No offense, but if one or two accidents a day is enough to make you want to be rid of something, gas is the least of your worries. First we should get rid of cars, bikes, scissors, small objects, children, electronics, etc.
OK. The solution is to implement New Urbanism on a national scale, with small walkable cities connected by cheap public transport and railroads, deemphasizing the automobile and urban sprawl.
Now, back to reality. The US is decentralised (in that much of the population lives outside of urban centers) enough that people need private transit to work, school, and play. A general social movement towards tighter communities with more public transit and less urban sprawl would be terrific. Is it going to save us in the short term? Not even sort of. If there is enough popular adoption, maybe we'll see effects in a century.
If we can be driving more economical and environmentally friendly cars in 15 years, we're that much closer to being independent of foreign oil and that much more efficient as a nation. "Simply use less" is nice, but it has the consequences of productivity going down, people's freedom going down, and the pretty unshakeable fact that you'd be hard pressed to find a well-to-do culture in history that just decided to stop pursuing pleasure. People don't do that, especially if there's no pressing need, especially when they can throw money at Honda, stave of the problem, and get way cooler toys to boot.
Hmm. Six paragraphs. Five are short crude, each containing at least one typo or grammar mistake, most of them using "frick'n" or insulting somebody. But one is long, appears to be educated, and is relatively error-free.
Oh, I see, he copied it from that site. Nevermind then.
That's really not enough, though. My four-year-old 10.5-inch Toshiba has vertical scroll, horizontal scroll, and the capacity for quicklaunch from hotspots on the touchpad if you so desire, none of which interferes with regular use. It's also got two buttons, takes up less space, and is more sensitive and more accurate. I absolutely can't stand the touchpads on the Apples, which is a shame, becasue they are great computers. But I would never buy an apple laptop, at least not until they release their tablet.
I know Jobs said they aren't making a tablet, but they've patented a tablet design, and frankly, Jobs saying they won't do it pretty much means they will.
OK, but then think of it this way; how often are cops shot at by.50 cal? Most small arms don't have kinetic energy that immediately dangerous. Again, I'm no expert, but couldn't you quite feasibly block, say, handgun and submachingun fire without too much immediate "omg my wrist" concern?
And what about other applications -- say, motorcycle helmets (or, for that matter, military helmets/goggles)? I'm not saying any of these are definately realistic applications, but it's certainly something that has a lot of potential.
In a June 2004demonstration, an ALONtm test pieces held up to both a.30 caliber Russian M-44 sniper rifle and a.50 caliber Browning Sniper Rifle with armor piercing bullets. While the bullets pierced the glass samples, the armor withstood the impact with no penetration.
OK, I'm not exactly a gun nut, but that's damn impressive..50 cal snipers are designed to take out the engine blocks of vehicles. A window stopping them is just plain cool.
The uses go way beyond windshields. How about full-length transparent SWAT shields? If it'll take a.50-cal, should be more than safe enough. How about implrementing some of this in monitor screens? Watch faces? Heck, light fixtures in gymnasiums.
What about airplanes? Make much of the body out of this, making maintenance that much easier.
... in retrospect, that last is a horrible idea. But the others remain good;)
I run a Tablet PC (XP-based) at school and only restart it when I update something (or run out of batteries inadvertently;) ). The rest of the time it's on sleep, which takes less than a second both ways most of the time. And I've been using this particular tablet on a daily basis since 2003. It's built up a lot of crud, but very rarely to I have to reboot for RAM issues. And even then, there are programs you can get that will clean your RAM. And I do use a LOT of programs (Trillian/Filezilla/Firefox/Outlook/iTunes/GoBinde r/OneNote/WMP/Word. Not usually all at once, but occasionally.)
