If you want to fault Korean culture, fault them for being too trusting of the USA in general....poor people actually take what we say at face value.
He gave a non-ActiveX related anecdote to help explain that it is not a technical reason that ActiveX is still being used, but instead that it is a problem with the bureaucracy in that country.
ActiveX has been around for 17 years and there have been news stories about how insecure it is for 16 of those years so they have had plenty of time to figure out it was a stupid idea and to do something about it.
I'd be surprise if it already existed. I thought that all the existing hypersonic contraptions are plagued with many material and endurance problems. I mean, it's probably not impossible, but it still seems to be fairly close to claiming that the U. S. Air Force operates a fleet of intergalactic cruisers.
I would also be surprised, but not for the reasons you just gave, after all look at the problems that plagued the SR-71. Also the SR-71 is 50 years old, we should have the expertise to improve on the design.
The reason I would be surprised is because we have other projects that fulfill the role that are more cost effective, such as the flying twinkie. Another reason is that although it is possible to design a stealth aircraft that can go beyond Mach 3, the massive plume of hot exhaust gasses will give it away.
The faster you go the more fuel you need which makes going supersonic very expensive, and add to that the maintenance needed for the engines and the air-frame.
Even if the cost of operating a new concord is less than the last one it is still something that would only be available to the truly wealthy.
Don't worry though, I'm sure that rendering is the closest that plane will ever come to being built.
Spy satellites have known paths so you know that between oh 1:00 pm to 1:15 pm you need to hide your secret stuff. But I think they have already gotten past this limitation with the flying twinkie since it can deploy a satellite as needed and pick it back up.
I believe that the only R&D going into the SR-72 project is the amount of capital it took to make that rendering and a short blurb.
I do not see this as even a proposed aircraft, it is at the most misinformation campaign.
So you are saying that if I have a child that I will suddenly trust the word of people who are talking out of their ass more than the word of people who are educated on relevant topics?
Or are you saying that I will suddenly become irrational and start to trust a man of god vs a man of science if I have a child?
What I think you are trying to say though is that if I was a parent that I would want the absolute best for my child, but you are coming off as advocating something else.
What is real funny is I was confusing parts of Mormonism with Jehovah Witnesses, just luckily not this particular topic. I was thinking there couldn't be a lot of blood banks in Utah, luckily I came to my senses before posting that.
By the way I am a poly-agnostic. I find that regular agnosticism is just way to restrictive.
Because it wasn't something I had just googled, I was going off of memory of an article I may have read over a decade ago. So when I was asked for a citation I did google it, and it was not hard to find something that supported what I thought I recalled.
what if someone took your child and said that they must submit to some medical procedure that you either view as risky and unnecessary or extremely invasive?
Well risky or unnecessary or extremely invasive are concerns that can be brought up to the doctor if it is a valid concern, and from the doctor to the hospital, and so on, but if it is for a religious reason, no, absolutely no. Risky, unnecessary, or extremely invasive can be argued on merits beyond a schizophrenic belief that some being that created everything and everyone doesn't want you to save that childs life because of blah blah blah. You might as well just allow human sacrifice if you want to argue that parents can kill their children for religious reasons.
and then what will you do when the parents abandon the kid because he has been defiled and raped by the abhorrent medical procedures and is now viewed as being a soulless shell?
Thank you for making my point for me there, do you know how many children die from exorcisms? Just the fact that it is not zero should concern you. Then there are the people who just outright claim that a supernatural being told them to kill their children.
Just what do you think it is about a parent that makes you think that they know what is best for their children, especially in matters that they have absolutely no education in?
I do not think that doctors should take into consideration the religious preference of a parent when treating a child. Once that kid hits 18, fine then the new adult can make their own decisions, before then you go with the most medically sound option.
I honestly forgot where I read it first, but here is the Wiki on bloodless surgery which credits jehovah witnesses as one of the driving forces for it.
I might find your beliefs utterly silly and without merit, but I can respect that you have your beliefs and that you stick to your beliefs.
