In the USian Army we required 100m accuracy for Armor, 10m accuracy for Infantry/dismounted folks. All of the instruction had these tolerances.
Yes, but did you need these tolerences ? For infantry navigation, you usually don't (Except for some extremely bad terrain types, an infantry officer/noncom who loses himself in an 100mX100m sized square won't do any good anyhow...).
For precise indirect fire, you do, but then again, my guess is that the Iraqi artillery (both light and heavy) positions are already very well measured.
The US army doctrine probably requires these accuracies simply because they can get it relatively cheaply. Nothing wrong with that; in fact that's the correct thing to do. But that does not mean an army can't fight well with less accurate equipment.
My guess is that for high-precision locations, the Iraqis already measured them with high accuracy, while for, say, infantry navigation all you really need is 100m accuracy. (Even less for armored forces, of cource)
And given the air threat, I also doubt their forces will change their localtions too much; if it's camouflaged enough to survive the initial attacks, it will probably stay put.
actually, err, our own univrese's inter-galactic space ?
According to GRT, the geometry of space-time is curved. The question of wether our universe is convex of concave was still open, last time I checked (some years ago, granted, so verify it with current research).
In the same place where I count using imaginary numbers?
IMHO, imaginary numbers are "as real" as real numbers... I don't find the process of constructing the real numbers (through "completing" the rationals) any less strange or unnatural than constructing the complex field.
So, in which "place" do you "measure" "real" numbers ?
Do you understand the term mathematical aid?
Actually, no. You might have ment to say I need some aid in the maths. In which case I refer you to detlef laugwitz's book, which indeed aided me quite a lot. I have many such aids on my shelf.
You might have ment to say I haven't aided the OP too much. To this I say; On the contrary, if he's smart he'll get curious and check what I've said out for himself.
The very instant someone appeals to authority or credentials, they've lost the debate. It's an enormous logical fallacy. That you're standing on your credentials is a strong sign you shouldn't be taken seriously.
When in a debate between peers of the same field, you may be correct. But in a hetrogenous group (that is the most polite way to describe a/. discussion) It is practically compulsory.
A person with a PhD in the field knows more than me. period. I'll ask his oppinion way before yours or any other person of less standing in his field . This does not mean I will not doubt what he says; by all means I will use my head, and if it is really important will get a second oppinion. But of an expert. The average/.er does not count.
And if you still disagree, consider wether you would go to an MD or a sweet-talking salesman to get a surgery done.
The carbon nanotube is known to be a good conductor of electricity.
IANA Material Physicist, but IIRC it is not that good a conductor, quantum dots, or the odd impurity, can diminish conductivity below basic theory values.
besides, even theory for pure CNTs predict that they can have very high or quite low conductivity, depending on the tubes' radii and structure (the band-gap is quite dependent on both).
So, this is a good question that you raise, but one still needs to quantify it before answering.
And quantifying it still means a lot of material-science research.
Re:"Man of Steel, Woman of Kleenex"
on
Ask Larry Niven
·
· Score: 1
A blessing upon you, my good man, for reminding of that most sorrowful of days, when I first read that tragic tale of the _real_ life of a superhero.
IIRC, my sympathetic howls where heard far and wild.
Please, don't compare this space elevator lunacy with JFK. JFK proposed a difficult but doable task that was definitely within the nations technical capability.
Ahem, If you're talking about a decade's timescale, then I agree, but for a larger timescale, I'd tread really, really carefully with my predictions...
Assuming you'll be able to create some nanotube based building material, and mine asteroids, I'm not sure a space-elevator is not feasible, and I have not seen a strong enough argument against it.
So if you're talking about a decade's time-frame, yes, those assumptions are probably unrealistic, but for a century, or perhaps even half a century... I'm not so sure. please do tell, how can you be.
The space elevator is only feesible in the minds of those who have read TOO MUCH Heinlein.
again, theoretically, why ? please point to an analysis which proves non-feasibility ?
and Dyson interaction picture of quantum mechanics, and Dyson vacuum-energy capacitor... The Dyson sphere is just among the _simplest_ bright ideas he had...
I'll wager he knows more about the physics of nanotech than Michael Chriton, you, and the entire readership of/. combined.
About physics in general, very probably true, but I wouldn't wager there aren't a few actual nanotech researchers who browse/. ocasionally.
try intel's compiler... it's rumored to get better results than gcc on AMD's machines as well.
you can do a 30-days free evaluation, IIRC, so my advice would be: devellop using gcc/g++, then when you need to go to production, evaluate intel's compiler and see if it's good enough for your needs.
