early warning system is much cheap then numerous artificial islands.
Definitely.
rebuilding is much cheaper then numerous artificial islands.
most people will detect, warn, evacuate and rebuild - this kind of (very very) expensive prevention simply does not make sense on a 1 in 100 year (if not much more) disaster prevention.
Er, well, that's not so clear. I mean that was roughly the logic behind not building up the levies in New Orleans, and the cost of that project was several times less than the resulting damages from Katrina. A project which they are now engaging in so as to prevent a subsequent disaster and make people feel safe returning to/investing in the city, meaning they payed for the protection but had to also pay much, much more due to not having it when they needed it.
Now I'm not saying this particular system is cost effective for any particular city. I think it would mostly depend on what kind of materials and engineering you need to make effective barriers. These aren't artificial islands like the ones in Dubai the article mentions. They're big walls. If a tall column of reinforced concrete sunk into the ocean floor, like the struts of a large suspension bridge, is sufficient then I don't think it would be that ridiculous. And think of it this way -- just because "the big one" only comes once every hundred years, there's still plenty of "pretty big ones" that cause lots of damage every single year.
it is like putting in bullet proof glass in all the windows of your house just in case the couple next door decide to have a son who might want to buy a bb gun later on in life...
If I may engage in some analogy abuse, it's more like the couple next door has a son who pretty consistently fires off a few rounds in random directions every night, sometimes using larger calibers than others. How long are you going to bet that he hits someone else's house and not yours? It probably sounds like a safe gamble up to the point the.45 flies through your living room.
Hurricanes, typhoons, and tsunamis happen regularly. They hit sections of the coast every year, causing damage every time. They aren't hypothetical. Even the big ones aren't. They're more like matters of probability, and thus time.
It's kind of a pity though, because damburger seems to be at least somewhat well-informed about the technical aspects of spaceflight
I can't say I get that impression. Strip away the trolling, and it seems he mostly has no idea what he's talking about but has read enough space.com headlines to use the right words. See suggesting that SpaceX failures means clustering 9 engines will be disastrous, even though none of them involved engine failures.
I notice that I won the monopoly game, since nobody was able to name a single market monopoly.
I never said I was playing your game, but Cisco in the 90s now gtfo.
London had competing private water companies. Today, the government (monopoly) water system in Mumbai sucks, so people buy their water from competing water companies who truck in the water. Businesses and apartments have a water tank on the roof to provide the water pressure.
Which would be your choices in a non-government-monopoly situation, there'd be one set of pipes to your house, and water trucked in from elsewhere. I thought we were talking about companies providing the same service, and you were supposed to tell me how things would be different without the government monopoly.
I guess my local cable monopoly and my local telephone monopoly aren't really monopolies since they compete with each other in phone/internet service.
Centralized water treatment competes with septic systems. But there's no market there because whenever a government installs a sewer system, they don't let you compete by installing a septic system. In some areas, they don't even let you install a composting toilet. And an outhouse is right out.
Well that and because in the largest markets there is also no room on the plots to build a septic system and also have a sewer system. So in your free market view, what would happen? Would it be a case of whoever built first?
I get both my points back. So, I win your monopoly game, and you didn't even bother playing mine. Are these facts going to change your mind? I doubt it, because you believe in Faith-Based Economics. Fairy-tale economics.
Well one is apparently not a monopoly in the first place, and the other only works in the areas where the factors that lend to a natural monopoly don't exist. You can maybe claim a partial credit on the second one.
It's funny because your view is what is faith-based, since the pure free market you think would justify your claims has not and never will exist. But you're right, maybe I'm letting my own beliefs get in the way of reality. Maybe you anarcho-capitalists really do know what's best, government regulation only gets in the way, and never prevents harm, so as long as we never told a business that they couldn't do something, everything would work out for the best.
Terrorism was on the Clinton Administration's radar and would probably have been on Gore's too; he didn't forget that the Cole and WTC attacks happened during his vice presidency. He would have taken a report titled "Al Qaeda determined to attack in U.S." seriously. For whatever good that would have done. It still would have happened, largely because it was a type of attack we hadn't seriously considered.
So 9/11 would have happened, and we would have invaded Afghanistan, because I can't imagine any President was a big enough peacenik that they wouldn't, or who could ignore the cries of the public to strike. Hell even Europeans and Canadians were cheering and volunteering to help when we said we were going to go kick the Taliban's ass.
