Sure, but how many of your 40+ employees can key data at over 100 WPM, carry on six different converations at once (and keep them separated), and perform a rather wide variety of small jobs under rapidly changing circumstances -- and do it well
1. Keying in data at 100 WPM is useless if they drp karakters and fsck up speling. 2. Most teenagers don't seem to be able to hold even one conversation of any substance, let alone 6. 3. Getting them to do ANY job usually involves wads of money in one hand, and a tazer in the other. Never mind changing circumstances, I'd just like to see one load a dishwasher without screwing it up having to be supervised.
How many of them will self-organize into groups to tackle a problem without formal leadership?
And because I've never proposed anything like appeasement?
You could have fooled me. I could have sworn that you keep claiming that negotiating with fanatics who are trying to kill us is better than just killing them first.
If you want to think that security advice constitutes victim-blaming, go ahead, but it's far from anything I've meant, said, or implied.
Fair enough.
Simple. You figure out what they actually want, that they're willing to destroy themselves to get it.
Please. Don't be naive. I know that having been raised in a liberal western society tends to make it difficult for you to understand that real fanaticism does exist. Nonetheless, you need to realize that when these people say that they'll gladly embrace death in order to destroy or subjugate us, they fucking mean it. The 19 hijackers didn't fly airliners into the WTC because they were poor, or oppressed, or uneducated, or worried about taking down the Saudi monarchy. They did it because they've been brainwashed for decades to believe that America is evil, and that anyone who kills Americans gets to go to heaven. The fact that they were wealthy, educated, relatively intelligent men who spent much of their lives living in a liberal society only makes the ultimate facts all the more troubling. That is the face of religious fanaticism. It has nothing to do with logic. It cannot be reasoned or negotiated with. It can only be destroyed through force.
It's the presence of Americans as a convenient target that bands together the different factions we're fighting; if we stepped back, they'd just fight each other, and we'd be rid of the lot... It is very rare that those aims are genocidal; in the cases you're citing, they are not.
Genocide, world domination, whatever you want to call it, I don't care. If you think that Osama and his ilk would be happy with controlling only the middle east, you really ARE naive, and you obviously haven't been listening to them.
Even if that were the case, though, why in the world would we WANT to abandon the middle east to such thugs? What gave them the RIGHT to dictate our actions?
Once again you're advocating appeasement. It's as if I told you that if you ever post on slashdot again, I'll come over and beat you into a coma... and instead of standing up for your rights and your desires, you simply tucked tail and never showed up here again. That's cowardice of the worst kind. How can you repeatedly claim that you're not advocating appeasement, while simultaneously arguing that we should allow threats from thugs to guide where and how we do business?
The PLA has always had very well-defined goals (not the destruction of Israel, whatever Israeli propaganda says), which Israel has consistently thought were too much to be accepted (no matter how much the PLA bent).
lol. Yeah, those dumb Jews don't want to accept becoming a Muslim state. Silly buggers. After all, they get treated so well in the rest of the middle east. What are they afraid of?
Because the last time I saw anyone play the "appeasement" card... talking about how Saddam Hussein had to go because "the days of appeasement ended with 9/11"
Yah, I'm sure that Saddam felt very appeased after having thousands of cruise missiles hurled at him by Clinton:)
maybe the inappropriate WWII comparison was just an inappropriate WWII comparison.
The comparison was appropriate because it was aimed at YOU. I don't know how you could have read a sentence in which I call you "Mr. Chamberlain", and somehow decided that I was accusing the US government of appeasement.
Unless... Obama? Is that you?
Someone stealing your wallet is not a "legitimate" response to you leaving it lying around on a park bench, but that doesn't stop me from understanding how it might get stolen and recommending that you reconsider your wallet strategy.
That's true as far as it goes, but that sort of blame-the-victim mentality is exactly the kind of nonsense which Islamic fundamentalists use to justify the Burqa, and which men have historically used to justify rape.
If you really mean what you said, you should be more careful how you phrase your argument or people get the wrong idea. Same as if you suggested that maybe women shouldn't get dressed up in short skirts, get drunk, and then walk home alone at 2 am. Yeah, you'd be making a valid point, but it would be a good idea to preface it with a disclaimer.
If you want to live in peace, you have to compromise and negotiate earnestly, even when you think you're strong enough to get whatever you want while giving up nothing.
