"But my question is what happened to the old engine?"
Running 14lbs of boost on stock NA pistons, connecting rods and crank either did a number on them or he feared that he would do a number on them and decided to rebuild the engine with stronger parts to handle the boost.
All you need is for the engine to lean out ONCE at a good level of boost and you'll literally burn right through the pistons. He was probably screwing with his "fuel curve" via his laptop while driving and leaned out the engine.
"If you dont, the thing will fall apart under your ass in less than 5 years."
What do you expect from the country that brought you the Fiat (which the lovely Yugo was based on)? What can you expect from the country that tried to 'fix' the Leaning Tower of Piza just before the second World War and instead made it lean more then it ever had?
Face it, the Italians make excellent food and have good style but they can't engineer for the life of them:)
"I wish just for once.. i could read about a problem with kids and hear about a solution instead of some rediculous feel good legislation"
Frankly this is probably not a big epidemic or 'problem' at all -- the media just loves to focus on it and the politicans love to have 'issues' that they can fight.
The relevance of this in light of the 'big picture' is small. There will always be violent kids just as there will always be violent adults. Just because one group of violent kids commits a crime does not mean that all kids are violent and thus must be regulated by the state (think about it, it is commonly *percieved* that 'adult' violent crime is committed at night time. If the government responded by putting a curfew on the nation we would be pissed).
Ask some of your friends these questions and I'm sure you'll be surpirsed at just how warped the public's sense of relevance is:
1) Do more people die from suicide in the US or murder?
The answer is by FAR suicide, but no one cares, no news agency 'reports' it and no politician poses a 'war on suicide':).
2) Do more people die from airplane crashes or car accidents?
Obviosly car accidents, but SO many people mess even this simple fact up.
3) Is there more violent crime now (per capita) then in the 1950s?
Most people would say yes, however there is strong evidence that there is in fact much less *violent* crime today, however there was less *reported* crime in the past -- a big difference.
With these in mind, you can see how the public's perception of 'the issues' around violence and death is completely warped. This 'internet cafe' thingy is probably somthing completely blown out of proportion, a great political biline, an exciting news story but nothing more then the public using kids, the internet and violent games as a scapegoat for their ignorance and mis-understanding.
As for the line "parent's just don't understand" that is the truth in this case. They don't understand how the world has changed since they were kids and most of all they don't understand technology (aka internet). Their reactionary tendancies in light of this change makes thim spit out this legislative garbage.
I really don't care if MS advertises in post offices. What piques my curiosity, though, is what were / are government agencies' policies on advertising?
I know that the MA Registry now allows advertising at their sites (somthing for people to look at during the long waits). It wasn't that way too long ago. . .
I have never seen an advertisment in a post office that did not either promote USPS's services or was somthing about taxes.
Was this by design, or was it that no one thought of advertising in a post office before:)? Could an advertsising policy cause bias in a government agency like campaign contributions cause in politics?
It's not radical or life-changing, but it does have a large curiosity factor that I could not find much info on. . .
"Two days after AOL/TW filed suit for anti-competitive acts against their Netscape browser, Microsoft raised the licensing fee of IE to $896 per copy to AOL.
A Microsoft representative commented on the price hike, "Since AOL's contract to buy IE ended last year there is no price constraint any more. The time has come for us to charge the true value of innovation that IE6 brings."
An AOL representative rebutted, "Umm. ..I guess we'll try to integrate Netscape6 as the AOL browser. ..but a lot of AOL customers will get very confused in the process. .."
"
AOL has nothing as long as they continue using IE as their AOL CLIENT! Idiots. "We're suing MS because their anti-competitve acts killed the Netscape Market, but we think that IE is OK because we keep using it and have no plans to switch to Netscape in the future". How hypocritical is that?
If MS gets annoyed enough they can just hike the price of IE to AOL and f*** them over hardcore. The loss in revenues that AOL would get from "confused users" would be so great that they couldn't continue a suit against MS -- and we all know the government will do nothing.
