I'm sure Exxon and friends, with their 'oh snap look what's going on in the Middle East right now' speculative price hikes will manage to edge it closer to $200 this year. I mean, just take a look at the record [forbes.com] profits [breitbart.com] these megacorps are raking in. All it will take this year is the threat of action against Iran, a few hurricanes here and there, and bam, another huge hike.
Yeah- but my point is that if we had this situation in 1971, we'd all be driving alternative energy vehicles NOW. Superpowers should be bullies- not to be invides all sorts of riff-raff to attack you.
Keep in mind that Cheney is still sitting on the board at Halliburton, which has recorded record quarters since the beginning of the Iraq war, by winning closed-bidding contracts for reconstruction. Strangely enough the US military is tasked with keeping Halliburton contractors safe while they work..which isn't always successful. If you look carefully at the list, you'll see the majority of KBR (Kellogg, Brown and Root, a Haliburton company) employees were involved in logistics, i.e. truck drivers. Convoys are popular targets for IEDs. KBR has been a thorn in the side for Halliburton, and they've considered selling it off for awhile, due to the PR nightmare and litigation that ended in a 4 billion dollar settlement over asbestos claims.
Yeah, but that's just the result now. If Nixon had been less of a coward and listened more to retired generals like MacArthur- we simply wouldn't be having the discussion.
But it's never to late to end war quickly and efficiently- an Iraq made out of Tritium is better than an Iraq run by Shi'ites.
People say that they don't negotiate with terrorists. Well guess what, terrorism means to hold a nation hostage. People negotiate hostage situations.
Actually, it's one of two options- the other option is to kill enough people to be far worse than the terrorist claims you are. I don't think those sleeper cells would attack if we had already wiped out the family names bin Laden and Atta and made them extinct- because they'd know that their parents, brothers, sisters, cousins etc would all pay for anything they do.
I understand the feel- but given a good butt-thumper system, you get the sound and the feel, and if you key the playback to acceleration/deceleration rates, it is potentially possible to simulate any given sound/vibration/accelleration "hear and feel" in an electric vehicle. The only thing missing for me would be the clutch- or for that matter, the transmission...in a good electric vehicle, gears are no longer neccessary.
There is nothing you can do to stop a well funded suicidally driven person. Period.
I would disagree with that. I can think of several things we COULD be doing to stop a well funded suicidally driven person- and you're right, they're exactly the same things we'd do to stop Mexican Meth or Canadian Pot or any other smuggling if we really wanted to. A committment to isolationism and genocide is key- isolationism correctly done, with a 12 mile "cross this line and you die" zone, is the preventative. Genocide should be the response- those who kill our friends and families with suicide do not deserve to have their friends and families live. A combination of these two will eventually wipe out the rest of the world- and when the radiation dies down, we can have a new wave of the pioneer spirit....
While I appreciate a bit of silliness this certainly isn't it...
Like all jokes, this one has a point. We often forget that it takes two to tango- that wars have other points of view that seem just as valid to the other side. If we could *get into the heads* of our enemies, and figure out their motiviations, there may be another way to head them off at the pass. Otherwise, the most efficient way to fight any given war is broken down into just two options: genocide or surrender. If you're the 800 pound gorrilla, then obviously genocide is the best solution to any war. If you're the little guy, surrender is always the best option. This "just warfare" and "limited warfare" crap just ends up killing more people for the wrong reasons.
I can almost agree to this. Either way, the current administration did site more than the WMD issue and that's what makes these debates laughable is that all the opposition to this can cry out is about the WMD issue.
Well, actually, they were spending an awfull amount of time on the WMD and links to al Qaida issue- and more innocent members of the administration and Congress have admitted that the only reason *Iraq* became important after 9-11 instead of bin Laden was the fear that al Qaida would gain WMDs through Iraq. To the common American Public, those WERE the only two reasons given for going to war before the war- and to have *both* of them not only disproven, but all of these lower level warnings that they were false coming out of the woodwork in the last three months, is pretty damning as far as open and transparent government is concerned.
Why don't these same people speak up on behalf of those in the mass graves?
Mainly because nobody was crying "mass graves" before April 2002- and most of those mass graves came from more than a decade before, when Saddam *was* using American and East German manufactured WMDs against his own population and against his neighbors. The mass graves had NOTHING to do with 9-11 or the fear of al Qaida getting WMDs- they were either all used up or rendered impotent by time long before (my favorite was that picture of the East German nerve gas found by the Marines- with an experation date of 1989).