I'm going to response specifically to the northwest-related bits, as I think you make very good points about mirror adjustmnet. My mirrors are adjusted slightly more inward (can just catch the car at the edge), because I prefer the frame of reference and can still use the convex mirrors the grant additional lateral visibility. I will grant that if I were to adjust them outward I could probably give up the convex mirror, but I'm not comfortable with a setup that puts a lot of weight on the rearview mirror as things like a spare tire, lots of passengers, or a lot of cargo (say, furniture or a boat) can impede that. Still, you're basically right.
I'm going to have to call BS on this. Minivans are safer and more economical for hauling a family than a body-on-frame SUV (and generally have more space even than SUVs with third-row seating). Minivans are also capable of carrying cargo like ladders, and are more efficient at doing so than most SUVs as the entire interior can be removed (some SUVs can do this, but not most). Minivans tow just as well as an SUV, for relatively light towing duties. For heavy towing requirements I'll grant that you need a truck (I'd rather have a truck than an SUV), but unless you're towing 5 days a week you're better off with an older truck that serves just as towing (and is cheap on the insurance) and using something smaller/more efficient for a daily driver. Maybe you just don't like minivans, and that's valid, but it's also one of the main reasons for the rise in SUV usage -- guys felt emasculated driving minivans to haul their kids around, so they bought big, manly SUVs. Get over yourself and get a minivan if that's the appropriate tool for the job. (Intentionally ignoring your specific plight so that I can speak generally.)
Yes, minivans are safer and more economical for hauling a family in most circumstances, but it's a combination of circumstances and the fact that we can't afford to own and insure a vehicle for eacht hat leads to the Suburban. For example, a minivan is not safer and more ecnonomical for hauling nine people skiing. A minivan is not safer and more ecnomical for hauling lots (LOTS) of painting gear and very long ladders (at least in my experience; I don't know the quality cargo racks of all the minivans out there.) A minivan is DEFINATELY not safer and more economical for towing a 24-foot boat, a horse trailer. Even a small trailer with something like motorcycles, yard waste, etc., would be less safe in a minivan. (by way of disclaimer, I don't tow a horse trailer, but it's happened in the past. Our neighbors have a full-size horse truck that we use for most of our U-Haul - scale needs. But I am quite familiar with the boat and small trailer circumstances).
In summary, you're right -- a minivan makes a lot more sense for a lot of circumstances, such as moving teh family, carrying small loads (although you're wrong about large loads; you can remove or collapse everything but the front seats in a Suburban and carry a whole lot in there, plus roof cargo room and a quite robust towing capacity). However, in a case where you need one vehicle that can function as a family transport, towing vehicle capable of handing weights in the range of 10,000 lbs, winter vehicle for skiing, and last-ditch commute vehicle, a Suburban makes more sense than a minivan. Yes, it really sucks and is a bad idea in general to drive a Suburban alone with no cargo or a trailer. You'd be better off in a car. Even if you're just transporting a family, a minivan makes more sense. But if you need the other functions and can't afford both a truck and a minivan, a large SUV makes a lot of sense. The only reason it also served as a commute vehicle for me for about 9 months is, like I said, becuase of an unfortunate accident that left us with fewer cars than drivers. We did our best to split it up with public transit, carpooling, and sharing cars with neighbors and family, but ultimately I had to drive the suburban several times a week by virtue
More likely, you're just reaping the bad will towards SUVs that many car drivers harbor. Because your lights shine directly in their eyes, once you pass them many people will turn on their high beams to give you a taste of your own medicine. Serves you right, IMHO.
Serves me right? Sorry, I think either I've miscommunicated myself or you're just overly zealous against all SUVs anywhere ever. I'm not contesting that a no-SUV utopia wouldn't be in a lot of ways better, especially for car drivers. However, it's also very unlikely. I think you're right that an "arms race" isn't the solution, and unfortunately that's the way we're heading. But deliberately blinding any SUV you meet makes you a dipshit and you deserve it if he hits you.
