What if the reason why certain portions of a liberal/conservative brain develops the way it does because of one's point of view? I mean, if studies of jet fighter pilots demonstrate how the nervous rewires itself, why can't the mind rewire itself too?
Are they saying that we are born either liberal or conservative? That would require that they take a fairly large sample and monitor their development for several decades; so I doubt that. So, alternatively, I suspect that they are seeing the effect (the rewired brain) and assuming that it is the cause.
It's not my definition, it is the definition of a former appellate judge/law professor. My opinion of his writing is that he does not think that is a bad thing. I added my assessment that, were that definition true, it might construe a Separation of Powers issue.
So, let's assume the right to set public policy belongs to the People, either directly or via their representatives in the Legislative Branch, and not the Judiciary. Setting policy affects future behavior (since, according to the Constitution, laws cannot be retroactive). If the Judicial Branch (via activist jurists) is usurping that role (the *could* happen), then why shouldn't the People *not* be more proactive?
The Fourteenth Amendment was a similar "heading off at the pass." Unionists realized that Southern states could label former slaves as non-US citizens and export them, or otherwise deny them citizen's rights. Thus, Congress pushed through an amendment stating that all US-born people are citizens, regardless of their pedigree. The act of denying rights was not yet in play, but the leaning was very obvious.
In fact, many of the Amendments could easily be construed to be proactive.
Finally, you made an interestingly neutral quote " . . . pre-emptive changes to the Constitution are about as good an idea as pre-emptive invasions of sovereign nations." There are many citizens who see both as perfectly valid, and others who don't. If you knew that Canada were about to unleash a weapon that would kill everybody in the US (including yourself), and the only way to stop it was to invade, would you?
In a true common law judical system, precedence (not jurisprudence) is hard to dislodge. It requires incremental changes that slowly adjust the course of the original decision. In common law, precedence reigns supreme.
In a constitutional republic, precedence (not jurisprudence) can be destroyed in one decision. The overarching foundation is not precedence, but the Constitution. All that need be done to change a precedence is to declare that the previous judge grossly misunderstood what the original writers of the Constitution/applicable Amendment meant. Examples of that are legion, but include decisions allowing desegregation (where prior precedent held that you could have separate-but-equal, but the Court reversed nearly a century later).
So, to respond to your comment. The prior decision of the Court to not balk allowing states to limit the Full Faith & Credit clause regarding marriage can be reversed by an activist court in one ruling. Game. Set. Match. The whole reason why there's a fear of allowing too many Anti-abortion judges on the Supreme Court is that they could chose to hear a case that challenges Roe v. Wade, and whip out the prior ruling.
(Definition, an activist court is one that decides to set public policy. It choses to deny the Legislative Branch its power to establish public policy (which is done by legislation), which is (IMO) a violation of the separation of powers.)
"Societies must start considering population reduction by attrition . .."
Where I come from, we call population reduction a good world war. Much more efficient than trying to control families to two children each. A good war will dramatically reduce population, and stimulate the economy (for the winning side, at least).
While it may be miniscule for a city, would a Sears Tower application, generating 4.2 Megawats, be able to power the building itself? I wonder what the average consumption of the Sears Tower is?
Of the Gigawatt produced by a power plant, how much of it is lost to power transmission? I mean, if these powerplant-esque high rises are closer to the point of consumption, aren't they a tad more efficient than the traditional at-a-distance power plants?
Because oil will eventually run out, then unless we have a solid alternative in place that is self-sustaining, then I suggest we make sure horses are kept in high supply. I doubt we will come up with a reliable alternative in the long run. I would label most suggestions to the alternative as pie-in-the-sky. So, I'm an optimist. We are in a temporary power bubble that must eventually pop--even if it takes a couple hundred years.
Even actual possession does not give you a right to anything. Someone else may come along and kick your sorry ass off the land.
You're partly right. Actual possession does not convey rights unless there is no other owner, or if the owner cannot be found. In the US, once you have ownership of a thing, to have somebody kick your ass off the land is robbery (larceny with violence) and battery.
But, you're referring to the historical tendency of one people to displace another. Your first sentence, out of context, implies individual ownership. In the case of the European Conquest of the Americas, the variation on the rule above was that non-Christian held land was not truely possessed by anyone and thus fell into the ownership of the first Christian (soverign power) to possess that land. It appears that rationale has changed, or people wouldn't be complaining about the occupation of Iraq.
