Eh. Dani tells a nice story, but it's rather short on details. The "long wavelengths" explanation comes from a guy at Jane's Magazine, and it's pure conjecture. There's really no evidence that any part of his story is true, although it seems plausible. Given that Serb source were reporting dozens of aircraft shot down while the war was ongoing, I fail to see any reason to give them much credence in this case.
As other have pointed out, though, even if true, his story shows that the shoot-down was as much a result of luck as skill. He had to wait for just the right circumstance - lack of supporting aircraft including Prowler jammers, shit weather, aircrew over-confidence - before he could get a successful kill. And the figures for the rest of the war show the same; with only 2 or 3 NATO aircraft lost during the entire campaign, there's no doubt that Serb anti-air assets were largely irrelevant. As I said, it's a neat story, but there's not much there for you to be proud of.
As for the new Chinese fighter, it's reported to fly on pixy dust and fire laser-rainbows. Until we see some real data, I'm not buying it.
Statistics fail : Israel has a greater percentage of Muslim citizens than the U.S. (about 10 times more) i.e. you are comparing values without accounting for population demographics.
Irrelevant to the point being made.
Do you really think that a system of government that includes state religious schools is more secular than the U.S., where the Constitution explicitly prohibits that kind of thing?
If you elect to go into such studies, the government gives you automatic welfare AND excuses you from military service (where it is ordinarily compulsory) AND gives you a complete tax break.
So.... just like the US, then?
Come to think of it, I can't think of any nation where approved religions don't get automatic welfare. I'm not saying I support that - far from it - I just don't see how classifying every nation as non-secular would help. Ideally, I'd like to see all churches everywhere start paying taxes, and stop receiving perks (like being exempt from the draft). But to claim that a nation is non-secular because it provides some allowances for certain religions is silly, and expecting it to change any time soon is even more so.
You are also referencing the Declaration of Independence as the constitution.
You know, I actually knew that. It was a silly mistake. Must be getting late.
Regarding marriage I think Israel does it right, with the exception that they should also offer civil ceremonies.
I don't think the state should be in the business of controlling marriage at all - they should just be in the business of contract-enforcement / mediation. If I want to sit down with 5 other people and draw up a contract for a group-marriage, that's my business. So yeah, Israel does it right in that they let the various religions sort out their marriages; the only problem appears to be that - like most nations - they're also in the business of dictating what is and isn't a religion. It's a practice which I'd like to see all secular government abandon.
10% of the population leaves the country to get married, as the state defers to the churches on who is allowed to marry.
Eh. That's an issue, sure, but relatively minor. Several European nations which most people consider secular have mandatory taxes that go straight to the church. Then there's ireland - effectively secular, but they passed a law outlawing blasphemy. Secularity isn't a clearly defined line - more of a spectrum.
I also don't think there can be meaningful separation in a place defined as "A Jewish and Democratic State"
You could say the same about a state which has "in god we trust" on it's money, and "endowed by their Creator" in it's constitution. If you're going to use those kinds of standards, you'll end up with only a handful of nations on the planet which are secular, and your list will be topped by countries like North Korea (which I personally think is heavily religious, despite being secular on paper).
I said "effectively". Maybe the meaning was unclear. Would you prefer "essentially"? How about "more-or-less"?
Given that there are more Muslims in the Israeli Parliament than there are in the US Congress, I'd say they're probably more secular than the US in reality, if not on paper. They have complete freedom of religion, and have had Muslims and Druze serving in all aspects of the government, including as Supreme Court judges, ambassadors, and army generals. When the only thing making them non-secular is that they self-identify as a Jewish state, it's fair to say that they ARE secular for all intents and purposes.
Maybe the problem would go away if countries in the region separated church and state, while guaranteeing freedom of religion.
Israel has effectively done that. Other nations seem to be trying to get there - for instance, Lebanon - and are having some level of success. Amongst the more fundamentalist nations... not so much. The biggest throwback is Iran, which continue to fund radical parties in Syria, Palestine, and Lebanon (amongst other nations). Iran is the key to peace in the middle east, but they quite obviously have no interest in it.
Exactly. I'm about to publish a leak proving that alien lizards have infiltrated the highest levels of our governments. Just don't ask me for my sources, they're "confidential". Stay tuned to www.UFOleaks.com for more info!
You know, it's pretty rare for an Anonymous Coward to make more sense than a registered user, but apparently it does happen. I'm gonna have to keep an eye on this, and see if it correlates with the senility experience by users with really low UIDs.