Some of us need SUVs. We own a suburban because we have a large family, frequently need to move lots of cargo/ladders, and need the ability to tow trailers of various sizes. The left has a tendency to assume that any and all who drive SUVs are merely participating in escalation, are power-hungry, or are too rich for their own good. I've driven both cars and SUVs since I got my license and consider myself a very safe driver. The only reason I have an SUV now is that a narcoleptic attack left us without a car and with a higher insurance rate, so the family can only afford to keep me insured in the SUV. I don't drive it because I'm power-hungry or just to feel big -- although it is certainly a much more pleasant drive than, say, our ancient Volvo with holes in the floor -- I drive it out of necessity. Becuase it's what we have and what we need. If all we had was a Prius, we'd never be able to move the family or cargoes, never be able to tow any of the various and sundry loads we have to tow, couldn't transport animals, and would never be able to leave our home during the winter. Not all SUV drivers have a justification, but we most certainly do. Assuming that I'm just a rich jerk and so hitting the high beams is just a moronic thing to do.
And for the record, I've driven at night both in front of, behind, and in traffic heading the opposite direction to our Suburban. The headlights aren't that bad. Other SUVs are far worse, yes, but I don't think the bright lights I'm getting are of the high-beam screw-you variety.
You keep bitching about semis, but you don't mention the fact that tractor trailers are relatively rare in daily traffic. Maybe you live in a major shipping hub, but for the rest of us the biggest vehicles we will encounter on our daily commutes are Suburban-sized SUVs. You're also ignoring the fact that truckers are specially trained and licensed, and in general are some of the best drivers on the road.
I do live in a relatively major shipping area. My daily commute (before I moved on-campus for school; I travel by bike now) took me along Highway 18, a popular logging destination, onto I90 between North Bend and Seattle, where there are lots of trucks at first and then lots of busses, and often to 405N. Especially in the first two segments, there are many semis. I am aware that that isn't true for all commuters, but still, it's important to note that if size is your only consideration in judging other vehicles, you're declaring all mass transit and shipping anathema.
Like you say, skill of the driver is important too. I'm well aware that semi drivers are some of, if not the best drivers on the road. I love them to death, honestly. Nothing makes me madder than seing some kid in a sports car treating semis like they are static objects and somehow have the magical power to extricate themselves from the trouble the kid causes. It's only because truck drivers are so good at what they do that there aren't a ton more accidents because of idiots swerving in and out in front of and between those things.
As one who drives a large vehicle, I've always made it my goal to drive as well as they do. I know I don't, but by most people's standards I'm a very defensive driver. I only l
While it's true that large SUVs increase fatalities with smaller cars, it seems that as adoption increases we'll eventually have mostly SUVs and be back to ground zero.
And for the headlights bit... well, it's worth noting that cars are beginning to plan their revenge. I drive a Suburban, and I always get the worst glare from either tractor-trailers or small cars. Tractor-trailers are just closer to eye level, but small cars are starting to put in those ridiculous halogeon neon zeon opteron laser beams, so NOBODY in the opposite lane within a hundred miles can see until the car is past. SUVs are higher, but also tend to have their beams pointed downward more sharply. I've never really noticed it as a problem when I drive smaller cars.
What is a problem is the fact that they obstruct lanes, but in my experience SUVs are far from the worst offender in that regard. I'd rather drive behind an Excursion or a Suburban than a tractor-trailer or a full-sized windowless van. And again, as cars tend to gravitate toward the SUV model, the issue of sight obstruction will be less of an issue. What carmakers really need to focus on is tapering the front right so you can see short things in front of the car, and designing the interior and mirrors right so SUVs can navigate traffic safely. I personally am very uncomfortable in an SUV on freeways unless it has convex mirrors installed -- the the point where I will gladly add half an hour to my commute each way if I can avoid freeways. With a convex mirror though, I feel and drive much more safely.
I hope not. Too many alternatives just results in user confusion. There needs to be a forerunner, like Firefox.
This is one of the difficulties with Linux -- if I tell someone to get Linux, what do I mean? RedHat? Mandrake? Ubuntu? Symphony? SuSe?