It takes balls to go have surgery without the safety net of a blood transfusion, to not just tell the doctor "I'm not really all that religious, just save my life, whatever it takes."
Now if someone is making that decision for a child, lock the fucker up.
Sometimes serious sites put up bullshit on holidays, but they usually put in some disclaimer. I would not be able to recognize a disclaimer in Romanian.
That's like saying that from all the crack babies born in the 80s, some went ahead and became doctors and programmers, so crack can't be all bad.
Actually it would be more along the lines of "War is hell, but at least we make healthcare advances because of it."
If you are wasting public resources to do these type of interventions, then only luck could turn them into something else than waste.
No, people who have trained their whole lives to save people don't come up with new lifesaving techniques due to "luck". And do you know if they are using public resources do do those type of interventions, or are you just making wild speculations in an attempt to bolster your case that there are no positives outcomes of bloodless surgery?
The washington times story is just a copy/paste of the other article linked in the summary. The other link you provided is a list of all the publications Radu Silaghi has put out, this one is not listed there as far as I could tell.
Although I understand your sentiment, but many new surgical techniques have been made because of Jehovah witnesses refusal to accept blood transfusions. Many of these techniques end up being better than the one they replaced and therefor all of society gains benefits.
It coming from the daily fail I had my doubts, so I followed a link from them to softpedia, that had a link to a Romanian news source, I don't know Romanian though to know if it is an Onion like site or not.
Slashdot Mirror
If you want to fault Korean culture, fault them for being too trusting of the USA in general....poor people actually take what we say at face value.
He gave a non-ActiveX related anecdote to help explain that it is not a technical reason that ActiveX is still being used, but instead that it is a problem with the bureaucracy in that country.
ActiveX has been around for 17 years and there have been news stories about how insecure it is for 16 of those years so they have had plenty of time to figure out it was a stupid idea and to do something about it.
I'd be surprise if it already existed. I thought that all the existing hypersonic contraptions are plagued with many material and endurance problems. I mean, it's probably not impossible, but it still seems to be fairly close to claiming that the U. S. Air Force operates a fleet of intergalactic cruisers.
I would also be surprised, but not for the reasons you just gave, after all look at the problems that plagued the SR-71. Also the SR-71 is 50 years old, we should have the expertise to improve on the design.
The reason I would be surprised is because we have other projects that fulfill the role that are more cost effective, such as the flying twinkie. Another reason is that although it is possible to design a stealth aircraft that can go beyond Mach 3, the massive plume of hot exhaust gasses will give it away.
The faster you go the more fuel you need which makes going supersonic very expensive, and add to that the maintenance needed for the engines and the air-frame.
Even if the cost of operating a new concord is less than the last one it is still something that would only be available to the truly wealthy.
Don't worry though, I'm sure that rendering is the closest that plane will ever come to being built.
Spy satellites have known paths so you know that between oh 1:00 pm to 1:15 pm you need to hide your secret stuff. But I think they have already gotten past this limitation with the flying twinkie since it can deploy a satellite as needed and pick it back up.
I believe that the only R&D going into the SR-72 project is the amount of capital it took to make that rendering and a short blurb.
I do not see this as even a proposed aircraft, it is at the most misinformation campaign.
What I am arguing against is a parent imposing a religions restriction on a childs care. This is not without precedent, it happens.
What you are arguing against is a parent not having a legitimate say in a childs care.
Not the same thing.
So you are saying that if I have a child that I will suddenly trust the word of people who are talking out of their ass more than the word of people who are educated on relevant topics?
Or are you saying that I will suddenly become irrational and start to trust a man of god vs a man of science if I have a child?
What I think you are trying to say though is that if I was a parent that I would want the absolute best for my child, but you are coming off as advocating something else.
There have been some interesting viral advertisements, but yea this looks legit.
I guess you don't know many MD's.
Competence is ... uncommon.
I would trust them in medical manners more than I would trust anyone whose only qualification is that they had a child.
In theory I agree with you, but in practice it would just be crazy people killing their sane kids instead of sane parents killing their crazy kids.