He benchmarked gcc 3.2.1 and did not benchmark gcc 2.95.x . This in itself makes me doubt his work, especially if his C/C++ code is just C code "in disguise".
Plus, parallelization should not have been a part of such a benchmark. Parallelization for a cluster _or_ a supercomputer has many issues that have nothing to do with compiler/language performance, and has much to do with IPC, memory and cache hit/misses, and other pains, who provide many people with PHDs and careers. For a good reason.
I know he says it himself, but if you admit your results should not be taken seriously, don't publish them.
Object-oriented programming adds very little to the core functionality of a number-crunching application -- and performance is adversely affected by the overhead entailed in objects, exception handling, and other object-oriented facilities.
this means the man does not choose the right tool for the job. I agree that exception handling should not be used with numerical code, asserts work just fine. But objects and higher-level abstractions should very much be used in the 90% of the code which takes 10% of the runtime but still, say, >80% of development time...
And don't let me get started on templates, which really made my work much easier when used properly.
And in many cases, function-oriented code exceeds the clarity of corresponding object-oriented code
as for function-oriented code supposedly exceeding clarity of OO code, I find this remark, Ahem, embarrassing. If your OO code looks less clear than functional code, you have quite a problem. It means you do not use abstractions to ease design, reduce code-redundancy and reduce module interdependancies.
It means, in short, that you are going through the motions, but do not think on what you do.
Re:PLEASE torture me with that!
on
E ~ mc^2
·
· Score: 2
I'll assume you're serious, and give a serious (though a bit caustic) reply:
I've heard the same damn "Just Because" explanations forever! I downloaded a quite lengthy explanation of Tensor Calculus to my Zaurus
What I was really asking is if anyone knew the basis for these theories.
There are many people who learned the theoretical, and some of the experimental basis of SR. They are commonly known as: "second year or above physics undergraduate students"
If you seriously want a layman's introduction to SR, don't study Tensors just yet, (do it sometime, though, its good for the soul), instead, go to the nearest library or book-store, open a copy of "Berkely's Physics Course" (Vol I, IIRC) and read relevant sections.
.. To read "Silmarillion" as my first book in the english language. (I read hobbit and LOTR before, but not in english)
Oh, the agony. Oh, the pain... I was paying the price for my lack of vision...
(Only years later did I find out he was a linguist.)
Re:rational thinking and "why"
on
DNA Goes Binary
·
· Score: 1
I think you overestimate both yourself
That is very probably true. Academically, I am a research student.
and your precious little Science
Science isn't mine, it's the human race's, and yes, I believe it's precious, although, like every human construction, not unflawed.
... snipped some trivial logics definitions, and reduction of math to axioms, and physics to postulates...
I think that when you say everything you do in real theory is those 16 axioms you make the same mistake as a biologist saying: "everything you are is nothing more than the result of applying a certain DNA sequence with a certain set of external stimuly" These two sayings are in some way true, but they are not very useful.
It is true, that some of what science generates are predictions which have testable truth-value. Only these can be treated as "truth". But what you are ignoring is that the set of such observations, possible with current science and technology, is continually expanding.
IOW, the set of known 'matter of fact' questions is expanding in quite unpredictable and beautiful ways, exactly through the scientific process.
This makes them worth exploring, IMHO.
Are those all the questions in existance ? No. Neither did I claim so. Are those the _only_ questions worth exploring ? I, at least, don't claim that. Are those *real* questions ? well, this depends on semantics and I really won't go there this time of night.
As for character, that is, IMHO, not gained by talking.
And one final remark, perhaps so trivial you've ignored it: the scientific methodology is a part of my humanity and of humanity at large. I agree it should not consume all other parts, (nor do I think it completely possible), but one should also not let it die in uninhibited mysticism, or relativism, as well.
Re:rational thinking and "why"
on
DNA Goes Binary
·
· Score: 1
The Human race's only 'truth' finding method is reasoning and intellect.
whose formal manifestation is the scientific method...
Science, is as the name implies, knowledge. Think of Science as a vast library of past experiences the collective human race has had (add to that some models that have been developed that fit these observations).
let's not get into chicken-egg style debates. We both agree that the body of models and definitions is an essential part of science. I just remark in passing that the hirarchical structure of these models and definitions allows you to ask answerable questions of high level of complexity.
IOW, these models shape and extend the way we think, allowing us to
investigate things you couldn't w/o . This is, of course, dangerous,
but so is every useful tool.