It's diplomatic. I can't imagine the fallout (no pun intended) from something like this on the global political scale. Not to mention that I think the majority of the Iraqi civilians are well meaning people. But that's neither here nor there.
Fsk the global political scale. We're either going to be Imperial America, dominating the world in the 21st century, or we're going to be the whipping boy of every stupid little religious cult that comes around who can threaten our population. I'd rather be the first- and to that end, the proper response to threatened genocide is genocide. If that means that the rest of the world quickly learns the lesson that we DON'T NEED their manufacturing, goods, energy, or existance, so much the better.
While it is a possible solution I think that we would have had bigger problems if we strongarmed our way into the middle east over such a thing.
Maybe for a while, but the lack of access to oil would have created a much stronger, more independant America- one that fewer people would be willing to mess with because the word would be, when you mess with America, your family and country pays in blood. It comes back to which would we rather be- the bully or the weak-willed sissy? It may be politically correct to be the sissy- but your citizens will pay dearly for your lack of resolve.
Overall I think that we do need to break from our current oil dependency but it's more of a consumer problem than a government problem.
Making 25% of the world's oil radioactive would quickly solve the consumer problem.
How can we rightously say we need to do something about the oil issue when we're still buying glorified station wagons that get about 8 gallons to the mile.
We shouldn't even be doing that- but making gasoline $200 a gallon would soon fix that.
And include some extra Li-Ion battery capacity and a plug-in bridge rectifier so that it's solar-and-grid-and-gas, and this would be *really* interesting for a dealership add-on. I'm willing to bet you could push it to nearly 25% increase in efficiency.
Hmmmm... and Iraq didn't take shots at UN planes in no fly zones?
Not for the last 8 years or so- and one could point out the fact that those so-called "no fly zones" were being enforced by the Iraqis- no fly should mean no fly for everybody, right?:-)
Still, you'd claim the war in Iraq were unprovoked.
Not quite- I claim that the two main reasons given for war in Iraq (the breaking of WMD-specific UN sanctions and links between Saddam Hussien and al-Qaida) were a hoax. OTHER issues, such as the no-fly zones, slant drilling by oil companies in Kuwait into Iraq's oil fields, and the mistreatment of Kurds and Shi'ites all had inappropriate responses from Saddam Hussien. I still don't believe invasion was neccessary- two or three cobalt warheads would have done the job nicely in less time and for less expense, and more completely- but that is more about cowardice and a lack of truthfullness of the current administration than anything else.
And it's so odd that this didn't become an issue until billy's head was on the chopping block. Very odd.
Nah- I've disliked US foreign policy in the Mideast since we failed to destroy Mecca in revenge for the OPEC oil embargo in 1971.
So you're claiming that the inspection crews being booted was a hoax?
In a way- according to the same PBS program that presented the interview, inspection crews were able to inspect 100% of the sites listed by the intelligence agencies, and were only truly booted out by the US government 48 hours previous to the second invasion. EVERY single one of those reports showed no WMDs. And the Germans had already told Cheney personally that Curveball's reports were not reliable.
All of this happened prior to Powell's speech- so I guess the real question was why the Administration was feeding known false information to the Secretary of Defense. The "hoax" label comes not from me- but from Powell's aide, who feels abused and defrauded by our government.
Yeah, because the invasion of Kuwait was a hoax. Because the numberous violations of UN sanctions was a hoax. You know it's true.
One of these things is not like the other. The invasion of Kuwait was a fact- though it wasn't unprovoked either. The numerous violations of UN sanctions is exactly what this article calls into question, which makes me wonder if you RTFAed?
Now, I'm not familiar with the traffic laws in all 50 states, but I'm reasonably certain that most of them have never bothered to write a law prohibiting the use of a technology that didn't exist until now.
Every one of the west coast states now has specific legislation restricting video screens in the view of the driver that aren't for the direct purpose of navigation- covering every future technology that might need a video screen. There are local laws about cruise control all over the place that would ban this tech. Same with devices that use millimeter radar (because it jams speed radars). Almost all new tech contains old tech, and sometimes that old tech was what was banned.
