What resources involved? This was done apparenty with only one or two people diddling around on the internet and probably a database.
What resources? What you just mentioned: a couple of people, some sort of network access, and a database. The concept isn't that it is a solution to the problem, as I indicated, but that it is yet more work for them to have to do and it is a piece of the solution. Also, I'd hardly call PhD thesis work "diddling around on the internet". At least, I'd expect that it took much more than that.
The problem with your idea of denying information to the enemy in this case would require classifying every telephone pole, phone book, and building permit in existence now and in the past for the entire USA.
No, if you'd have taken the time to try and understand what I wrote, you might have seen that I see some merit in securing the compilation of the information, so as to deny easy access to a more complete database of the information in a single location, causing them to have to exert energy in finding this information on their own, thus eating resources (however small, they eventually add up), delaying action, etc.
The only reasonable way to defeat the "terrorist enemy" is for the US to learn to live in harmony with the other 95% of the world's population, thus not giving them a reason to hate us with such fervor.
This is such a tired concept. News flash: the United States does much for this world. A lot of what we do isn't appreciated. No, we're not perfect, but that doesn't mean that we're entirely bad either. I'm not a champion for every action that my country undertakes, as a matter of fact I don't like a good deal of it, but to imply that the United States goes around only causing problems with other countries is to ignore the truth. Here's another news flash: there are people out there that hate the US simply becuase it is, and also because most of the US has a different philosophical outlook on life than they do. A country cannot and should not appease every point of view, and that therefore means that a given county, at least one that has static principles, it seems, will always have enemies.
I don't see where your concept is based in reality.
If you truely believe that majoprity rules, then we're screwed.
Your rant and assumptions have reached a new level. Where, exactly, did I even begin to mention any concept that had anything to do with majority rules, anti/pro-american anything, or further, politics of any nature? I didn't.
What I did make was a very simple, limited point, and that was to deny information in any amount to an opposition causes them to exert resources, however small, in order to gain that same information, and this is what helps one's own effort.
For those that do have a brain and can follow what I'm saying, here's another anology: Consider an ongoing battle. If one simply shoots and kills an enemy soldier, you have removed one resource from the enemy. This is, in war, needed, of couse. However, if one doesn't kill the enemy soldier (one simply wounds him), then, presumably, this not only denies that resource to the enemy (at least for a time), but also causes the enemy to expend resources in caring for that wounded soldier (medics, hospitals, medical materials, training, etc). Which do you think will help win the "war" better?
I keep seeing comments to the effect that the information is out there, so "why try and hide it because someone else can do the work and compile it anyway?".
It seems to me that this neglects a critical piece of the puzzle, namely resources involved.
I'm no general (though I *was* in the military for a bit...) but from my experience one does not win a war by killing the other soldiers, one wins a war by making it increasingly difficult for the enemy to fight, ie: hinder their ability to make war.
Yes, the information may be able to be compilied by someone else. The thing, though, is that it takes time and resources to do it, and, make no mistake, any information denied to the "enemy" that causes them to expend more time and resources has a positive effect on security.
No, it may not be ultimate. No, it may not be complete. But yes, it does help...
It just has to be asked, what would the other Americans (USA) propose we do? Not advace our military technology because the potential exists for it to be used against us?
If you think about it, this has been the case all along...everything the military has can be used against you and me, right now, no matter if you like it or not. It is the nature of the (necessary) beast.
I don't know about all of the CATV companies, but...
I PMed an MATV system at a fairly large (10,000+ students) university in Ohio. Along with installing satellite dishes for receiving normal channels (CNN, Discovery, MTV, etc.), we had to mount multiple cut antennas on a broadcast tower, pointed in the right directions, to pull in the local broadcast stations.
In other words, though the campus population had access to the local channels without antennas on *their* televisions, there were, in fact, antennas *somewhere* that eventually provided the signal through regular broadcast means.
Having driven by a few local headends (or headend substations, at least) whose purpose was made obvious by the receiving dishes and antennas just outside of the little building, I surmise that the "non-broadcast" signal that a lot of homes are receiving actually are "re-broadcast" signals, originally obtained through the use of the normal television broadcast means.
