overseas. God forbid terrorists do anything in your city that causes you to get out of that chair.
No chair here, but thanks for remote viewing anyhow.
Oh, and, by the way, dickwit, NO IRAQIS WERE INVOLVED IN 9/11, and no amount of spinning from Fox, newsmax, etc., etc., ad nauseum, will change that. I assume those are your info sources.
Of course, I could be wrong. That is where we differ, I guess.
"I was waiting for someone speak out against all this liberal drivel..."
What a way to begin...
"War sucks. Period. The problem we have here, is terrorist scum hiding amongst the population and using them as shields."
No, the problem we have here is a helicopter GUNSHIP, manned by soldiers eager to kill, taking on civilians. At best, they might have been taking on a rag-tag group of ne'er-do-wells. But, really, what does a gunship have to fear from AKs?
"I am proud of the soldiers we have in our armed forces. Would you be willing to do what they do, for the pay they receive, the time away from your family, and the thanks they get from our newspapers and the public? Sounds like a suck job now doesn't it?"
To be honest, they weren't drafted, and their reasons for choosing such a line of work is beyond the magisteria of most people back home. It seems, however, that you are countering the "liberal drivel" with "conservative drivel." Fair and balanced, I guess: accuse those critical of a wartime clusterfuck of not being sufficiently proud of the troops.
"You still want to blame them for making the wrong call that ultimately is trying to save Iraqi and American lives?"
Yes. Who else do you blame for making the wrong call? Santa Claus? Lenin? No, you blame the eager beavers begging that they be allowed to shoot, and who then have a chuckle in the process. If they were indeed trying to save lives, I think, as the kids would say, they were "Full of fail."
"I'm not even sure I really blame the military for trying to cover this up"
Yeah, cuz at home, they don't have a helicopter-fucking-gunship to defend (HA!) themselves.
"...reading the reactions of MOST of the slashdot crowd, it was best for them to cover this up and hope it never got out, because everyone is yelling about how savage and murderous our soldiers are."
No, they are yelling about how savage and murderous THESE PARTICULAR SOLDIERS were, and how the Iraq War was a masterful piece of clusterfuckery from the very beginning. And why is this best covered up? To protect people who fucked up? To project a false image of a clean war? To protect the archetype of the honorable soldier?
"Once again, war sucks, and mistakes get made. Its easy to judge when you're here on American soil in your damn easy-chair."
As you have shown.
Because that's exactly how it would be. I used to work in libraries. They're just suffering an existential crisis, and will react this way each time someone comes up with a better idea than they can make good on themselves.
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1353599&cid=29268653&art_pos=4
First, I am not a biochemist, so don't flog me too harshly if I grossly overlook important elements of this biofuel process...
That said, need the process be commercialized? From what I can gather, having followed this a bit, is that they are looking for ways to mass-produce fuel from algae. Is 'microbrewing' not possible, or is it just not profitable for energy companies?
Cruelty isn't just inflicting physical pain. One aspect of slaughterhouse design involves proper lighting, flooring, and sound control.
See the book, Animals in Translation. It's an eye-opener on the subject.
It is dispersed throughout a large volume, certainly. But with an automated craft, provided with ion engines and enough time, it seems you one be able to achieve a considerable collection of debris.
Here's an idea...
How many tons of launch debris do we dodge daily in orbit?
Why not collect it, and use its condensed and combined mass for such a "gravity tractor?"
Just asking...
As much of a fan of NASA as I am (and have been, since the mid-70s), I am seriously beginning to doubt the agency's ability to get back into the business of taking big trips. Even if NASA gets us back to the moon, we're likely to be greeted by the Chinese, or some commercial operation's management (welcome to Bigelow at Tranquility!).
It seems almost silly to be developing a return to space program, when commercial space is doing the same thing, for less money, and is closer to actually ACHIEVING it.
ya.. and we'll see how well it goes.
They've taken 30 years to go from TRL1 to TRL5(ish) and meanwhile the rest of the community have focused on actual attainable thrusters.
It's provided many a great PhD thesis (or ten) but I wouldn't expect anything operational soon..
Remember the ultimate goal is nuclear.. fission, then fusion.
I thought the ultimate goal was Warp Drive...
That would be a glimpse of the past, actually.
Thank you!
If I had mod points, I'd share 'em.
What, the "Flaming Gas-Bag" module?
Good point. There are proposals for using the Orion vehicle to explore asteroids, and I think resource needs will drive this.
Follow the money!
Re.: the wheels and power train... The front wheels are for steering. The back wheel is the drive wheel. Apparently, this is a fairly stable setup.
I am kind of a fan of the Aptera, though I am more eager to see the gas-electric hybrid.
It certainly seems so. It would be interesting to see of there is something cyclical in society that makes January a bad month to fly to/from space. Like personal cabin fever driving rocketry go fever, etc.
This is yet another example of things which, eight years ago, might have seemed merely odd, rather than somewhat unsettling.
How quaint the 20th Century already seems.
The renaissance took a while to reach England, so it's not a surprise that such endeavors weren't as highly valued and recognized.
Hmm... I got 93.94%.
Me for Congress!
Check out the Mars Direct proposal championed by Robert Zubrin: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_Direct.
Not only did it involve pre-setting equipment and habitats, it's launch framework was shuttle-derived, thus precluding a need for new (potentially troubled) launch system. Such a shuttle-derived system is reflected in the Direct proposal: http://www.directlauncher.com./
For my money, the whole Ares launch system is a waste of time, money, and effort, too. We could probably be on Mars in ten years if they followed the Mars Direct/Direct Launcher path.
Another problem with overbloated systems running simple tasks is the huge draw of electricity. How much power could we save (and, therefore, money) by using bloated systems less for simple things?
An obvious observation, but I thought I'd make it.
I have yet to RTFA, but I have been anticipating a time when M$ abandons the legacy OS and follows Apple's lead, building a new Windows GUI wrapped around some Unix variant.
And, from the "what-am-I-smoking" department, how about this one: M$ dumps the Windows OS entirely and adopts/licenses OS X, focusing more on the applications front? Yes, I know, fat chance. A lad can dream, though, can't he?