As long as AOL continues to use IE they have NO LEVERAGE. I have yet to see one news quote that states that AOL is planning on swapping over to Netscape as their client. It seems to me that the ONLY strategy AOL has is to kick the PC all together and then *maybe* use Gecko in their mytical web applicance. I don't see that happening. "Net appliances" went out of style two years ago. Get a clue AOL!
"with the price increase, many dedicated AOL users will likely switch to a direct dialing AOL"
I don't understand this. ..the profit increase for AOL should be marginal by doing this as they out-source their dial-up access anyway. ..for instance around here Genuity handles the AOL dial-ups.
Sounds like a support thing to me. ..AOL techs were probably sick of trying to troubleshoot other ISP's dial-ups (which they don't have acces to) for their zombie customers.
That was the biggest tech-support problem I dealt with when I worked in the telco industry -- the damn calls were routed through so many providers the only thing I could say is "it is our problem" or "it isn't out problem" -- the latter meaning that it will never get fixed because I could not deduce *which* provider the problem was coming from (nor get the other providers to work with me on the problem).
In this case for tech support it's probably easier for AOL techs to fix a problem with a provider they have a contract with -- otherwise they would be stuck in the infamous 'finger-pointing' game that still plages the telco industry.
Have you ever had a problem with long distance? It rarely gets solved and the local and long-distance providers just keep pointing fingers at each other over an over again.
"and could eventually be spun off or sold by Palm".
I see it now. . .
Palm spins it off, MS's mere presence threatens to buy and squash it so AOL buys it and uses that as another "see I got that too" to MS.
AOL can't figure out what to do with it so they decide to embed it in their mythical "AOL anyhwere" web-applicance along with RHL, Mozilla, Winamp, etc. Suddenly AOL buys another OS so that MS can't quash it, Palm OS is no longer 'needed' in their scheme so they open-source it and make it another AOLServer, the chaos continues and MS wins because they're the only ones with a direction.
Let's see if my prediction happens. I see a pattern emerging. . . .
Your correct, and to add to your argument I don't know about Kroea but I know in Japan that their "workplace" is not like ours. They spend a lot more hours then we do "at work", but they do not labor the entire time. From what I observed when I was in Japan they look at the workplace as almost a second family. When there's big news they all gather and watch the TV. They excercise in the morning together, etc. "At work" for them does not necessarily mean "working" as we think of it.
They have a 30 hour work week in France.
Why, then, do Americans work so damn much? Why do we have pressure to work more even though we are working so much? The only answer I can think of is Marxian with the good old "exploitation of labor", etc.
"by removing the people involved from any chance of economic improvement, tends to lead towards lower health level, lower life expectancy, and lower educational levels"
Health level would be the only thing I would be concerned with by living such a life style. Happiness is the key for the rest. What use is education if you are not happy?
In my studies of economics in college I read a lot of stuff as to whether life is "better" in this industrialized society then an independent agrarian one with light trade. Frankly the only conclusive thing I could come accross was life expectancy.
If you look 200 years back being an "American" was an agrarian life and the industrial world of Manchester England and the such was "un-American". Thomas Jefferson was staunchly against industrialization and the politics and law of the time reflect that. Ironically it has come full swing and anything anti-industrialist is "un-American" (mostly due to the propoganda against the USSR + communism). If Tomas Jefferson were alive today he probably would be in utter shock and disgust.
"Technology now changes too fast for someone to spend 40 years fastening rivets or programming personal computers that run Windows."
Changing technology and the need for changing worker skill does not necessitate laying off workers as you imply. From what I have read in Japan large firms hire workers based mostly on thier ability to learn and adapt and then shuffle them around. Two years they'll work in sales next two years they'll work in engineering. You don't have "programmers" and "salespeople", you have an employees for company X.
