You are right that many other countries had cavalry divisions too. Germany had cavalry units from the beginning right till the end of the war. So did the Russians. The Nazis even had elite SS cavalry units
However, it is also true that Polish cavalry did charge German units with armor support on several occasions, and they generally failed, but I think a lot of people don't realize that the armor at the beginning of WWII looked nothing like the armor used by the end of that war. Germany in fact used many "training tanks", early versions of the Pz I, in their attack on Poland. These were tanks with 2, or some just one, machinegun as a weapon. It wasn't as intimidating as attacking a King Tiger (from late 1944) on horseback for example. Besides, unlike the French, the Poles didn't have a lot of armor, and when "desperate measures time" arrived, Poland had only cavalry to respond with. The armor Poland did have was from the British and French, which were good tanks, and where they met German armor in roughly equal numbers the Germans ended up with a bloody nose. That happened on several occasions too. The Poles actually fought very well, unfortunately Poland didn't have any of the advantages that allowed the USSR to survive, and they didn't have an airforce that could stand for long against the Luftwaffe (not that anyone at the time really did - even Britian later came horrifically close to losing the Battle of Britian). There were no other cavalry charges against armor by anyone else that I know of, mainly because no one else ended up in such a desperate situation as the Poles did, and Poland provided the example to everyone else that came later that cavalry was now only useful as fast-moving, mounted infantry, and that if they wanted to fight tanks, they needed tanks of their own now. Sadly, there had to be a "first" victim of armored, maneuver warfare, and Poland was unfortunately it.
The idea that static lines didn't work in the Second World War is false. The did work, but they were not wonder weapons.
No, I don't believe they did work, certainly the Maginot failed to do what its creators thought it would. By 1943/44 the amount of firepower being used on the battlefield was such that *any* static defensive line could, and was, breached by a determined enemy. The only time such a static defensive line could work was when the terrain was on your side, or the location was such that the enemy had a difficult time getting the resources it needed in place to breach the line.
Its popular for everyone to point to the German fortification of the Italian Alps as proof of a defensive line which "succeeded". Well, it "succeeded" only in delaying the attacker, not stopping him. Few are aware that US/British troops from the Italian front were actually in, and advancing through German territory when Hitler killed himself. And this was perhaps the best place in Europe for such a defensive line. Maginot would have fallen in love with Italy's southern Alps and its terrain, yet in the end it only slowed down a determined enemy, it didn't stop them.
In the face of enormous firepower from mobile armies relying on maneuver warfare, defenses merely prolong the agony of defeat. If you have the ability and resources, the best defense is a powerful offense of your own.
Thats not really an accurate assessment. Or rather, it is mostly accurate, but applies to all of Germany's early victims. Poland, France, Britian, the Low Countries, Norway, and Russia all had the same problem: no one knew how to fight the kind of new "maneuver warfare" that Germany was fighting (we all refer to it as "blitzkrieg" now, though ironically the German Army never called it that).
Britian survived because she was an island, Russia (barely) survived because of her size and willingness to throw away Soviet lives by the thousands just to slow Germany down a little bit. Now France's military did have its own problems, the fatal reliance on a static defense is the primary one, because this form of defense is what "maneuver warfare" forever made obsolete. This flaw was not confined to just the French however.
Now before the France bashers get to far gone on this thread, a few points (and I'm not French):
First, France had more tanks than Germany did, and French tanks were actually *better* than their German counterparts. The German superiority in armor didn't start until 1943, after a rude and shocking insult in the form of the Soviet T-34 tank. France's problem, like everyone else, was they didn't concentrate their armor, they, and everyone else, still considered armor an infantry support vehicle and therefore spread it out among the troops on the front. In the face of Germany's concentrated armor, that was a fatal mistake.
Second, France, although outnumbered in the air, did put up a ferocious fight. Most of the fight however was never seen as France relied on high altitude fighters for their defense, so most of the air-to-air war during the campaign was occuring too high for anyone else on the ground to know about it. Even French fighter pilots were frustrated afterward that so many of their own Frenchmen thought the Air Force had been destroyed or had stopped fighting so early in the battle. The truth was the French continued to fight in the air, but so high up, no one else knew they were there.
As far as US intelligence/any intelligence whatsoever knows, North Korea doesn't have any nukes or missiles;
I hope to God you aren't a member of our intelligence services.