Ok Mr. Chamberlain:)
Seriously, while negotiations and compromises have their place, they are not a panacea and they're mostly ineffective against the stated goals of the organizations which we're facing. Not only would it be morally repugnant to negotiate with theistic fanatics who see nothing wrong with the butchery of women and children, but it would be unproductive as well. When the stated purpose of an organization is the destruction of your way of life, there is nothing you can say to sway them, especially when they've managed to convince themselves that they have a mandate from Magic Man In The Sky. The Israel/Palestine bitch-fight is a prime example of this. One side has the power to destroy the other... but can't. The other side has the power to end the conflict... but won't.
How do you negotiate with people who are willing to destroy themselves in order to destroy you?
Figure that one out and you'll have eliminated 90% of the worlds problems. Let me know when you have something, 'k?:)
... I think Tesla's approach of working down from the high end makes more sense than the other way around, simply due to economics of developing groundbreaking products.
I agree completely, but it still doesn't change anything.
Probably not soon - but then, they don't have to be. At $4/gallon... 150,000 miles is $25,000. I repeat, 25 thousand dollars difference.
Except that within those 150,000 miles you'll probably have to replace the battery pack at least once, probably twice, and possibly 3 times. The replacement cost for a Tesla battery pack is estimated at $20,000. I repeat, twenty thousand dollars. Assume the price goes down and your second battery change only costs $10,000, you're still paying an extra $30k during the lifetime of the car.
To be fair, you'd probably save almost $2,000 on oil changes alone, and the added simplicity of the drive-train means less possible failure points (although their insistence on adding a 2-speed transmission to the roadster eliminates what could have been a big advantage). So you might save, say $10k in repair and maintenance costs. Subtract that from the $30k we spent on batteries earlier, and you're down to $20k, which pretty much eliminates any money you may have saved through lower fuel costs.
What do all the other $50K sedans have over it? It sure looks [supergreencar.com] like a $50K sedan.
You're basing your argument on it's outward appearance? Isn't that rather shallow/naive?
It's main disadvantage is, of course, it's limited range. While it's fine for most uses, it would still force me to make alternate travel arrangements at least 2-3 times per year. Another issue may be the life-span/replacement cost of the battery packs, although I suspect it wouldn't be a big issue. Other than that, AFAIK there is nothing about this vehicle which would make it inferior to "other $50k sedans", but that's irrelevant because you won't catch me shelling out that kind of cash for ANY car. I don't see a reason to pay such a large premium for, say, a Lexus, when I can get a similar vehicle for $20k less.
Now, if Tesla had managed to package the same technology in a frame that isn't too much smaller for a price under $30k, then yeah, I'd be all over it. Unfortunately it appears that at this point we still don't have a way to make this technology affordable for most people.
Given enough time, and economy of scale, it's quite possible that EV's may retail for prices which are competitive with comparable gasoline fueled vehicles. It might even happen within the next decade. None of that changes the fact that the technology isn't there NOW, let alone 10 years ago.
As far as I know, those estimates include development costs, but your point is valid - the figure being passed around as the MSRP was most likely quite a bit lower than the sticker price would have been.
Howso? I linked to an article that notes quite clearly that GM marketed and sold all-electric cars from 1996 to 1999.
Marketed.... ok, depending on your definition. Sold... definitely not, as the article you linked to clearly explains:
On December 5, 1996, GM began delivering the EV1s to its selection of carefully-screened lessees... Although the car could not be purchased outright, its MSRP was quoted at $34,000.
The economics of the EV-1 are hotly contested
In the same way that evolution is hotly contested - ignorant people make straw-men arguments and conspiracy-theories persistently raise their ugly heads, while people who actually know what they're talking about shake their heads in amazement.
Again, from the article:
According to Dennis Minano, then-GM Vice President for Energy and Environment, "Is it what our customer wants?"[11] GM was not alone in its denunciation of electric vehicles as a viable alternative to the gasoline car; according to Robert J. Eaton, then-chairman of Chrysler, "The question is whether the market is ready for the product... if the law is there, we'll meet it... at this point of time, nobody can forecast that we can make [an electric car].
None of the automakers expected to create a viable electric vehicle by the set deadline, but they had no choice other than to try. If the EV1 had not been scrapped, it's possible that it may have found a niche-market, kinda like the Segway. Whether such a low level of sales would have been enough to justify development costs is debatable. Either way, it's clear that EV's weren't ready for mainstream use in the 90's - they didn't have the range, they cost too much, and they took much too long to recharge.