But we would not be in Iraq. Nobody except the neo-cons was championing that cause after 9/11, and without the bully pulpit of the Oval Office, nobody would have listened to them. Nobody with any power would have even thought that was a sane thing to do while the occupation of Afghanistan, "Graveyard of Empires", was still ongoing, much less a prudent and wise thing to do.
I'm not even saying he would have been a good president cus I don't think he would have been, but so what the president we got wasn't good either and we wouldn't be in Iraq. That's more than enough for me.
There's no "Crazy Fucker" Association that can do the same thing and prevent him from getting in front of a camera.
Well actually there is, but the catch is that to the CFAA, harassing people and accusing judges of corruption to the point where you disbarred, then making the same accusations that got you disbarred against the judge who just disbarred you, is exactly what they're looking for. I think Jack just got a promotion to Grand Poobah Crazy Fucker.
Jack is going to call out against video games until he dies or retires.
Well that or he finds some new form of entertainment to blame all of society's problems on. As long as someone is listening. Before video games it was rap music. Who knows what's next? Personally I'm hoping it's interpretive dance or community theater.
They want to bail out banks and still let them collect on as many of the loans as they can, too. Don't you think if they're going to cover the loan losses that the loan should be fully forgiven and the people should keep the collateral? After all, the government is paying the loans with the taxpayers' money.
No.
Don't you get it?
"Personal responsibility" is for working-class peons. They were stupid enough to take loans they couldn't afford (and if they believed the financial planner who said they could, that's also their fault) and they can't get out of that just because the chickens have come home to roost. They need to take responsibility for their irresponsibility, not have the government come in like a dad whose son spent their tuition money on beer.
"Too big to fail" is the mantra for the movers and shakers in the finance industry. For one, it's not their money they're screwing around with, so it's not personal. For two, building an entire economic edifice on top of the backs of debtors who can't afford their debt isn't irresponsible, it's simply a calculated risk. Taking risks is what the pioneers did, and it made this country great, so we shouldn't discourage that by making them suffer the consequences of that risk. Besides, these people are important.
Ahem. Sorry. I'm depressing myself in a thread that should be full of glee.
Reminds me of the Chris Rock bit about a black person for President securing his life by having a Mexican Vice President...
Yet another reason Bill Richardson would have been a better choice than Biden... But hey it's not the first time Chris Rock and I have seen eye to eye.:)
God forbid you research a product before buying, it's far better to buy it thoughtlessly, then bitch about it and sue later.
Oh yeah, like you research every single product you buy. I bet you research your car, and your computer, but do you research an apple you buy from the produce isle? The disposable paper plates you bought for a party?
The amount of research you should have to do should be proportional to the significance of the purchase. We're talking about a video game. The most research you should have to do should involve whether or not it sounds like a game you'd like to play, and if your system can play it well. And if you don't care that much about either, you shouldn't have to do any research at all.
You should not have to do research on a video game to figure out whether or not it's going to infect and possibly damage your system with malware! Just like you shouldn't have to research an apple to figure out whether or not it's filled with poison. You should be able to assume that, and if that assumption turns out to be false, damn right you should sue.
But I mean act like caveat emptor should be an absolute. That's rational.
This has to be one of the biggest waste of tax dollars I have ever seen. As if people have a right to watch television.
Well in principle, if the government is going to mandate that you lose your ability to watch television against the wishes of the broadcasters and the viewers, so that the government can then sell the portions of the spectrum that are freed up, then it only makes sense that the people should see some benefit at the very least in the form of easing the transition. The airwaves are a public resource managed by the government, and this is like a public park that's suddenly being closed off by government fiat and sold for profit.
And it is being handled terribly also. Wasn't the point to help people that couldn't afford converters? Why am I hearing stories about radio DJs using 2 coupons to buy converters because 2 of their 9 TVs aren't on satellite?
Yet on the other hand you're quite right and it's very screwed up. I don't know how DJs are getting two coupons; my house got one coupon and we couldn't cash it in because no place had any converters available, the coupon had an expiration date (long passed now) after when new shipments were going to arrive, and one of the few stores that had them wasn't accepting coupons. So yeah. Principle meets practice, principle breaks a leg.:P
If the general principle is still eluding you, just read "after a detailed analysis of data" in the summary as meaning the data is what provided the motivation for changing the part, assume that they neither want to spend money nor delay the launch for no reason, and leave it at that, okay?