NK already has missiles that can reach all of SK and Japan, they currently are testing a missile class that can reach AK and HI and maybe even CA. As for nukes, well, sources in "your" intelligence community believe they already have nukes. They just haven't tested them yet, and might not be able to mount them on missiles yet. But the report I heard said analysts think NK will be able to threaten Seoul or Tokyo with a nuclear missile in less than 2 years.
I seriously doubt China,...., would also want to aggravate the strongest military power in the world.
Challenging US hegemony in the Pacific is exactly what they're doing, because we're preventing their hegemony in the Pacific.
Neither India nor Pakistan have ICBM's capable or hitting the US
Who said anything about them attacking us? They want to attack each other. Since they share a common border and a common hatred, the fear of the Indian subcontinent being the first place a nuclear war occurs is very real. They don't have the 15-20 minutes of warning that we and the USSR had if one of us attacked the other. They have only seconds warning of a first launch, which is exactly why so many are afraid of that conflict going nuclear. Any kind of deterrence which could buy reaction time would lower the risk of a nuclear holocaust there.
No one has asked the US to play world police
Umm, how did you go from "the US defending allies" to "the US playing world police"? Just curious, because if they really are our allies, they might actually be the ones asking us to assist in a missile defense.
I agree about the "world police" part though, I think we should have given up that role long ago, and just let the world go back to killing themselves. Unfortunately, we've got people over here with a simplistic world view that think we're "supposed" to be the world's policeman, just because we're the only country militarily capable of doing it right now. They never heard the phrase, "Just because you can, doesn't mean you should.".
which we *theorize* can hit the western coast of the USA, and they're not crazy enough to launch them.
Who's this "we" kimosabe? The NK government is certifiable, heck, they let millions of their own people starve to death rather than ask for help. If I were living in HI or CA, I'd be really worried about what is or isn't in the mind of Kin Jung Il right now. For that matter, forget HI and CA, its SK that NK has openly threatened with nuclear attack.
Not quite. There were numerous unofficial recounts after the election in 2000. Almost all of them reported that Bush really did win.
And why do I have this sneaking suspicion, that if Bush were the one who lost because a court barred a recount that you would have a problem with that?
Sorry, but don't mistake suspicion about these new voting procedures and the federal court's newly declared role in state voting, with whining from the losing side. First the federal courts have no business involving themselves in the election processes within a state, that they did in 2000 was a colossal mistake in legal judgement on their part that our country will suffer for until their actions are eventually overturned by a future SCOTUS, and second, voting processes without verifiability only lead to a lack of belief in the entire democractic process, which is so dangerous for a democracy that avoiding it is in the best interests of all political parties and persuasions.
Unfortunately, shortsightedness like yours (by assuming everyone who has a problem with these events are just disgruntled Dems), is only making the problem worse, just look at the growing polarization, rather than unification, in this country after the election.
And when there are no punch cards to go back and double check? The parent's concern about GEMS may not be that much of a threat, as long as there is a paper trail to follow, but the point in many of the disputed vote results and the reason for the concerns of many, have to do with the fact that there is no paper trail in most of these new "electronic voting systems".
Sure there are better ways to do this than with punch cards, but getting rid of the paper trail altogether is a dangerously bad idea.
First, FOS software, while often known for technical excellence, does not exactly have an awe-inspiring record for excellent documention and/or ease-of-use.
Second, many companies always want support contracts because thats how they do business. Why do you think MS and friends always use FUD like "When something goes wrong with FOSS, who ya' gonna call?". For many businesses, support contracts, are part of the standard "CYA business method".
Your first two links don't work, and the third one is about a hydrogen/air inflated safety bags, which doesn't seem to have anything to do with what we're talking about, since that hydrogen is deliberately mixed with air.
The rest of your post is goobly-gook. DTD transitions theories are interesting but I'm more interested in real world proof. You still haven't answered the obvious question: If hydrogen is as explosive as you say, why don't all those NASA tanks explode? If the danger of explosion is so real, why would NASA allow its personnel to get really close and use a broomstick for fire/leak detection? Why doesn't all these experimental cars explode intead of just the hydrogen burning off fast? Theories are only interesting if they explain real world events. Where are all of the pure-hydrogen explosions you claim should be happening?
Fires That Stick Around Aren't Dangerous
Long burning fires are more dangerous, because they can ignite other things.