Google's one meaningful asset: a ton of online datastores. Eventually, google will just morph into a cache of old information with advertising, even if they go completely bankrupt they'll be kept around by the creditors for that purpose.
:-) I refered to it as a dupe because of the story back about a month ago that the British Government had legalized this technology. Honda's just the first one to SELL it.
Adding more shielding is relatively easy compared to generating significantly more powerful microwaves. In fact, nuclear devices could detonate without any sort of computer if they can get within range. A purely mechanical detonation system, timed as the missile launches, is a practical solution. Your idea is not a very good one, IMHO.
Actually, the idea in that case has completely achieved it's purpose- the elimination of an ICGM, which would require a guidance system. At that point you're back to a purely ballistic weapon. Of course, any such powerfull microwave system has a backup way to destroy ICBMs as well- by cooking off the plastique in the detonator, which would work against even a mechanical detonation system, causing it to fire early. The missile would not get to it's destination. (Note, this has the *same* problem I mentioned earlier- nuclear explosions over the polar ice cap in the case of a Russian attack would certainly have a negative environmental effect).
Antitank missiles do swerve in flight, but only at the end and only so that they can hit the tank on the top, where it has less armor than the side. I don't think it would be practical to make a wire guided missile evade being shot down even if there was something to shoot it down. These are ground to ground weapons you're talking about.
Not just antitank in specific, but guided missiles in general we don't have the tech to defend against yet. Guided missiles (ground to ground, sea to ground, air to ground) are the most deadly things on the battlefield currently- an ICGM is a formidable opponent indeed.
Ummm, yeah that sounds practical. You should work for the government on some of these stupid pork projects. Another way to do it is to attache a homing beacon to all of our enemies missiles, just like we had to do for the tests of our anti-missile shield, last time I checked the status. Railguns are the solution and everyone knows it, or something.
The difference between what I just proposed and the homing beacon/railgun solution is this- the microwave weapon allows you to widen the effective field to the emission cone of the microwave generator, thus theoretically with enough power you can project & protect a cone many miles wide. You don't need to know the exact location of the incoming missile, because once the system is on, anything flying into it (stray birds, commercial aircraft, our own jets, enemy ICGMs etc.) will get toasted nicely. The more energy you pour into it, the more sheilding they have to put around their computers, and the less range their ICGMs will have.
Dunno if I buy it. By the same reasoning, the cops could say "We can't tell you how we caught you, because then criminals could come up with new ways to commit crimes undetected."
Yes, which is why wiretapping equipment was considered to be secret for many years, and wiretapping software is considered a top secret weapon today. If people know you're doing it, they can defend against it, and you've just lost a weapon from your arsenal.
What technology would that be which 'prevents' TOW and Dragon missles from being shot down? Suppressive fire?
Both are guided missiles- as in non-ballistic (they don't neccessarily follow the flight path you think they will). That makes them damned hard to shoot down on their way to the target. The difference between the Russian/Tomohawk technology to do this and the TOW/Dragon technology to do this is where the software is being run- in a computer or in a human brain. TOW/Dragon missles are human controled to hit the target- the Russian ICBMs and Tomohawks are computer controld to hit a much further away target. But all four exhibit non-ballistic flight paths, which is what makes guided missiles the most deadly, indefensible thing on the battlefield today.
Exactly right- but to do it properly (and fool the system) you need TWO white lines- one for each side of the lane (which is why it's only currently legal on freeways and "two way carriageways" which I guess is an English way of saying a two lane road with a shoulder and painted lane markers).
As our Tow, Dragon, and Tomohawk systems use to avoid being shot down on their way to the target. And they're right- there ain't no defense against it YET.
I can think up a possible defense, but it'd be rather nasty on the environment- large microwave generators at a high enough power broadcasting a cone that cooks the electronics of any missile within range, thus making evasive missiles purely ballistic. But like I say- it'd also be cooking birds, wildlife, destabilizing the Ozone Layer.....
Slashdot Mirror
I'm sure Exxon and friends, with their 'oh snap look what's going on in the Middle East right now' speculative price hikes will manage to edge it closer to $200 this year. I mean, just take a look at the record [forbes.com] profits [breitbart.com] these megacorps are raking in. All it will take this year is the threat of action against Iran, a few hurricanes here and there, and bam, another huge hike.