Hell, Tesla Motors is having problems making pure electric vehicles TODAY for mainstream use, and they have the advantage of better technology in general, and much better battery technology in particular. I like the idea of buying their sedan once it becomes available, but I'm not a big fan of forking over $50,000 for it. And their financial figures reflect the difficulty of the project - if the government hadn't bailed them out with $400 million, it's likely that the company would have folded.
It says absolutely nothing to validate the argument you were attempting to make.
Look at conclusion, last paragraph - it is enough to claim "necessity" to provide justification for about any treatment, event that prohibited by Convention Against Torture.
Yes, and?
I can claim that necessity caused me to run over my neighbor and her baby 6 times with a steamroller, but that doesn't mean any jury will believe me. The defense has to be a reasonable one. And, AGAIN, this has nothing to do with Abu Gharib.
Part of the quote you removed states: "They shall also be granted the full rights and privileges of a protected person..."
Fair enough.
Besides you are setting up a strawman here. No matter if they "have rights" or "should be treated humanely" these rules were broken.
And you follow up your one coherent statement with something deserving of multiple facepalms.
Once again, until you show that what happened in Abu Gharib is US policy, you have no case.
Do soldiers from UK and other countries that got dragged into this mess by USA are covered by the convention?
No, because terrorist groups aren't signatory to geneva conventions. Otherwise yes, because they're part of the official military forces of signatory nations.
What about hordes of mercenaries from companies like Blackwater?
What about them? What does any of this have to do with whether or not terrorists are covered by the conventions?
Not really. It just changed into guerilla war
No, it turned into a civil war/power struggle, with the US stuck in the middle. The various factions have more interest in fighting each other and the central government than they do in fighting against US soldiers. Just look at the death toll if you have any doubt about that.
"Iraqi police officers"? Guess what French guerillas were doing to Vichy collaborators during WWII. And they are considered national heros nowadays.
You know, statements like these are so out of touch with reality that they literally leave me speechless.
You're comparing the German invasion of France - in which they plundered food, starved civilians, and forced hundreds of thousands of men to work in "labour camps" - to US efforts in Iraq, which at this point primarily consist of rebuilding their infrastructure, sending in tonnes of aid, encouraging free elections, and attempting to leave as quickly as is reasonable. If you consider that to be a valid comparison, then you are a fool, and you need not respond any further.
Oh, a moron who thinks that all disagreements are trolls. How quaint.
With regard to the Middle East, we Americans have appeased no one (except possibly the Saud family). To claim otherwise is massively ignorant.
Quite right. Why would you bring this up? I'm certainly not accusing the US of having a policy of appeasement. Do you just speak in order to hear yourself talk?
What part of all this do you disagree with?
The part where you accept the deliberate slaughter of women and children as a legitimate response to "asymmetric diplomacy". And the part where you imply that it would be a good thing for us cooperate "under a relative balance of power" with people like Kim Jong Il and Osama Bin Laden.
Why is that a disturbing example? The treatment of children within the US is countless times better than the treatment of children in many of the signatory states.
What's really disturbing here is that there are people on slashdot who are shallow enough to demonize the US for not signing a silly agreement, while ignoring the fact that the agreement is not being enforced in states which HAVE signed it.
Do you consider general Taguba, who conducted investigation of Abu Ghraib valid source?
His reliability is irrelevant, because the argument which you created based on his testimony is a red herring. The question wasn't whether every single American citizen conducts himself in accordance with international treaties - the question was about policy.
Most relevant here is article 5, talking about spies and saboteurs... Seems pretty clear, doesn't it?
Well, first off, it doesn't say that they have any rights, only that they should be treated humanely. It doesn't promise them a trial, either, it just talks about how trials should be conducted if we decide to have them.
In addition to that, this section only deals with captured locals. If you capture, say, a Syrian fighting in Iraq, this section doesn't apply to him.
Also, the argument could easily be made that a good percentage of the fighters are mercenaries, in which case the conventions don't apply to them at all.
Lastly, the conventions are hopelessly outmoded. Personally I think they need to be scrapped and either rewritten or abandoned entirely. But that's just a personal opinion, and doesn't have any bearing on this discussion.
Like Iraq which ratified it in 1956?