And its not only because hydrogen goes up fast, it does that because it is so much lighter than the air, so not only does it go up but it expands and dissipates rapidly too. You would need an air-tight compartment to keep the hydrogen from spreading, but obviously thats not what we're talking about with hydrogen cars. The only air tight compartments in such a vehicle is possibly the vehicle's cabin, where the hydrogen isn't stored anyway, and the hydrogen container itself, and thats what we're assuming has a leak.
There's a reason that we drop bombs full of materials that detonate,
Nice attempt at a segue, but you still haven't shown hydrogen is as dangerous as a bomb yet.
Republicans increased their majority in both the House and the Senate.
Thanks in part to some creative gerrymandering in Texas. The Reps lost control of one state legislature and the Dems gained two, so at the local level, there was no "sweep".
an unprecendented campaign of hate and propaganda by the left
Pot, Kettle, Black. Besides, it seems to me the Reps won this time because they were just better liars than the Dems.
Here's a site talking about the use of a broomstick to detect a hydrogen fire.
I still don't understand what your're trying to argue here though, Rei. Ok, hydrogen is flamable, and may ignite easily under high pressure. However, you started out by claiming it was "explosive", and thats the part where you still haven't made any sense.
If high-pressure hydrogen is so explosive, why is don't these tanks that NASA used to check with a broomstick explode? In fact, the higher the pressure, the less likely an explosion is possible, because the oxygen from the air can't get into the tank to mix with the rest of the hydrogen, only the hydrogen coming out of the leak could possibly explode, except that its already burning, there is no time for mixing large amounts of oxygen with large amounts of hydrogen to create the situation where a powerful explosion is even possible.
You haven't responded to the links given showing that hydrogen cars are much less likely to be dangerous because the hydrogen comes out fast, goes up fast, and burns fast. Flamable, yes, explosive, no. I've seen the videos of those demonstrations before. Gasoline is far more dangerous because it will stick around and continue to burn for awhile, long after the hydrogen has all burned up and/or dissipated.
So which argument are you making? That hydrogen is "dangerous" because its so flamable? Or hydrogen is dangerous because its so explosive? If its the former, then I won't argue because I don't see the point, lots of things we use today are flamable, but if its the latter, then you still haven't made a case for that yet.
In truth they are very close to controlling the GOP right now. Look at what is happening to Arlan Spector (moderate Rep) for his comments on the judicial nomination process and Woe v. Wade. I make a prediction: if the GOP is controlled by the religious right, expect to see Spector lose his job on the judicial committee, thus paving the way for radical judges to be nominated. You'll see.
I once heard someone claim the coalition had more than 100 countries in it. Now how many countries have troops in Iraq? How many will still be there a year from now? Yeah, I thought so.
The Guardian miscalculated the (U.S. of) American feelings of patriotism, xenophobia, parochialism, isolationism, desire for independence, distrust of Europe, and the resentment
Unfortunately, I have to agree, there are just too many religious nuts and rednecks over here who think the rest of the world doesn't matter. My advice to the rest of the world, for when it really wants to get the American public's attention, is to next time hit us where it really hurts: economically. Yes, it would mean getting hurt yourself some, but seriously, there are so many Americans here who just don't realize how dependent we have become on the rest of the world, but they go on believing we can ignore the rest of the world when we chose.
It is foreign buyers which are buying bonds to keep the US afloat, and it is foreign goods that we are importing by the billions of USD. When Bush tries to conquer another country, my advice to the world is a 90 day total embargo of US goods. That will get America's attention, guaranteed, and will permanently dispel the myth that America can go it alone in the world. Frankly, I'm beginning to believe the arrogance of the ignorant and the right will continue here, until the rest of the world shatters their illusions. You don't need a huge military to beat us, just put away your pocketbook for awhile.
I know this is wrong. The MSNBC article the grandparent linked to showed Bush getting 79% of evangelicals in exit polls. I can't find the source of your stats, the trail eventually goes back to here, which doesn't show these stats itself, it just wants to sell you a book, so I'm not sure what these numbers are based on. Until I know where these numbers came from, the exit polls and all the other anecdotal evidence (read the GP's link again) are more accurate. I think most people agree the evangelical turnout was very heavy this round, and no one will seriously believes that any Dem could get nearly half of the radical right's votes.
Um, not exactly. At the state level the Reps lost complete control of one state's legislature and the Dems gained total control of two states. So it wasn't "across the board".