A walkthrough isn't bypassing any of the game -- it's playing the game in an efficient manner. Playing well due to outside coaching is not the same as not playing at all because you cheated and skipped part of the game.
Yeah, bypassing the sucky part.
Can't argue with that, but nevertheless it's still clearly cheating.
I've never understood the mentality where you're playing a game that's loaded with aspects that are boring as hell to you, so not only do you continue to pay the game makers money for this monotonous game, you also pay somebody else to basically play the game for you. Seems to me that a much better idea is to find a game better suited to your tastes. I'm using the rhetorical "you" here of course.
I want a magical terrorist detector. I would also like a purple unicorn with a pink horn. Can I pick those up on the second Tuesday of next week?
Purple unicorns with pink horns are known terrorists. So I can't get you one directly, but if you buy my magical terrorist detector you can find one yourself. And sure, just have a Ground Hog's Day time-loop next Tuesday, and I'll be at the corner where you stepped in the puddle on the first Tuesday.
If it's "Real Soon Now" as acronymfinder suggests, then the summary writer and editor both suck.
Naw, it actually stands for "Retarded Spinning Narwhal", a complicated and beautiful acrobatic maneuver that some rocket ships can perform just as they leave the atmosphere. "Narwhal" as a comparison to the long and pointy nature of the ship and a reference to the animal's aquatic dexterity, "Spinning" which describes what the move consists of, and "Retarded" for both the crazy-looking pattern of multi-axis rotation and a jibe at the people who'd risk their lives and a multi-million space craft doing such a dangerous trick just to show off.
I have to say I'm pretty surprised that SpaceX would attempt a RSN on what they hope to be their first successful launch. Most firms and more so pilots would like to make sure the ship will make it to space and back safely a few times before trying it. On the other hand, a well-executed RSN is one hell of a way to announce their success, a giant space-born banner reading "We're here, we're in space, get used to it!"
Again, speaking personally, I won't get digital HD cable because the compression is so assy. I would, however, get an HDTV for OTA broadcasts. If I were forced to buy a tuner box, that would provide a nice excuse for me to go ahead and take the plunge and go all digital.
Well, okay, but speaking on behalf of the people I know who can't afford cable, that seems pretty crazy. You know that most of the new broadcasts aren't even going to be HD? They're just digital as opposed to analog. Buying an expensive HDTV versus a cheap digital->analog converter is a no-brainer for the people who are concerned about the end of analog broadcasts.
Is he sitting on a park bench? Snot running down his nose, greasy fingers smearing shabby clothes?
If he's also eyeing little girls with bad intent, I think it's safe to at least question him. Unless he's eyeing Cross-Eyed Mary; he can have that skank.
The attackers don't have to know whether or not they're carrying attack devices in their luggage. They don't ask you this any more that I know of, but at the very least a terrorist should be able to lie to the question "did you pack your own suit cases?" and not answer "Honestly I'm not sure if there's C4 in my luggage's frame or not".
And how does the three second phone call saying "no go" made by an intermediary with a pre-paid cell phone that's dropped in the trash put the organizers at risk? Remember, the whole point of the dry run is that they aren't carrying anything incriminating on them so even if pulled over they aren't suspect?
It really ain't that hard to figure this out. Dry run training is absolutely a risk; thinking they aren't and that the terrorists must face the scanners without this advantage is to fail to realize just how hopeless this system is.
but he missed the boat on just how easy it has become (and is becoming!) to use computers to not merely threaten to monitor anybody at any time, but to monitor everybody all the time.
Huh?
Given that he wrote the book in the 40s, and that the characters in the book had to go out into the freaking woods just to avoid surveillance and even then were worried about hidden microphones and such, I think he got it pretty damn well.
Slashdot Mirror
*blink*
Ok, how about panache then?
Is that what the "P" setting on my digital camera is for?
early warning system is much cheap then numerous artificial islands.
Definitely.
rebuilding is much cheaper then numerous artificial islands.
most people will detect, warn, evacuate and rebuild - this kind of (very very) expensive prevention simply does not make sense on a 1 in 100 year (if not much more) disaster prevention.