It would be detrimental to have all sorts of alternative IM clients. Even what we have now is messy. If nerds are simultaneously evangelizing Jabber, Gtalk (yes, i know it's Jabber), some Mozilla client, etc., people will react with a "screw that, I'm sitting on AOL."
Diesel on the other hand produces more NOX, and particulates. The allowable levels for NOX were dropped drastically, while CO2 were cut a small amount. Industry needs time to make changes. For some reason gasoline based vehicles are given far more leeway in pollutant production for some reason.
IIRC, the reasoning behind this is that many industrail/construction vehicles which run on diesel are some of the worst offenders in terms of pollution. I don't remember the numbers, but the gist is that in terms of pollution, the small number of diesel construction vehicles is vastly overrepresented in the resultant pollution. By drastically reducing the Diesel requirements, they can improve these vehicles, which allows for sort of a best of bost worlds solution for the consumer -- cleaner air, without necessarily making a large impact on consumer products.
It's also worth noting that "game buyers" and "game players" are altogether different. Parents and grandparents are much in the habit of buying games and giving them to their kids/grandkids.
I'm sure a similar study would find that the average purchaser of "Winnie The Pooh" is like 45. Yet it's his kids who will watch it twice daily for a month.
The US government claims to dictate those things in the same way that the Church claims to do so. Most sects of Christianity would be stalwart in defending the "will of God" as an absolute that is utterly seperate from the Church. Again, while churches have historically taken advantage of gullible followers, they are in no way the dictator of what is or isn't religion; at least, not in the case of reformed Christianity.
Once again, the Church != religion anymore than the US Government is equivalent to justice, liberty, or any of the other things it claims to stand for.
The Church, especially large nationalized churches of historical times or essential theocracies and polythiestic superstitions of classical times, has often served as nothing more than a political force. To say that "religion" caused the Crusades is equivalent to saying that Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness caused Iraq. Just because a political entity operated under that supposed authority doesn't make the concept itself blameable.
I suppose I see your point. I wonder what the acoustic defense would cost long-term in terms of research and deployment -- compared to, say, building a new line of aircraft carriers in 2008, it must be miniscule, but you make a good point.
As for the whales... well, the whole debate seems to stem from very little real grounded basis and more "something about the navy and explosions. WHALES!" I suppose it's worth investigating, but I'm suspicious that it's much ado about nothing.
By surface-to-surface and air-to-surface, I don't mean airborne, and I apologize. I refer to torpedos launched from one surface vessel against another, travelling underwater, or torpedos dropped from an airplane which then land in the water and travel subsurface to their target, presumably a surface ship. I don't know if air-launched torpedos are in much use anymore, but I'm presenting hypothetical scenarios.
It's true taht we may not need humans in that capacity much longer (say, 50 years minimum, I'd think), but like I said, much of the research is bound to overlap. If you can build a system to detect and fire sound at a torpedo, it wouldn't be much of a change to detect and fire, say, a machinegun or microwave at an RPG. The problem with RPGs is that they are inherently more primitive and at best you'll detonante it a given radius from its target, thus demolishing whatever is near it at that point, but anyway.
I'm thinking we should work with what we have. We don't seem to have a relatively cheap, relatively effect means to knock out RPGs yet; we seem to have the capacity to make one that will work on torpedos. As submarines still fulfill an enormous role in our current naval strategy, it makes sense to safeguard them at least until we begin to retire that strategy, rather than forgoing upgrades because of a potential for future phasing-out.
Slashdot Mirror
Oops.
No offense, but if one or two accidents a day is enough to make you want to be rid of something, gas is the least of your worries. First we should get rid of cars, bikes, scissors, small objects, children, electronics, etc.
OK. The solution is to implement New Urbanism on a national scale, with small walkable cities connected by cheap public transport and railroads, deemphasizing the automobile and urban sprawl.
Now, back to reality. The US is decentralised (in that much of the population lives outside of urban centers) enough that people need private transit to work, school, and play. A general social movement towards tighter communities with more public transit and less urban sprawl would be terrific. Is it going to save us in the short term? Not even sort of. If there is enough popular adoption, maybe we'll see effects in a century.