This, along with the massive diversification of keiretsus (sp?) allow companies to have a very mobile work force that can fill in the needs of technology very quickly. That way they can give jobs for life in light of changing technology. You have to remember that the same keiretsu makes everything from canned tuna to cars to stereos to construction equipment (Mistubishi, etc) and handles it's own banking. It is the keiretsus that compete.
Being very young in the "IBM" era and only realizing what was going on then now that I am older I am absolutely amazed at the atnti-IBM undertones of sci-fi in the era. A few examples:
MCP = IBM in Tron
HAL + 1 letter is IBM; 2001 A Space Odessy
BladeRunner's director Ridley Scott also did the 1984 Apple commercial -- a blatant anti-IBM theme
What other examples are there? Why don't we see such anti-MS undertones in scifi today? Is MS PR that much better then IBM PR at the time? The only example that I can think of was that not-so-popular movie "Anti-Trust" which was a MS satire complete with cameos from Scott McNeay and Miguel de Icaza.
To me totally using computers still seems to be "cheating".
I still much prefer the models, camera effects and computer fix-ups of the Enetrprise in Star Trek 2 or the Millenium Falcon in Star Was opposed to the cartoonish ships in Babylon 5 and The Phantom Menace.
The Enterprise in ST2 was so damn cool and realistic-looking. I have yet to see any computer model sci-fi object to rival that yet!
"In news today, FBI agents raided the homes of hundreds of people searching for pirated software where incidentally the primary focus seems to be Microsoft products."
A press-relations person at Microsoft commented on the raids and the tips that the FBI had stating, "We submitted a conclusive list to the FBI of people's names, e-mail and mailing adresses who gave positive aknowledgement that they didn't want to pay for Microsoft products."
I hate N'sync not because of jealousy, not because I dislike their music and not because I dislike them.
I hate them because they are a symbol of modern pop culture, the marketing machine that calculates what you should think and then creates it. I hate that the fans, my fellow Americans, who are completely ignorant to the fact that they were atrifically created, a T-1000 of the year 2000, a puppet, a robot to suck money out of the pockets of young teen's parents and to sway the fragile and youthful minds into a 'market share'.
I hate the fact that they are the drug of the industrailist machine that keeps its workers happy and ignorant, a 'soma' in this Brave New World.
I hate the fact that they are the icons of conformist pop culture, a culture that spits on any other ideas, a culture that breeds ignorance and a culture that so typifies America.
"N'Sync" is the marketing term for this. It is the name of the symbol. It is a buzz word more then a band, the shwastika of music industry.
The people in the band are probably cool kids and they got the shaft as soon as they signed up for the band. Their lives are probably controlled by "image" and "popularity" however that was the deal with the devil that they accepted when they willfully signed.
If my burger sucks I'll complain to the waitress. She didn't make the burger, 'I shouldn't take it out on her' but if I put pressure on her to make a better burger, she'll go to the cook and proxy the pressure. I don't have access to the cook.
I hate pop culture because I hate mass ignorance and I hate the pressure that so many teen agers go through to 'conform' with twig-thin bodies, cool clothes and the perfect attitude. I state my disdain with this to the waitress of pop culture, "N'Sync" so that the back-line cooks, the marketing gurus of pop culture may hear it through proxy.
Re:ground troops
on
The Drone War
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
He's right. A war even today can not be won without ground troops (in this case it was the Afghan Northern Alliance).
If I remember correctly the strategy in the Gulf War was to take out of conflict 1/2 (50%) of the then fourth-largest army in the world (Iraqi troops) either through death, starvation or any other means of incapacitating them after which the morale of the rest of the army would be nil and easy to over-power with American Troops.
This they did. They bombed the hell out of them, seiged them with economic sanctions, cut off their supplies and after a while 1/2 of the troops were not able to wage war. Americans walked in in their "100 hour ground war" and the Iraqi morale was so damn low that they just surrendered.