Er, well, that's not so clear. I mean that was roughly the logic behind not building up the levies in New Orleans, and the cost of that project was several times less than the resulting damages from Katrina. A project which they are now engaging in so as to prevent a subsequent disaster and make people feel safe returning to/investing in the city, meaning they payed for the protection but had to also pay much, much more due to not having it when they needed it.
Now I'm not saying this particular system is cost effective for any particular city. I think it would mostly depend on what kind of materials and engineering you need to make effective barriers. These aren't artificial islands like the ones in Dubai the article mentions. They're big walls. If a tall column of reinforced concrete sunk into the ocean floor, like the struts of a large suspension bridge, is sufficient then I don't think it would be that ridiculous. And think of it this way -- just because "the big one" only comes once every hundred years, there's still plenty of "pretty big ones" that cause lots of damage every single year.
it is like putting in bullet proof glass in all the windows of your house just in case the couple next door decide to have a son who might want to buy a bb gun later on in life...
If I may engage in some analogy abuse, it's more like the couple next door has a son who pretty consistently fires off a few rounds in random directions every night, sometimes using larger calibers than others. How long are you going to bet that he hits someone else's house and not yours? It probably sounds like a safe gamble up to the point the .45 flies through your living room.
Hurricanes, typhoons, and tsunamis happen regularly. They hit sections of the coast every year, causing damage every time. They aren't hypothetical. Even the big ones aren't. They're more like matters of probability, and thus time.
It's kind of a pity though, because damburger seems to be at least somewhat well-informed about the technical aspects of spaceflight
I can't say I get that impression. Strip away the trolling, and it seems he mostly has no idea what he's talking about but has read enough space.com headlines to use the right words. See suggesting that SpaceX failures means clustering 9 engines will be disastrous, even though none of them involved engine failures.
I notice that I won the monopoly game, since nobody was able to name a single market monopoly.
I never said I was playing your game, but Cisco in the 90s now gtfo.
London had competing private water companies. Today, the government (monopoly) water system in Mumbai sucks, so people buy their water from competing water companies who truck in the water. Businesses and apartments have a water tank on the roof to provide the water pressure.
Which would be your choices in a non-government-monopoly situation, there'd be one set of pipes to your house, and water trucked in from elsewhere. I thought we were talking about companies providing the same service, and you were supposed to tell me how things would be different without the government monopoly.
I guess my local cable monopoly and my local telephone monopoly aren't really monopolies since they compete with each other in phone/internet service.
Centralized water treatment competes with septic systems. But there's no market there because whenever a government installs a sewer system, they don't let you compete by installing a septic system. In some areas, they don't even let you install a composting toilet. And an outhouse is right out.
Well that and because in the largest markets there is also no room on the plots to build a septic system and also have a sewer system. So in your free market view, what would happen? Would it be a case of whoever built first?
I get both my points back. So, I win your monopoly game, and you didn't even bother playing mine. Are these facts going to change your mind? I doubt it, because you believe in Faith-Based Economics. Fairy-tale economics.
Well one is apparently not a monopoly in the first place, and the other only works in the areas where the factors that lend to a natural monopoly don't exist. You can maybe claim a partial credit on the second one.
It's funny because your view is what is faith-based, since the pure free market you think would justify your claims has not and never will exist. But you're right, maybe I'm letting my own beliefs get in the way of reality. Maybe you anarcho-capitalists really do know what's best, government regulation only gets in the way, and never prevents harm, so as long as we never told a business that they couldn't do something, everything would work out for the best.
Yeah. I'm living in the fairy-tale.
So, uh, I guess this is your way of saying you're not very familiar with the development of rockets past and present. I see...
Terrorism was on the Clinton Administration's radar and would probably have been on Gore's too; he didn't forget that the Cole and WTC attacks happened during his vice presidency. He would have taken a report titled "Al Qaeda determined to attack in U.S." seriously. For whatever good that would have done. It still would have happened, largely because it was a type of attack we hadn't seriously considered.
So 9/11 would have happened, and we would have invaded Afghanistan, because I can't imagine any President was a big enough peacenik that they wouldn't, or who could ignore the cries of the public to strike. Hell even Europeans and Canadians were cheering and volunteering to help when we said we were going to go kick the Taliban's ass.
But we would not be in Iraq. Nobody except the neo-cons was championing that cause after 9/11, and without the bully pulpit of the Oval Office, nobody would have listened to them. Nobody with any power would have even thought that was a sane thing to do while the occupation of Afghanistan, "Graveyard of Empires", was still ongoing, much less a prudent and wise thing to do.