There's a common delusion, pushed by IFR fans among others, that there is a "safe" Plutonium output type which will not be a practical proliferation concern.
Speaking of delusions, do you know that IFR's *consume* plutonium, thus NO moderately useful plutonium ever leaves the NPP? It is recycled on site and burned again. The waste that eventually leaves is useless as a weapon, and is so contaminated its difficult to make anything useful out of it all. My point, which you seemed to completely miss, is that there is a big difference between regular reactors and Integral Fast Reactors. Try reading up on them.
You're joking right? If they put religious judges on the bench, including SCOTUS, of course it will.
The only "God issue" left that has any practical impact is whether or not the gov't can fund a charitable or educational activity that's run through a church.
You must be joking. Everything from homosexuality to abortion to separation of church and state, freedom from religion, and freedom of expression would be on the chopping block if the religous right get their way. Its not as if their members have spoken about what they want to do. They are single handedly responsible for putting Bush back in the White House, and everyone knows it. They'll soon be asking for compensation for their efforts on behalf of Bush.
Do you really think we're going to regress back to a state religion or something? Sheesh.
Take a look around, fella, there are plenty of people who want EXACTLY THAT.
liberal democrats will put us all on welfare as work migrates elsewhere.
Sorry, you don't have that whipping dog anymore. The jobs are going elsewhere with the conservatives in control.
We don't buy this sky is falling environmental bullshit anymore.
Who is this "we", kimosabe? Global warming is real, deal with it (or remain in denial as you will).
Quit waking me up,youre making me grumpy.
I'm terribly sorry we interrupted your hibernation Mr. Cave Man, please return to your slumber, the rest of us humans will deal with this problem by the time you have awoken again.:)
There is another quite better approach at reducing CO2 output : consume less energy.
Um, no. Efficiency will always be a goal, as long as power is not utterly free, but the West has wrung most of the inefficiencies out of their systems already. China has accomplished a temporary drop in CO2 emissions by introducing efficiencies into their power generation, but with a population of more than 2 billion, China's demand for power will grow strongly as they too remove most of the inefficiencies there are, and after that begin consuming more power in earnest.
Second, the idea we can consume less power and continue to progress is only popular among the Greens, among other scientists and realists, it is merely wishful thinking. First, more power will mean a better quality of life. The more power we have the more enjoyable we can make our lives, you just can't expect people to give that up, not without a damn good reason, and so far the Greens haven't produced a good enough reason yet, given that we have alternatives to starving ourselves energy wise. Also, just consider the amount of power needed to bring the existing population up to EU or US standards, never mind the projected increases in human population, and you begin to see the folly of believing we won't need vastly more amounts of power in the future. The have-nots are going to demand that, the developing world's goal is something like Europe or the US, its a simple fact, and we in the West will have no argument to tell the rest of the world they can't have what we have now. Its an argument that will never work, never mind that it is also unethical, IMO. So while conservation will always play a role, and continuing improvements in efficiency will help, the real need is to find and tap large new sources of energy, and nuclear is the only such source that we have and can implement right now. Wind, Solar and Tidal will play an increasing role, but as they are still geographically dependent, and still largely too expensive to compete with coal/oil/nuclear, nuclear is the only practical option we can adopt right now. Or we can wait, just like the critics of global warming want us to do, wait. For how long, though? Until its too late?
In a nutshell, it's mostly two things: dealing with a source of energy where a worst case scenario has such catastrophic consequences.
What worst case scenario? Please stop using Chernobyl has a whipping horse. The USSR created a horrible NPP design that didn't take safety into consideration and they paid the price. Only the Soviets were uncaring enough about their own people to design a NPP without a strong concrete and steel containment block around the reactor. No NPP like Chernobyl has been created since, nothing like it was ever made in the West, and most of the NPPs with that old design within the old USSR have been modified to prevent such a catastrophe again, or shut down.
and dealing with a source of energy where the used-up fuel is dangerous for generations
And this is worse than a runaway greenhouse effect how? Really, there are solutions to this problem, most experts believe there are several places where such waste can be put that will be safe for centuries, or until our technology reaches a point where we have a way to neutralize such waste, whichever comes first. The problem has always been one of politics and fear, not science.
So far, that is way too bloody expensive to be practical.