Who's fighting Iraq? The American war against Iraq lasted a few weeks - a couple months at most. That should have been made obvious by the fact that the militants keep blowing up Iraqi police officers, soldiers, and government officials, in addition to torturing and subjugating civilians. Again, this is a situation which the conventions fail to address.
But even so, this kind of weapon is pushing the limits of the treaties the US has signed. The first time this weapon is deployed against personnel, instead of against vehicles or buildings, there would be a case to be made that we've committed a war crime.
Yeah, I could see that - "Your honour, we would like to present evidence that, for the.05 nanoseconds before he was atomized, Mr. Hussein was blinded by the Evil Crusader Laser Of Doom".
Who, other than a retarded hippie and, perhaps, Al-Jazeera, would make such an argument?
What in the world does the inverse square law have to do with it? It's not like you have to make your receiver the same size as your transmitter - if the beam starts off with a diameter of n, and arrives at the surface with a diameter of 10n, you just make your receiver 10 times bigger.
Microwave transmission is a well understood technology - if you're really this confused, I suggest reading up on it. The project may very well turn out to be a failure, but it certainly won't be due to the inverse square law!
Yep, I get it - you have no idea what you're talking about.
A radio station broadcast isn't directional, and it's not focused. You're comparing a bullet to a grenade. Fire a laser beam across the same distance and measure the energy received at the other end, then see what kind of loss rates you have.
those who understand physics know you cannot just "beam power" over 22000 miles without major, major, major losses of that power
Really? How major is major major major? Like really major, or kinda major, or rather minor? Got some figures for us? If you consider 20% to be major, then ok, I'll agree with your claim while disagreeing with your use of the word "major". If you're talking 50%+ then please provide some documentation for your claim.
You forgot to mention that the reactor was a "research reactor" - where they were learning about the technology.
Yuhuh. And what would you call the first ever space-based solar power plant? Do you really think that the entire $20 billion is construction and launch costs?
So, while the Japanese have shown themselves to be quite efficient, in many things, why do you presume to compare apples to oranges and that which actually was (and is in other nuclear power plants) to what which is not yet (and might not ever be)?
Because some silly buggers were undoubtedly making the same complaints about the EBR-I:
"Gee, $5 million to power a measly 50 houses? What a waste!".
While such a complaint may have seemed rational to the people making it, anyone with an ounce of foresight would have laughed at it, and with 60 years of hindsight we can easily dismiss it. Yet you seem to have no problem raising an identical complaint about new projects. How can you justify dismissing an entirely new field of development based purely on the high costs for the initial prototype? Don't you realize how silly that is? At least see if you can find the projected figures for future installations, and make your complaints based on that.
Or we could just say "Who gives a shit about 11 centimeters?". Sea-levels rise higher than that every time Rosie O'Donnell goes for a swim. Plus warmer temperatures mean that we could actually start using all that land in Canada, instead of clustering the entire population along the US border. I LIKE the idea of warming, and I try to do my part: tomorrow I'm racing the heater against the air-conditioner to see which one wins.
It still seems foolish. The light might be better in space, but the losses incurred trying to move it from there to here eat-up any advantages. In the end you'd get more light from your rooftop.
Got any math to back up that opinion? If we account for darkness and weather, you're guaranteed to get at least twice as much total sunlight in space. Account for atmospheric distortion and you get further efficiency. Do you have any data which shows that half of the energy produced would be lost in transmission?
What is "promising" about costing $71,428.57 per home in this technology?
The project to build the first nuclear reactor cost about 5.2 million in 1950's dollars, which is about $43 million today. It produced 200 kw of electricity. That's enough to power about 58 houses. So, doing the math, it cost about $742,000 per house - ten times more than the Japanese project. Just goes to show that the Japanese really ARE more efficient than Americans:)
Slashdot Mirror
Eh?
"What's your name, sir?"
"STOP INTIMIDATING ME!!!"
Man, you must be a complete pussy.
1. Keying in data at 100 WPM is useless if they drp karakters and fsck up speling.
2. Most teenagers don't seem to be able to hold even one conversation of any substance, let alone 6.
3. Getting them to do ANY job usually involves wads of money in one hand, and a tazer in the other. Never mind changing circumstances, I'd just like to see one load a dishwasher without screwing it up having to be supervised.
Hah. Organized teens. That's funny.
Cool! I save 250 galons per megabyte!