Truth is an entirely subjective concept... and thus can only be resolved in the subjective realm.
This kind of thinking is insane. Of course there are fuzzy questions and fuzzy issues. But there are many issues which can be rigourously treated.
The sun's luminosity (at some place/time) is not subjective. You can measure it and what you predict (within error bounds) will be rigourously TRUE/FALSE. This is truth. It is not subjective.
Don't mistake the idea that not _all_ questions can be answered objectively with saying (as you do) that _no_ question can be answered objectively.
In the world, there is only being and not being. No truth.
I don't belive anyone actually belives that, but if you do, you seem to have quite a limited, empty world. You cannot learn, or evolve, or change the world. Just be. Even a mushroom does more than just "being".
(I'm not saying you are such a "mushroom", I'm saying you should perhaps rethink your world-view)
Like Orwell wrote: Freedom is the right to say, "2+2=4"
IMHO, the only possible rational answer to "why" is discussing the question in a more exact or complex model.
Physics, and science in general, are rational, which means they deal with modelling numerical relationships, and testing these models theoretically and experimentally.
So, IMHO, a constructive response to the question "why" is not assigning intent to nature, but saying something like:
"This is what we know, this is what we speculate, your phenomena [fits to | is predicted by] this branch of human models of nature. If you disagree, please construct a disproving test, or a better model, and we'll all learn something new"
To summarize my view: The serious answer to "why" is "This fits theories X_1..X_n in ways Y_1..Y_n".
All this is not a reason to despair from science, in spite of it's limitations, it's still the best truth-finding method the human race has.
But I don't *want* to 'examine the story from a different perspective'. I spend most of my waking hours 'analyzing' things...
I think one of the best things in being a grown-up is the ability to live and enjoy a state of compexity and self-contradiction.
I went to see HP, and enjoyed it "like a child". I later discussed it with my g.f. , and enjoyed it "like a grown-up", discussing the movie in a similar vein to Mr Brin (though not as professionaly...).
The world is complex, and people are complex too. Enjoy fiction and fantasy this way today, another tommorow.
(In fact that's why I think one should read/view good art several times)
Yet, he invented something in his lab that parallels the importance of Einstein, Feynman, and Wright's findings -- quantum physics!
even back then, it was not one-genius alone. Science is a social phenomena. Heroe-worship is not a bad thing in itself, just remember that those heroes were a part of someting greater than a single human.
Be it Saint Albert (E), Isaac (N), Karl (G) or Max (P), they were part of the "church", and the credit falls to many others as well.
Cyno wrote: Exxon and all oil companies and all capitalist nations would lose control. That's a very very very bad thing in the eyes of any exec in any oil corp as well as the current US administration.
That is the one of the most absurd comments I've read in/. for quite a while, and the competition is fierce.
Of course the interest of oil companies is hiding such an invention, but the interests of the US (and all technologically advanced nations) are the complete opposite.
why are litereally billions poured into fusion research if the US does not believe oil and coal should be replaced ? why does Japan, the EC and the US invest in plasma research ? you may criticize the internal distribution of money within that field, or the results obtained, but saying the US does not want oil replaced is plain nuts. and contrary to evidence (there is a whole bloody department of the US admin for this issue alone, the DOE, look it up, it's not a secret)
criticize where critic's due (and the US does deserve that, many times), credit where it's due. Don't let hate overcome common sense.
OK, OK, So my joke was not completely historically accurate.
Sumer/Akkad, Assyria, (not Syria) Babylon, all these "totally different" empires originated from cities from a relatively small region (few hundreds of KM) of what today we call Iran/Iraq, for a relatively dense period of several centuries.
So, insisting on wether some god crashing on a 12000KM-diameter target, several millenia later, is Babylonian or Sumerian is really working in the wrong time and space resolutions...
(On a more serious tone, it is interesting to note that the distribution of civilizations on the globe is highly non-uniform. As is the distribution of major battles. If this interests you, I recommend reading J. Keegan's A history of warfare . An enlightening book, IMHO. )
Slashdot Mirror
In the USian Army we required 100m accuracy for Armor, 10m accuracy for Infantry/dismounted folks. All of the instruction had these tolerances.
...).
Yes, but did you need these tolerences ? For infantry navigation, you usually don't (Except for some extremely bad terrain types, an infantry officer/noncom who loses himself in an 100mX100m sized square won't do any good anyhow
For precise indirect fire, you do, but then again, my guess is that the Iraqi artillery (both light and heavy) positions are already very well measured.
