Does no one else have a problem with a govt so powerful that they can do this? If they can ban something as insignificant as a light bulb what else can they ban? Certain computer processors? Fast food? Salt?
A government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take from you everything you have. - Gerald Ford
So your objection is that it might be used for torture? Do you also object to batteries? Water and seranwrap? A long sock with a bar of soap in it? Any tool can be misused, that doesn't detract from it's benefits.
Wired (which I remember covering directed-energy weapons back in 2004 and 2005) recently wrote up an easy-reading article that covers most frequently asked questions about ADS, like: "Does it cause lasting damage?"
In more than 10,000 exposures, there were six cases of blistering and one instance of second-degree burns in a laboratory accident, the documents claim. And if the military is willing to try it out on news reporters (volunteers all), as they did in the breaking story, they're pretty confident.
Eye damage is identified as the biggest concern, but the military claims this has been thoroughly studied. Lab testing found subjects reflexively blink or turn away within a quarter of a second of exposure, long before the sensitive cornea can be damaged. Tests on monkeys showed that corneal damage heals within 24 hours, the reports claim.
"A speculum was needed to hold the eyes open to produce this type of injury because even under anesthesia, the monkeys blinked, protecting the cornea," the report says.
[...]
[T]he Air Force is adamant that after years of study, exposure to MMW has not been demonstrated to promote cancer. During some tests, subjects were exposed to 20 times the permitted dose under the relevant Air Force radiation standard. "Okay, no lasting damage usually, but how long does the pain last?"
The pain ceases as soon as the beam's no longer on you.
Yet the ADS, like every nonlethal weapon, is heavily scrutinized because of the potential for abuse ("Will the version in the field be as harmless as the one used on reporters?", etc.) and because, presumably, exotic new technologies like this are hard to sell to a skeptical public. Hence, the reporters themselves being subjected to the weapon.
Then, of course, there are those who oppose any new weapon almost on principle. But after reading similar comments at several sites, I have to ask, Why?
Why oppose battlefield (or riot zone) use of the ADS, which can allow our servicemen and -women to stop a suspicious person at long range rather than (A) let the person close distance and potentially harm our troops, or (B) have our servicemen shoot (lethally) first and ask questions later?
It's precisely these ethical and operational questions that lead me to believe that directed energy has a big part to play in future combat operations. Especially once these weapons get smaller (even as small as rifle-sized, perhaps with a battery in the backpack), there are all kinds of potential military applications.
If you can disable people all around a combat zone without killing them--perhaps so you can get in, detain a high-value target and get out--you don't really have to (for example) discriminate between innocent civilians and enemy combatants who dress like civilians. Instead of killing anyone who gets too close to a vehicle convoy (hey, you don't know if he has a bomb strapped to him, or a gun hidden in his clothing), just zap 'im for a few seconds at a few hundred meters (much further than bombs and much effective small arms fire usually reach) and keep moving. Furthermore, if you can make a combatant stop and drop without putting a bullet in him, you're more likely to be able to detain and question him.
That adds up to fewer "collateral" losses of innocents and more flexibility for our troops. Whatever your human rights concerns, aren't the consequences of not having such a system worse?
Heck, if they can miniaturize it, why not allow it in more mundane civilian/police applications? A short shock of pain is better than being shot, and as the North Hollywood bank robbery/shootout illustrated, bullets aren't always as effective as something like the ADS could be.
Sorry, all I could think of after that joke was this
Acting coach: Up and atom!
Rainier Wolfcastle: (in heavy German accent) Up and at them!
Acting coach: Up and atom!
Wolfcastle: Up and at them!
Acting coach: Up and atom!
Wolfcastle: Up and at them!
Acting coach: *Sigh.* Better.
But the screen needs to be great (since it is taking the place of a book, which can have a crisp sheet of perfectly white paper as its page base). And the text exceptional. How do they make a super-high resolution screen (to match or exceed the 300+ x 300+ dpi of books) while maintaining minimal energy requirements and having a perfect white crispness to each page?
I dunno, maybe if they display it with electronic paper, which doesn't use energy except to change the screen. Could even attach some photovoltaic cells and get power from your reading lamp.