I think Clausewitz would say that self defense and survival *is* politics.
And I think I would still disagree with Clausewitz. I think self defense and survival is simply that, self defense and survival. The will to survive, and to survive without harm isn't a political thing, in its base form, it is basic human nature.
...so in the final analysis America's will can be broken before the Baathists if the war can be extended sufficiently long.
Yet to this assertion there is no guarantee, neither that the war *can* be extended sufficiently long enough, nor that the Baathists will can't be broken. I'll grant that maybe it can't be broken completely, but that in no way implies that they will still be able to concentrate a measure of power great enough to make a significant impact on that post-war society, and therefore there is still the possibility of calling this exercise successful, even if the Baathists still exist to some measure.
You make the error of seeing the war in purely military terms. Clausewitz's assertion highlights that war must be seen as part of a wider political process. It really doesn't matter if the Vietcong won because they defeated America militarily, or because they made the cost of America winning politically unacceptable. The result is the same
Ah, but the same result doesn't mean that the causes are the same. War *may be* somewhat political, but I was making a distinction between *military* strategy and *political* strategy. He asserts that they are one in the same, but tell a military strategist that and you will get laughed out of the room. Military strategy may be used to effect a political means, I'll agree, but it, in of itself, is not political. The political is about just that, politics. Military strategy is about fighting, maneuvering, and control of enemy forces. It's about flanking, bombing, attacking, and control of key positions so that the forces can do more of that, more effectively. That these plans and actions effect an ultimate political end does not mean that they are the same as politics at their core. I assert that they remain separate.
And, as I indicated before, there is a valid sense in which the US achieved what the US needed to achieve in Viet Nam, namely the halting of aggression.
Following the bomb in the Baghdad Market this evening, and the consequent achievement by America in uniting all Arab opinion against it
...which bomb, by the way, is still yet to be proven to be even a "bomb", let alone dropped by US aircraft. All that has been made is an assertion by the Iraqi government that the US did an atrocious thing, and you and a lot of other Arab and non-Arabs seem to have chosen to accept that as an explanation uncritically.
...I am now firmly of the conclusion that the Baathists will most probably win. Of sure, they'll be a battle and the republican guard will be defeated, but America will not be able to take and hold Baghdad in the long term without unacceptable political consequences.
That's fine, I'm not. And, by the way, since neither of us can predict the future, both positions are resigned to be mere opinion, nothing more. Further, it doesn't appear to me that the US has any intentions of "holding Baghdad in the long term".
...dictates that in all but the most dedicatedly repressive hegemonies, if in a sizable population there are one hundred rebels, all of whom are then rounded up and killed, the number of rebels present at the end of the day is not zero, and not even one hundred, but two hundred or three hundred or more
And this blanket statement, that is written to imply that it applies without question every time, falls prey to the reality that there is the possibility that it may not be true. It is left to assertion, or at the most, an educated prediction, but there is no reason to think that this is or ever will
As Clausewitz said "war is politics by other means".
I don't disagree with this completely, but, to be honest, sometimes war isn't political, at least for one side anyway. I think there's definatly a situation where it could be self defence and survival, not political.
Vietnam was won by the Vietcong because they forced the Anericans into a position whereby they couldn't win without taking politically unacceptable actions.
I see your point, but I still disagree. I don't belive the Vietcong "forced" anything like it. I think our leaders were simply morons who didn't really care and didn't listen to the military as to how to go about it. I think they were simply playing games.
And, though the US didn't "obtain" Vietnam, as in occupy it (that wasn't the goal anyway), there is a sense in which the US actually did win. Linebacker I and II forced N. Vietnam to the barganing table and that's what resulted in the ceasefire, and, I think the outcome was acceptable. The tide of agression was checked. And, really, when thinking about this, one needs to keep in mind that the fight really wasn't about N. and S. Vietnam, it was about the US and the USSR. Anyone who says that the US and USSR was a cold war is full of crap. It was a "hot" war, but for the USSR it was a war by proxy.
There's a good chance Saddam could, by skillful political and military manouvering, manipulate the situation to the same effect.