I'm not even saying he would have been a good president cus I don't think he would have been, but so what the president we got wasn't good either and we wouldn't be in Iraq. That's more than enough for me.
There's no "Crazy Fucker" Association that can do the same thing and prevent him from getting in front of a camera.
Well actually there is, but the catch is that to the CFAA, harassing people and accusing judges of corruption to the point where you disbarred, then making the same accusations that got you disbarred against the judge who just disbarred you, is exactly what they're looking for. I think Jack just got a promotion to Grand Poobah Crazy Fucker.
Maybe you think everyone should be able to do whatever the hell they want whenever they want, and if people don't like it, they can piss off?
Not everyone, just me. ;)
Jack is going to call out against video games until he dies or retires.
Well that or he finds some new form of entertainment to blame all of society's problems on. As long as someone is listening. Before video games it was rap music. Who knows what's next? Personally I'm hoping it's interpretive dance or community theater.
They want to bail out banks and still let them collect on as many of the loans as they can, too. Don't you think if they're going to cover the loan losses that the loan should be fully forgiven and the people should keep the collateral? After all, the government is paying the loans with the taxpayers' money.
No.
Don't you get it?
"Personal responsibility" is for working-class peons. They were stupid enough to take loans they couldn't afford (and if they believed the financial planner who said they could, that's also their fault) and they can't get out of that just because the chickens have come home to roost. They need to take responsibility for their irresponsibility, not have the government come in like a dad whose son spent their tuition money on beer.
"Too big to fail" is the mantra for the movers and shakers in the finance industry. For one, it's not their money they're screwing around with, so it's not personal. For two, building an entire economic edifice on top of the backs of debtors who can't afford their debt isn't irresponsible, it's simply a calculated risk. Taking risks is what the pioneers did, and it made this country great, so we shouldn't discourage that by making them suffer the consequences of that risk. Besides, these people are important.
Ahem. Sorry. I'm depressing myself in a thread that should be full of glee.
I prefer syrup.
Reminds me of the Chris Rock bit about a black person for President securing his life by having a Mexican Vice President...
Yet another reason Bill Richardson would have been a better choice than Biden... But hey it's not the first time Chris Rock and I have seen eye to eye. :)
Unfortunately, while rocketry may sometimes look like hand grenades, "close" doesn't count. One error, even slight, can easily doom an entire mission.
Yeah, isn't it funny what a few decades of irony can do to a colloquialism like "Well it isn't rocket science", as if that has somehow become easy.
God forbid you research a product before buying, it's far better to buy it thoughtlessly, then bitch about it and sue later.
Oh yeah, like you research every single product you buy. I bet you research your car, and your computer, but do you research an apple you buy from the produce isle? The disposable paper plates you bought for a party?
The amount of research you should have to do should be proportional to the significance of the purchase. We're talking about a video game. The most research you should have to do should involve whether or not it sounds like a game you'd like to play, and if your system can play it well. And if you don't care that much about either, you shouldn't have to do any research at all.
You should not have to do research on a video game to figure out whether or not it's going to infect and possibly damage your system with malware! Just like you shouldn't have to research an apple to figure out whether or not it's filled with poison. You should be able to assume that, and if that assumption turns out to be false, damn right you should sue.
But I mean act like caveat emptor should be an absolute. That's rational.
This has to be one of the biggest waste of tax dollars I have ever seen. As if people have a right to watch television.
Well in principle, if the government is going to mandate that you lose your ability to watch television against the wishes of the broadcasters and the viewers, so that the government can then sell the portions of the spectrum that are freed up, then it only makes sense that the people should see some benefit at the very least in the form of easing the transition. The airwaves are a public resource managed by the government, and this is like a public park that's suddenly being closed off by government fiat and sold for profit.
And it is being handled terribly also. Wasn't the point to help people that couldn't afford converters? Why am I hearing stories about radio DJs using 2 coupons to buy converters because 2 of their 9 TVs aren't on satellite?
Yet on the other hand you're quite right and it's very screwed up. I don't know how DJs are getting two coupons; my house got one coupon and we couldn't cash it in because no place had any converters available, the coupon had an expiration date (long passed now) after when new shipments were going to arrive, and one of the few stores that had them wasn't accepting coupons. So yeah. Principle meets practice, principle breaks a leg. :P
If the general principle is still eluding you, just read "after a detailed analysis of data" in the summary as meaning the data is what provided the motivation for changing the part, assume that they neither want to spend money nor delay the launch for no reason, and leave it at that, okay?