As the brother post said, it's just not affordable. But let me ask you phisbut, what are you doing thats helping the environment thats so great? Did you buy an expensive hybrid? So, if we take that Kyoto (if followed by all involved) would have reduced world temp.6C maybe? then we take your hybrid pollution savings to be what?.000000001 percent of that? So if you buy a hybrid, you spend $5-6k to lower the temp.000000006 degrees? Does this sound like a reasonable use of your money? And why haven't you spent the $100,000 to get a totally solar and hydrogen home like the guy in the story? Don't you care about the environment, or is it maybe not economical for you to do so? It just matters how much that.000000006 degrees is worth to people, and its just not worth the premium yet, but don't worry, so it will be much cheaper to get that percent, or the percent will increase, and technology and industrialization and ultimately capitalism will get us there.
Fresh data from the International Energy Agency show oil consumption in the 30 member countries of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development fell 0.6% in 2006. Though the decline appears small, it marks the first annual drop in more than 20 years among the OECD countries. . . . The fall in oil use by the industrialized world is a sign that the reactions to higher oil prices by businesses and consumers from the U.S. to Germany to Japan may be adding up to a cycle-turning downdraft in demand.
Thats what he's saying, you don't eventually make it up. With gas prices falling and the premium still on (current) hybrids, you probably wont have the car long enough to make up the extra $6,000 you spend on it. The guy in the article spent $100,000 for this solar power and will never make it all back. A lot of these green things just aren't economically feasible, yet. Soon, but just not yet.
I have to agree with AKA here. Not that you're wrong either, but you both (as is so often the case) seem to have different definitions of libertarian. AKA seems to be referring to anacro-captialism, or at least libertarians on that side of the spectrum. While you are referring to moderate libertarians, who might be willing to accept some govt interference in the markets the way AKA was describing. The problem is that the unfortunate face of libertarianism is the Libertarian Party, who are much closer to anacro-captialism than moderate libertarianism. This is what turns away many people who could certainly describe themselves as libertarians (like I do, or more accurately NeoLibertarian), or at least libertarian leaning republicans.
Well, if I'm to believe the American Center for Law & Justice, which I'm inclined to do at this time,
[The] proposed legislation would have stopped Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. from gathering support for the Civil Rights Act of 1964. In fact, as he addressed the social issues from the pulpit of Ebenezer Baptist Church in Atlanta, GA, he might well have had to register as a lobbyist.
Your choice is irrelevant as people's speech or ability to speak, in no way oppresses me. The Fairness Doctrine assumes that there is "a view" and "an opposing view". That's silly. Let's take global warming as an example. There are a bunch of views:
"It's real and we gotta do something now before the ocean swallows us."
"It's real and it's bad, and we're causing it, but there isn't much we can do about it."
"It's probably real, and it's probably our fault, so let's do the best we can to mitigate it."
"It's real and it's bad, but it's a natural phenomenon and people don't have much to do with it."
"It's not real. It's a best a minor fluctuation in climate."
"It's real, but the benefits outweigh the costs, so sit back and enjoy it."
(Please no nit-picking over whether this is a correct or comprehensive list. Global warming is just an illustrative issue - the topic at hand is the Fairness Doctrine.)
If the Fairness Doctrine were in effect, and you went on the radio with, say, #2, which of the others is the opposing view? Well, to some extent, they all are.
Let's say the topic is Federal Program X. The five possible generic views would be:
Spend a whole lot more on it
Spend somewhat more on it
Spend the same amount on it
Spend somewhat less on it
Spend nothing on it - abolish the program
If there's a controversy over the federal program, which views are going to get presented under the Fairness Doctrine? Well, ultimately, that's up to a government bureaucrat. Does anyone really think the "abolish the program" option is going to be one of the two preferred views? A government bureaucrat, or his proxy in the media, is naturally predisposed to believe in government effectiveness, so the bottom two views will usually be the ones that are completely ignored.
In the typical case of a social program, it boils down to a Democrat arguing that we should be spending somewhat more, and a Republican arguing that we should be spending the same. The roles might be reversed, if it's something related to defense or corporate subsidies; though in that case, the "spend less" option would probably get more credibility, and the "spend a whole lot more" option would be considered fringe.