Militarily? Not really. His troops are really no match for the US/British toops. Yeah, the troops will take casulties, maybe more maybe less, but they'll still win. I think the fact of this is demonstrated by his use of forced human shields. He knows he can't win militarily, so he's trying a political, emotional ploy, namely try and make the US troops look bad for shooting civilians that are being forced to shoot at them, and thereby try and sway public opinion against this conflict. But, that's not a military strategy, it's a political one.
Could it work? Definatly, because the vast majority of people are way too shallow in thir thinking. They will see the effect of his actions, namely the shooting of civilians by the US military, and they will stop thinking at that point and turn against the US troops. The reality of the matter, however, is that the US troops wouldn't be taking that action if it wasn't for Saddam's forcing that hand. But too many people will stop thinking prior to reaching a more root cause, and that actually may work somewhat against the US. But I don't think it actually will change things, personally.
The other thought that comes to mind, with an initial thought toward a possible military manouver that might work, is if he can convence another country to get deeply involved. But, then, that's more of a politial manouver, not a military one. And, I think the US would end up taking them both out in the end.
That's funny...and here I was thinking that we pulled out of Vietnam because it was a political thing.
FYI, we didn't lose Vietnam because we couldn't win, we lost because we weren't allowed to win by the administration. Something to do with limited targets, Presidential approval of the vast majority of major targets, etc.
Maybe I misunderstood, please correct me if I'm wrong, but your post seems to imply that you think that anytime someone/some company does something that has the effect of furthering someone else's goals, then they are really doing what they're doing in order to help the other person/company. That's pretty flawed logic.
Suppose that I am married and my wife doesn't like guns. Further assume that in my house, what I say goes (I know, I know...but it's a hypothetical situation!), and I don't want the guns in the house because, though I like guns, I think they're too dangerous to have since we have children. By your logic, what I am really doing is conceeding to my wife, rather than making a decision based on my own beliefs, simply because it furthered her goals. That would be a wrong conclusion.
Now, back to the bandwidth thing. I am a network engineer at a large financial institution. We just upgraded our Internet pipes to 22 meg, because we need the bandwidth. Though we have plenty of money to pay for it, it may not be a cost effective move if we could have elminiated, say, 25% of the traffic (5.5 meg) through any valid (meaning, more cost effective) means. For a university (yes, I am very familiar with university networks and funding issues) this is even more critical, as their funding is much lower than where I work. And, in fact, even we limit bandwidth used by using a web proxy and by restricting sites that employees can go to (which, admittedly, does serve another purpose as well).
My point is, that this type of activity is very common, especially in well structured networking departments, primarily because a dollar that is spent on a recurring charge is a dollar that may be better spent elsewhere. The recurring charges are the budget killers, though some are necessary.
Because without SOMETHING, nothing isn't anything! If there was no energy or matter, what would the universe be? Nothing, because without stuff within the space as a contrast, the emptiness is no longer space, it is just nothing.
Sorry, nothing isn't anything anyway!
Now if you're sayting that matter must exist because the universe is, then I'm in complete agreement. However, what I took your comment to mean (perhaps incorrectly?) was that the universe had to exist in order to contrast non-existance, but that presupposes an existance of something then again, but on a less physical level. I'm speaking of a rule or law that creates this "must", but then, where would that rule have come from? Any way you slice it, if we have actual existance, or something that necessitates existance, then we have something that exists and it's not a true void. But then, I recognize that I'm bringing an element of a non-physical into what started as a statement of the physical.
Even nothing is something...
Again, nothing isn't something. You're making a contradictory statement. If you're speaking of something, even something unseen, you cannot be speaking of nothing! Interestingly, we cannot conceive of nothing...every time we do, we actually end up thinking about something...
Now that my brain hurts again, I'll go read a book...
And how, exactly, does having nothing to compare a void to necessitate the existance of matter and energy? Just because there's a void (a contradiction if I ever saw one), it doesn't mean that there must be non-void.
Why would anything have to exist? Indeed, if something had to exist, that would only be because something did exist and necessitated the existance of the other thing. And, of course, if there's something now, there's always been something (though not necessarily material, I think), because pure logic dictates that out of nothing nothing can possibly come.