The other is to seed the South Pacific with a bit of iron compounds so the algae bloom
And the consequences of doing such a thing, even if it was practical? Algae blooms are known to disrupt and kill other forms of sea life. Compared to this, nuclear power is far more practical and immediately usuable, with virtually no impact on the environment, thats why proponents of it are slowly gaining ground despite the eco-fascists.
So what? As I mentioned above they are not Annex I countries in the protocol, and thus have no targets of their own to meet. They are effectively just bystanders. Kyoto only runs to 2012, its not a permanent agreement, so those not on the Annex I list of countries have essentially been given a pass on this agreement.
Chinese... but one thing you can't say is that they are stupid.
Of course not, give them an opportunity to hinder their chief rival's economy with no cost to themselves and they'll jump on it, and that is exactly what Kyoto was for them.
But since neither are Annex I countries, they have no targets to meet until 2012. Its like all those countries in Bush's "coalition" in Iraq, they signed up for the coalition without having to actually *do* anything, whether provide money or troops. China and India are effectively still bystanders.
Slashdot Mirror
You are right that many other countries had cavalry divisions too. Germany had cavalry units from the beginning right till the end of the war. So did the Russians. The Nazis even had elite SS cavalry units
However, it is also true that Polish cavalry did charge German units with armor support on several occasions, and they generally failed, but I think a lot of people don't realize that the armor at the beginning of WWII looked nothing like the armor used by the end of that war. Germany in fact used many "training tanks", early versions of the Pz I, in their attack on Poland. These were tanks with 2, or some just one, machinegun as a weapon. It wasn't as intimidating as attacking a King Tiger (from late 1944) on horseback for example. Besides, unlike the French, the Poles didn't have a lot of armor, and when "desperate measures time" arrived, Poland had only cavalry to respond with. The armor Poland did have was from the British and French, which were good tanks, and where they met German armor in roughly equal numbers the Germans ended up with a bloody nose. That happened on several occasions too. The Poles actually fought very well, unfortunately Poland didn't have any of the advantages that allowed the USSR to survive, and they didn't have an airforce that could stand for long against the Luftwaffe (not that anyone at the time really did - even Britian later came horrifically close to losing the Battle of Britian). There were no other cavalry charges against armor by anyone else that I know of, mainly because no one else ended up in such a desperate situation as the Poles did, and Poland provided the example to everyone else that came later that cavalry was now only useful as fast-moving, mounted infantry, and that if they wanted to fight tanks, they needed tanks of their own now. Sadly, there had to be a "first" victim of armored, maneuver warfare, and Poland was unfortunately it.
No, I don't believe they did work, certainly the Maginot failed to do what its creators thought it would. By 1943/44 the amount of firepower being used on the battlefield was such that *any* static defensive line could, and was, breached by a determined enemy. The only time such a static defensive line could work was when the terrain was on your side, or the location was such that the enemy had a difficult time getting the resources it needed in place to breach the line.
Its popular for everyone to point to the German fortification of the Italian Alps as proof of a defensive line which "succeeded". Well, it "succeeded" only in delaying the attacker, not stopping him. Few are aware that US/British troops from the Italian front were actually in, and advancing through German territory when Hitler killed himself. And this was perhaps the best place in Europe for such a defensive line. Maginot would have fallen in love with Italy's southern Alps and its terrain, yet in the end it only slowed down a determined enemy, it didn't stop them.
In the face of enormous firepower from mobile armies relying on maneuver warfare, defenses merely prolong the agony of defeat. If you have the ability and resources, the best defense is a powerful offense of your own.
Thats not really an accurate assessment. Or rather, it is mostly accurate, but applies to all of Germany's early victims. Poland, France, Britian, the Low Countries, Norway, and Russia all had the same problem: no one knew how to fight the kind of new "maneuver warfare" that Germany was fighting (we all refer to it as "blitzkrieg" now, though ironically the German Army never called it that).
Britian survived because she was an island, Russia (barely) survived because of her size and willingness to throw away Soviet lives by the thousands just to slow Germany down a little bit. Now France's military did have its own problems, the fatal reliance on a static defense is the primary one, because this form of defense is what "maneuver warfare" forever made obsolete. This flaw was not confined to just the French however.
Now before the France bashers get to far gone on this thread, a few points (and I'm not French):
First, France had more tanks than Germany did, and French tanks were actually *better* than their German counterparts. The German superiority in armor didn't start until 1943, after a rude and shocking insult in the form of the Soviet T-34 tank. France's problem, like everyone else, was they didn't concentrate their armor, they, and everyone else, still considered armor an infantry support vehicle and therefore spread it out among the troops on the front. In the face of Germany's concentrated armor, that was a fatal mistake.