If we can be driving more economical and environmentally friendly cars in 15 years, we're that much closer to being independent of foreign oil and that much more efficient as a nation. "Simply use less" is nice, but it has the consequences of productivity going down, people's freedom going down, and the pretty unshakeable fact that you'd be hard pressed to find a well-to-do culture in history that just decided to stop pursuing pleasure. People don't do that, especially if there's no pressing need, especially when they can throw money at Honda, stave of the problem, and get way cooler toys to boot.
Hmm. Six paragraphs. Five are short crude, each containing at least one typo or grammar mistake, most of them using "frick'n" or insulting somebody. But one is long, appears to be educated, and is relatively error-free.
Oh, I see, he copied it from that site. Nevermind then.
That's really not enough, though. My four-year-old 10.5-inch Toshiba has vertical scroll, horizontal scroll, and the capacity for quicklaunch from hotspots on the touchpad if you so desire, none of which interferes with regular use. It's also got two buttons, takes up less space, and is more sensitive and more accurate. I absolutely can't stand the touchpads on the Apples, which is a shame, becasue they are great computers. But I would never buy an apple laptop, at least not until they release their tablet.
I know Jobs said they aren't making a tablet, but they've patented a tablet design, and frankly, Jobs saying they won't do it pretty much means they will.
This just in... the ISS is falling at a kilobyte a week.
Details at 5.
Oh, so that's why it's subtitled "the free encyclopedia."
OK, but then think of it this way; how often are cops shot at by .50 cal? Most small arms don't have kinetic energy that immediately dangerous. Again, I'm no expert, but couldn't you quite feasibly block, say, handgun and submachingun fire without too much immediate "omg my wrist" concern?
And what about other applications -- say, motorcycle helmets (or, for that matter, military helmets/goggles)? I'm not saying any of these are definately realistic applications, but it's certainly something that has a lot of potential.
The uses go way beyond windshields. How about full-length transparent SWAT shields? If it'll take a
What about airplanes? Make much of the body out of this, making maintenance that much easier.
I run a Tablet PC (XP-based) at school and only restart it when I update something (or run out of batteries inadvertently ;) ). The rest of the time it's on sleep, which takes less than a second both ways most of the time. And I've been using this particular tablet on a daily basis since 2003. It's built up a lot of crud, but very rarely to I have to reboot for RAM issues. And even then, there are programs you can get that will clean your RAM. And I do use a LOT of programs (Trillian/Filezilla/Firefox/Outlook/iTunes/GoBinde r/OneNote/WMP/Word. Not usually all at once, but occasionally.)
In America, they are a natural feature of the landscape. Just sayin'.
Yes, minivans are safer and more economical for hauling a family in most circumstances, but it's a combination of circumstances and the fact that we can't afford to own and insure a vehicle for eacht hat leads to the Suburban. For example, a minivan is not safer and more ecnonomical for hauling nine people skiing. A minivan is not safer and more ecnomical for hauling lots (LOTS) of painting gear and very long ladders (at least in my experience; I don't know the quality cargo racks of all the minivans out there.) A minivan is DEFINATELY not safer and more economical for towing a 24-foot boat, a horse trailer. Even a small trailer with something like motorcycles, yard waste, etc., would be less safe in a minivan. (by way of disclaimer, I don't tow a horse trailer, but it's happened in the past. Our neighbors have a full-size horse truck that we use for most of our U-Haul - scale needs. But I am quite familiar with the boat and small trailer circumstances).