We don't even debate the "abolish the program" option much now. Under the Fairness Doctrine, it disappears completely. And the growth of government goes unquestioned.
And that leads to what I consider the really pernicious effect of the Fairness Doctrine. By restricting the range of views down to the mushy middle, the debate becomes utterly boring. No one wants to hear two drones, one of which wants to spend a little more, with the other defending the status quo.
Of course, if the common citizen tunes the debate out because it's boring, that leaves the field to the activists. Most of them are on the left, so the left is just fine with boring policies debates. They don't want dittoheads emailing Congress because Rush got them pumped up about something.
I think a lot of support for the Fairness Doctrine is ultimately based on a contempt for the opinions of the common citizen. You can see it in the blather about "corporate influence". The presumption is that common folks can simply be manipulated into any opinion their corporate masters desire.
I notice that they don't seem to have any issues with how much money George Soros spends on politics. And that's explicitly political spending. Talk radio is a money-making enterprise, and is not an explicit subsidy for a political viewpoint. Yet, because talk radio engages a swath of the common citizens in ways the left cannot, even with Soros' help, the left is ready to throttle it. After all, those ignorant dittoheads don't really deserve a place in the debate, do they? They're just being manipulated into their opinions by corporate influence anyway.
and why you shouldn't have the freedom to control radio and media. You don't like the republican message so you try to shut them up, that's anti-first amendment, anti-freedom, and anti-american.
The meeting was heavily funded by George Soros and had quite an array of the "Who's Who" of the extreme left:
Reaching new levels of hysteria, Rep. Maurice Hinchey said the survival of America was itself at stake because "neo-fascist" and "neo-con" talk-show hosts led by Rush Limbaugh had facilitated the "illegal" war in Iraq and were complicit in President Bush's repeated violations of the Constitution, such as by detaining terrorists. He warned that the "right-wing oriented media" were now preparing the way for Bush to wage war on Iran and Syria.
His answer, a bill titled the "Media Ownership Reform Act," would reinstate the federal fairness doctrine and authorize bureaucrats at the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to monitor and alter the content of radio and television programs.
Hinchey, chairman of the "Future of American Media Caucus" in the House, was introduced as the new chairman of a subcommittee with jurisdiction over the FCC. For Hinchey and the vast majority at the conference, there was a pressing need for more, not less, regulation of what they call the "corporate media."
Got that? He wants the Governtment "to monitor and alter the content of radio and television programs.". Remember, this is the same govt that will at any given time be led by the political party you are against. Do you want republicans to have this power to alter radio and tv science content? Do you want democrats to have this power to alter radio and tv economic content?
I think you're partially right in that. It will be the competition with WiMAX and other services that will encourage the local providers to over more and better service, but what about the backbone? Your brother poster suggested that they promised to and were paid billions of dollars to upgrade. I'm sure there's truth to that, but I'm also sure there's another side to the story.
Sorry if I sounded snarky, I was really wondering what their reasons would be to upgrade, because I know there must be some and also ways for us as consumers to encourage that.
Slashdot Mirror
Does no one else have a problem with a govt so powerful that they can do this? If they can ban something as insignificant as a light bulb what else can they ban? Certain computer processors? Fast food? Salt?
A government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take from you everything you have. - Gerald Ford
Did you see the picture of this thing? I think we're gonna know where that burning pain is coming from.
But I'm going to put you in the "oppose any new weapon almost on principle" group I mentioned in my first post.
I doubt that is the case or this stuff would be used to blow up IED's already.
So your objection is that it might be used for torture? Do you also object to batteries? Water and seranwrap? A long sock with a bar of soap in it? Any tool can be misused, that doesn't detract from it's benefits.
"Does it cause lasting damage?"
In more than 10,000 exposures, there were six cases of blistering and one instance of second-degree burns in a laboratory accident, the documents claim.
And if the military is willing to try it out on news reporters (volunteers all), as they did in the breaking story, they're pretty confident.
Eye damage is identified as the biggest concern, but the military claims this has been thoroughly studied. Lab testing found subjects reflexively blink or turn away within a quarter of a second of exposure, long before the sensitive cornea can be damaged. Tests on monkeys showed that corneal damage heals within 24 hours, the reports claim.