You're more likely to get into an accident in a car than in an airplane, but you're (I think) seven times more likely to die if you get into an accident in an airplane than in a car.
It all depends on what you consider the dangerous part...
Yeah, the classic is where the pilot overshoots centerline on the turn from base to final, then tries to correct by turning the airplane, but keeps the nose pointed down the runway, while not paying attention to airspeed and stalls the airplane.
In other words, the pilot stalls the airplane in a cross-controlled configuration - the proper entry to a spin.
Yeah, it looks like they pulled it too late or something.
My CFI drilled into me "Aviate, Navigate, Communicate" in that order...
On a similar note, there was a Cirrus that went down earlier, where they attempted to deploy the 'chute but couldn't, and ended up suriving the forced landing that resulted. Seems to me that they perhaps did the above properly...
The yaw force is a problem because of the lack of enough airspeed over the rudder from T/O until Vmc that prevents one from overcoming the yaw.
That's why multi-pilots try to get to and above Vmc as quickly as possible.
Also, a recent read suggested that if one is 800-1000' AGL one can probably turn back to the airport in a single with an engine failure. One typically takes off upwind and will be turning downwind to get back, which increases the ground speed getting back and increases the probability of making it back to the runway. At least, as a pilot, that's what I'm hoping...
Of course, I'm referring to those areas where the conclusions are not solid, not those areas where we have repeated confirmation. Obviously, I trust those areas often (one must in order to simply live), especially the flying part, as I am a pilot!
The items you list above have constant confirmation. Macro evolution (despite the dogmatic party line claiming it as "fact") does not, nor does much of that which passes as science but contains large amounts of conjecture and assumption (specifically those areas that properly fall into history, not empirical science). Those theories and conclusions seem to me to be most reasonably labeled as here today and gone tomorrow, certainly not something that I'm willing to put my faith in.
Everyone comes to their own conclusion. There is no absolute proof of God and there is no absolute proof of his non-existence.
When one examines the base assumptions for understanding our existence, one is confronted with concepts that we have to believe because we have to use those concepts in order to try and disprove them.
I've been going over this almost daily for over three years now, and I have yet to come to a different conclusion (based on, ultimately, not an ungrounded assumption, but the base concepts). My conclusion is that God DOES exist and it is in my best interest to believe that he does even if he doesn't.
So, my faith is not a brittle, petrified structure that requires a blind trust in a single underlying assumption. Like many others, my faith is based on an extensively thought out framework that will not easily fall to criticism. But, when all is said and done, it requires trust at a certain level.
I find that the previous postings that point out that science does so as well hit the mark, though people won't admit that they are trusting something, just not God, and they lash out at those who suggest that God does exist and a particular religion is true in fact.
Why is this? Without trying to be insulting, I honestly suspect it is a combination of human selfishness, arrogance, and, understandably, fear of a great unknown. One's belief system and comfort level are threatened, and, rather than responding with charity and humility, people strike out and subsequently get ignored by most people other than those who believe the same way they do. We are all imperfect, myself included (perhaps at the top of the list?), and we all carry some of these traits. I find this extremely unfortunate, and our reactions to others even more so. Interestingly, that in which we believe is not in the least bit threatened by the conflict. It is, at its worst only unfeeling information and, at it's best (in my opinion) an invincible God.
Finally, I personally find it difficult to understand why one would want to put their full trust in the conclusions of a system that is constantly guessing itself. I find it difficult to trust a system that readily admits that it's conclusions today may be found totally bankrupt tomorrow. I'd rather search for a more solid structure to base my life on. I find this, to start, in the base principles and my conclusion that God exists.
Slashdot Mirror
What resources involved? This was done apparenty with only one or two people diddling around on the internet and probably a database.
What resources? What you just mentioned: a couple of people, some sort of network access, and a database. The concept isn't that it is a solution to the problem, as I indicated, but that it is yet more work for them to have to do and it is a piece of the solution. Also, I'd hardly call PhD thesis work "diddling around on the internet". At least, I'd expect that it took much more than that.
The problem with your idea of denying information to the enemy in this case would require classifying every telephone pole, phone book, and building permit in existence now and in the past for the entire USA.