In summary, you're right -- a minivan makes a lot more sense for a lot of circumstances, such as moving teh family, carrying small loads (although you're wrong about large loads; you can remove or collapse everything but the front seats in a Suburban and carry a whole lot in there, plus roof cargo room and a quite robust towing capacity). However, in a case where you need one vehicle that can function as a family transport, towing vehicle capable of handing weights in the range of 10,000 lbs, winter vehicle for skiing, and last-ditch commute vehicle, a Suburban makes more sense than a minivan. Yes, it really sucks and is a bad idea in general to drive a Suburban alone with no cargo or a trailer. You'd be better off in a car. Even if you're just transporting a family, a minivan makes more sense. But if you need the other functions and can't afford both a truck and a minivan, a large SUV makes a lot of sense. The only reason it also served as a commute vehicle for me for about 9 months is, like I said, becuase of an unfortunate accident that left us with fewer cars than drivers. We did our best to split it up with public transit, carpooling, and sharing cars with neighbors and family, but ultimately I had to drive the suburban several times a week by virtue
Serves me right? Sorry, I think either I've miscommunicated myself or you're just overly zealous against all SUVs anywhere ever. I'm not contesting that a no-SUV utopia wouldn't be in a lot of ways better, especially for car drivers. However, it's also very unlikely. I think you're right that an "arms race" isn't the solution, and unfortunately that's the way we're heading. But deliberately blinding any SUV you meet makes you a dipshit and you deserve it if he hits you.
Some of us need SUVs. We own a suburban because we have a large family, frequently need to move lots of cargo/ladders, and need the ability to tow trailers of various sizes. The left has a tendency to assume that any and all who drive SUVs are merely participating in escalation, are power-hungry, or are too rich for their own good. I've driven both cars and SUVs since I got my license and consider myself a very safe driver. The only reason I have an SUV now is that a narcoleptic attack left us without a car and with a higher insurance rate, so the family can only afford to keep me insured in the SUV. I don't drive it because I'm power-hungry or just to feel big -- although it is certainly a much more pleasant drive than, say, our ancient Volvo with holes in the floor -- I drive it out of necessity. Becuase it's what we have and what we need. If all we had was a Prius, we'd never be able to move the family or cargoes, never be able to tow any of the various and sundry loads we have to tow, couldn't transport animals, and would never be able to leave our home during the winter. Not all SUV drivers have a justification, but we most certainly do. Assuming that I'm just a rich jerk and so hitting the high beams is just a moronic thing to do.
And for the record, I've driven at night both in front of, behind, and in traffic heading the opposite direction to our Suburban. The headlights aren't that bad. Other SUVs are far worse, yes, but I don't think the bright lights I'm getting are of the high-beam screw-you variety.
I do live in a relatively major shipping area. My daily commute (before I moved on-campus for school; I travel by bike now) took me along Highway 18, a popular logging destination, onto I90 between North Bend and Seattle, where there are lots of trucks at first and then lots of busses, and often to 405N. Especially in the first two segments, there are many semis. I am aware that that isn't true for all commuters, but still, it's important to note that if size is your only consideration in judging other vehicles, you're declaring all mass transit and shipping anathema.
Like you say, skill of the driver is important too. I'm well aware that semi drivers are some of, if not the best drivers on the road. I love them to death, honestly. Nothing makes me madder than seing some kid in a sports car treating semis like they are static objects and somehow have the magical power to extricate themselves from the trouble the kid causes. It's only because truck drivers are so good at what they do that there aren't a ton more accidents because of idiots swerving in and out in front of and between those things.
As one who drives a large vehicle, I've always made it my goal to drive as well as they do. I know I don't, but by most people's standards I'm a very defensive driver. I only l
You also shouldn't have used the word "gammar." On account of it's not. A word, that is.
While it's true that large SUVs increase fatalities with smaller cars, it seems that as adoption increases we'll eventually have mostly SUVs and be back to ground zero.
And for the headlights bit... well, it's worth noting that cars are beginning to plan their revenge. I drive a Suburban, and I always get the worst glare from either tractor-trailers or small cars. Tractor-trailers are just closer to eye level, but small cars are starting to put in those ridiculous halogeon neon zeon opteron laser beams, so NOBODY in the opposite lane within a hundred miles can see until the car is past. SUVs are higher, but also tend to have their beams pointed downward more sharply. I've never really noticed it as a problem when I drive smaller cars.