"A speculum was needed to hold the eyes open to produce this type of injury because even under anesthesia, the monkeys blinked, protecting the cornea," the report says.
[...]
[T]he Air Force is adamant that after years of study, exposure to MMW has not been demonstrated to promote cancer. During some tests, subjects were exposed to 20 times the permitted dose under the relevant Air Force radiation standard.
"Okay, no lasting damage usually, but how long does the pain last?"
The pain ceases as soon as the beam's no longer on you.
Yet the ADS, like every nonlethal weapon, is heavily scrutinized because of the potential for abuse ("Will the version in the field be as harmless as the one used on reporters?", etc.) and because, presumably, exotic new technologies like this are hard to sell to a skeptical public. Hence, the reporters themselves being subjected to the weapon.
Then, of course, there are those who oppose any new weapon almost on principle. But after reading similar comments at several sites, I have to ask, Why?
Why oppose battlefield (or riot zone) use of the ADS, which can allow our servicemen and -women to stop a suspicious person at long range rather than (A) let the person close distance and potentially harm our troops, or (B) have our servicemen shoot (lethally) first and ask questions later?
It's precisely these ethical and operational questions that lead me to believe that directed energy has a big part to play in future combat operations. Especially once these weapons get smaller (even as small as rifle-sized, perhaps with a battery in the backpack), there are all kinds of potential military applications.
If you can disable people all around a combat zone without killing them--perhaps so you can get in, detain a high-value target and get out--you don't really have to (for example) discriminate between innocent civilians and enemy combatants who dress like civilians. Instead of killing anyone who gets too close to a vehicle convoy (hey, you don't know if he has a bomb strapped to him, or a gun hidden in his clothing), just zap 'im for a few seconds at a few hundred meters (much further than bombs and much effective small arms fire usually reach) and keep moving. Furthermore, if you can make a combatant stop and drop without putting a bullet in him, you're more likely to be able to detain and question him.
That adds up to fewer "collateral" losses of innocents and more flexibility for our troops. Whatever your human rights concerns, aren't the consequences of not having such a system worse?
Heck, if they can miniaturize it, why not allow it in more mundane civilian/police applications? A short shock of pain is better than being shot, and as the North Hollywood bank robbery/shootout illustrated, bullets aren't always as effective as something like the ADS could be.
Sorry, all I could think of after that joke was this
Acting coach: Up and atom!
Rainier Wolfcastle: (in heavy German accent) Up and at them!
Acting coach: Up and atom!
Wolfcastle: Up and at them!
Acting coach: Up and atom!
Wolfcastle: Up and at them!
Acting coach: *Sigh.* Better.
I dunno, maybe if they display it with electronic paper, which doesn't use energy except to change the screen. Could even attach some photovoltaic cells and get power from your reading lamp.
As the brother post said, it's just not affordable. But let me ask you phisbut, what are you doing thats helping the environment thats so great? Did you buy an expensive hybrid? So, if we take that Kyoto (if followed by all involved) would have reduced world temp .6C maybe? then we take your hybrid pollution savings to be what? .000000001 percent of that? So if you buy a hybrid, you spend $5-6k to lower the temp .000000006 degrees? Does this sound like a reasonable use of your money? And why haven't you spent the $100,000 to get a totally solar and hydrogen home like the guy in the story? Don't you care about the environment, or is it maybe not economical for you to do so? It just matters how much that .000000006 degrees is worth to people, and its just not worth the premium yet, but don't worry, so it will be much cheaper to get that percent, or the percent will increase, and technology and industrialization and ultimately capitalism will get us there.
The guy in the article spent $100,000 for this solar power and will never make it all back. A lot of these green things just aren't economically feasible, yet. Soon, but just not yet.
A guy who has "Murder a Republican." as his sig is calling someone extremist? What a world we live in.
I have to agree with AKA here. Not that you're wrong either, but you both (as is so often the case) seem to have different definitions of libertarian. AKA seems to be referring to anacro-captialism, or at least libertarians on that side of the spectrum. While you are referring to moderate libertarians, who might be willing to accept some govt interference in the markets the way AKA was describing. The problem is that the unfortunate face of libertarianism is the Libertarian Party, who are much closer to anacro-captialism than moderate libertarianism. This is what turns away many people who could certainly describe themselves as libertarians (like I do, or more accurately NeoLibertarian), or at least libertarian leaning republicans.