You could have fooled me. I could have sworn that you keep claiming that negotiating with fanatics who are trying to kill us is better than just killing them first.
Fair enough.
Please. Don't be naive. I know that having been raised in a liberal western society tends to make it difficult for you to understand that real fanaticism does exist. Nonetheless, you need to realize that when these people say that they'll gladly embrace death in order to destroy or subjugate us, they fucking mean it. The 19 hijackers didn't fly airliners into the WTC because they were poor, or oppressed, or uneducated, or worried about taking down the Saudi monarchy. They did it because they've been brainwashed for decades to believe that America is evil, and that anyone who kills Americans gets to go to heaven. The fact that they were wealthy, educated, relatively intelligent men who spent much of their lives living in a liberal society only makes the ultimate facts all the more troubling. That is the face of religious fanaticism. It has nothing to do with logic. It cannot be reasoned or negotiated with. It can only be destroyed through force.
Genocide, world domination, whatever you want to call it, I don't care. If you think that Osama and his ilk would be happy with controlling only the middle east, you really ARE naive, and you obviously haven't been listening to them.
Even if that were the case, though, why in the world would we WANT to abandon the middle east to such thugs? What gave them the RIGHT to dictate our actions?
Once again you're advocating appeasement. It's as if I told you that if you ever post on slashdot again, I'll come over and beat you into a coma ... and instead of standing up for your rights and your desires, you simply tucked tail and never showed up here again. That's cowardice of the worst kind. How can you repeatedly claim that you're not advocating appeasement, while simultaneously arguing that we should allow threats from thugs to guide where and how we do business?
lol. Yeah, those dumb Jews don't want to accept becoming a Muslim state. Silly buggers. After all, they get treated so well in the rest of the middle east. What are they afraid of?
Yah, I'm sure that Saddam felt very appeased after having thousands of cruise missiles hurled at him by Clinton :)
The comparison was appropriate because it was aimed at YOU. I don't know how you could have read a sentence in which I call you "Mr. Chamberlain", and somehow decided that I was accusing the US government of appeasement.
Unless ... Obama? Is that you?
That's true as far as it goes, but that sort of blame-the-victim mentality is exactly the kind of nonsense which Islamic fundamentalists use to justify the Burqa, and which men have historically used to justify rape.
If you really mean what you said, you should be more careful how you phrase your argument or people get the wrong idea. Same as if you suggested that maybe women shouldn't get dressed up in short skirts, get drunk, and then walk home alone at 2 am. Yeah, you'd be making a valid point, but it would be a good idea to preface it with a disclaimer.
Ok Mr. Chamberlain :)
Seriously, while negotiations and compromises have their place, they are not a panacea and they're mostly ineffective against the stated goals of the organizations which we're facing. Not only would it be morally repugnant to negotiate with theistic fanatics who see nothing wrong with the butchery of women and children, but it would be unproductive as well. When the stated purpose of an organization is the destruction of your way of life, there is nothing you can say to sway them, especially when they've managed to convince themselves that they have a mandate from Magic Man In The Sky. The Israel/Palestine bitch-fight is a prime example of this. One side has the power to destroy the other ... but can't. The other side has the power to end the conflict ... but won't.
How do you negotiate with people who are willing to destroy themselves in order to destroy you?
Figure that one out and you'll have eliminated 90% of the worlds problems. Let me know when you have something, 'k? :)
I agree completely, but it still doesn't change anything.
Except that within those 150,000 miles you'll probably have to replace the battery pack at least once, probably twice, and possibly 3 times. The replacement cost for a Tesla battery pack is estimated at $20,000. I repeat, twenty thousand dollars. Assume the price goes down and your second battery change only costs $10,000, you're still paying an extra $30k during the lifetime of the car.
To be fair, you'd probably save almost $2,000 on oil changes alone, and the added simplicity of the drive-train means less possible failure points (although their insistence on adding a 2-speed transmission to the roadster eliminates what could have been a big advantage). So you might save, say $10k in repair and maintenance costs. Subtract that from the $30k we spent on batteries earlier, and you're down to $20k, which pretty much eliminates any money you may have saved through lower fuel costs.
You're basing your argument on it's outward appearance? Isn't that rather shallow/naive?