No, if you'd have taken the time to try and understand what I wrote, you might have seen that I see some merit in securing the compilation of the information, so as to deny easy access to a more complete database of the information in a single location, causing them to have to exert energy in finding this information on their own, thus eating resources (however small, they eventually add up), delaying action, etc.
The only reasonable way to defeat the "terrorist enemy" is for the US to learn to live in harmony with the other 95% of the world's population, thus not giving them a reason to hate us with such fervor.
This is such a tired concept. News flash: the United States does much for this world. A lot of what we do isn't appreciated. No, we're not perfect, but that doesn't mean that we're entirely bad either. I'm not a champion for every action that my country undertakes, as a matter of fact I don't like a good deal of it, but to imply that the United States goes around only causing problems with other countries is to ignore the truth. Here's another news flash: there are people out there that hate the US simply becuase it is, and also because most of the US has a different philosophical outlook on life than they do. A country cannot and should not appease every point of view, and that therefore means that a given county, at least one that has static principles, it seems, will always have enemies.
I don't see where your concept is based in reality.
If you truely believe that majoprity rules, then we're screwed.
Your rant and assumptions have reached a new level. Where, exactly, did I even begin to mention any concept that had anything to do with majority rules, anti/pro-american anything, or further, politics of any nature? I didn't.
What I did make was a very simple, limited point, and that was to deny information in any amount to an opposition causes them to exert resources, however small, in order to gain that same information, and this is what helps one's own effort.
For those that do have a brain and can follow what I'm saying, here's another anology: Consider an ongoing battle. If one simply shoots and kills an enemy soldier, you have removed one resource from the enemy. This is, in war, needed, of couse. However, if one doesn't kill the enemy soldier (one simply wounds him), then, presumably, this not only denies that resource to the enemy (at least for a time), but also causes the enemy to expend resources in caring for that wounded soldier (medics, hospitals, medical materials, training, etc). Which do you think will help win the "war" better?
I keep seeing comments to the effect that the information is out there, so "why try and hide it because someone else can do the work and compile it anyway?".
.02.
It seems to me that this neglects a critical piece of the puzzle, namely resources involved.
I'm no general (though I *was* in the military for a bit...) but from my experience one does not win a war by killing the other soldiers, one wins a war by making it increasingly difficult for the enemy to fight, ie: hinder their ability to make war.
Yes, the information may be able to be compilied by someone else. The thing, though, is that it takes time and resources to do it, and, make no mistake, any information denied to the "enemy" that causes them to expend more time and resources has a positive effect on security.
No, it may not be ultimate. No, it may not be complete. But yes, it does help...
Just my
It just has to be asked, what would the other Americans (USA) propose we do? Not advace our military technology because the potential exists for it to be used against us?
If you think about it, this has been the case all along...everything the military has can be used against you and me, right now, no matter if you like it or not. It is the nature of the (necessary) beast.
I don't know about all of the CATV companies, but...
I PMed an MATV system at a fairly large (10,000+ students) university in Ohio. Along with installing satellite dishes for receiving normal channels (CNN, Discovery, MTV, etc.), we had to mount multiple cut antennas on a broadcast tower, pointed in the right directions, to pull in the local broadcast stations.
In other words, though the campus population had access to the local channels without antennas on *their* televisions, there were, in fact, antennas *somewhere* that eventually provided the signal through regular broadcast means.
Having driven by a few local headends (or headend substations, at least) whose purpose was made obvious by the receiving dishes and antennas just outside of the little building, I surmise that the "non-broadcast" signal that a lot of homes are receiving actually are "re-broadcast" signals, originally obtained through the use of the normal television broadcast means.
I think Clausewitz would say that self defense and survival *is* politics.
...so in the final analysis America's will can be broken before the Baathists if the war can be extended sufficiently long.
...which bomb, by the way, is still yet to be proven to be even a "bomb", let alone dropped by US aircraft. All that has been made is an assertion by the Iraqi government that the US did an atrocious thing, and you and a lot of other Arab and non-Arabs seem to have chosen to accept that as an explanation uncritically.