Re:On the Subject of Warrants and the Patriot Act
on
Blackhat/Defcon Report
·
· Score: 1
You raise a fair enough question--a question that partly encouraged me to enroll in law school. Now, I won't know the answer right away . . . law school takes three years. But, I'll try to find the answer.
Or, copyright it and have a copy of it stored in the Library of Congress.
On the Subject of Warrants and the Patriot Act . .
on
Blackhat/Defcon Report
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
In the article, there was a section discussing "Meet the Feds." From that section, I quote: "The Patriot Act was also called into question by attendees. The FBI representative asserted that just because the act had been passed didn't mean they had carte blanche to surveil anyone they wanted, that judges still had approve their requests. That reasoning only flew so far, however, as the questioner pointed out that such requests by the FBI are always approved, never denied."
What we tend to forget is that, even in the Judicial system, there is a check-and-balance--especially when it comes to warrants. While a judge may allow a warrant, if a case ever goes to trial then a jury has an opportunity to nullify the value of any evidence obtained via a warrant. I know that sounds a little naiive, but this is one purpose of the jury--injecting the People into the judicial process to protect an accused from the Government. The jury is the key point in the process that is not absolutely Government controlled.
However, the attendees brought issue with the fact that "judges always approve." There was a landmark case (granted, it was in the early 18th C. in England) that allowed a victim to bring suit. The victim in question owned a printing press that printed pamphlets hostile to the Crown (or was it Parliment?). The Government responded by obtaining an ill-gotten warrant to wield as a weapon to silence him. However, the man suied and won a substancial sum. I think the right words were something to the effect of "a suitably painfully high sum to deter the Government from pursuing that line of action again."
Anyway, I'd like to point out that there are recourses of action for virtually anybody mis-treated by a ill-gotten warrant that are built into our legal system. Even if the judge always approve, there is the jury to help shield, and the precedence to file suit when abused. (I'd also like to point out that this is a common tactic by those justly prosecuted to try to wear down the government by attrition.)
I'm not worried about the nail-to-a-tree test, but I am worried about the staple-through test. I've only rarely seen a tree in an office, but I've seen many lUsers who are given to some strange behaviors. I've seen them staple through a 5.25" to attach it to a document. What would come of a staple-to-docuemnt for these media? Why didn't they test that?!
Now I'm going worry so much that I'll have problems sleeping, followed by curling up into the fetal position in a dark corner, rocking myself back and forth whispering "Rosbud," until they give me my Thorazine.
Except, you can't have them arrested for your paranoia that they are burglers. Sort of like issuing a speeding ticket to every newly licenced driver because you suspect at some time they are going to speed.
No, arrest them for trespass. That's a suitable reason. Of course, you can't restrain them from leaving the property, so if the cops come and they've bolted, you run the risk of being charged with a prank call.
I think one issue here is "intent." By virtue of the fact that you're watching in the comfort of your own home, you're "private." If you turn off the lights outside the front of your house and show the DVD in full view of the street, you may be liable for a public performance.
Now, I though old Billy the Gates came from New Mexico, not Texas. If so, then why is he allowing anything to be named "Longhorn?" It sounds a mighty bit like the Univ. of Texas Longhorns.
What's the advertising slogan going to be? "Hook'em Horn?!" Or, how about, "Using this product will prove to the greater IT community that you're a Longhorn, yourself." Well, the latter may be more fun, but not a good avert.
I agree, but it seems the solution is to turn off the "default" Tools->Options->WebFeatures->(JavaScript Enabled) Advanced, the way the notice page suggested. I did that some time ago, because I'm a tad bit paranoid, so I tested the "exploit," and was greeted with something that showed the fishiness of it all. That makes it a tad bit harder to dup some poor, dumb schmuck.
I recall an old science show that said that the pulsating pressure was actually important for the human body. As I recall (and it's been nearly 20 years), the pulse helps the blood travel down certain pathways it couldn't reach under a steady push, and that it gives the body more time to transfer the goods, so to speak, intra-pulse. The discovery was made because the old dialysis machines delivered steady stream and they learned that not all the blood was circulated (some pooled).