Securing 4,411,000 acres will take quite some time, if we're not to displace food crops.
Meh. Kentucky is, what, about 25 million acres? I've never seen anything good come out of that state. You go warm up the bulldozer, I'll go round up some oil execs.
It happens. I'd just like to say I think it's embarrassing that your comments were rated "troll" and "offtopic". Everyone makes mistakes - you at least had the decency to admit to yours. I respect that, even if a bunch of idiots with mod points apparently don't.
Oh man. There are a lot of specific episodes I could point to, but, really, the biggest problem was with their "the truth is out there" conspiracy mindset, combined with the fact that the rational/scientific Scully was made out to be a humourless bitch with zero curiosity who also happened to always be wrong.
I always had an aptitude for physics, and now that I'm older I'm wishing I'd gotten into it when I was still a kid, but back then I was under the impression that scientists were a bunch of stuffy drones who just pooh-poohed everything and had no idea what they were doing half the time. Now, it would be unfair to lay the blame for my perceptions entirely at the feet of the X-Files, but that show - and others like it - certainly did lead me away from science and towards being a credulous "open minded" idiot. It wasn't until I was getting into my mid 20's that the trend reversed.
Further, some of the humans transplanted by the Gao'uld were in fact, white dudes from Earth who natively spoke English. So yes, they should probably be speaking English.
Uh, no. Unless they were transplanted in the last 100 years, their language would be completely different than any English spoken on Earth. Even if they had been transplanted within the last century, there should be some major differences that make communication at least somewhat difficult. Instead, everyone seems to speak perfect 21st century American English, without even a trace of an unfamiliar accent, unique slang, or changes in meanings for existing words (think "gay" in 1930 vs "gay" in 1990).
I understand why a TV show must necessarily either ignore or quickly overcome such language issues. I think they could probably have found a better way of handling it, but I can't fault them for essentially just ignoring the problem. On the other hand, your explanation just sucks.
Hating on a show doesn't make you smarter than loving on it
While that's true as long as the emphasis is properly placed on the "a", it's worthwhile pointing out that those who hate this show are certainly smarter than those who love it.
I disagree, the younger airman who died in the shuttle crash was likable, the redhead from the alliance, and the large breasted lieutenant
Yes, well, they killed the young airman, they killed the redhead, and given that the big-breasted lieutenant has the equivalent role of a Star Trek Redshirt I'm sure it's only a matter of time until she's gone. So we could rephrase his statement to "The biggest problem with SGU is that none of the major characters are likeable, and the likeable minor characters keep getting killed".
Which still makes it thousands of magnitudes better than American Idol, America's Got Talent, Dancing with the Stars, etc.
Not really. Those shows are just mindless entertainment - a kind of opiate for people who prefer to be passive viewers instead of active participants. Fringe does the opposite - it appeals to those with imagination and an active curiosity, but feeds them bullshit and misinformation. X-files did the same when I was a kid - the nonsense they peddled fucked me up for years.
1. Mexico could be used for the same purpose. It would even create a better balance. The US can use cheap Mexican electricity during the day and expensive African electricity during the night (expensive due to long submarinal cables).
Yep, I'm sure the US will be more than happy to depend on Mexico and Africa for 100% of their electricity.
2. You could use (part of) the solar energy to create fuels [sciencecodex.com], which you can burn during the night
Given the efficiency of the conversion process, you'd need.... what... 4 times the number of panels that was originally quoted? Actually, factor in transportation costs and we're probably talking more like 6 times. So now we're covering 12% of the sahara, and hiring tens of millions of Africans to walk around wiping sand off of them.
My concern about nuclear is that its pretty expensive. Projects done in the US can come to $9000 per kW, while wind at the outside, after factoring in efficiencies, lands around the $3000 per kW mark.
I'd question those figures, but let's say you're right. You're still comparing peak energy output, which is kinda dishonest given the disparity in service life between nuclear plants and windmills. A nuke plant is expected to operate for at least 40 years, and some have been licensed for as long as 60 years. A windmill lasts maybe 20 years, assuming it doesn't self destruct earlier in it's life-cycle. So even given your figures, the costs are comparable - and the wikipedia page you linked to quotes much lower figures for nuke plants.
Slashdot Mirror
Eh. Dani tells a nice story, but it's rather short on details. The "long wavelengths" explanation comes from a guy at Jane's Magazine, and it's pure conjecture. There's really no evidence that any part of his story is true, although it seems plausible. Given that Serb source were reporting dozens of aircraft shot down while the war was ongoing, I fail to see any reason to give them much credence in this case.
