Errrm.... even if you are right (which I doubt), they would never just exhaust carbon monoxide. Carbon monoxide is toxic, and an energy plant would just burn it to produce CO2.
You say "there's no combustion" as if you know what your talking about, but my understanding is that that is exactly what happens - its just more of a free-for-all than conventional combustion. It is true, that while it is fully in a plasma state, you can't really call it combustion, but as soon as you let it cool a bit (which, eventually, you must), then the same atomic interactions occur.
The advantage is that you don't get so many quirky complex molecules that are often toxic. Assuming, of course, that you can supply enough Oxygen.
1. Drive at the slow end of your top gear (in european cars, this might be about 50mph/80kph in 5th gear) - but no lower... if you are pressing the accelerator and nothing is happening, you should be in a lower gear, or you shouldn't be pressing the accelerator.
2. Drive so that you don't need the brakes very much. Each time you touch the brakes, you are dumping good forward energy as heat energy in the brakes. So: keep some distance in heavy traffic, coast up to red lights, bends and stop signs.
3. Avoid heavy acceleration (but don't accelerate extremely slowly either, you want to get into that efficient top gear, unless you have a curve or stop sign ahead). Do you really need to overtake that car?
4. Keep your tyres inflated, your engine well oiled, and fix any engine problems that occur.
Apart from these, you can save a lot of gas by avoiding unnecessary trips, cycling, taking the bus/train.
You're not actually wrong, but if your car is built for it, it is actually usually more efficient to idle than to coast in gear. It can be a bit hard to get your head around, but the reason is that the engine braking costs more energy than idling the engine.
To explain it another way, when you coast using engine braking, it takes more gas/diesel to speed you up again than it does to idle the engine. This is because the engine is spinning more slowly when it idles than when it engine brakes.
I drive an Audi A2 3L, in which I get about 85mpg, and it coasts, idling, when you take your foot off the accelerator. As soon as you touch the brake, it starts engine braking.
In reality,....... the choice will be between coal plants with this technology and coal plants without it.
Reality? Whose reality? Yours? George Bush's?
In my reality, the choice IS between coal and Wind, Solar and other renewables. Over here, we have 20% wind, and in Germany they have proven that you can use 100% renewable energy on a large scale (biogas, wind and solar), even though the sun doesn't always shine and the wind doesn't always blow.
So why not make that metaphorical trip to the moon now? It's, what, 40 years since we went to the moon.... don't we need a new challenge?
Carbon sequestration not a scam? Do you know what "sequestration" means? It means "hiding". It is exactly the same as "sweeping your problems under the rug". Now, I don't know if you have a huge lump of old rotting dirt under your rug, but personally, I sweep up or vacuum up dirt, and do my best to avoid messing the floor up in the first place.
They pick carbon sequestration, because industries are afraid to change their business model.
There are lots and lots of good solutions to this problem, that are thirsting for a little funding. Carbon sequestration just isn't one of them.
....But the brain _is_ the mind, and vice versa....
That is an assertion that.... at least has some evidence against it. I don't actually think that that is true, not scientifically at least.
For one, the so called out-of-body-experience accounts have certain things in common that point to the existence of some kind of consciousness apart from the operation of the physical brain cells. We call the products of thought "Intellectual Property" and have an entirely different set of rules for that than we do for tangible stuff.
Products of thought haver a material manifestation, but are in and of themselves immaterial. I didn't think I would, but I actually disagree here, too. Products of thought always have a physical manifestation, or they don't exist at all. Either they are encoded in your brain, or in my brain, or in someone else's brain, or they're encoded in some sort of language (which most likely is incomprehensible to aliens) in radio waves, letters, on your harddisk. But these representations are only given meaning when they are decoded by our brain cells. Otherwise, they have no more meaning than a chicken-shaped cloud.
Explaining in intimate detail the chemistry of ink on paper does not help a bit in explaining the work of Shakespeare or Beethoven. That's your claim, I refute it. The complexities we are able to interpret depend totally on our neural structure. That's why some people prefer hip-hop.
These immaterial products have their origin in an immaterial mind. The brain is only the hardware (wetware?) interface device, just as the material guts of a PC are the interface device for the immaterial software, which again is the immaterial product of the immaterial mind of the programmer. IP is immaterial and can only come from an immaterial source. But the software is always encoded in a language in some physical representation. It is only given meaning when it is read either by a programmer (someone with the right neural configuration), or by the appropriate CPU. The fact that it is represented by electrons, magnetic domains or small pits in a cd, and not bigger things like rocks and trees, makes no difference.