Not that I'm 100 percent sure about this. I like my ticker. I mean, with a non-pulse heart, if I were to pass out, they'd think I was dead.
Unbeknownst to those scientists, the Leaf Guard gutter people have been using the ultrasound detectors for some time. If you've heard the radio commercials (or seen the commercials on cable), you'll note that the squirrels are speaking in full, English sentences.
That might seem extraordinary, but consider that the squirrels in question live in North America, it's pretty obvious that they'd start picking up our language. However, there are small enclaves of squirrels who speak Spanish and other languages. Just goes to show what a blended society the squirrels have.
Seriously though, I'm surprised this discovery hadn't aleady happened. Heck, if I had a ultrasonic-to-sonic thing-a-ma-jig like that, I'd have pointed it at all sorts of things by now--people, birds (who says what we hear is all they squawk), squirrels, cars, etc.
Is it just me, or are scientists trying to make science fit the theory? I mean, once upon a time people thought the Sun revolved around the Earth (now we all know the Universe revolves around me), and kept coming up with more and more complicated explanations regarding why the other planets retrograded. Finally, somebody had the balls to say that the Earth revolves around the Sun (but, based on my parenthetical statement above, he was still wrong).
Now, as I understand it, we have an assumption of science that requires that we account for mass that is not present. Voila! Dark Matter (or Energy, or whatever). However, since we cannot detect this new thing, we have to find a way to make that fit the mould. It seems to me that we are winding on-and-on down the rabbit hole. How long before there is a realization that this is just modern (or is it post-modern) retrograde theory?
Why does reality have to yield to theory? Can't it be the other way around? Do I have the karma to withstand a mod down?
If anything I see this case as proof that we DON'T need to update the laws.
Actually, most of the time laws don't really need to be updated. Via the common law system, courts really make law, while legislatures write dicta, which we consider law. When the legislature is finished with it, it is up to the courts to decide what the legislature really meant. The Introduction to Legal Reasoning does a much better job than I on explaining this (the Amazon link has the read inside feature that shares quite a bit of the kernel of what the book conveys).
So, in my opinion, let the DA go before the court with the charge of 2nd D Murder and see if it passes both the trial court and the appellate court. If so, then we now have a new law that tells us not to watch "Road Trip" on DVD while driving.
Yeah, but, AFAIK Al got permission most of the time. I remember flack about Coolio, but I always though that was a publicity scheme (i.e., Coolio gave permission but publically denied it and Al didn't mind).
Scientific theories are not the same as political opinions.
I would disagree. Two different groups of scientists can look at the same set of data and arrive at two different, and sometimes conflicting, conclusions. How is this different than a political opinion? Scientists tend to associate themselves with one camp or another and are just as passionate about their cause than any politico. Being a scientist does not prevent one from behaving human.
a spaceship to Mars is unlikely to have to worry about plague-bearing rats eating all the moldy/rotten rations
However, I recall reading that the Russions learned that long-term exposure to cosmic radiation leads to mutated baceria. The report I read stated that these bacteria had developed the ablity to eat through the materials used to build the station (e.g. the plastic windows), and also could get into places where sanitization attempts fail. Consequently, they were always having to change out parts because they were "rotting".
In the same report, it mentioned that when Americans showed up in the Russian space station, that later American yeast started growing in the ship. Space travel introduces other problems than simple engineering.
So, I would say a multi-year mission to anywhere presents a problem of the ship itself rotting such that it could be hazardous for the crew.
I should say that in my comment I'm not trying to rip on the Army. I served for nine years. However, ever since I heard this I couldn't stop thinking how idiotic people can sometimes get when they're trying to reduce someting. I've seen this tendency in more than just the Army, so it is not unique in this regard.
Never in my statement do I recall saying that MREs are the only thing eaten in the field. So, you are taking issue with something I did not say. However, I'd like to address the issue you raise.
When I was in the Army for nine years and in the field, I ate MREs practically every day, although not for every meal. Typically, we ate at least one MRE/day and hot rations twice daily. My basic understanding was that was the only way for us to rotate the stock, since MREs do have a limited shelf life (if you call ~5 years limited when it comes to food). However, when I was in MTC for 21 days, I only had hot rations a couple of days and ate MREs the other 20-odd days. So, I ate upward of 60 MREs.