Second, France, although outnumbered in the air, did put up a ferocious fight. Most of the fight however was never seen as France relied on high altitude fighters for their defense, so most of the air-to-air war during the campaign was occuring too high for anyone else on the ground to know about it. Even French fighter pilots were frustrated afterward that so many of their own Frenchmen thought the Air Force had been destroyed or had stopped fighting so early in the battle. The truth was the French continued to fight in the air, but so high up, no one else knew they were there.
I hope to God you aren't a member of our intelligence services.
NK already has missiles that can reach all of SK and Japan, they currently are testing a missile class that can reach AK and HI and maybe even CA. As for nukes, well, sources in "your" intelligence community believe they already have nukes. They just haven't tested them yet, and might not be able to mount them on missiles yet. But the report I heard said analysts think NK will be able to threaten Seoul or Tokyo with a nuclear missile in less than 2 years.
Challenging US hegemony in the Pacific is exactly what they're doing, because we're preventing their hegemony in the Pacific.
Who said anything about them attacking us? They want to attack each other. Since they share a common border and a common hatred, the fear of the Indian subcontinent being the first place a nuclear war occurs is very real. They don't have the 15-20 minutes of warning that we and the USSR had if one of us attacked the other. They have only seconds warning of a first launch, which is exactly why so many are afraid of that conflict going nuclear. Any kind of deterrence which could buy reaction time would lower the risk of a nuclear holocaust there.
Umm, how did you go from "the US defending allies" to "the US playing world police"? Just curious, because if they really are our allies, they might actually be the ones asking us to assist in a missile defense.
I agree about the "world police" part though, I think we should have given up that role long ago, and just let the world go back to killing themselves. Unfortunately, we've got people over here with a simplistic world view that think we're "supposed" to be the world's policeman, just because we're the only country militarily capable of doing it right now. They never heard the phrase, "Just because you can, doesn't mean you should.".
Who's this "we" kimosabe? The NK government is certifiable, heck, they let millions of their own people starve to death rather than ask for help. If I were living in HI or CA, I'd be really worried about what is or isn't in the mind of Kin Jung Il right now. For that matter, forget HI and CA, its SK that NK has openly threatened with nuclear attack.
And why do I have this sneaking suspicion, that if Bush were the one who lost because a court barred a recount that you would have a problem with that?
Sorry, but don't mistake suspicion about these new voting procedures and the federal court's newly declared role in state voting, with whining from the losing side. First the federal courts have no business involving themselves in the election processes within a state, that they did in 2000 was a colossal mistake in legal judgement on their part that our country will suffer for until their actions are eventually overturned by a future SCOTUS, and second, voting processes without verifiability only lead to a lack of belief in the entire democractic process, which is so dangerous for a democracy that avoiding it is in the best interests of all political parties and persuasions.
Unfortunately, shortsightedness like yours (by assuming everyone who has a problem with these events are just disgruntled Dems), is only making the problem worse, just look at the growing polarization, rather than unification, in this country after the election.
And when there are no punch cards to go back and double check? The parent's concern about GEMS may not be that much of a threat, as long as there is a paper trail to follow, but the point in many of the disputed vote results and the reason for the concerns of many, have to do with the fact that there is no paper trail in most of these new "electronic voting systems".
Sure there are better ways to do this than with punch cards, but getting rid of the paper trail altogether is a dangerously bad idea.
First, FOS software, while often known for technical excellence, does not exactly have an awe-inspiring record for excellent documention and/or ease-of-use.
Second, many companies always want support contracts because thats how they do business. Why do you think MS and friends always use FUD like "When something goes wrong with FOSS, who ya' gonna call?". For many businesses, support contracts, are part of the standard "CYA business method".
The rest of your post is goobly-gook. DTD transitions theories are interesting but I'm more interested in real world proof. You still haven't answered the obvious question: If hydrogen is as explosive as you say, why don't all those NASA tanks explode? If the danger of explosion is so real, why would NASA allow its personnel to get really close and use a broomstick for fire/leak detection? Why doesn't all these experimental cars explode intead of just the hydrogen burning off fast? Theories are only interesting if they explain real world events. Where are all of the pure-hydrogen explosions you claim should be happening?