As for IP.... as I understand it, IP pretty much doesn't exist, unless it is encoded either in some brains, or at least in a patent somewhere.
Those who are not willing to acknowledge the existence of a realm or dimension that goes beyond the physical are not true scientists. True scientists will attempt to learn ALL truth about ALL of reality. Immaterial objects have a different set of laws than tangible things. True Scientists will endeavor to learn these laws, just as the study the laws of physics. I don't say it is impossible, but there is no evidence for it, and no need to include it to explain things properly. Occam had it right on that one. There is never a good excuse to induce magic to explain how something works.... just ask an honest magician.
"B) Economy Stunting Taxation... " BZZZZZ.... wrong!!! There's nothing stunted about the scandinavian economies (other than the US economy & subprime crisis dragging them down slightly at the moment), and they have some of the highest tax rates in the world.
If tax money is used to lubricate the wheels of commerce, by ensuring a fit, well-educated, flexible, motivated work force, and by ensuring that infrastructure just works, that monopolies aren't abused etc.. Then there is no reason for taxation, within reason, to be a problem.
I guess the logic is that sometimes, an intelligent government, voted for by the people and working for the people, can spend/invest the people's money more wisely then they can themselves.
People get very confused about free will, because they believe it must be somehow seperated from the brain. But the brain _is_ the mind, and vice versa. So the fact that you can see a given decision being made in a neural process (even if it happens before we are conscious of the fact) makes no difference to the "free will/no free will" argument. The conclusion should not be: "Oh no! Perhaps there's no such thing as free will", but instead: "Aha! So that's what free will looks like!"
The more interesting question is "how free is free will? We are only as free as our body allows us to be. Our decisions are based on memory/experience, pheromones, hormones and other chemicals, brain/neural structure we are born with.... so in conclusion, freedom is as freedom does (but I don't have any problem with that).
To understand "my free will" you have to understand what you mean by "me". And that's not a simple question.
... could the editors please alter the article title accordingly?... These articles get indexed. I second that.... I would go as far as to say as the summary is slander. If it was my company, and I had a lawyer on staff, I would look into the option of suing.
I don't want to compliment digg, but they at least have a "mark as inaccurate" feature, which maybe slashdot should look into.
It's true (but not surprising) that the article does not mention buying of votes.
But you would have to have been living under a rock (a slashrock?) for the last year or so to not know about it.
I wonder why you are interested in the campaign party staff? Perhaps because you are on the Clinton campaign staff?
I am watching the campaign from across the pond, and as I see it, Obama is the only campaigner who is all substance. It would be political suicide to go into too many specifics - that's just not how you win an election. If you check out some of his speeches on youtube etc, he is often the guy who is saying what needs to be said (from an intelligent person's perspective, anyway.... rednecks might be disappointed). The reason he projects change and hope to the world (not just the US), is not that he says "I will bring change", but that every word from his mouth shows a whole different attitude, that is a breath of fresh air.
To my mind, he is the only one of the lot who can restore respect for USA as a nation. Because he is the only one who is about building bridges and the only one who really understands international relations/diplomacy.
That's the problem with simple information campaigns... they're too simple. Did you ever stop to think how those 2 tonnes of metal and plastic were produced? Lots of mining, materials and parts transported around, perhaps overseas to cheap labour. Steel and aluminium productions require masses of electricity. Plastic is made from heating crude oil. Repairs mean still more polution.
So the fact that you don't drive very much doesn't make it much better. Better would be to rent a car when you need it, take a cab, or train/bus if possible. Cycle as much you can - your doctor will thank you for it.
But in a sense you're right... part of the solution is not driving more than is necessary.
I think we need new solutions in some areas - like, for example, racing - there should be a limited supply of gas/petrol, even for things like drag-racing. Imagine the advances in technology that could achieve.
If you start blowing up sattelites in stable orbits, you are playing a kind of russian roulette that could start a chain reaction, destroying all satellites in a given orbit zone. The fragments of broken sattelites don't slow down, like on earth, nor is the chance that they come down to earth and burn up in the atmosphere particularly high (especially with high-altitude orbits). They will mostly start zinging around the earth in various orbits until they make contact with another satellite, causing more debris. Here, I use the word satellite in it's loosest sense: meaning a conventional communications satellite, or a space shuttle, or a space station, an astronaut on a spacewalk or even the moon itself.