Thus bypassing much of the game.
A walkthrough isn't bypassing any of the game -- it's playing the game in an efficient manner. Playing well due to outside coaching is not the same as not playing at all because you cheated and skipped part of the game.
Yeah, bypassing the sucky part.
Can't argue with that, but nevertheless it's still clearly cheating.
I've never understood the mentality where you're playing a game that's loaded with aspects that are boring as hell to you, so not only do you continue to pay the game makers money for this monotonous game, you also pay somebody else to basically play the game for you. Seems to me that a much better idea is to find a game better suited to your tastes. I'm using the rhetorical "you" here of course.
By checking records after the fact. Oh and they found one of the IDs by the WTC.
I want a magical terrorist detector. I would also like a purple unicorn with a pink horn. Can I pick those up on the second Tuesday of next week?
Purple unicorns with pink horns are known terrorists. So I can't get you one directly, but if you buy my magical terrorist detector you can find one yourself. And sure, just have a Ground Hog's Day time-loop next Tuesday, and I'll be at the corner where you stepped in the puddle on the first Tuesday.
If it's "Real Soon Now" as acronymfinder suggests, then the summary writer and editor both suck.
Naw, it actually stands for "Retarded Spinning Narwhal", a complicated and beautiful acrobatic maneuver that some rocket ships can perform just as they leave the atmosphere. "Narwhal" as a comparison to the long and pointy nature of the ship and a reference to the animal's aquatic dexterity, "Spinning" which describes what the move consists of, and "Retarded" for both the crazy-looking pattern of multi-axis rotation and a jibe at the people who'd risk their lives and a multi-million space craft doing such a dangerous trick just to show off.
I have to say I'm pretty surprised that SpaceX would attempt a RSN on what they hope to be their first successful launch. Most firms and more so pilots would like to make sure the ship will make it to space and back safely a few times before trying it. On the other hand, a well-executed RSN is one hell of a way to announce their success, a giant space-born banner reading "We're here, we're in space, get used to it!"
The more you know!
Again, speaking personally, I won't get digital HD cable because the compression is so assy. I would, however, get an HDTV for OTA broadcasts. If I were forced to buy a tuner box, that would provide a nice excuse for me to go ahead and take the plunge and go all digital.
Well, okay, but speaking on behalf of the people I know who can't afford cable, that seems pretty crazy. You know that most of the new broadcasts aren't even going to be HD? They're just digital as opposed to analog. Buying an expensive HDTV versus a cheap digital->analog converter is a no-brainer for the people who are concerned about the end of analog broadcasts.
Well, last time I checked they still required all passengers to prove their identity before letting them on an airplane.
Which they didn't before 9/11.
And is pointless, because the 9/11 hijackers had valid, correct ID.
And is really just a way for airlines to screw customers by not allowing the transfer of tickets.
Is he sitting on a park bench? Snot running down his nose, greasy fingers smearing shabby clothes?
If he's also eyeing little girls with bad intent, I think it's safe to at least question him. Unless he's eyeing Cross-Eyed Mary; he can have that skank.
The attackers don't have to know whether or not they're carrying attack devices in their luggage. They don't ask you this any more that I know of, but at the very least a terrorist should be able to lie to the question "did you pack your own suit cases?" and not answer "Honestly I'm not sure if there's C4 in my luggage's frame or not".
And how does the three second phone call saying "no go" made by an intermediary with a pre-paid cell phone that's dropped in the trash put the organizers at risk? Remember, the whole point of the dry run is that they aren't carrying anything incriminating on them so even if pulled over they aren't suspect?
It really ain't that hard to figure this out. Dry run training is absolutely a risk; thinking they aren't and that the terrorists must face the scanners without this advantage is to fail to realize just how hopeless this system is.
but he missed the boat on just how easy it has become (and is becoming!) to use computers to not merely threaten to monitor anybody at any time, but to monitor everybody all the time.
Huh?
Given that he wrote the book in the 40s, and that the characters in the book had to go out into the freaking woods just to avoid surveillance and even then were worried about hidden microphones and such, I think he got it pretty damn well.