As other have pointed out, though, even if true, his story shows that the shoot-down was as much a result of luck as skill. He had to wait for just the right circumstance - lack of supporting aircraft including Prowler jammers, shit weather, aircrew over-confidence - before he could get a successful kill. And the figures for the rest of the war show the same; with only 2 or 3 NATO aircraft lost during the entire campaign, there's no doubt that Serb anti-air assets were largely irrelevant. As I said, it's a neat story, but there's not much there for you to be proud of.
As for the new Chinese fighter, it's reported to fly on pixy dust and fire laser-rainbows. Until we see some real data, I'm not buying it.
Statistics fail : Israel has a greater percentage of Muslim citizens than the U.S. (about 10 times more) i.e. you are comparing values without accounting for population demographics.
Irrelevant to the point being made.
Do you really think that a system of government that includes state religious schools is more secular than the U.S., where the Constitution explicitly prohibits that kind of thing?
Ok: more secular than Canada, then.
If you elect to go into such studies, the government gives you automatic welfare AND excuses you from military service (where it is ordinarily compulsory) AND gives you a complete tax break.
So .... just like the US, then?
Come to think of it, I can't think of any nation where approved religions don't get automatic welfare. I'm not saying I support that - far from it - I just don't see how classifying every nation as non-secular would help. Ideally, I'd like to see all churches everywhere start paying taxes, and stop receiving perks (like being exempt from the draft). But to claim that a nation is non-secular because it provides some allowances for certain religions is silly, and expecting it to change any time soon is even more so.
You are also referencing the Declaration of Independence as the constitution.
You know, I actually knew that. It was a silly mistake. Must be getting late.
Regarding marriage I think Israel does it right, with the exception that they should also offer civil ceremonies.
I don't think the state should be in the business of controlling marriage at all - they should just be in the business of contract-enforcement / mediation. If I want to sit down with 5 other people and draw up a contract for a group-marriage, that's my business. So yeah, Israel does it right in that they let the various religions sort out their marriages; the only problem appears to be that - like most nations - they're also in the business of dictating what is and isn't a religion. It's a practice which I'd like to see all secular government abandon.
10% of the population leaves the country to get married, as the state defers to the churches on who is allowed to marry.
Eh. That's an issue, sure, but relatively minor. Several European nations which most people consider secular have mandatory taxes that go straight to the church. Then there's ireland - effectively secular, but they passed a law outlawing blasphemy. Secularity isn't a clearly defined line - more of a spectrum.
I also don't think there can be meaningful separation in a place defined as "A Jewish and Democratic State"
You could say the same about a state which has "in god we trust" on it's money, and "endowed by their Creator" in it's constitution. If you're going to use those kinds of standards, you'll end up with only a handful of nations on the planet which are secular, and your list will be topped by countries like North Korea (which I personally think is heavily religious, despite being secular on paper).
I said "effectively". Maybe the meaning was unclear. Would you prefer "essentially"? How about "more-or-less"?
Given that there are more Muslims in the Israeli Parliament than there are in the US Congress, I'd say they're probably more secular than the US in reality, if not on paper. They have complete freedom of religion, and have had Muslims and Druze serving in all aspects of the government, including as Supreme Court judges, ambassadors, and army generals. When the only thing making them non-secular is that they self-identify as a Jewish state, it's fair to say that they ARE secular for all intents and purposes.
Maybe the problem would go away if countries in the region separated church and state, while guaranteeing freedom of religion.
Israel has effectively done that. Other nations seem to be trying to get there - for instance, Lebanon - and are having some level of success. Amongst the more fundamentalist nations ... not so much. The biggest throwback is Iran, which continue to fund radical parties in Syria, Palestine, and Lebanon (amongst other nations). Iran is the key to peace in the middle east, but they quite obviously have no interest in it.
Exactly. I'm about to publish a leak proving that alien lizards have infiltrated the highest levels of our governments. Just don't ask me for my sources, they're "confidential". Stay tuned to www.UFOleaks.com for more info!
Can't wait for the sex-scene!
You know, it's pretty rare for an Anonymous Coward to make more sense than a registered user, but apparently it does happen. I'm gonna have to keep an eye on this, and see if it correlates with the senility experience by users with really low UIDs.
If that's really Colbert's mindset, I think I might have to actually start watching his show.
I'm an easy-going guy; I'll let them pick between the two.