This kind of event would make the orbits unusable for the foreseeable future - it is a real risk even without people blowing things up - and we don't yet have a good solution. Research is focussing on using things like aerogel to trap this kind of debris and bring it out of orbit. As long as you can take more debris out of orbit than is being created, you should be able to prevent a chain reaction. But for the moment there is no solution.
1. Ecological and human costs of mining. 2. Ecological and human costs of the large quantities of ash and airborne pollutants. 3. Ecological and human costs of transport of coal. 4. The massive subsidies given to conventional energy production. (Coal, nuclear still have larger subsidies than renewable energy, because the lobby is more powerful) 5. Lifetime costs of the plant and site - maintenance, decomissioning etc.
I think you will find that some renewables (e.g. wind) have been ahead of coal, nuclear for several years. Of course, all of the above points need to be taken account of for renewables too, to a lesser extent - all power plants are made of materials that have come from somewhere.
And before you brand me as a raving hippie, I would add that ecological costs can be thought of as those that can be measured in dollars or euro: tourism, health costs etc....
I think your bullets are overstated and somewhat incorrect.
afterlife will present them with several dozen virgins Yes, these are some of the tactics used to recruit suicide bombers, but these are not the real beliefs/culture of the intelligent/common Islamic believer.
with justice coming only from the decisive infliction of harm on one's enemies In some areas, tribalistic power struggles are violent, and there is little/no rule of law - you have gang violence in USA, right? So you know how that works....
They're taught that sexual contact and sexual thoughts are obscene So are/were Christians..... what's your point?
They hate technology and science At one time, Islamic science and mathematics was way ahead of the western equivalent, so "they" don't necessarily "hate technology and science". If they do, it's perhaps because they are sore that the west overtook them.
It's important to remember that there is a sliding scale of extremism everywhere - there are Christian extremists too, right? I guess the main difference is that the Christian world isn't so (militarily) helpless that it needs to resort to using cult members as suicide bombers.
I think every American should be wondering "why do they hate us" - and hopefully come to the conclusion that it might have something to do with the "let's kick some ass" attitude, and the basic lack of respect for other cultures.
When I think of politics, I like to compare the situation to the school yard - it makes it much easier to relate to. At the moment USA is behaving like the school bully - a big Jock with lots of (military) muscles, lacking in brainpower (or at least the will to use it), who beats up on the maladjusted, weird kid who has problems at home, or anyone else who gets in his way (oil etc). He makes friends with whoever will help him beat up on the victim of the moment:
Any case that does not have repercussions outside of the courtroom is worthless. What point is the submitter trying to make?
I understood that the case will have repercussions for people/companies other than those that are directly involved in the court case : i.e. competitors, customers etc.
Perhaps some products will be taken off the market, expensive licensing deals that affect product pricing or whatever.
You are wrong! Great freedom comes with great responsibility, and freedom of speech does not have to be harmful.
Freedom of speech or not, it is irresponsible to tempt people with limited or no knowledge to mess with technology that is likely to blind them or others. There is no age limit for readers of this site, so you have to assume that you might be speaking to teenagers or even kids. I would have thought that americans, with their love of lawsuits, would have learnt that by now.
Especially IR lasers (invisible lasers) are dangerous, because they will damage your eyes and you will not even blink or know what happened. The first thing that happens is you feel pain, and the damage is done.
Kids, have a game of soccer instead.... you might actually get a tan and some friends
it is very difficult to get a big, powerful fun toy
If you need a toy, get some Lego (TM) - otherwise, grow up and get a life.
I will fully support peoples wishes to have a muscle car, the day they legislate that exhaust pipes should terminate inside the driver's compartment.
"What?? Are you crazy?? That's poisonous gasses that will kill you!!" - I hear you say.....
Funny that - what makes it suddenly safe for everyone else when you pump it into the air outside??
Don't get me wrong, I realise that people have a need for transport - but I don't think there's any excuse for destroying everyone's clean air/health/environment just for your own personal definition of 'fun'.
For example, if a pyromaniac thinks it would be great fun to set light to your prized Cayenne, that doesn't mean he should be allowed to.... right???