What is a problem is the fact that they obstruct lanes, but in my experience SUVs are far from the worst offender in that regard. I'd rather drive behind an Excursion or a Suburban than a tractor-trailer or a full-sized windowless van. And again, as cars tend to gravitate toward the SUV model, the issue of sight obstruction will be less of an issue. What carmakers really need to focus on is tapering the front right so you can see short things in front of the car, and designing the interior and mirrors right so SUVs can navigate traffic safely. I personally am very uncomfortable in an SUV on freeways unless it has convex mirrors installed -- the the point where I will gladly add half an hour to my commute each way if I can avoid freeways. With a convex mirror though, I feel and drive much more safely.
I hope not. Too many alternatives just results in user confusion. There needs to be a forerunner, like Firefox.
This is one of the difficulties with Linux -- if I tell someone to get Linux, what do I mean? RedHat? Mandrake? Ubuntu? Symphony? SuSe?
It would be detrimental to have all sorts of alternative IM clients. Even what we have now is messy. If nerds are simultaneously evangelizing Jabber, Gtalk (yes, i know it's Jabber), some Mozilla client, etc., people will react with a "screw that, I'm sitting on AOL."
This just in: GWB killed the dinosaurs. With this added information, our records indicate that everything is Bush's fault.
It's also worth noting that "game buyers" and "game players" are altogether different. Parents and grandparents are much in the habit of buying games and giving them to their kids/grandkids.
I'm sure a similar study would find that the average purchaser of "Winnie The Pooh" is like 45. Yet it's his kids who will watch it twice daily for a month.
As the ball.
Trillian IS a great app. It's not bloat if you want all the features going in.
The US government claims to dictate those things in the same way that the Church claims to do so. Most sects of Christianity would be stalwart in defending the "will of God" as an absolute that is utterly seperate from the Church. Again, while churches have historically taken advantage of gullible followers, they are in no way the dictator of what is or isn't religion; at least, not in the case of reformed Christianity.
Once again, the Church != religion anymore than the US Government is equivalent to justice, liberty, or any of the other things it claims to stand for.
The Church, especially large nationalized churches of historical times or essential theocracies and polythiestic superstitions of classical times, has often served as nothing more than a political force. To say that "religion" caused the Crusades is equivalent to saying that Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness caused Iraq. Just because a political entity operated under that supposed authority doesn't make the concept itself blameable.
I suppose I see your point. I wonder what the acoustic defense would cost long-term in terms of research and deployment -- compared to, say, building a new line of aircraft carriers in 2008, it must be miniscule, but you make a good point.
As for the whales... well, the whole debate seems to stem from very little real grounded basis and more "something about the navy and explosions. WHALES!" I suppose it's worth investigating, but I'm suspicious that it's much ado about nothing.
By surface-to-surface and air-to-surface, I don't mean airborne, and I apologize. I refer to torpedos launched from one surface vessel against another, travelling underwater, or torpedos dropped from an airplane which then land in the water and travel subsurface to their target, presumably a surface ship. I don't know if air-launched torpedos are in much use anymore, but I'm presenting hypothetical scenarios.
It's true taht we may not need humans in that capacity much longer (say, 50 years minimum, I'd think), but like I said, much of the research is bound to overlap. If you can build a system to detect and fire sound at a torpedo, it wouldn't be much of a change to detect and fire, say, a machinegun or microwave at an RPG. The problem with RPGs is that they are inherently more primitive and at best you'll detonante it a given radius from its target, thus demolishing whatever is near it at that point, but anyway.
I'm thinking we should work with what we have. We don't seem to have a relatively cheap, relatively effect means to knock out RPGs yet; we seem to have the capacity to make one that will work on torpedos. As submarines still fulfill an enormous role in our current naval strategy, it makes sense to safeguard them at least until we begin to retire that strategy, rather than forgoing upgrades because of a potential for future phasing-out.