...I am now firmly of the conclusion that the Baathists will most probably win. Of sure, they'll be a battle and the republican guard will be defeated, but America will not be able to take and hold Baghdad in the long term without unacceptable political consequences.
...dictates that in all but the most dedicatedly repressive hegemonies, if in a sizable population there are one hundred rebels, all of whom are then rounded up and killed, the number of rebels present at the end of the day is not zero, and not even one hundred, but two hundred or three hundred or more
And I think I would still disagree with Clausewitz. I think self defense and survival is simply that, self defense and survival. The will to survive, and to survive without harm isn't a political thing, in its base form, it is basic human nature.
Yet to this assertion there is no guarantee, neither that the war *can* be extended sufficiently long enough, nor that the Baathists will can't be broken. I'll grant that maybe it can't be broken completely, but that in no way implies that they will still be able to concentrate a measure of power great enough to make a significant impact on that post-war society, and therefore there is still the possibility of calling this exercise successful, even if the Baathists still exist to some measure.
You make the error of seeing the war in purely military terms. Clausewitz's assertion highlights that war must be seen as part of a wider political process. It really doesn't matter if the Vietcong won because they defeated America militarily, or because they made the cost of America winning politically unacceptable. The result is the same
Ah, but the same result doesn't mean that the causes are the same. War *may be* somewhat political, but I was making a distinction between *military* strategy and *political* strategy. He asserts that they are one in the same, but tell a military strategist that and you will get laughed out of the room. Military strategy may be used to effect a political means, I'll agree, but it, in of itself, is not political. The political is about just that, politics. Military strategy is about fighting, maneuvering, and control of enemy forces. It's about flanking, bombing, attacking, and control of key positions so that the forces can do more of that, more effectively. That these plans and actions effect an ultimate political end does not mean that they are the same as politics at their core. I assert that they remain separate.
And, as I indicated before, there is a valid sense in which the US achieved what the US needed to achieve in Viet Nam, namely the halting of aggression.
Following the bomb in the Baghdad Market this evening, and the consequent achievement by America in uniting all Arab opinion against it
That's fine, I'm not. And, by the way, since neither of us can predict the future, both positions are resigned to be mere opinion, nothing more. Further, it doesn't appear to me that the US has any intentions of "holding Baghdad in the long term".
And this blanket statement, that is written to imply that it applies without question every time, falls prey to the reality that there is the possibility that it may not be true. It is left to assertion, or at the most, an educated prediction, but there is no reason to think that this is or ever will
As Clausewitz said "war is politics by other means".
I don't disagree with this completely, but, to be honest, sometimes war isn't political, at least for one side anyway. I think there's definatly a situation where it could be self defence and survival, not political.
Vietnam was won by the Vietcong because they forced the Anericans into a position whereby they couldn't win without taking politically unacceptable actions.
I see your point, but I still disagree. I don't belive the Vietcong "forced" anything like it. I think our leaders were simply morons who didn't really care and didn't listen to the military as to how to go about it. I think they were simply playing games.
And, though the US didn't "obtain" Vietnam, as in occupy it (that wasn't the goal anyway), there is a sense in which the US actually did win. Linebacker I and II forced N. Vietnam to the barganing table and that's what resulted in the ceasefire, and, I think the outcome was acceptable. The tide of agression was checked. And, really, when thinking about this, one needs to keep in mind that the fight really wasn't about N. and S. Vietnam, it was about the US and the USSR. Anyone who says that the US and USSR was a cold war is full of crap. It was a "hot" war, but for the USSR it was a war by proxy.
There's a good chance Saddam could, by skillful political and military manouvering, manipulate the situation to the same effect.
Militarily? Not really. His troops are really no match for the US/British toops. Yeah, the troops will take casulties, maybe more maybe less, but they'll still win. I think the fact of this is demonstrated by his use of forced human shields. He knows he can't win militarily, so he's trying a political, emotional ploy, namely try and make the US troops look bad for shooting civilians that are being forced to shoot at them, and thereby try and sway public opinion against this conflict. But, that's not a military strategy, it's a political one.