Freedom to be ruled by a religious nutcase. Freedom to become homeless if you lose your job. Freedom to watch "fair and unbiased" Republican propaganda on the Fox Network. Freedom to die in a pointless war (that's Iraq, if you didn't get it). Freedom to choke on the fumes of your SUV.... plus all sorts of gun-related freedoms that are so important, and not a catalyst of violent crime ever, honest...
and, of course, the hatred has nothing to do with the fact that the US seems to take pleasure in invading countries once in a while, just so politicians can say the words "kick ass", and they can sell some more weapons.
</rant>
damn... I took the flamebait.... who needs karma, anyway?
And not only that.... Country B now has a whole pile of money. What do they do with that? Why of course, build infrastructure, power stations and cars.
Slashdot Mirror
You'd think so, but Sarah Fey couldn't do any better than Palin..... she is such a parody of herself.
The youtube video is gone, but Fey's skit on Palin was just word for word the same as Palin's speech.
Errrm.... even if you are right (which I doubt), they would never just exhaust carbon monoxide. Carbon monoxide is toxic, and an energy plant would just burn it to produce CO2.
You say "there's no combustion" as if you know what your talking about, but my understanding is that that is exactly what happens - its just more of a free-for-all than conventional combustion. It is true, that while it is fully in a plasma state, you can't really call it combustion, but as soon as you let it cool a bit (which, eventually, you must), then the same atomic interactions occur.
The advantage is that you don't get so many quirky complex molecules that are often toxic. Assuming, of course, that you can supply enough Oxygen.
Obama says he speaks with Warren Buffet, among others.
Simple rules to follow for good mileage:
1. Drive at the slow end of your top gear (in european cars, this might be about 50mph/80kph in 5th gear) - but no lower... if you are pressing the accelerator and nothing is happening, you should be in a lower gear, or you shouldn't be pressing the accelerator.
2. Drive so that you don't need the brakes very much. Each time you touch the brakes, you are dumping good forward energy as heat energy in the brakes. So: keep some distance in heavy traffic, coast up to red lights, bends and stop signs.
3. Avoid heavy acceleration (but don't accelerate extremely slowly either, you want to get into that efficient top gear, unless you have a curve or stop sign ahead). Do you really need to overtake that car?
4. Keep your tyres inflated, your engine well oiled, and fix any engine problems that occur.
Apart from these, you can save a lot of gas by avoiding unnecessary trips, cycling, taking the bus/train.
You're not actually wrong, but if your car is built for it, it is actually usually more efficient to idle than to coast in gear. It can be a bit hard to get your head around, but the reason is that the engine braking costs more energy than idling the engine.
To explain it another way, when you coast using engine braking, it takes more gas/diesel to speed you up again than it does to idle the engine. This is because the engine is spinning more slowly when it idles than when it engine brakes.
I drive an Audi A2 3L, in which I get about 85mpg, and it coasts, idling, when you take your foot off the accelerator. As soon as you touch the brake, it starts engine braking.
In reality, ....... the choice will be between coal plants with this technology and coal plants without it.
Reality? Whose reality? Yours? George Bush's?
In my reality, the choice IS between coal and Wind, Solar and other renewables. Over here, we have 20% wind, and in Germany they have proven that you can use 100% renewable energy on a large scale (biogas, wind and solar), even though the sun doesn't always shine and the wind doesn't always blow.
So why not make that metaphorical trip to the moon now? It's, what, 40 years since we went to the moon.... don't we need a new challenge?
Carbon sequestration not a scam? Do you know what "sequestration" means? It means "hiding". It is exactly the same as "sweeping your problems under the rug". Now, I don't know if you have a huge lump of old rotting dirt under your rug, but personally, I sweep up or vacuum up dirt, and do my best to avoid messing the floor up in the first place.
They pick carbon sequestration, because industries are afraid to change their business model.
There are lots and lots of good solutions to this problem, that are thirsting for a little funding. Carbon sequestration just isn't one of them.
....But the brain _is_ the mind, and vice versa.... That is an assertion thatAs for IP.... as I understand it, IP pretty much doesn't exist, unless it is encoded either in some brains, or at least in a patent somewhere. Those who are not willing to acknowledge the existence of a realm or dimension that goes beyond the physical are not true scientists. True scientists will attempt to learn ALL truth about ALL of reality. Immaterial objects have a different set of laws than tangible things. True Scientists will endeavor to learn these laws, just as the study the laws of physics. I don't say it is impossible, but there is no evidence for it, and no need to include it to explain things properly. Occam had it right on that one. There is never a good excuse to induce magic to explain how something works.... just ask an honest magician.
