I think the bigger argument comes from anyone who's ever heard about the environment in Soviet Russia. There's a concrete, historical example of socialism being worse for the environment than capitalism.
I agree. I use google all the time to search other sites whose search engines aren't up to snuff - especially slashdot. Slashdot's searching is the component of the site that is really the most lacking IMHO
There are a lot of comments here that bring up very valid points for why this system wouldn't make a good rifle. However, what if it was mounted on a ship or aircraft? Many of the key arguments against this system dissipate when it is viewed in this context:
- Extreme recoil is not an issue shipboard, as the gun can be mechanically mounted. And though 170 rounds/min. isn't as fast as a vulcan cannon, get a whole bunch of these badboys together and then you're talking.
- The radiation control problems are not nearly on the same scale on a ship/plane. And if we are talking a large enough ship it could even use it's own nuclear reactor to power these weapons - eliminating the need for the expensive and toxic Po-210.
- The heat/radiation/noise that the weapon emits that will allow for the enemy to target you are not usually of primary concern on a ship:-), and on a plane you can have shielding until you open up - at which point it's usually too late for whoevers on the recieving end of this.
- The eye-safe provisions of the Geneva convention do not apply to this weapon, as the Geneva convention only prohibits weapons solely intended to explicitly blind the enemy (which is why the army can use laser sights + rangefinders). Further, with the power that this weapon is delivering in a single burst (16 kW), i think that the enemy would be more concerned with his exploding head than going blind:-)
In the context of weapons platforms, this weapon makes lots of sense. I could see it replacing the PATRIOT missile system (I don't know why you yanks are still using that ineffective deathtrap) or the vulcan cannons on AEGIS cruisers in the future.
Two people have replied to this thread with comments about how 98% efficiency is impractical with carnot heat engines. What about other engines? Electrical, gravity (hydro), or other solutions are all possible and can achieve MUCH higher efficiencies.
On another point, if you lower the cold-sink of a carnot engine to almost absolute zero, you can achieve extremely high efficiencies, though again the practicality of this is dubious.
Um, given the current cost to launch pounds into orbit on a shuttle, doesn't it seem a bit illogical that NASA hadn't removed the OEX from the shuttle after the first few flights and the telemetry they provided?
There's probably a reasonable explanation, it just seems a little odd...
The article is a bit light on details, but could there be other causes for the spike in asthma after a thunderstorm? For example, when lightning occurs, ozone (O3) is generated. Is it possible that an increased O3 level has some effect? Or how about just plain humidity? Given that there is no causal link, and that they didn't explore a correlation with high winds (which would presumably also stir up allergens), I think it is premature to jump to that conclusion.
The article is pretty thin on the details - does anyone here know or have some idea how this technology works? The article makes some vague references to ultrasound, does it maybe utilize interferance patterns or something?
Please don't use the word Orwellian unless you have at least read 1984, and preferably the other classics like Animal Farm, et al. The context you use it in makes it only an inapplicable buzzword that onlyu demonstrates your ignorance of its meaning.
Good points. I guess I missinterpreted your post (or didn't read carefully enough:-)
I suppose that MAD was only a theory, but it did work (so far - that could change with the way the world is going*...). However, I don't think it was MAD that caused the proxy wars. Those proxy wars stemmed from the Soviet-American rivalry, and the competition was basically a choice between total anihhilation of the world and many *relatively* little bloody proxy wars around the globe. If you took nuclear weapons out of the equation, I believe that you would end up with a direct World War III between NATO and the Warsaw Pact. Would that really be better than the proxy wars?
No, and as I'm sure you know, they actually did build something pretty close to the TIA (not similar in terms of the technological focus, but in terms of spying on their citizens). The reason I don't think it would be ok is because there's no benifit to having multiple nations spying on their citizens, like there is benefit in the MAD principle.
*not only do rogue states not factor well into the MAD theory, the Americans are closer to deploying nuclear weapons now than they have since the cold war.
Ok, I know this may sound like it, but it's not flaimbait, it's my honest opinion. That's why I am taking responsibility for it by posting logged-in.
Personally, I would state that working on a project like TIA is worse than the atomic bomb. Yes you read that right. And yes, I know that the atomic bombs used in WWII killed millions (hundreds-of-thousands?) of people.
The key difference lies in the fact that if the Americans didn't develop the atomic bomb, the soviets would have. Any poli-sci student can tell you that in the nuclear era, the only thing worse than two nations with nuclear weapons is one (the Mutual Assured Destruction principle doesn't work when only one power is nuclear capable).
However, the TIA project is NOT neccesary in a free democracy, does not hinder foreign relations, and only serves to enable government surpression of domestic problems in an orwellian fashion. In short, the atomic bomb was a neccesary evil, the TIA project is not.
Ah, while grains may be simpler in terms of the production of them, meat is simpler in terms of concentrating many of the protein, vitamins, minerals, and other stuff that a human needs in one good-tasting package. Ever noticed how strict a diet vegans, or even vegetarians for that matter, have to maintain in order to balance their diet? That's where the "simpler" comes from.
Slashdot Mirror
I think the bigger argument comes from anyone who's ever heard about the environment in Soviet Russia. There's a concrete, historical example of socialism being worse for the environment than capitalism.
hey, i just noticed...
nice sig...
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
o man you are such a troll...
He does this to ensure that our children will grow up without planes crashing into their office buildings
Damn, kids grow up fast these days!