Yeah- but my point is that if we had this situation in 1971, we'd all be driving alternative energy vehicles NOW. Superpowers should be bullies- not to be invides all sorts of riff-raff to attack you.
Keep in mind that Cheney is still sitting on the board at Halliburton, which has recorded record quarters since the beginning of the Iraq war, by winning closed-bidding contracts for reconstruction. Strangely enough the US military is tasked with keeping Halliburton contractors safe while they work..which isn't always successful. If you look carefully at the list, you'll see the majority of KBR (Kellogg, Brown and Root, a Haliburton company) employees were involved in logistics, i.e. truck drivers. Convoys are popular targets for IEDs. KBR has been a thorn in the side for Halliburton, and they've considered selling it off for awhile, due to the PR nightmare and litigation that ended in a 4 billion dollar settlement over asbestos claims.
Yeah, but that's just the result now. If Nixon had been less of a coward and listened more to retired generals like MacArthur- we simply wouldn't be having the discussion.
But it's never to late to end war quickly and efficiently- an Iraq made out of Tritium is better than an Iraq run by Shi'ites.
People say that they don't negotiate with terrorists. Well guess what, terrorism means to hold a nation hostage. People negotiate hostage situations.
Actually, it's one of two options- the other option is to kill enough people to be far worse than the terrorist claims you are. I don't think those sleeper cells would attack if we had already wiped out the family names bin Laden and Atta and made them extinct- because they'd know that their parents, brothers, sisters, cousins etc would all pay for anything they do.
I understand the feel- but given a good butt-thumper system, you get the sound and the feel, and if you key the playback to acceleration/deceleration rates, it is potentially possible to simulate any given sound/vibration/accelleration "hear and feel" in an electric vehicle. The only thing missing for me would be the clutch- or for that matter, the transmission...in a good electric vehicle, gears are no longer neccessary.
There is nothing you can do to stop a well funded suicidally driven person. Period.
I would disagree with that. I can think of several things we COULD be doing to stop a well funded suicidally driven person- and you're right, they're exactly the same things we'd do to stop Mexican Meth or Canadian Pot or any other smuggling if we really wanted to. A committment to isolationism and genocide is key- isolationism correctly done, with a 12 mile "cross this line and you die" zone, is the preventative. Genocide should be the response- those who kill our friends and families with suicide do not deserve to have their friends and families live. A combination of these two will eventually wipe out the rest of the world- and when the radiation dies down, we can have a new wave of the pioneer spirit....
While I appreciate a bit of silliness this certainly isn't it...
Like all jokes, this one has a point. We often forget that it takes two to tango- that wars have other points of view that seem just as valid to the other side. If we could *get into the heads* of our enemies, and figure out their motiviations, there may be another way to head them off at the pass. Otherwise, the most efficient way to fight any given war is broken down into just two options: genocide or surrender. If you're the 800 pound gorrilla, then obviously genocide is the best solution to any war. If you're the little guy, surrender is always the best option. This "just warfare" and "limited warfare" crap just ends up killing more people for the wrong reasons.
I can almost agree to this. Either way, the current administration did site more than the WMD issue and that's what makes these debates laughable is that all the opposition to this can cry out is about the WMD issue.
Well, actually, they were spending an awfull amount of time on the WMD and links to al Qaida issue- and more innocent members of the administration and Congress have admitted that the only reason *Iraq* became important after 9-11 instead of bin Laden was the fear that al Qaida would gain WMDs through Iraq. To the common American Public, those WERE the only two reasons given for going to war before the war- and to have *both* of them not only disproven, but all of these lower level warnings that they were false coming out of the woodwork in the last three months, is pretty damning as far as open and transparent government is concerned.
Why don't these same people speak up on behalf of those in the mass graves?
Mainly because nobody was crying "mass graves" before April 2002- and most of those mass graves came from more than a decade before, when Saddam *was* using American and East German manufactured WMDs against his own population and against his neighbors. The mass graves had NOTHING to do with 9-11 or the fear of al Qaida getting WMDs- they were either all used up or rendered impotent by time long before (my favorite was that picture of the East German nerve gas found by the Marines- with an experation date of 1989).
It's diplomatic. I can't imagine the fallout (no pun intended) from something like this on the global political scale. Not to mention that I think the majority of the Iraqi civilians are well meaning people. But that's neither here nor there.