I don't doubt at all that the US miltary has used this strategy ever since in every conflict. The point is that machines today can aide greatly in softening a groud-war, but a war can not be won yet without troops -- even if they are just rouding up troops like in the Persial Gulf War.
The only case where you can win a war without troops is if you completely obliterate the enemy like we did with Japan in WW2 with the aid of "fat man" and "little boy". Killing that many civilians was so damn bad, though.
"We'll never see a war like that, as it wouldn't decide anything."
Everyone seems to forget one of the larger points in Orwell's 1984 -- yes everyone remembers Big Brother and such, but everyone forgets his big point about the future being machines fighting machines simply for the economic benefit.
A country brings up nationalistic ferver by decalring a psudo-war, they send out a bunch of drones, machines blow each other up. ..the massive need of aver accelerating consumption in a capitalistic society is met and massive growth is acheived. People don't get upset because people don't die, people are happy because their incomes constantly rise and the economy booms. The government keeps them fat, dumb and happy. Most of all because the country is constantly "at a state of war" the government is allowed to take more control with little resistance.
The only major resistance in this pseodo-war "war on terrorism" is that liberals are screaming "all death is bad" blah blah blah. Get rid of that (machines fighting machines) and no one will complain. Like one continuous massive Battle Bots match and the captialist economy will benefit greatly. If I remeber correctly Orwell dedicated two chapters to that but at the end of it he went a little off the deep-end mixing in Marxian labor theory and I think that's why most people forget all of this.
Slashdot Mirror
"But my question is what happened to the old engine?"
Running 14lbs of boost on stock NA pistons, connecting rods and crank either did a number on them or he feared that he would do a number on them and decided to rebuild the engine with stronger parts to handle the boost.
All you need is for the engine to lean out ONCE at a good level of boost and you'll literally burn right through the pistons. He was probably screwing with his "fuel curve" via his laptop while driving and leaned out the engine.
"If you dont, the thing will fall apart under your ass in less than 5 years."
:)
What do you expect from the country that brought you the Fiat (which the lovely Yugo was based on)? What can you expect from the country that tried to 'fix' the Leaning Tower of Piza just before the second World War and instead made it lean more then it ever had?
Face it, the Italians make excellent food and have good style but they can't engineer for the life of them
(this is in jest, obviosly)
"I wish just for once.. i could read about a problem with kids and hear about a solution instead of some rediculous feel good legislation"
:).
Frankly this is probably not a big epidemic or 'problem' at all -- the media just loves to focus on it and the politicans love to have 'issues' that they can fight.
The relevance of this in light of the 'big picture' is small. There will always be violent kids just as there will always be violent adults. Just because one group of violent kids commits a crime does not mean that all kids are violent and thus must be regulated by the state (think about it, it is commonly *percieved* that 'adult' violent crime is committed at night time. If the government responded by putting a curfew on the nation we would be pissed).
Ask some of your friends these questions and I'm sure you'll be surpirsed at just how warped the public's sense of relevance is:
1) Do more people die from suicide in the US or murder?
The answer is by FAR suicide, but no one cares, no news agency 'reports' it and no politician poses a 'war on suicide'
2) Do more people die from airplane crashes or car accidents?
Obviosly car accidents, but SO many people mess even this simple fact up.
3) Is there more violent crime now (per capita) then in the 1950s?
Most people would say yes, however there is strong evidence that there is in fact much less *violent* crime today, however there was less *reported* crime in the past -- a big difference.
With these in mind, you can see how the public's perception of 'the issues' around violence and death is completely warped. This 'internet cafe' thingy is probably somthing completely blown out of proportion, a great political biline, an exciting news story but nothing more then the public using kids, the internet and violent games as a scapegoat for their ignorance and mis-understanding.
As for the line "parent's just don't understand" that is the truth in this case. They don't understand how the world has changed since they were kids and most of all they don't understand technology (aka internet). Their reactionary tendancies in light of this change makes thim spit out this legislative garbage.