It's main disadvantage is, of course, it's limited range. While it's fine for most uses, it would still force me to make alternate travel arrangements at least 2-3 times per year. Another issue may be the life-span/replacement cost of the battery packs, although I suspect it wouldn't be a big issue. Other than that, AFAIK there is nothing about this vehicle which would make it inferior to "other $50k sedans", but that's irrelevant because you won't catch me shelling out that kind of cash for ANY car. I don't see a reason to pay such a large premium for, say, a Lexus, when I can get a similar vehicle for $20k less.
Now, if Tesla had managed to package the same technology in a frame that isn't too much smaller for a price under $30k, then yeah, I'd be all over it. Unfortunately it appears that at this point we still don't have a way to make this technology affordable for most people.
Given enough time, and economy of scale, it's quite possible that EV's may retail for prices which are competitive with comparable gasoline fueled vehicles. It might even happen within the next decade. None of that changes the fact that the technology isn't there NOW, let alone 10 years ago.
As far as I know, those estimates include development costs, but your point is valid - the figure being passed around as the MSRP was most likely quite a bit lower than the sticker price would have been.
Marketed .... ok, depending on your definition. Sold ... definitely not, as the article you linked to clearly explains:
On December 5, 1996, GM began delivering the EV1s to its selection of carefully-screened lessees ... Although the car could not be purchased outright, its MSRP was quoted at $34,000.
In the same way that evolution is hotly contested - ignorant people make straw-men arguments and conspiracy-theories persistently raise their ugly heads, while people who actually know what they're talking about shake their heads in amazement.
Again, from the article:
According to Dennis Minano, then-GM Vice President for Energy and Environment, "Is it what our customer wants?"[11] GM was not alone in its denunciation of electric vehicles as a viable alternative to the gasoline car; according to Robert J. Eaton, then-chairman of Chrysler, "The question is whether the market is ready for the product... if the law is there, we'll meet it... at this point of time, nobody can forecast that we can make [an electric car].
None of the automakers expected to create a viable electric vehicle by the set deadline, but they had no choice other than to try. If the EV1 had not been scrapped, it's possible that it may have found a niche-market, kinda like the Segway. Whether such a low level of sales would have been enough to justify development costs is debatable. Either way, it's clear that EV's weren't ready for mainstream use in the 90's - they didn't have the range, they cost too much, and they took much too long to recharge.
Hell, Tesla Motors is having problems making pure electric vehicles TODAY for mainstream use, and they have the advantage of better technology in general, and much better battery technology in particular. I like the idea of buying their sedan once it becomes available, but I'm not a big fan of forking over $50,000 for it. And their financial figures reflect the difficulty of the project - if the government hadn't bailed them out with $400 million, it's likely that the company would have folded.
It says absolutely nothing to validate the argument you were attempting to make.
Yes, and?
I can claim that necessity caused me to run over my neighbor and her baby 6 times with a steamroller, but that doesn't mean any jury will believe me. The defense has to be a reasonable one. And, AGAIN, this has nothing to do with Abu Gharib.
Fair enough.
And you follow up your one coherent statement with something deserving of multiple facepalms.
Once again, until you show that what happened in Abu Gharib is US policy, you have no case.
No, because terrorist groups aren't signatory to geneva conventions. Otherwise yes, because they're part of the official military forces of signatory nations.
What about them? What does any of this have to do with whether or not terrorists are covered by the conventions?
No, it turned into a civil war/power struggle, with the US stuck in the middle. The various factions have more interest in fighting each other and the central government than they do in fighting against US soldiers. Just look at the death toll if you have any doubt about that.
You know, statements like these are so out of touch with reality that they literally leave me speechless.
You're comparing the German invasion of France - in which they plundered food, starved civilians, and forced hundreds of thousands of men to work in "labour camps" - to US efforts in Iraq, which at this point primarily consist of rebuilding their infrastructure, sending in tonnes of aid, encouraging free elections, and attempting to leave as quickly as is reasonable. If you consider that to be a valid comparison, then you are a fool, and you need not respond any further.
Oh, a moron who thinks that all disagreements are trolls. How quaint.
Quite right. Why would you bring this up? I'm certainly not accusing the US of having a policy of appeasement. Do you just speak in order to hear yourself talk?
The part where you accept the deliberate slaughter of women and children as a legitimate response to "asymmetric diplomacy". And the part where you imply that it would be a good thing for us cooperate "under a relative balance of power" with people like Kim Jong Il and Osama Bin Laden.