Fsk the global political scale. We're either going to be Imperial America, dominating the world in the 21st century, or we're going to be the whipping boy of every stupid little religious cult that comes around who can threaten our population. I'd rather be the first- and to that end, the proper response to threatened genocide is genocide. If that means that the rest of the world quickly learns the lesson that we DON'T NEED their manufacturing, goods, energy, or existance, so much the better.
While it is a possible solution I think that we would have had bigger problems if we strongarmed our way into the middle east over such a thing.
Maybe for a while, but the lack of access to oil would have created a much stronger, more independant America- one that fewer people would be willing to mess with because the word would be, when you mess with America, your family and country pays in blood. It comes back to which would we rather be- the bully or the weak-willed sissy? It may be politically correct to be the sissy- but your citizens will pay dearly for your lack of resolve.
Overall I think that we do need to break from our current oil dependency but it's more of a consumer problem than a government problem.
Making 25% of the world's oil radioactive would quickly solve the consumer problem.
How can we rightously say we need to do something about the oil issue when we're still buying glorified station wagons that get about 8 gallons to the mile.
We shouldn't even be doing that- but making gasoline $200 a gallon would soon fix that.
If you're going to spend more than $30k on a car, then one would think a simple speaker with an MP3 player of engine emission sounds would suffice....
And include some extra Li-Ion battery capacity and a plug-in bridge rectifier so that it's solar-and-grid-and-gas, and this would be *really* interesting for a dealership add-on. I'm willing to bet you could push it to nearly 25% increase in efficiency.
Hmmmm... and Iraq didn't take shots at UN planes in no fly zones?
:-)
Not for the last 8 years or so- and one could point out the fact that those so-called "no fly zones" were being enforced by the Iraqis- no fly should mean no fly for everybody, right?
Still, you'd claim the war in Iraq were unprovoked.
Not quite- I claim that the two main reasons given for war in Iraq (the breaking of WMD-specific UN sanctions and links between Saddam Hussien and al-Qaida) were a hoax. OTHER issues, such as the no-fly zones, slant drilling by oil companies in Kuwait into Iraq's oil fields, and the mistreatment of Kurds and Shi'ites all had inappropriate responses from Saddam Hussien. I still don't believe invasion was neccessary- two or three cobalt warheads would have done the job nicely in less time and for less expense, and more completely- but that is more about cowardice and a lack of truthfullness of the current administration than anything else.
And it's so odd that this didn't become an issue until billy's head was on the chopping block. Very odd.
Nah- I've disliked US foreign policy in the Mideast since we failed to destroy Mecca in revenge for the OPEC oil embargo in 1971.
So you're claiming that the inspection crews being booted was a hoax?
In a way- according to the same PBS program that presented the interview, inspection crews were able to inspect 100% of the sites listed by the intelligence agencies, and were only truly booted out by the US government 48 hours previous to the second invasion. EVERY single one of those reports showed no WMDs. And the Germans had already told Cheney personally that Curveball's reports were not reliable.
All of this happened prior to Powell's speech- so I guess the real question was why the Administration was feeding known false information to the Secretary of Defense. The "hoax" label comes not from me- but from Powell's aide, who feels abused and defrauded by our government.
Yeah, because the invasion of Kuwait was a hoax. Because the numberous violations of UN sanctions was a hoax. You know it's true.
One of these things is not like the other. The invasion of Kuwait was a fact- though it wasn't unprovoked either. The numerous violations of UN sanctions is exactly what this article calls into question, which makes me wonder if you RTFAed?
unprovoked bombing of Afganistan
What part of "large hole in a US Destroyer taking on supplies" and "bombed US Embassies in Africa" didn't you understand? Unprovoked?!?!?!?
Or X10 devices- all of the motion detectors take AAAs, as do most of the remotes except for the Slimline Stickaswitchs.
Now, I'm not familiar with the traffic laws in all 50 states, but I'm reasonably certain that most of them have never bothered to write a law prohibiting the use of a technology that didn't exist until now.
Every one of the west coast states now has specific legislation restricting video screens in the view of the driver that aren't for the direct purpose of navigation- covering every future technology that might need a video screen. There are local laws about cruise control all over the place that would ban this tech. Same with devices that use millimeter radar (because it jams speed radars). Almost all new tech contains old tech, and sometimes that old tech was what was banned.