The US army doctrine probably requires these accuracies simply because they can get it relatively cheaply. Nothing wrong with that; in fact that's the correct thing to do. But that does not mean an army can't fight well with less accurate equipment.
My guess is that for high-precision locations, the Iraqis already measured them with high accuracy, while for, say, infantry navigation all you really need is 100m accuracy. (Even less for armored forces, of cource)
And given the air threat, I also doubt their forces will change their localtions too much; if it's camouflaged enough to survive the initial attacks, it will probably stay put.
but as always, YMMV
That's the first post I read the acronym actually fits the post
Where do I go and measure those circles of yours?
...
actually, err, our own univrese's inter-galactic space ?
According to GRT, the geometry of space-time is curved. The question of wether our universe is convex of concave was still open, last time I checked (some years ago, granted, so verify it with current research).
In the same place where I count using imaginary numbers?
IMHO, imaginary numbers are "as real" as real numbers
I don't find the process of constructing the real numbers (through "completing" the rationals) any less strange or unnatural than constructing the complex field.
So, in which "place" do you "measure" "real" numbers ?
Do you understand the term mathematical aid?
Actually, no. You might have ment to say I need some aid in the maths.
In which case I refer you to detlef laugwitz's book, which indeed aided
me quite a lot. I have many such aids on my shelf.
You might have ment to say I haven't aided the OP too much.
To this I say; On the contrary, if he's smart he'll get curious
and check what I've said out for himself.
The very instant someone appeals to authority or credentials, they've lost the debate. It's an enormous logical fallacy. That you're standing on your credentials is a strong sign you shouldn't be taken seriously.
When in a debate between peers of the same field, you may be correct. But in a hetrogenous group (that is the most polite way to describe a
A person with a PhD in the field knows more than me. period. I'll ask his oppinion way before yours or any other person of less standing in his field . This does not mean I will not doubt what he says; by all means I will use my head, and if it is really important will get a second oppinion. But of an expert. The average
And if you still disagree, consider wether you would go to an MD or a sweet-talking salesman to get a surgery done.
Pi is a universal number, it contains all the patterns that you want. Moreover God could not change the value of Pi even if He wanted to.
...
For convex geometries (gaussian curvature >0) the ratio of a circle's area (or circumference) to r^2 is less than Pi. For concave, it is more than Pi.
So i'd humbly suggest that under this definition, gods can change Pi
-- with courtesy of the math nit-picking club.
The carbon nanotube is known to be a good conductor of electricity.
IANA Material Physicist, but IIRC it is not that good a conductor, quantum dots, or the odd impurity, can diminish conductivity below basic theory values.
besides, even theory for pure CNTs predict that they can have very high or quite low conductivity, depending on the tubes' radii and structure (the band-gap is quite dependent on both).
So, this is a good question that you raise, but one still needs to quantify it before answering.
And quantifying it still means a lot of material-science research.
A blessing upon you, my good man, for reminding of that most sorrowful of days, when I first read that tragic tale of the _real_ life of a superhero.
IIRC, my sympathetic howls where heard far and wild.
Wanna impress me? Build a suspension bridge out of carbon nanotubes first.
...
If your point is that one should attempt smaller-scale projects before, then I won't argue there
actually that's why I allow for about a century of progress _before_ such a project is feasible.
Please, don't compare this space elevator lunacy with JFK. JFK proposed a difficult but doable task that was definitely within the nations technical capability.
Ahem, If you're talking about a decade's timescale, then I agree, but for a larger timescale, I'd tread really, really carefully with my predictions
Assuming you'll be able to create some nanotube based building material, and mine asteroids, I'm not sure a space-elevator is not feasible, and I have not seen a strong enough argument against it.
So if you're talking about a decade's time-frame, yes, those assumptions are probably unrealistic, but for a century, or perhaps even half a century
The space elevator is only feesible in the minds of those who have read TOO MUCH Heinlein.
again, theoretically, why ? please point to an analysis which proves non-feasibility ?
Ever hear of a Dyson sphere?
and Dyson interaction picture of quantum mechanics, and Dyson vacuum-energy capacitor
the _simplest_ bright ideas he had
I'll wager he knows more about the physics of nanotech than Michael Chriton, you, and the entire readership of
About physics in general, very probably true, but I wouldn't wager
there aren't a few actual nanotech researchers who browse
ocasionally.
Isn't this just what the author does?