I agree. I use google all the time to search other sites whose search engines aren't up to snuff - especially slashdot. Slashdot's searching is the component of the site that is really the most lacking IMHO
There are a lot of comments here that bring up very valid points for why this system wouldn't make a good rifle. However, what if it was mounted on a ship or aircraft? Many of the key arguments against this system dissipate when it is viewed in this context:
:-), and on a plane you can have shielding until you open up - at which point it's usually too late for whoevers on the recieving end of this.
:-)
- Extreme recoil is not an issue shipboard, as the gun can be mechanically mounted. And though 170 rounds/min. isn't as fast as a vulcan cannon, get a whole bunch of these badboys together and then you're talking.
- The radiation control problems are not nearly on the same scale on a ship/plane. And if we are talking a large enough ship it could even use it's own nuclear reactor to power these weapons - eliminating the need for the expensive and toxic Po-210.
- The heat/radiation/noise that the weapon emits that will allow for the enemy to target you are not usually of primary concern on a ship
- The eye-safe provisions of the Geneva convention do not apply to this weapon, as the Geneva convention only prohibits weapons solely intended to explicitly blind the enemy (which is why the army can use laser sights + rangefinders). Further, with the power that this weapon is delivering in a single burst (16 kW), i think that the enemy would be more concerned with his exploding head than going blind
In the context of weapons platforms, this weapon makes lots of sense. I could see it replacing the PATRIOT missile system (I don't know why you yanks are still using that ineffective deathtrap) or the vulcan cannons on AEGIS cruisers in the future.
Does anyone know where I can find a downloadable sound sample of the "Chimes of Death"? I'm not a mac user and I'm interested in hearing them...
Two people have replied to this thread with comments about how 98% efficiency is impractical with carnot heat engines. What about other engines? Electrical, gravity (hydro), or other solutions are all possible and can achieve MUCH higher efficiencies.
On another point, if you lower the cold-sink of a carnot engine to almost absolute zero, you can achieve extremely high efficiencies, though again the practicality of this is dubious.
Um, given the current cost to launch pounds into orbit on a shuttle, doesn't it seem a bit illogical that NASA hadn't removed the OEX from the shuttle after the first few flights and the telemetry they provided?
There's probably a reasonable explanation, it just seems a little odd...
The article is a bit light on details, but could there be other causes for the spike in asthma after a thunderstorm? For example, when lightning occurs, ozone (O3) is generated. Is it possible that an increased O3 level has some effect? Or how about just plain humidity? Given that there is no causal link, and that they didn't explore a correlation with high winds (which would presumably also stir up allergens), I think it is premature to jump to that conclusion.
damn, forgot the preview button again...
The article is pretty thin on the details - does anyone here know or have some idea how this technology works? The article makes some vague references to ultrasound, does it maybe utilize interferance patterns or something?
Please don't use the word Orwellian unless you have at least read 1984, and preferably the other classics like Animal Farm, et al. The context you use it in makes it only an inapplicable buzzword that onlyu demonstrates your ignorance of its meaning.
um, isn't 1 litre = 1 cubic decimeter?
and we have defined a meter as a fraction of the distance that light travels in 1 second, so I fail to see the problem in defining a litre.
Cool, be sure to update it with a different colour when some governments actually use/mandate linux.
"There is also an "embarassment factor" - which means that a lot of e-fraud goes unreported."
I think you meant to say e-barassment...
There website is at www.activestores.com/
whether weirdstuff carries any surplus servers. They could use an extra few right about now...
thanks for making me laugh...
WHAT THE FUCK!?
please tell me you're an admin CSUC and just put that page up for the sake of pulling my leg...
Good points. I guess I missinterpreted your post (or didn't read carefully enough :-)
I suppose that MAD was only a theory, but it did work (so far - that could change with the way the world is going*...). However, I don't think it was MAD that caused the proxy wars. Those proxy wars stemmed from the Soviet-American rivalry, and the competition was basically a choice between total anihhilation of the world and many *relatively* little bloody proxy wars around the globe. If you took nuclear weapons out of the equation, I believe that you would end up with a direct World War III between NATO and the Warsaw Pact. Would that really be better than the proxy wars?
No, and as I'm sure you know, they actually did build something pretty close to the TIA (not similar in terms of the technological focus, but in terms of spying on their citizens). The reason I don't think it would be ok is because there's no benifit to having multiple nations spying on their citizens, like there is benefit in the MAD principle.
*not only do rogue states not factor well into the MAD theory, the Americans are closer to deploying nuclear weapons now than they have since the cold war.
Mods, I think that was meant to be insightful, not funny....
Ok, I know this may sound like it, but it's not flaimbait, it's my honest opinion. That's why I am taking responsibility for it by posting logged-in.
Personally, I would state that working on a project like TIA is worse than the atomic bomb. Yes you read that right. And yes, I know that the atomic bombs used in WWII killed millions (hundreds-of-thousands?) of people.
The key difference lies in the fact that if the Americans didn't develop the atomic bomb, the soviets would have. Any poli-sci student can tell you that in the nuclear era, the only thing worse than two nations with nuclear weapons is one (the Mutual Assured Destruction principle doesn't work when only one power is nuclear capable).
However, the TIA project is NOT neccesary in a free democracy, does not hinder foreign relations, and only serves to enable government surpression of domestic problems in an orwellian fashion. In short, the atomic bomb was a neccesary evil, the TIA project is not.
Ah, while grains may be simpler in terms of the production of them, meat is simpler in terms of concentrating many of the protein, vitamins, minerals, and other stuff that a human needs in one good-tasting package. Ever noticed how strict a diet vegans, or even vegetarians for that matter, have to maintain in order to balance their diet? That's where the "simpler" comes from.
perhaps the entrance could be built into the side of a cliff where snow doesn't accumulate?