If tax money is used to lubricate the wheels of commerce, by ensuring a fit, well-educated, flexible, motivated work force, and by ensuring that infrastructure just works, that monopolies aren't abused etc.. Then there is no reason for taxation, within reason, to be a problem. I guess the logic is that sometimes, an intelligent government, voted for by the people and working for the people, can spend/invest the people's money more wisely then they can themselves.
People get very confused about free will, because they believe it must be somehow seperated from the brain. But the brain _is_ the mind, and vice versa. So the fact that you can see a given decision being made in a neural process (even if it happens before we are conscious of the fact) makes no difference to the "free will/no free will" argument. The conclusion should not be: "Oh no! Perhaps there's no such thing as free will", but instead: "Aha! So that's what free will looks like!"
The more interesting question is "how free is free will? We are only as free as our body allows us to be. Our decisions are based on memory/experience, pheromones, hormones and other chemicals, brain/neural structure we are born with.... so in conclusion, freedom is as freedom does (but I don't have any problem with that).
To understand "my free will" you have to understand what you mean by "me". And that's not a simple question.
But we digress.....
... could the editors please alter the article title accordingly?I don't want to compliment digg, but they at least have a "mark as inaccurate" feature, which maybe slashdot should look into.
It's true (but not surprising) that the article does not mention buying of votes. But you would have to have been living under a rock (a slashrock?) for the last year or so to not know about it.
I wonder why you are interested in the campaign party staff? Perhaps because you are on the Clinton campaign staff?
I am watching the campaign from across the pond, and as I see it, Obama is the only campaigner who is all substance. It would be political suicide to go into too many specifics - that's just not how you win an election. If you check out some of his speeches on youtube etc, he is often the guy who is saying what needs to be said (from an intelligent person's perspective, anyway.... rednecks might be disappointed). The reason he projects change and hope to the world (not just the US), is not that he says "I will bring change", but that every word from his mouth shows a whole different attitude, that is a breath of fresh air.
To my mind, he is the only one of the lot who can restore respect for USA as a nation. Because he is the only one who is about building bridges and the only one who really understands international relations/diplomacy.
Errrrm - Al Qaida? Or weren't you born 9-11-2001?
Apart from that, just about anyone who can control the supply/price of oil.
---
You may not like it, but it's the truth
That's the problem with simple information campaigns... they're too simple. Did you ever stop to think how those 2 tonnes of metal and plastic were produced? Lots of mining, materials and parts transported around, perhaps overseas to cheap labour. Steel and aluminium productions require masses of electricity. Plastic is made from heating crude oil. Repairs mean still more polution.
So the fact that you don't drive very much doesn't make it much better. Better would be to rent a car when you need it, take a cab, or train/bus if possible. Cycle as much you can - your doctor will thank you for it.
But in a sense you're right... part of the solution is not driving more than is necessary.
I think we need new solutions in some areas - like, for example, racing - there should be a limited supply of gas/petrol, even for things like drag-racing. Imagine the advances in technology that could achieve.
It's much worse than that....
If you start blowing up sattelites in stable orbits, you are playing a kind of russian roulette that could start a chain reaction, destroying all satellites in a given orbit zone. The fragments of broken sattelites don't slow down, like on earth, nor is the chance that they come down to earth and burn up in the atmosphere particularly high (especially with high-altitude orbits). They will mostly start zinging around the earth in various orbits until they make contact with another satellite, causing more debris. Here, I use the word satellite in it's loosest sense: meaning a conventional communications satellite, or a space shuttle, or a space station, an astronaut on a spacewalk or even the moon itself.
This kind of event would make the orbits unusable for the foreseeable future - it is a real risk even without people blowing things up - and we don't yet have a good solution. Research is focussing on using things like aerogel to trap this kind of debris and bring it out of orbit. As long as you can take more debris out of orbit than is being created, you should be able to prevent a chain reaction. But for the moment there is no solution.
Even more interesting - spoof the user agent in IE to "Opera" (with a proxy, if necessary) and see if the site becomes broken.
Then you can start talking Antitrust....
Problem is.... people don't log out. They just lock their screens.