...
No, since the original author knew he was in the wrong
PS: Please use a divider between your message and the signature. Less confusion that way.
thanks, did it.
(there's an option to add a signature dash to comments, BTW)
try intel's compiler ... it's rumored to get better results than gcc on AMD's machines as well.
you can do a 30-days free evaluation, IIRC, so my advice would be:
devellop using gcc/g++, then when you need to go to production, evaluate intel's compiler and see if it's good enough for your needs.
He benchmarked gcc 3.2.1 and did not benchmark gcc 2.95.x . This in itself makes me doubt his work, especially if his C/C++ code is just C code "in disguise".
...
Plus, parallelization should not have been a part of such a benchmark.
Parallelization for a cluster _or_ a supercomputer has many issues
that have nothing to do with compiler/language performance, and has much to do with IPC, memory and cache hit/misses, and other pains, who provide many people with PHDs and careers. For a good reason.
I know he says it himself, but if you admit your results should not be taken seriously, don't publish them.
Object-oriented programming adds very little to the core functionality of a number-crunching application -- and performance is adversely affected by the overhead entailed in objects, exception handling, and other object-oriented facilities.
this means the man does not choose the right tool for the job. I agree that exception handling should not be used with numerical code, asserts work just fine. But objects and higher-level abstractions should very much be used in the 90% of the code which takes 10% of the runtime but still, say, >80% of development time
And don't let me get started on templates, which really made my work much easier when used properly.
And in many cases, function-oriented code exceeds the clarity of corresponding object-oriented code
as for function-oriented code supposedly exceeding clarity of OO code, I find this remark, Ahem, embarrassing. If your OO code looks less clear than functional code, you have quite a problem. It means you do not use abstractions to ease design, reduce code-redundancy and reduce module interdependancies.
It means, in short, that you are going through the motions, but do not think on what you do.
I'll assume you're serious, and give a serious (though a bit caustic) reply:
I've heard the same damn "Just Because" explanations forever! I downloaded a quite lengthy explanation of Tensor Calculus to my Zaurus
What I was really asking is if anyone knew the basis for these theories.
There are many people who learned the theoretical, and some of the
experimental basis of SR. They are commonly known as:
"second year or above physics undergraduate students"
If you seriously want a layman's introduction to SR, don't study
Tensors just yet, (do it sometime, though, its good for the soul),
instead, go to the nearest library or book-store, open a copy of
"Berkely's Physics Course" (Vol I, IIRC) and read relevant sections.
No pain, no gain.
(I read hobbit and LOTR before, but not in english)
Oh, the agony. Oh, the pain
I was paying the price for my lack of vision
(Only years later did I find out he was a linguist.)
I think you overestimate both yourself
... snipped some trivial logics definitions, and reduction of math to axioms, and physics to postulates ...
That is very probably true. Academically, I am a research student.
and your precious little Science
Science isn't mine, it's the human race's, and yes, I believe it's precious, although, like every human construction, not unflawed.
I think that when you say everything you do in real theory is those 16 axioms you make the same mistake as a biologist saying:
"everything you are is nothing more than the result of applying a certain DNA sequence with a certain set of external stimuly"
These two sayings are in some way true, but they are not very useful.
It is true, that some of what science generates are predictions which have testable truth-value. Only these can be treated as "truth". But what you are ignoring is that the set of such observations, possible with current science and technology, is continually expanding.
IOW, the set of known 'matter of fact' questions is expanding in quite unpredictable and beautiful ways, exactly through the scientific process.
This makes them worth exploring, IMHO.
Are those all the questions in existance ? No. Neither did I claim so.
Are those the _only_ questions worth exploring ? I, at least, don't claim that.
Are those *real* questions ? well, this depends on semantics and I really won't go there this time of night.
As for character, that is, IMHO, not gained by talking.
And one final remark, perhaps so trivial you've ignored it: the scientific methodology is a part of my humanity and of humanity at large. I agree it should not consume all other parts, (nor do I think it completely possible), but one should also not let it die in uninhibited mysticism, or relativism, as well.
The Human race's only 'truth' finding method is reasoning and intellect.
whose formal manifestation is the scientific method
Science, is as the name implies, knowledge. Think of Science as a vast library of past experiences the collective human race has had (add to that some models that have been developed that fit these observations).
let's not get into chicken-egg style debates. We both agree that the body of models and definitions is an essential part of science. I just remark
in passing that the hirarchical structure of these models and definitions
allows you to ask answerable questions of high level of complexity.