"why don't you just use IE in the first place when you're going to buy something and you know it's going to be a problem?"
IE -> Windows
I've been Windows-free for just under two years now. Now I just have to quit smoking. . .
I really don't care if MS advertises in post offices. What piques my curiosity, though, is what were / are government agencies' policies on advertising?
:)? Could an advertsising policy cause bias in a government agency like campaign contributions cause in politics?
I know that the MA Registry now allows advertising at their sites (somthing for people to look at during the long waits). It wasn't that way too long ago. . .
I have never seen an advertisment in a post office that did not either promote USPS's services or was somthing about taxes.
Was this by design, or was it that no one thought of advertising in a post office before
It's not radical or life-changing, but it does have a large curiosity factor that I could not find much info on. . .
Perhaps tomorrow's ./ article?
.I guess we'll try to integrate Netscape6 as the AOL browser. . .but a lot of AOL customers will get very confused in the process. . ."
"Two days after AOL/TW filed suit for anti-competitive acts against their Netscape browser, Microsoft raised the licensing fee of IE to $896 per copy to AOL.
A Microsoft representative commented on the price hike, "Since AOL's contract to buy IE ended last year there is no price constraint any more. The time has come for us to charge the true value of innovation that IE6 brings."
An AOL representative rebutted, "Umm. .
"
AOL has nothing as long as they continue using IE as their AOL CLIENT! Idiots. "We're suing MS because their anti-competitve acts killed the Netscape Market, but we think that IE is OK because we keep using it and have no plans to switch to Netscape in the future". How hypocritical is that?
If MS gets annoyed enough they can just hike the price of IE to AOL and f*** them over hardcore. The loss in revenues that AOL would get from "confused users" would be so great that they couldn't continue a suit against MS -- and we all know the government will do nothing.
As long as AOL continues to use IE they have NO LEVERAGE. I have yet to see one news quote that states that AOL is planning on swapping over to Netscape as their client. It seems to me that the ONLY strategy AOL has is to kick the PC all together and then *maybe* use Gecko in their mytical web applicance. I don't see that happening. "Net appliances" went out of style two years ago. Get a clue AOL!
"I'm getting really tired of having to try 3 different browsers before I can get through an online purchase"
I second that.
"with the price increase, many dedicated AOL users will likely switch to a direct dialing AOL"
.the profit increase for AOL should be marginal by doing this as they out-source their dial-up access anyway. . .for instance around here Genuity handles the AOL dial-ups.
.AOL techs were probably sick of trying to troubleshoot other ISP's dial-ups (which they don't have acces to) for their zombie customers.
I don't understand this. .
Sounds like a support thing to me. .
That was the biggest tech-support problem I dealt with when I worked in the telco industry -- the damn calls were routed through so many providers the only thing I could say is "it is our problem" or "it isn't out problem" -- the latter meaning that it will never get fixed because I could not deduce *which* provider the problem was coming from (nor get the other providers to work with me on the problem).
In this case for tech support it's probably easier for AOL techs to fix a problem with a provider they have a contract with -- otherwise they would be stuck in the infamous 'finger-pointing' game that still plages the telco industry.
Have you ever had a problem with long distance? It rarely gets solved and the local and long-distance providers just keep pointing fingers at each other over an over again.
The poster forgot the proper ending line to this timeless argument:
"Workers of the World Unite".
"and could eventually be spun off or sold by Palm".
I see it now. . .
Palm spins it off, MS's mere presence threatens to buy and squash it so AOL buys it and uses that as another "see I got that too" to MS.
AOL can't figure out what to do with it so they decide to embed it in their mythical "AOL anyhwere" web-applicance along with RHL, Mozilla, Winamp, etc. Suddenly AOL buys another OS so that MS can't quash it, Palm OS is no longer 'needed' in their scheme so they open-source it and make it another AOLServer, the chaos continues and MS wins because they're the only ones with a direction.