Long burning fires are more dangerous, because they can ignite other things.
And its not only because hydrogen goes up fast, it does that because it is so much lighter than the air, so not only does it go up but it expands and dissipates rapidly too. You would need an air-tight compartment to keep the hydrogen from spreading, but obviously thats not what we're talking about with hydrogen cars. The only air tight compartments in such a vehicle is possibly the vehicle's cabin, where the hydrogen isn't stored anyway, and the hydrogen container itself, and thats what we're assuming has a leak.
Nice attempt at a segue, but you still haven't shown hydrogen is as dangerous as a bomb yet.
Thanks in part to some creative gerrymandering in Texas. The Reps lost control of one state legislature and the Dems gained two, so at the local level, there was no "sweep".
Pot, Kettle, Black. Besides, it seems to me the Reps won this time because they were just better liars than the Dems.
Here's a site talking about the use of a broomstick to detect a hydrogen fire.
I still don't understand what your're trying to argue here though, Rei. Ok, hydrogen is flamable, and may ignite easily under high pressure. However, you started out by claiming it was "explosive", and thats the part where you still haven't made any sense.
If high-pressure hydrogen is so explosive, why is don't these tanks that NASA used to check with a broomstick explode? In fact, the higher the pressure, the less likely an explosion is possible, because the oxygen from the air can't get into the tank to mix with the rest of the hydrogen, only the hydrogen coming out of the leak could possibly explode, except that its already burning, there is no time for mixing large amounts of oxygen with large amounts of hydrogen to create the situation where a powerful explosion is even possible.
You haven't responded to the links given showing that hydrogen cars are much less likely to be dangerous because the hydrogen comes out fast, goes up fast, and burns fast. Flamable, yes, explosive, no. I've seen the videos of those demonstrations before. Gasoline is far more dangerous because it will stick around and continue to burn for awhile, long after the hydrogen has all burned up and/or dissipated.
So which argument are you making? That hydrogen is "dangerous" because its so flamable? Or hydrogen is dangerous because its so explosive? If its the former, then I won't argue because I don't see the point, lots of things we use today are flamable, but if its the latter, then you still haven't made a case for that yet.
51% != "crushing and resounding defeat"
Sorry, but this is just wishful thinking.
In truth they are very close to controlling the GOP right now. Look at what is happening to Arlan Spector (moderate Rep) for his comments on the judicial nomination process and Woe v. Wade. I make a prediction: if the GOP is controlled by the religious right, expect to see Spector lose his job on the judicial committee, thus paving the way for radical judges to be nominated. You'll see.
Ok, s/all/almost all/
Whatever.
I once heard someone claim the coalition had more than 100 countries in it. Now how many countries have troops in Iraq? How many will still be there a year from now? Yeah, I thought so.
Unfortunately, I have to agree, there are just too many religious nuts and rednecks over here who think the rest of the world doesn't matter. My advice to the rest of the world, for when it really wants to get the American public's attention, is to next time hit us where it really hurts: economically. Yes, it would mean getting hurt yourself some, but seriously, there are so many Americans here who just don't realize how dependent we have become on the rest of the world, but they go on believing we can ignore the rest of the world when we chose.
It is foreign buyers which are buying bonds to keep the US afloat, and it is foreign goods that we are importing by the billions of USD. When Bush tries to conquer another country, my advice to the world is a 90 day total embargo of US goods. That will get America's attention, guaranteed, and will permanently dispel the myth that America can go it alone in the world. Frankly, I'm beginning to believe the arrogance of the ignorant and the right will continue here, until the rest of the world shatters their illusions. You don't need a huge military to beat us, just put away your pocketbook for awhile.
I know this is wrong. The MSNBC article the grandparent linked to showed Bush getting 79% of evangelicals in exit polls. I can't find the source of your stats, the trail eventually goes back to here, which doesn't show these stats itself, it just wants to sell you a book, so I'm not sure what these numbers are based on. Until I know where these numbers came from, the exit polls and all the other anecdotal evidence (read the GP's link again) are more accurate. I think most people agree the evangelical turnout was very heavy this round, and no one will seriously believes that any Dem could get nearly half of the radical right's votes.
Um, not exactly. At the state level the Reps lost complete control of one state's legislature and the Dems gained total control of two states. So it wasn't "across the board".