IOW, these models shape and extend the way we think, allowing us to
investigate things you couldn't w/o . This is, of course, dangerous,
but so is every useful tool.
Truth is an entirely subjective concept... and thus can only be resolved in the subjective realm.
This kind of thinking is insane. Of course there are fuzzy questions
and fuzzy issues. But there are many issues which can be rigourously treated.
The sun's luminosity (at some place/time) is not subjective. You
can measure it and what you predict (within error bounds) will be rigourously TRUE/FALSE. This is truth. It is not subjective.
Don't mistake the idea that not _all_ questions can be answered objectively with saying (as you do) that _no_ question can be
answered objectively.
In the world, there is only being and not being. No truth.
I don't belive anyone actually belives that, but if you do, you seem to have quite a limited, empty world. You cannot learn, or evolve, or
change the world. Just be. Even a mushroom does more than just "being".
(I'm not saying you are such a "mushroom", I'm saying you should perhaps rethink your world-view)
Like Orwell wrote: Freedom is the right to say, "2+2=4"
Enough. Time for some truth-finding.
IMHO, the only possible rational answer to "why" is discussing the question in a more exact or complex model.
Physics, and science in general, are rational, which means they deal with modelling numerical relationships, and testing these models theoretically and experimentally.
So, IMHO, a constructive response to the question "why" is not assigning intent to nature, but saying something like:
"This is what we know, this is what we speculate, your phenomena [fits to | is predicted by] this branch of human models of nature. If you disagree, please construct a disproving test, or a better model, and we'll all learn something new"
To summarize my view:
The serious answer to "why" is "This fits theories X_1..X_n in ways Y_1..Y_n".
All this is not a reason to despair from science, in spite of it's limitations, it's still the best truth-finding method the human race has.
But I don't *want* to 'examine the story from a different perspective'. I spend most of my waking hours 'analyzing' things...
I think one of the best things in being a grown-up is the ability
to live and enjoy a state of compexity and self-contradiction.
I went to see HP, and enjoyed it "like a child". I later discussed
it with my g.f. , and enjoyed it "like a grown-up", discussing the movie
in a similar vein to Mr Brin (though not as professionaly
The world is complex, and people are complex too. Enjoy fiction and fantasy this way today, another tommorow.
(In fact that's why I think one should read/view good art several times)
read Sakurai's book. It's in there.
Yet, he invented something in his lab that parallels the importance of Einstein, Feynman, and Wright's findings -- quantum physics!
even back then, it was not one-genius alone.
Science is a social phenomena. Heroe-worship is not a bad thing in itself,
just remember that those heroes were a part of someting greater than a single human.
Be it Saint Albert (E), Isaac (N), Karl (G) or Max (P), they were part of the "church", and the credit falls to many others as well.
QATS is a strange disease; it inverts the normal parasite-host relationship by causing pain only in those exposed who are not susceptible
The term "Physics Karaoke" springs to mind.
Cyno wrote:
/. for quite a while, and the competition is fierce.
Exxon and all oil companies and all capitalist nations would lose control. That's a very very very bad thing in the eyes of any exec in any oil corp as well as the current US administration.
That is the one of the most absurd comments I've read in
Of course the interest of oil companies is hiding such an invention, but the interests of the US (and all technologically advanced nations) are the complete opposite.
why are litereally billions poured into fusion research if the US does not believe oil and coal should be replaced ? why does Japan, the EC and the US invest in plasma research ? you may criticize the internal distribution of money within that field, or the results obtained, but saying the US does not want oil replaced is plain nuts. and contrary to evidence (there is a whole bloody department of the US admin for this issue alone, the DOE, look it up, it's not a secret)
criticize where critic's due (and the US does deserve that, many times), credit where it's due. Don't let hate overcome common sense.
Next time, listen to Ray, or get your own lawyer
OK, OK, So my joke was not completely historically accurate.
Sumer/Akkad, Assyria, (not Syria) Babylon, all these "totally different" empires originated from cities from a relatively small region (few hundreds of KM) of what today we call Iran/Iraq, for a relatively dense period of several centuries.
So, insisting on wether some god crashing on a 12000KM-diameter target, several millenia later, is Babylonian or Sumerian is really working in the wrong time and space resolutions
(On a more serious tone, it is interesting to note that the distribution of civilizations on the globe is highly non-uniform. As is the distribution of major battles.
If this interests you, I recommend reading J. Keegan's A history of warfare . An enlightening book, IMHO. )