Let's see if my prediction happens. I see a pattern emerging. . . .
"with the except of Japan and Korea".
Your correct, and to add to your argument I don't know about Kroea but I know in Japan that their "workplace" is not like ours. They spend a lot more hours then we do "at work", but they do not labor the entire time. From what I observed when I was in Japan they look at the workplace as almost a second family. When there's big news they all gather and watch the TV. They excercise in the morning together, etc. "At work" for them does not necessarily mean "working" as we think of it.
They have a 30 hour work week in France.
Why, then, do Americans work so damn much? Why do we have pressure to work more even though we are working so much? The only answer I can think of is Marxian with the good old "exploitation of labor", etc.
I agree. Two phrases come to mind:
"pendulum theory"
"short-term memory"
"by removing the people involved from any chance of economic improvement, tends to lead towards lower health level, lower life expectancy, and lower educational levels"
Health level would be the only thing I would be concerned with by living such a life style. Happiness is the key for the rest. What use is education if you are not happy?
In my studies of economics in college I read a lot of stuff as to whether life is "better" in this industrialized society then an independent agrarian one with light trade. Frankly the only conclusive thing I could come accross was life expectancy.
If you look 200 years back being an "American" was an agrarian life and the industrial world of Manchester England and the such was "un-American". Thomas Jefferson was staunchly against industrialization and the politics and law of the time reflect that. Ironically it has come full swing and anything anti-industrialist is "un-American" (mostly due to the propoganda against the USSR + communism). If Tomas Jefferson were alive today he probably would be in utter shock and disgust.
"Technology now changes too fast for someone to spend 40 years fastening rivets or programming personal computers that run Windows."
Changing technology and the need for changing worker skill does not necessitate laying off workers as you imply. From what I have read in Japan large firms hire workers based mostly on thier ability to learn and adapt and then shuffle them around. Two years they'll work in sales next two years they'll work in engineering. You don't have "programmers" and "salespeople", you have an employees for company X.
This, along with the massive diversification of keiretsus (sp?) allow companies to have a very mobile work force that can fill in the needs of technology very quickly. That way they can give jobs for life in light of changing technology. You have to remember that the same keiretsu makes everything from canned tuna to cars to stereos to construction equipment (Mistubishi, etc) and handles it's own banking. It is the keiretsus that compete.
Being very young in the "IBM" era and only realizing what was going on then now that I am older I am absolutely amazed at the atnti-IBM undertones of sci-fi in the era. A few examples:
MCP = IBM in Tron
HAL + 1 letter is IBM; 2001 A Space Odessy
BladeRunner's director Ridley Scott also did the 1984 Apple commercial -- a blatant anti-IBM theme
What other examples are there? Why don't we see such anti-MS undertones in scifi today? Is MS PR that much better then IBM PR at the time? The only example that I can think of was that not-so-popular movie "Anti-Trust" which was a MS satire complete with cameos from Scott McNeay and Miguel de Icaza.
It was clever. . .don't know it's orginial intentions, but it sould a lot like:
"End of file" (infamous EOF)
"End of life"
marketing, social and technical jargon all alluded to in one!
To me totally using computers still seems to be "cheating".
I still much prefer the models, camera effects and computer fix-ups of the Enetrprise in Star Trek 2 or the Millenium Falcon in Star Was opposed to the cartoonish ships in Babylon 5 and The Phantom Menace.
The Enterprise in ST2 was so damn cool and realistic-looking. I have yet to see any computer model sci-fi object to rival that yet!
rogerd was too quick for me
More likely,
"In news today, FBI agents raided the homes of hundreds of people searching for pirated software where incidentally the primary focus seems to be Microsoft products."
A press-relations person at Microsoft commented on the raids and the tips that the FBI had stating, "We submitted a conclusive list to the FBI of people's names, e-mail and mailing adresses who gave positive aknowledgement that they didn't want to pay for Microsoft products."