Could it work? Definatly, because the vast majority of people are way too shallow in thir thinking. They will see the effect of his actions, namely the shooting of civilians by the US military, and they will stop thinking at that point and turn against the US troops. The reality of the matter, however, is that the US troops wouldn't be taking that action if it wasn't for Saddam's forcing that hand. But too many people will stop thinking prior to reaching a more root cause, and that actually may work somewhat against the US. But I don't think it actually will change things, personally.
The other thought that comes to mind, with an initial thought toward a possible military manouver that might work, is if he can convence another country to get deeply involved. But, then, that's more of a politial manouver, not a military one. And, I think the US would end up taking them both out in the end.
That's funny...and here I was thinking that we pulled out of Vietnam because it was a political thing.
FYI, we didn't lose Vietnam because we couldn't win, we lost because we weren't allowed to win by the administration. Something to do with limited targets, Presidential approval of the vast majority of major targets, etc.
In other words, we weren't allow to win.
And, oh, yeah, the British and French would be *GERMAN* right now if it wasn't for us. Looks like all sides won on that one.
Stupid fuck.
Maybe I misunderstood, please correct me if I'm wrong, but your post seems to imply that you think that anytime someone/some company does something that has the effect of furthering someone else's goals, then they are really doing what they're doing in order to help the other person/company. That's pretty flawed logic.
Suppose that I am married and my wife doesn't like guns. Further assume that in my house, what I say goes (I know, I know...but it's a hypothetical situation!), and I don't want the guns in the house because, though I like guns, I think they're too dangerous to have since we have children. By your logic, what I am really doing is conceeding to my wife, rather than making a decision based on my own beliefs, simply because it furthered her goals. That would be a wrong conclusion.
Now, back to the bandwidth thing. I am a network engineer at a large financial institution. We just upgraded our Internet pipes to 22 meg, because we need the bandwidth. Though we have plenty of money to pay for it, it may not be a cost effective move if we could have elminiated, say, 25% of the traffic (5.5 meg) through any valid (meaning, more cost effective) means. For a university (yes, I am very familiar with university networks and funding issues) this is even more critical, as their funding is much lower than where I work. And, in fact, even we limit bandwidth used by using a web proxy and by restricting sites that employees can go to (which, admittedly, does serve another purpose as well).
My point is, that this type of activity is very common, especially in well structured networking departments, primarily because a dollar that is spent on a recurring charge is a dollar that may be better spent elsewhere. The recurring charges are the budget killers, though some are necessary.
Just my $0.02...
Now that my brain hurts again, I'll go read a book...
:)
:)". Obviously, my typing leaves something to be desired!
Not that I can appreciate!
er, what I meant to say was "NOW, that I can appreciate!
Because without SOMETHING, nothing isn't anything! If there was no energy or matter, what would the universe be? Nothing, because without stuff within the space as a contrast, the emptiness is no longer space, it is just nothing.
:)
Sorry, nothing isn't anything anyway!
Now if you're sayting that matter must exist because the universe is, then I'm in complete agreement. However, what I took your comment to mean (perhaps incorrectly?) was that the universe had to exist in order to contrast non-existance, but that presupposes an existance of something then again, but on a less physical level. I'm speaking of a rule or law that creates this "must", but then, where would that rule have come from? Any way you slice it, if we have actual existance, or something that necessitates existance, then we have something that exists and it's not a true void. But then, I recognize that I'm bringing an element of a non-physical into what started as a statement of the physical.
Even nothing is something...
Again, nothing isn't something. You're making a contradictory statement. If you're speaking of something, even something unseen, you cannot be speaking of nothing! Interestingly, we cannot conceive of nothing...every time we do, we actually end up thinking about something...
Now that my brain hurts again, I'll go read a book...
Not that I can appreciate!
And how, exactly, does having nothing to compare a void to necessitate the existance of matter and energy? Just because there's a void (a contradiction if I ever saw one), it doesn't mean that there must be non-void.
Why would anything have to exist? Indeed, if something had to exist, that would only be because something did exist and necessitated the existance of the other thing. And, of course, if there's something now, there's always been something (though not necessarily material, I think), because pure logic dictates that out of nothing nothing can possibly come.