What is real funny is I was confusing parts of Mormonism with Jehovah Witnesses, just luckily not this particular topic. I was thinking there couldn't be a lot of blood banks in Utah, luckily I came to my senses before posting that.
By the way I am a poly-agnostic. I find that regular agnosticism is just way to restrictive.
Because it wasn't something I had just googled, I was going off of memory of an article I may have read over a decade ago. So when I was asked for a citation I did google it, and it was not hard to find something that supported what I thought I recalled.
what if someone took your child and said that they must submit to some medical procedure that you either view as risky and unnecessary or extremely invasive?
Well risky or unnecessary or extremely invasive are concerns that can be brought up to the doctor if it is a valid concern, and from the doctor to the hospital, and so on, but if it is for a religious reason, no, absolutely no. Risky, unnecessary, or extremely invasive can be argued on merits beyond a schizophrenic belief that some being that created everything and everyone doesn't want you to save that childs life because of blah blah blah. You might as well just allow human sacrifice if you want to argue that parents can kill their children for religious reasons.
and then what will you do when the parents abandon the kid because he has been defiled and raped by the abhorrent medical procedures and is now viewed as being a soulless shell?
Thank you for making my point for me there, do you know how many children die from exorcisms? Just the fact that it is not zero should concern you. Then there are the people who just outright claim that a supernatural being told them to kill their children.
Did the parent go to medical school?
Hell, did the parent even go to parenting school?
Just what do you think it is about a parent that makes you think that they know what is best for their children, especially in matters that they have absolutely no education in?
Just think of them as overly enthusiastic test subjects.
I do not think that doctors should take into consideration the religious preference of a parent when treating a child. Once that kid hits 18, fine then the new adult can make their own decisions, before then you go with the most medically sound option.
I honestly forgot where I read it first, but here is the Wiki on bloodless surgery which credits jehovah witnesses as one of the driving forces for it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloodless_surgery
I might find your beliefs utterly silly and without merit, but I can respect that you have your beliefs and that you stick to your beliefs.
It takes balls to go have surgery without the safety net of a blood transfusion, to not just tell the doctor "I'm not really all that religious, just save my life, whatever it takes."
Now if someone is making that decision for a child, lock the fucker up.
Sometimes serious sites put up bullshit on holidays, but they usually put in some disclaimer. I would not be able to recognize a disclaimer in Romanian.
That's like saying that from all the crack babies born in the 80s, some went ahead and became doctors and programmers, so crack can't be all bad.
Actually it would be more along the lines of "War is hell, but at least we make healthcare advances because of it."
If you are wasting public resources to do these type of interventions, then only luck could turn them into something else than waste.
No, people who have trained their whole lives to save people don't come up with new lifesaving techniques due to "luck". And do you know if they are using public resources do do those type of interventions, or are you just making wild speculations in an attempt to bolster your case that there are no positives outcomes of bloodless surgery?
The washington times story is just a copy/paste of the other article linked in the summary. The other link you provided is a list of all the publications Radu Silaghi has put out, this one is not listed there as far as I could tell.
So how many pints of real blood do you need to make a pint PolyHeme, also how expensive is it?
With purely artificial blood you don't have to worry about how many people are donating blood, you just make more.
I worked the trail backwards to a Romanian news source because it was just too coincidental, but since I don't read Romanian I stopped there.
Something like this would probably end up being classified something along the lines of a "hemophiliac preparations" which is a grey area.
Although I understand your sentiment, but many new surgical techniques have been made because of Jehovah witnesses refusal to accept blood transfusions. Many of these techniques end up being better than the one they replaced and therefor all of society gains benefits.
It coming from the daily fail I had my doubts, so I followed a link from them to softpedia, that had a link to a Romanian news source, I don't know Romanian though to know if it is an Onion like site or not.
http://www.descopera.ro/dnews/11576517-inventia-extraordinara-a-unui-cercetator-din-cluj-sangele-artificial-creat-cu-ajutorul-viermilor-marini-galerie-foto