So you link to an article which confirms his claim, and label it "false"? In what universe does THAT make sense?
Why is that a disturbing example? The treatment of children within the US is countless times better than the treatment of children in many of the signatory states.
What's really disturbing here is that there are people on slashdot who are shallow enough to demonize the US for not signing a silly agreement, while ignoring the fact that the agreement is not being enforced in states which HAVE signed it.
Beautiful response. Mod up!
His reliability is irrelevant, because the argument which you created based on his testimony is a red herring. The question wasn't whether every single American citizen conducts himself in accordance with international treaties - the question was about policy.
Well, first off, it doesn't say that they have any rights, only that they should be treated humanely. It doesn't promise them a trial, either, it just talks about how trials should be conducted if we decide to have them.
In addition to that, this section only deals with captured locals. If you capture, say, a Syrian fighting in Iraq, this section doesn't apply to him.
Also, the argument could easily be made that a good percentage of the fighters are mercenaries, in which case the conventions don't apply to them at all.
Lastly, the conventions are hopelessly outmoded. Personally I think they need to be scrapped and either rewritten or abandoned entirely. But that's just a personal opinion, and doesn't have any bearing on this discussion.
Who's fighting Iraq? The American war against Iraq lasted a few weeks - a couple months at most. That should have been made obvious by the fact that the militants keep blowing up Iraqi police officers, soldiers, and government officials, in addition to torturing and subjugating civilians. Again, this is a situation which the conventions fail to address.
Your comments are always so insightful, Mr. Chamberlain!
Yeah, I could see that - "Your honour, we would like to present evidence that, for the .05 nanoseconds before he was atomized, Mr. Hussein was blinded by the Evil Crusader Laser Of Doom".
Who, other than a retarded hippie and, perhaps, Al-Jazeera, would make such an argument?
What in the world does the inverse square law have to do with it? It's not like you have to make your receiver the same size as your transmitter - if the beam starts off with a diameter of n, and arrives at the surface with a diameter of 10n, you just make your receiver 10 times bigger.
Microwave transmission is a well understood technology - if you're really this confused, I suggest reading up on it. The project may very well turn out to be a failure, but it certainly won't be due to the inverse square law!
Yep, I get it - you have no idea what you're talking about.
A radio station broadcast isn't directional, and it's not focused. You're comparing a bullet to a grenade. Fire a laser beam across the same distance and measure the energy received at the other end, then see what kind of loss rates you have.
Really? How major is major major major? Like really major, or kinda major, or rather minor? Got some figures for us? If you consider 20% to be major, then ok, I'll agree with your claim while disagreeing with your use of the word "major". If you're talking 50%+ then please provide some documentation for your claim.
Yuhuh. And what would you call the first ever space-based solar power plant? Do you really think that the entire $20 billion is construction and launch costs?
Because some silly buggers were undoubtedly making the same complaints about the EBR-I:
"Gee, $5 million to power a measly 50 houses? What a waste!".
While such a complaint may have seemed rational to the people making it, anyone with an ounce of foresight would have laughed at it, and with 60 years of hindsight we can easily dismiss it. Yet you seem to have no problem raising an identical complaint about new projects. How can you justify dismissing an entirely new field of development based purely on the high costs for the initial prototype? Don't you realize how silly that is? At least see if you can find the projected figures for future installations, and make your complaints based on that.
Ok, so worst case scenario, 5 guys in the extreme north may have to take off their parkas. Oh no! It's a disaster of global proportions!
Or we could just say "Who gives a shit about 11 centimeters?". Sea-levels rise higher than that every time Rosie O'Donnell goes for a swim.
Plus warmer temperatures mean that we could actually start using all that land in Canada, instead of clustering the entire population along the US border. I LIKE the idea of warming, and I try to do my part: tomorrow I'm racing the heater against the air-conditioner to see which one wins.
Got any math to back up that opinion? If we account for darkness and weather, you're guaranteed to get at least twice as much total sunlight in space. Account for atmospheric distortion and you get further efficiency. Do you have any data which shows that half of the energy produced would be lost in transmission?
The project to build the first nuclear reactor cost about 5.2 million in 1950's dollars, which is about $43 million today. It produced 200 kw of electricity. That's enough to power about 58 houses. So, doing the math, it cost about $742,000 per house - ten times more than the Japanese project. Just goes to show that the Japanese really ARE more efficient than Americans :)