Keep in mind that the things they really want to protect are protected. Ever hear of military grade encryption?
My instructor, Herb, is afraid of heights. He's been flying since the 50s tho...go figure...
Wow! You made it to 108? I don't think I've made it above 100 in a 152!
Actually...
You're more likely to get into an accident in a car than in an airplane, but you're (I think) seven times more likely to die if you get into an accident in an airplane than in a car.
It all depends on what you consider the dangerous part...
Um, we have a vested interest in landing safely anyway...
At night, turn on your landing light. If you don't like what you see, turn it off...
:)
Yeah, the classic is where the pilot overshoots centerline on the turn from base to final, then tries to correct by turning the airplane, but keeps the nose pointed down the runway, while not paying attention to airspeed and stalls the airplane.
In other words, the pilot stalls the airplane in a cross-controlled configuration - the proper entry to a spin.
Yeah, it looks like they pulled it too late or something. My CFI drilled into me "Aviate, Navigate, Communicate" in that order... On a similar note, there was a Cirrus that went down earlier, where they attempted to deploy the 'chute but couldn't, and ended up suriving the forced landing that resulted. Seems to me that they perhaps did the above properly...
Just another note...
The yaw force is a problem because of the lack of enough airspeed over the rudder from T/O until Vmc that prevents one from overcoming the yaw.
That's why multi-pilots try to get to and above Vmc as quickly as possible.
Also, a recent read suggested that if one is 800-1000' AGL one can probably turn back to the airport in a single with an engine failure. One typically takes off upwind and will be turning downwind to get back, which increases the ground speed getting back and increases the probability of making it back to the runway. At least, as a pilot, that's what I'm hoping...
Of course, I'm referring to those areas where the conclusions are not solid, not those areas where we have repeated confirmation. Obviously, I trust those areas often (one must in order to simply live), especially the flying part, as I am a pilot!
The items you list above have constant confirmation. Macro evolution (despite the dogmatic party line claiming it as "fact") does not, nor does much of that which passes as science but contains large amounts of conjecture and assumption (specifically those areas that properly fall into history, not empirical science). Those theories and conclusions seem to me to be most reasonably labeled as here today and gone tomorrow, certainly not something that I'm willing to put my faith in.
Everyone comes to their own conclusion. There is no absolute proof of God and there is no absolute proof of his non-existence.
When one examines the base assumptions for understanding our existence, one is confronted with concepts that we have to believe because we have to use those concepts in order to try and disprove them.
I've been going over this almost daily for over three years now, and I have yet to come to a different conclusion (based on, ultimately, not an ungrounded assumption, but the base concepts). My conclusion is that God DOES exist and it is in my best interest to believe that he does even if he doesn't.
So, my faith is not a brittle, petrified structure that requires a blind trust in a single underlying assumption. Like many others, my faith is based on an extensively thought out framework that will not easily fall to criticism. But, when all is said and done, it requires trust at a certain level.
I find that the previous postings that point out that science does so as well hit the mark, though people won't admit that they are trusting something, just not God, and they lash out at those who suggest that God does exist and a particular religion is true in fact.
Why is this? Without trying to be insulting, I honestly suspect it is a combination of human selfishness, arrogance, and, understandably, fear of a great unknown. One's belief system and comfort level are threatened, and, rather than responding with charity and humility, people strike out and subsequently get ignored by most people other than those who believe the same way they do. We are all imperfect, myself included (perhaps at the top of the list?), and we all carry some of these traits. I find this extremely unfortunate, and our reactions to others even more so. Interestingly, that in which we believe is not in the least bit threatened by the conflict. It is, at its worst only unfeeling information and, at it's best (in my opinion) an invincible God.
Finally, I personally find it difficult to understand why one would want to put their full trust in the conclusions of a system that is constantly guessing itself. I find it difficult to trust a system that readily admits that it's conclusions today may be found totally bankrupt tomorrow. I'd rather search for a more solid structure to base my life on. I find this, to start, in the base principles and my conclusion that God exists.
Yup.
Charlie fetches and Elmo sits on command, usually (he thinks he'll get a treat for it).
Winning one from Taco Bell would be a good reason... :)