Securing 4,411,000 acres will take quite some time, if we're not to displace food crops.
Meh. Kentucky is, what, about 25 million acres? I've never seen anything good come out of that state. You go warm up the bulldozer, I'll go round up some oil execs.
Better than getting nailed in the face by 88km/h toast ...
Great, another American Idol fan...
Is that one of those religious shows?
Yeah, I agree. All the whining after Ford won the election was really embarrassing.
At first I figured you were obviously trolling ... but now I gotta ask: why, exactly, would you classify "these people" as "idiots"?
It happens. I'd just like to say I think it's embarrassing that your comments were rated "troll" and "offtopic". Everyone makes mistakes - you at least had the decency to admit to yours. I respect that, even if a bunch of idiots with mod points apparently don't.
Oh man. There are a lot of specific episodes I could point to, but, really, the biggest problem was with their "the truth is out there" conspiracy mindset, combined with the fact that the rational/scientific Scully was made out to be a humourless bitch with zero curiosity who also happened to always be wrong.
I always had an aptitude for physics, and now that I'm older I'm wishing I'd gotten into it when I was still a kid, but back then I was under the impression that scientists were a bunch of stuffy drones who just pooh-poohed everything and had no idea what they were doing half the time. Now, it would be unfair to lay the blame for my perceptions entirely at the feet of the X-Files, but that show - and others like it - certainly did lead me away from science and towards being a credulous "open minded" idiot. It wasn't until I was getting into my mid 20's that the trend reversed.
Further, some of the humans transplanted by the Gao'uld were in fact, white dudes from Earth who natively spoke English. So yes, they should probably be speaking English.
Uh, no. Unless they were transplanted in the last 100 years, their language would be completely different than any English spoken on Earth. Even if they had been transplanted within the last century, there should be some major differences that make communication at least somewhat difficult. Instead, everyone seems to speak perfect 21st century American English, without even a trace of an unfamiliar accent, unique slang, or changes in meanings for existing words (think "gay" in 1930 vs "gay" in 1990).
I understand why a TV show must necessarily either ignore or quickly overcome such language issues. I think they could probably have found a better way of handling it, but I can't fault them for essentially just ignoring the problem. On the other hand, your explanation just sucks.
Hating on a show doesn't make you smarter than loving on it
While that's true as long as the emphasis is properly placed on the "a", it's worthwhile pointing out that those who hate this show are certainly smarter than those who love it.
I disagree, the younger airman who died in the shuttle crash was likable, the redhead from the alliance, and the large breasted lieutenant
Yes, well, they killed the young airman, they killed the redhead, and given that the big-breasted lieutenant has the equivalent role of a Star Trek Redshirt I'm sure it's only a matter of time until she's gone. So we could rephrase his statement to "The biggest problem with SGU is that none of the major characters are likeable, and the likeable minor characters keep getting killed".
Which still makes it thousands of magnitudes better than American Idol, America's Got Talent, Dancing with the Stars, etc.
Not really. Those shows are just mindless entertainment - a kind of opiate for people who prefer to be passive viewers instead of active participants. Fringe does the opposite - it appeals to those with imagination and an active curiosity, but feeds them bullshit and misinformation. X-files did the same when I was a kid - the nonsense they peddled fucked me up for years.
1. Mexico could be used for the same purpose. It would even create a better balance. The US can use cheap Mexican electricity during the day and expensive African electricity during the night (expensive due to long submarinal cables).
Yep, I'm sure the US will be more than happy to depend on Mexico and Africa for 100% of their electricity.
2. You could use (part of) the solar energy to create fuels [sciencecodex.com], which you can burn during the night
Given the efficiency of the conversion process, you'd need .... what ... 4 times the number of panels that was originally quoted? Actually, factor in transportation costs and we're probably talking more like 6 times. So now we're covering 12% of the sahara, and hiring tens of millions of Africans to walk around wiping sand off of them.
My concern about nuclear is that its pretty expensive. Projects done in the US can come to $9000 per kW, while wind at the outside, after factoring in efficiencies, lands around the $3000 per kW mark.
I'd question those figures, but let's say you're right. You're still comparing peak energy output, which is kinda dishonest given the disparity in service life between nuclear plants and windmills. A nuke plant is expected to operate for at least 40 years, and some have been licensed for as long as 60 years. A windmill lasts maybe 20 years, assuming it doesn't self destruct earlier in it's life-cycle. So even given your figures, the costs are comparable - and the wikipedia page you linked to quotes much lower figures for nuke plants.