If you take account of all the costs, like:
1. Ecological and human costs of mining.
2. Ecological and human costs of the large quantities of ash and airborne pollutants.
3. Ecological and human costs of transport of coal.
4. The massive subsidies given to conventional energy production. (Coal, nuclear still have larger subsidies than renewable energy, because the lobby is more powerful)
5. Lifetime costs of the plant and site - maintenance, decomissioning etc.
I think you will find that some renewables (e.g. wind) have been ahead of coal, nuclear for several years.
Of course, all of the above points need to be taken account of for renewables too, to a lesser extent - all power plants are made of materials that have come from somewhere.
And before you brand me as a raving hippie, I would add that ecological costs can be thought of as those that can be measured in dollars or euro: tourism, health costs etc....
afterlife will present them with several dozen virgins Yes, these are some of the tactics used to recruit suicide bombers, but these are not the real beliefs/culture of the intelligent/common Islamic believer.
with justice coming only from the decisive infliction of harm on one's enemies In some areas, tribalistic power struggles are violent, and there is little/no rule of law - you have gang violence in USA, right? So you know how that works....
They're taught that sexual contact and sexual thoughts are obscene So are/were Christians..... what's your point?
They hate technology and science At one time, Islamic science and mathematics was way ahead of the western equivalent, so "they" don't necessarily "hate technology and science". If they do, it's perhaps because they are sore that the west overtook them.
It's important to remember that there is a sliding scale of extremism everywhere - there are Christian extremists too, right? I guess the main difference is that the Christian world isn't so (militarily) helpless that it needs to resort to using cult members as suicide bombers.
I think every American should be wondering "why do they hate us" - and hopefully come to the conclusion that it might have something to do with the "let's kick some ass" attitude, and the basic lack of respect for other cultures.
When I think of politics, I like to compare the situation to the school yard - it makes it much easier to relate to. At the moment USA is behaving like the school bully - a big Jock with lots of (military) muscles, lacking in brainpower (or at least the will to use it), who beats up on the maladjusted, weird kid who has problems at home, or anyone else who gets in his way (oil etc). He makes friends with whoever will help him beat up on the victim of the moment:
I understood that the case will have repercussions for people/companies other than those that are directly involved in the court case : i.e. competitors, customers etc.
Perhaps some products will be taken off the market, expensive licensing deals that affect product pricing or whatever.
You are wrong! Great freedom comes with great responsibility, and freedom of speech does not have to be harmful.
Freedom of speech or not, it is irresponsible to tempt people with limited or no knowledge to mess with technology that is likely to blind them or others. There is no age limit for readers of this site, so you have to assume that you might be speaking to teenagers or even kids. I would have thought that americans, with their love of lawsuits, would have learnt that by now.
Especially IR lasers (invisible lasers) are dangerous, because they will damage your eyes and you will not even blink or know what happened. The first thing that happens is you feel pain, and the damage is done.
Kids, have a game of soccer instead.... you might actually get a tan and some friends
If you need a toy, get some Lego (TM) - otherwise, grow up and get a life.
I will fully support peoples wishes to have a muscle car, the day they legislate that exhaust pipes should terminate inside the driver's compartment.
"What?? Are you crazy?? That's poisonous gasses that will kill you!!" - I hear you say.....
Funny that - what makes it suddenly safe for everyone else when you pump it into the air outside??
Don't get me wrong, I realise that people have a need for transport - but I don't think there's any excuse for destroying everyone's clean air/health/environment just for your own personal definition of 'fun'.
For example, if a pyromaniac thinks it would be great fun to set light to your prized Cayenne, that doesn't mean he should be allowed to.... right???
----------
Who needs karma, anyways.....?
Oh yeah, we're all real jealous of your freedom.
Freedom to be ruled by a religious nutcase.
Freedom to become homeless if you lose your job.
Freedom to watch "fair and unbiased" Republican propaganda on the Fox Network.
Freedom to die in a pointless war (that's Iraq, if you didn't get it).
Freedom to choke on the fumes of your SUV.
and, of course, the hatred has nothing to do with the fact that the US seems to take pleasure in invading countries once in a while, just so politicians can say the words "kick ass", and they can sell some more weapons.
</rant>
damn... I took the flamebait.... who needs karma, anyway?
And not only that.... Country B now has a whole pile of money. What do they do with that? Why of course, build infrastructure, power stations and cars.