Hmm. . .CRTs are better then LCDs because they can implode when you drop them. Cool!
My favorite:
NIC Card
I hate N'sync not because of jealousy, not because I dislike their music and not because I dislike them.
I hate them because they are a symbol of modern pop culture, the marketing machine that calculates what you should think and then creates it. I hate that the fans, my fellow Americans, who are completely ignorant to the fact that they were atrifically created, a T-1000 of the year 2000, a puppet, a robot to suck money out of the pockets of young teen's parents and to sway the fragile and youthful minds into a 'market share'.
I hate the fact that they are the drug of the industrailist machine that keeps its workers happy and ignorant, a 'soma' in this Brave New World.
I hate the fact that they are the icons of conformist pop culture, a culture that spits on any other ideas, a culture that breeds ignorance and a culture that so typifies America.
"N'Sync" is the marketing term for this. It is the name of the symbol. It is a buzz word more then a band, the shwastika of music industry.
The people in the band are probably cool kids and they got the shaft as soon as they signed up for the band. Their lives are probably controlled by "image" and "popularity" however that was the deal with the devil that they accepted when they willfully signed.
If my burger sucks I'll complain to the waitress. She didn't make the burger, 'I shouldn't take it out on her' but if I put pressure on her to make a better burger, she'll go to the cook and proxy the pressure. I don't have access to the cook.
I hate pop culture because I hate mass ignorance and I hate the pressure that so many teen agers go through to 'conform' with twig-thin bodies, cool clothes and the perfect attitude. I state my disdain with this to the waitress of pop culture, "N'Sync" so that the back-line cooks, the marketing gurus of pop culture may hear it through proxy.
He's right. A war even today can not be won without ground troops (in this case it was the Afghan Northern Alliance).
If I remember correctly the strategy in the Gulf War was to take out of conflict 1/2 (50%) of the then fourth-largest army in the world (Iraqi troops) either through death, starvation or any other means of incapacitating them after which the morale of the rest of the army would be nil and easy to over-power with American Troops.
This they did. They bombed the hell out of them, seiged them with economic sanctions, cut off their supplies and after a while 1/2 of the troops were not able to wage war. Americans walked in in their "100 hour ground war" and the Iraqi morale was so damn low that they just surrendered.
I don't doubt at all that the US miltary has used this strategy ever since in every conflict. The point is that machines today can aide greatly in softening a groud-war, but a war can not be won yet without troops -- even if they are just rouding up troops like in the Persial Gulf War.
The only case where you can win a war without troops is if you completely obliterate the enemy like we did with Japan in WW2 with the aid of "fat man" and "little boy". Killing that many civilians was so damn bad, though.
He has nice insight but it doesn't have much gusto without research and citations.
./ don't ever have research and citations because I feel it's just not worth it. SO who am I to speak?
But then, too my comments on
"We'll never see a war like that, as it wouldn't decide anything."
.the massive need of aver accelerating consumption in a capitalistic society is met and massive growth is acheived. People don't get upset because people don't die, people are happy because their incomes constantly rise and the economy booms. The government keeps them fat, dumb and happy. Most of all because the country is constantly "at a state of war" the government is allowed to take more control with little resistance.
Everyone seems to forget one of the larger points in Orwell's 1984 -- yes everyone remembers Big Brother and such, but everyone forgets his big point about the future being machines fighting machines simply for the economic benefit.
A country brings up nationalistic ferver by decalring a psudo-war, they send out a bunch of drones, machines blow each other up. .
The only major resistance in this pseodo-war "war on terrorism" is that liberals are screaming "all death is bad" blah blah blah. Get rid of that (machines fighting machines) and no one will complain. Like one continuous massive Battle Bots match and the captialist economy will benefit greatly. If I remeber correctly Orwell dedicated two chapters to that but at the end of it he went a little off the deep-end mixing in Marxian labor theory and I think that's why most people forget all of this.