As for Rangers, I don't know if they'd be coming to my rescue. Although I see your reference to Black Hawk Down. But, if I were behind enemy lines and had 9 kgs of food, I don't think I'd eat them all in three days. I'd "field strip" them to make them less weight, then milk them as long as I could. I also probably wouldn't be hiking up and down mountains. In all likelihood, I'd hike down a mountain, sneak along a bit, and finally get caught, beaten and watch the "bad guys" eat the rest of my MREs. In that case, it would feel nice to have pre-hydrated them with a little urine.
You know, the current MREs come with a handy little water-activated heat pack. One of the more humorous steps in the use of these packets is to lean the concoction against a rock or something. Now, I wasn't always near a rock, and I always left the something back in garrison.
However, the system needed about a half cup of water. Why not piss in that?
Water, Water, Everywhere . . .
on
Just Add, Umm, Water
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Okay, here's a reason why the US Army would like to reduce the amount of water consumed by soldiers. It seems people are under the impression that soldiers haul all their own gear and consumables. Not quite.
We use vehicles to accomplish the logistical feat of transporting soldiers, equipment and water. The US Army calculates that the average soldier consumes something like five gallons of water daily. No, not just for drinking--hygiene, cooking (i.e., field mess facilities), etc. This figure increases for desert operations, for obvious reasons. Considering that five gallons of water is 40 pounds, and considering that a division comprises something like 10,000+ soldiers, then we are looking for something on the order of tons of water required daily. What's more, most of that water will need to be purified. So, the goal here is to reduce the burden on the military's logistical infrastructure by having the soldier consume less water. Sure, it's probably an expensive experiment that will be met with failure.
What's interesting is this is not the first time there's been a *big* experiment. In the '40s, when we were fighting another crazy ideology or two (fascism, national shintoism), some nut thought that we could train our soldiers to consume less than the required amount of water--especially for desert operations. The idea there was to reduce the burden to the military's logisitical infrastructure by having the soldier consume less water. What's disappointing is this: the human body requires a minimum amount of water to operate. The Army learned that lesson by watching dozens (I've heard as many as hundreds or thousands, but that seems a tad high) of soldiers died disproving the experiment. I think the loss of human life was more expensive than the loss of a few tax dollars. Besides, I think the government wastes money in several other areas that should be reined in first.
Slashdot Mirror
What if the reason why certain portions of a liberal/conservative brain develops the way it does because of one's point of view? I mean, if studies of jet fighter pilots demonstrate how the nervous rewires itself, why can't the mind rewire itself too?
Are they saying that we are born either liberal or conservative? That would require that they take a fairly large sample and monitor their development for several decades; so I doubt that. So, alternatively, I suspect that they are seeing the effect (the rewired brain) and assuming that it is the cause.
It's not my definition, it is the definition of a former appellate judge/law professor. My opinion of his writing is that he does not think that is a bad thing. I added my assessment that, were that definition true, it might construe a Separation of Powers issue.
So, let's assume the right to set public policy belongs to the People, either directly or via their representatives in the Legislative Branch, and not the Judiciary. Setting policy affects future behavior (since, according to the Constitution, laws cannot be retroactive). If the Judicial Branch (via activist jurists) is usurping that role (the *could* happen), then why shouldn't the People *not* be more proactive?
The Fourteenth Amendment was a similar "heading off at the pass." Unionists realized that Southern states could label former slaves as non-US citizens and export them, or otherwise deny them citizen's rights. Thus, Congress pushed through an amendment stating that all US-born people are citizens, regardless of their pedigree. The act of denying rights was not yet in play, but the leaning was very obvious.
In fact, many of the Amendments could easily be construed to be proactive.
Finally, you made an interestingly neutral quote " . . . pre-emptive changes to the Constitution are about as good an idea as pre-emptive invasions of sovereign nations." There are many citizens who see both as perfectly valid, and others who don't. If you knew that Canada were about to unleash a weapon that would kill everybody in the US (including yourself), and the only way to stop it was to invade, would you?
In a true common law judical system, precedence (not jurisprudence) is hard to dislodge. It requires incremental changes that slowly adjust the course of the original decision. In common law, precedence reigns supreme.