The Fairness Doctrine assumes that there is "a view" and "an opposing view". That's silly. Let's take global warming as an example. There are a bunch of views:
- "It's real and we gotta do something now before the ocean swallows us."
- "It's real and it's bad, and we're causing it, but there isn't much we can do about it."
- "It's probably real, and it's probably our fault, so let's do the best we can to mitigate it."
- "It's real and it's bad, but it's a natural phenomenon and people don't have much to do with it."
- "It's not real. It's a best a minor fluctuation in climate."
- "It's real, but the benefits outweigh the costs, so sit back and enjoy it."
(Please no nit-picking over whether this is a correct or comprehensive list. Global warming is just an illustrative issue - the topic at hand is the Fairness Doctrine.)If the Fairness Doctrine were in effect, and you went on the radio with, say, #2, which of the others is the opposing view? Well, to some extent, they all are.
Let's say the topic is Federal Program X. The five possible generic views would be:
If there's a controversy over the federal program, which views are going to get presented under the Fairness Doctrine? Well, ultimately, that's up to a government bureaucrat. Does anyone really think the "abolish the program" option is going to be one of the two preferred views? A government bureaucrat, or his proxy in the media, is naturally predisposed to believe in government effectiveness, so the bottom two views will usually be the ones that are completely ignored.
In the typical case of a social program, it boils down to a Democrat arguing that we should be spending somewhat more, and a Republican arguing that we should be spending the same. The roles might be reversed, if it's something related to defense or corporate subsidies; though in that case, the "spend less" option would probably get more credibility, and the "spend a whole lot more" option would be considered fringe.
We don't even debate the "abolish the program" option much now. Under the Fairness Doctrine, it disappears completely. And the growth of government goes unquestioned. And that leads to what I consider the really pernicious effect of the Fairness Doctrine. By restricting the range of views down to the mushy middle, the debate becomes utterly boring. No one wants to hear two drones, one of which wants to spend a little more, with the other defending the status quo.
Of course, if the common citizen tunes the debate out because it's boring, that leaves the field to the activists. Most of them are on the left, so the left is just fine with boring policies debates. They don't want dittoheads emailing Congress because Rush got them pumped up about something.
I think a lot of support for the Fairness Doctrine is ultimately based on a contempt for the opinions of the common citizen. You can see it in the blather about "corporate influence". The presumption is that common folks can simply be manipulated into any opinion their corporate masters desire.
I notice that they don't seem to have any issues with how much money George Soros spends on politics. And that's explicitly political spending. Talk radio is a money-making enterprise, and is not an explicit subsidy for a political viewpoint. Yet, because talk radio engages a swath of the common citizens in ways the left cannot, even with Soros' help, the left is ready to throttle it. After all, those ignorant dittoheads don't really deserve a place in the debate, do they? They're just being manipulated into their opinions by corporate influence anyway.
Yes, but how big is it on your projector screen?
and why you shouldn't have the freedom to control radio and media. You don't like the republican message so you try to shut them up, that's anti-first amendment, anti-freedom, and anti-american.
By taking freedom away from other people.
So your solution to the media not being critical enough of the govt is to give the govt control over the media?
No, they went from 150 million down to 26 million. You obviously forgot this story.
Got that? He wants the Governtment "to monitor and alter the content of radio and television programs.". Remember, this is the same govt that will at any given time be led by the political party you are against. Do you want republicans to have this power to alter radio and tv science content? Do you want democrats to have this power to alter radio and tv economic content?
I think you're partially right in that. It will be the competition with WiMAX and other services that will encourage the local providers to over more and better service, but what about the backbone? Your brother poster suggested that they promised to and were paid billions of dollars to upgrade. I'm sure there's truth to that, but I'm also sure there's another side to the story.
Sorry if I sounded snarky, I was really wondering what their reasons would be to upgrade, because I know there must be some and also ways for us as consumers to encourage that.
Why should they? Honestly, what would they benefit? If they can't make money off new infrastructure, why would they pour money into it?