Google's one meaningful asset: a ton of online datastores. Eventually, google will just morph into a cache of old information with advertising, even if they go completely bankrupt they'll be kept around by the creditors for that purpose.
:-) I refered to it as a dupe because of the story back about a month ago that the British Government had legalized this technology. Honda's just the first one to SELL it.
Adding more shielding is relatively easy compared to generating significantly more powerful microwaves. In fact, nuclear devices could detonate without any sort of computer if they can get within range. A purely mechanical detonation system, timed as the missile launches, is a practical solution. Your idea is not a very good one, IMHO.
Actually, the idea in that case has completely achieved it's purpose- the elimination of an ICGM, which would require a guidance system. At that point you're back to a purely ballistic weapon. Of course, any such powerfull microwave system has a backup way to destroy ICBMs as well- by cooking off the plastique in the detonator, which would work against even a mechanical detonation system, causing it to fire early. The missile would not get to it's destination. (Note, this has the *same* problem I mentioned earlier- nuclear explosions over the polar ice cap in the case of a Russian attack would certainly have a negative environmental effect).
So how do you hit a moving tank with one, if you can't steer to follow the tank?
Antitank missiles do swerve in flight, but only at the end and only so that they can hit the tank on the top, where it has less armor than the side. I don't think it would be practical to make a wire guided missile evade being shot down even if there was something to shoot it down. These are ground to ground weapons you're talking about.
Not just antitank in specific, but guided missiles in general we don't have the tech to defend against yet. Guided missiles (ground to ground, sea to ground, air to ground) are the most deadly things on the battlefield currently- an ICGM is a formidable opponent indeed.
Ummm, yeah that sounds practical. You should work for the government on some of these stupid pork projects. Another way to do it is to attache a homing beacon to all of our enemies missiles, just like we had to do for the tests of our anti-missile shield, last time I checked the status. Railguns are the solution and everyone knows it, or something.
The difference between what I just proposed and the homing beacon/railgun solution is this- the microwave weapon allows you to widen the effective field to the emission cone of the microwave generator, thus theoretically with enough power you can project & protect a cone many miles wide. You don't need to know the exact location of the incoming missile, because once the system is on, anything flying into it (stray birds, commercial aircraft, our own jets, enemy ICGMs etc.) will get toasted nicely. The more energy you pour into it, the more sheilding they have to put around their computers, and the less range their ICGMs will have.
Dunno if I buy it. By the same reasoning, the cops could say "We can't tell you how we caught you, because then criminals could come up with new ways to commit crimes undetected."
Yes, which is why wiretapping equipment was considered to be secret for many years, and wiretapping software is considered a top secret weapon today. If people know you're doing it, they can defend against it, and you've just lost a weapon from your arsenal.
What technology would that be which 'prevents' TOW and Dragon missles from being shot down? Suppressive fire?
Both are guided missiles- as in non-ballistic (they don't neccessarily follow the flight path you think they will). That makes them damned hard to shoot down on their way to the target. The difference between the Russian/Tomohawk technology to do this and the TOW/Dragon technology to do this is where the software is being run- in a computer or in a human brain. TOW/Dragon missles are human controled to hit the target- the Russian ICBMs and Tomohawks are computer controld to hit a much further away target. But all four exhibit non-ballistic flight paths, which is what makes guided missiles the most deadly, indefensible thing on the battlefield today.
You need to log on to the Honda UK website- because this tech is only legal in England.
Exactly right- but to do it properly (and fool the system) you need TWO white lines- one for each side of the lane (which is why it's only currently legal on freeways and "two way carriageways" which I guess is an English way of saying a two lane road with a shoulder and painted lane markers).
If you had seen the previous story, you'd know this system is only legal in England and Japan.
Well, not quite- nice to see that Honda could come out with an ADAS system barely a month after it becoming legal....
As our Tow, Dragon, and Tomohawk systems use to avoid being shot down on their way to the target. And they're right- there ain't no defense against it YET.
I can think up a possible defense, but it'd be rather nasty on the environment- large microwave generators at a high enough power broadcasting a cone that cooks the electronics of any missile within range, thus making evasive missiles purely ballistic. But like I say- it'd also be cooking birds, wildlife, destabilizing the Ozone Layer.....