In a constitutional republic, precedence (not jurisprudence) can be destroyed in one decision. The overarching foundation is not precedence, but the Constitution. All that need be done to change a precedence is to declare that the previous judge grossly misunderstood what the original writers of the Constitution/applicable Amendment meant. Examples of that are legion, but include decisions allowing desegregation (where prior precedent held that you could have separate-but-equal, but the Court reversed nearly a century later).
So, to respond to your comment. The prior decision of the Court to not balk allowing states to limit the Full Faith & Credit clause regarding marriage can be reversed by an activist court in one ruling. Game. Set. Match. The whole reason why there's a fear of allowing too many Anti-abortion judges on the Supreme Court is that they could chose to hear a case that challenges Roe v. Wade, and whip out the prior ruling.
(Definition, an activist court is one that decides to set public policy. It choses to deny the Legislative Branch its power to establish public policy (which is done by legislation), which is (IMO) a violation of the separation of powers.)
"Societies must start considering population reduction by attrition . . ."
Where I come from, we call population reduction a good world war. Much more efficient than trying to control families to two children each. A good war will dramatically reduce population, and stimulate the economy (for the winning side, at least).
While it may be miniscule for a city, would a Sears Tower application, generating 4.2 Megawats, be able to power the building itself? I wonder what the average consumption of the Sears Tower is?
Of the Gigawatt produced by a power plant, how much of it is lost to power transmission? I mean, if these powerplant-esque high rises are closer to the point of consumption, aren't they a tad more efficient than the traditional at-a-distance power plants?
Because oil will eventually run out, then unless we have a solid alternative in place that is self-sustaining, then I suggest we make sure horses are kept in high supply. I doubt we will come up with a reliable alternative in the long run. I would label most suggestions to the alternative as pie-in-the-sky. So, I'm an optimist. We are in a temporary power bubble that must eventually pop--even if it takes a couple hundred years.
Even actual possession does not give you a right to anything. Someone else may come along and kick your sorry ass off the land.
You're partly right. Actual possession does not convey rights unless there is no other owner, or if the owner cannot be found. In the US, once you have ownership of a thing, to have somebody kick your ass off the land is robbery (larceny with violence) and battery.
But, you're referring to the historical tendency of one people to displace another. Your first sentence, out of context, implies individual ownership. In the case of the European Conquest of the Americas, the variation on the rule above was that non-Christian held land was not truely possessed by anyone and thus fell into the ownership of the first Christian (soverign power) to possess that land. It appears that rationale has changed, or people wouldn't be complaining about the occupation of Iraq.
You raise a fair enough question--a question that partly encouraged me to enroll in law school. Now, I won't know the answer right away . . . law school takes three years. But, I'll try to find the answer.
Or, copyright it and have a copy of it stored in the Library of Congress.
In the article, there was a section discussing "Meet the Feds." From that section, I quote: "The Patriot Act was also called into question by attendees. The FBI representative asserted that just because the act had been passed didn't mean they had carte blanche to surveil anyone they wanted, that judges still had approve their requests. That reasoning only flew so far, however, as the questioner pointed out that such requests by the FBI are always approved, never denied."
What we tend to forget is that, even in the Judicial system, there is a check-and-balance--especially when it comes to warrants. While a judge may allow a warrant, if a case ever goes to trial then a jury has an opportunity to nullify the value of any evidence obtained via a warrant. I know that sounds a little naiive, but this is one purpose of the jury--injecting the People into the judicial process to protect an accused from the Government. The jury is the key point in the process that is not absolutely Government controlled.
However, the attendees brought issue with the fact that "judges always approve." There was a landmark case (granted, it was in the early 18th C. in England) that allowed a victim to bring suit. The victim in question owned a printing press that printed pamphlets hostile to the Crown (or was it Parliment?). The Government responded by obtaining an ill-gotten warrant to wield as a weapon to silence him. However, the man suied and won a substancial sum. I think the right words were something to the effect of "a suitably painfully high sum to deter the Government from pursuing that line of action again."
Anyway, I'd like to point out that there are recourses of action for virtually anybody mis-treated by a ill-gotten warrant that are built into our legal system. Even if the judge always approve, there is the jury to help shield, and the precedence to file suit when abused. (I'd also like to point out that this is a common tactic by those justly prosecuted to try to wear down the government by attrition.)