Speaking of delusions, do you know that IFR's *consume* plutonium, thus NO moderately useful plutonium ever leaves the NPP? It is recycled on site and burned again. The waste that eventually leaves is useless as a weapon, and is so contaminated its difficult to make anything useful out of it all. My point, which you seemed to completely miss, is that there is a big difference between regular reactors and Integral Fast Reactors. Try reading up on them.
You're joking right? If they put religious judges on the bench, including SCOTUS, of course it will.
You must be joking. Everything from homosexuality to abortion to separation of church and state, freedom from religion, and freedom of expression would be on the chopping block if the religous right get their way. Its not as if their members have spoken about what they want to do. They are single handedly responsible for putting Bush back in the White House, and everyone knows it. They'll soon be asking for compensation for their efforts on behalf of Bush.
Take a look around, fella, there are plenty of people who want EXACTLY THAT.
Sorry, you don't have that whipping dog anymore. The jobs are going elsewhere with the conservatives in control.
Who is this "we", kimosabe? Global warming is real, deal with it (or remain in denial as you will).
I'm terribly sorry we interrupted your hibernation Mr. Cave Man, please return to your slumber, the rest of us humans will deal with this problem by the time you have awoken again.
Um, no. Efficiency will always be a goal, as long as power is not utterly free, but the West has wrung most of the inefficiencies out of their systems already. China has accomplished a temporary drop in CO2 emissions by introducing efficiencies into their power generation, but with a population of more than 2 billion, China's demand for power will grow strongly as they too remove most of the inefficiencies there are, and after that begin consuming more power in earnest.
Second, the idea we can consume less power and continue to progress is only popular among the Greens, among other scientists and realists, it is merely wishful thinking. First, more power will mean a better quality of life. The more power we have the more enjoyable we can make our lives, you just can't expect people to give that up, not without a damn good reason, and so far the Greens haven't produced a good enough reason yet, given that we have alternatives to starving ourselves energy wise. Also, just consider the amount of power needed to bring the existing population up to EU or US standards, never mind the projected increases in human population, and you begin to see the folly of believing we won't need vastly more amounts of power in the future. The have-nots are going to demand that, the developing world's goal is something like Europe or the US, its a simple fact, and we in the West will have no argument to tell the rest of the world they can't have what we have now. Its an argument that will never work, never mind that it is also unethical, IMO. So while conservation will always play a role, and continuing improvements in efficiency will help, the real need is to find and tap large new sources of energy, and nuclear is the only such source that we have and can implement right now. Wind, Solar and Tidal will play an increasing role, but as they are still geographically dependent, and still largely too expensive to compete with coal/oil/nuclear, nuclear is the only practical option we can adopt right now. Or we can wait, just like the critics of global warming want us to do, wait. For how long, though? Until its too late?
What worst case scenario? Please stop using Chernobyl has a whipping horse. The USSR created a horrible NPP design that didn't take safety into consideration and they paid the price. Only the Soviets were uncaring enough about their own people to design a NPP without a strong concrete and steel containment block around the reactor. No NPP like Chernobyl has been created since, nothing like it was ever made in the West, and most of the NPPs with that old design within the old USSR have been modified to prevent such a catastrophe again, or shut down.
And this is worse than a runaway greenhouse effect how? Really, there are solutions to this problem, most experts believe there are several places where such waste can be put that will be safe for centuries, or until our technology reaches a point where we have a way to neutralize such waste, whichever comes first. The problem has always been one of politics and fear, not science.
So far, that is way too bloody expensive to be practical.
And the consequences of doing such a thing, even if it was practical? Algae blooms are known to disrupt and kill other forms of sea life. Compared to this, nuclear power is far more practical and immediately usuable, with virtually no impact on the environment, thats why proponents of it are slowly gaining ground despite the eco-fascists.
So what? As I mentioned above they are not Annex I countries in the protocol, and thus have no targets of their own to meet. They are effectively just bystanders. Kyoto only runs to 2012, its not a permanent agreement, so those not on the Annex I list of countries have essentially been given a pass on this agreement.
Of course not, give them an opportunity to hinder their chief rival's economy with no cost to themselves and they'll jump on it, and that is exactly what Kyoto was for them.
But since neither are Annex I countries, they have no targets to meet until 2012. Its like all those countries in Bush's "coalition" in Iraq, they signed up for the coalition without having to actually *do* anything, whether provide money or troops. China and India are effectively still bystanders.