I'm not worried about the nail-to-a-tree test, but I am worried about the staple-through test. I've only rarely seen a tree in an office, but I've seen many lUsers who are given to some strange behaviors. I've seen them staple through a 5.25" to attach it to a document. What would come of a staple-to-docuemnt for these media? Why didn't they test that?!
Now I'm going worry so much that I'll have problems sleeping, followed by curling up into the fetal position in a dark corner, rocking myself back and forth whispering "Rosbud," until they give me my Thorazine.
Except, you can't have them arrested for your paranoia that they are burglers. Sort of like issuing a speeding ticket to every newly licenced driver because you suspect at some time they are going to speed.
No, arrest them for trespass. That's a suitable reason. Of course, you can't restrain them from leaving the property, so if the cops come and they've bolted, you run the risk of being charged with a prank call.
I think one issue here is "intent." By virtue of the fact that you're watching in the comfort of your own home, you're "private." If you turn off the lights outside the front of your house and show the DVD in full view of the street, you may be liable for a public performance.
Now, I though old Billy the Gates came from New Mexico, not Texas. If so, then why is he allowing anything to be named "Longhorn?" It sounds a mighty bit like the Univ. of Texas Longhorns.
What's the advertising slogan going to be? "Hook'em Horn?!" Or, how about, "Using this product will prove to the greater IT community that you're a Longhorn, yourself." Well, the latter may be more fun, but not a good avert.
I agree, but it seems the solution is to turn off the "default" Tools->Options->WebFeatures->(JavaScript Enabled) Advanced, the way the notice page suggested. I did that some time ago, because I'm a tad bit paranoid, so I tested the "exploit," and was greeted with something that showed the fishiness of it all. That makes it a tad bit harder to dup some poor, dumb schmuck.
I recall an old science show that said that the pulsating pressure was actually important for the human body. As I recall (and it's been nearly 20 years), the pulse helps the blood travel down certain pathways it couldn't reach under a steady push, and that it gives the body more time to transfer the goods, so to speak, intra-pulse. The discovery was made because the old dialysis machines delivered steady stream and they learned that not all the blood was circulated (some pooled).
Not that I'm 100 percent sure about this. I like my ticker. I mean, with a non-pulse heart, if I were to pass out, they'd think I was dead.
Unbeknownst to those scientists, the Leaf Guard gutter people have been using the ultrasound detectors for some time. If you've heard the radio commercials (or seen the commercials on cable), you'll note that the squirrels are speaking in full, English sentences.
That might seem extraordinary, but consider that the squirrels in question live in North America, it's pretty obvious that they'd start picking up our language. However, there are small enclaves of squirrels who speak Spanish and other languages. Just goes to show what a blended society the squirrels have.
Seriously though, I'm surprised this discovery hadn't aleady happened. Heck, if I had a ultrasonic-to-sonic thing-a-ma-jig like that, I'd have pointed it at all sorts of things by now--people, birds (who says what we hear is all they squawk), squirrels, cars, etc.
Is it just me, or are scientists trying to make science fit the theory? I mean, once upon a time people thought the Sun revolved around the Earth (now we all know the Universe revolves around me), and kept coming up with more and more complicated explanations regarding why the other planets retrograded. Finally, somebody had the balls to say that the Earth revolves around the Sun (but, based on my parenthetical statement above, he was still wrong).
Now, as I understand it, we have an assumption of science that requires that we account for mass that is not present. Voila! Dark Matter (or Energy, or whatever). However, since we cannot detect this new thing, we have to find a way to make that fit the mould. It seems to me that we are winding on-and-on down the rabbit hole. How long before there is a realization that this is just modern (or is it post-modern) retrograde theory?
Why does reality have to yield to theory? Can't it be the other way around? Do I have the karma to withstand a mod down?
If anything I see this case as proof that we DON'T need to update the laws.
Actually, most of the time laws don't really need to be updated. Via the common law system, courts really make law, while legislatures write dicta, which we consider law. When the legislature is finished with it, it is up to the courts to decide what the legislature really meant. The Introduction to Legal Reasoning does a much better job than I on explaining this (the Amazon link has the read inside feature that shares quite a bit of the kernel of what the book conveys).
So, in my opinion, let the DA go before the court with the charge of 2nd D Murder and see if it passes both the trial court and the appellate court. If so, then we now have a new law that tells us not to watch "Road Trip" on DVD while driving.
Yeah, but, AFAIK Al got permission most of the time. I remember flack about Coolio, but I always though that was a publicity scheme (i.e., Coolio gave permission but publically denied it and Al didn't mind).
Scientific theories are not the same as political opinions.
I would disagree. Two different groups of scientists can look at the same set of data and arrive at two different, and sometimes conflicting, conclusions. How is this different than a political opinion? Scientists tend to associate themselves with one camp or another and are just as passionate about their cause than any politico. Being a scientist does not prevent one from behaving human.
a spaceship to Mars is unlikely to have to worry about plague-bearing rats eating all the moldy/rotten rations
However, I recall reading that the Russions learned that long-term exposure to cosmic radiation leads to mutated baceria. The report I read stated that these bacteria had developed the ablity to eat through the materials used to build the station (e.g. the plastic windows), and also could get into places where sanitization attempts fail. Consequently, they were always having to change out parts because they were "rotting".
In the same report, it mentioned that when Americans showed up in the Russian space station, that later American yeast started growing in the ship. Space travel introduces other problems than simple engineering.
So, I would say a multi-year mission to anywhere presents a problem of the ship itself rotting such that it could be hazardous for the crew.
I should say that in my comment I'm not trying to rip on the Army. I served for nine years. However, ever since I heard this I couldn't stop thinking how idiotic people can sometimes get when they're trying to reduce someting. I've seen this tendency in more than just the Army, so it is not unique in this regard.
Never in my statement do I recall saying that MREs are the only thing eaten in the field. So, you are taking issue with something I did not say. However, I'd like to address the issue you raise.
When I was in the Army for nine years and in the field, I ate MREs practically every day, although not for every meal. Typically, we ate at least one MRE/day and hot rations twice daily. My basic understanding was that was the only way for us to rotate the stock, since MREs do have a limited shelf life (if you call ~5 years limited when it comes to food). However, when I was in MTC for 21 days, I only had hot rations a couple of days and ate MREs the other 20-odd days. So, I ate upward of 60 MREs.
As for Rangers, I don't know if they'd be coming to my rescue. Although I see your reference to Black Hawk Down. But, if I were behind enemy lines and had 9 kgs of food, I don't think I'd eat them all in three days. I'd "field strip" them to make them less weight, then milk them as long as I could. I also probably wouldn't be hiking up and down mountains. In all likelihood, I'd hike down a mountain, sneak along a bit, and finally get caught, beaten and watch the "bad guys" eat the rest of my MREs. In that case, it would feel nice to have pre-hydrated them with a little urine.
You know, the current MREs come with a handy little water-activated heat pack. One of the more humorous steps in the use of these packets is to lean the concoction against a rock or something. Now, I wasn't always near a rock, and I always left the something back in garrison.
However, the system needed about a half cup of water. Why not piss in that?
Okay, here's a reason why the US Army would like to reduce the amount of water consumed by soldiers. It seems people are under the impression that soldiers haul all their own gear and consumables. Not quite.
We use vehicles to accomplish the logistical feat of transporting soldiers, equipment and water. The US Army calculates that the average soldier consumes something like five gallons of water daily. No, not just for drinking--hygiene, cooking (i.e., field mess facilities), etc. This figure increases for desert operations, for obvious reasons. Considering that five gallons of water is 40 pounds, and considering that a division comprises something like 10,000+ soldiers, then we are looking for something on the order of tons of water required daily. What's more, most of that water will need to be purified. So, the goal here is to reduce the burden on the military's logistical infrastructure by having the soldier consume less water. Sure, it's probably an expensive experiment that will be met with failure.
What's interesting is this is not the first time there's been a *big* experiment. In the '40s, when we were fighting another crazy ideology or two (fascism, national shintoism), some nut thought that we could train our soldiers to consume less than the required amount of water--especially for desert operations. The idea there was to reduce the burden to the military's logisitical infrastructure by having the soldier consume less water. What's disappointing is this: the human body requires a minimum amount of water to operate. The Army learned that lesson by watching dozens (I've heard as many as hundreds or thousands, but that seems a tad high) of soldiers died disproving the experiment. I think the loss of human life was more expensive than the loss of a few tax dollars. Besides, I think the government wastes money in several other areas that should be reined in first.