maybe you should actually look into some climate research.
Some Scientists be believe that one of the effects of warmer global temperatures could be more and stronger hurricanes.
That's not exactly unequivocal language... Believe...could be...
This is one effect that may be caused by global warming. There are other effects that Might be caused by global warming including:
* more drought
* more floods
* desertification
* loss of productive farm land
* more extreme weather changes in local areas
So basically, no matter what happens, more or less moisture, any weather out of the "ordinary" (for a suitably loose definition of "ordinary") you can blame it on global warming and use it to support the theory? That's great, if you can get people to buy into it. Reminds me of tossing a coin - heads I win, tails you lose.
You also forgot to mention that some studies suggest that more C02 and warmer temperatures result in longer and more productive growing seasons and a net increase in food production. Oh wait, a plus side to "global warming?" We can't publicize that...;-)
All of these effects are predictions of what might happen because of global warming based largely on data and simulation. Some effects are more widely accepted then other effects.
Simulations cannot prove anything. You know and can predict that putting X amount of energy into a given mass of water will raise its temperature by some amount. You know that from empirical tests and real science. Simulations of complex systems such as the global climate models can't even accurately predict the next El Nino event or two or three, let alone complex interactions of all the elements and factors that go into climate over the next 100 years. Different models predict different outcomes, and all are sensitive to a number of input criteria, weighting factors, etc. What you end up with is an educated guess, running monte-carlo simulations and taking what looks like the best or most likely outcome. But it is an estimate of what could happen, not a proof of what will happen. The real "inconvenient truth" is that we simply don't know enough to know what is going on - yet.
but what is OBVIOUS is that
1. we now have more carbon in the atmosphere then at any time in well a really long time.
2. CO2 is a green house gas
3. Global temperatures are starting to go up
Yes, but man's output of C02 into the atmosphere accounts for something like just under 2% of the total CO2 put into the atmosphere. Even if we stopped all our emissions, it wouldn't be but a drop in the bucket.
Global temperatures are not starting to go up, they have been going up for 6000 years - since the last ice age. There is some debate on if the global temps are really going up. You see, most of the temperature reporting stations have upgraded equipment over the last century - no longer Uncle Joe reading the mercury every day and writing it in his notebook. Unfortunately, many of the stations have been overtaken by rural land use changes (farm fields are hotter than forest), or urbanization (cities are hotter than country). So in order to "back out" these localized effects on the temp data "corrections" are applied to the data based on land use, population densities, etc. The problem is, these corrections are typically more than an order of magnitude greater than the "trend" we're looking for in the data! So how do you know there is a 0.3 degree trend/rise over the last 50 years if you've applied a graduated -6.0 degree correction? What if the correction is wrong or off just a little, or the graduation scale is off? You can adjust your corrections and "prove" to yourself we're going to bake-out in a decade, or that we're heading into another ice-age. Finally, if global warming really is happening, and is a global phenomenon,
The problem with this statement is, people assume consensus means all, nearly all, or even most. When in fact it is not necessarily the case. People use fuzzy terms like consensus when they need to gloss over some weak points in their arguments. Consensus automatically minimizes counter viewpoints as non-mainstream and minority. Remember, there once was a consensus the Earth was flat, and that there were witches in Salem. Even if the consensus is the majority, that doesn't magically impart or even imply correctness.
...or, to put it another way, everyone with the equipment to validate the evidence has done so.
Not as much money as the vested interests (*cough*Oil and motor industries for a start*cough*) in the status quo make from the status quo.
Do you think the scientists and researchers that happen to report results counter to your belief in global warming like having their honesty and integrity automatically called into question? Do you similarly say researchers that report results supporting global warming must be in the pockets of the big environmental interests? I'll grant you it is suspicious - on both sides - that the results of the research correlate so well with the interests that funded them. (both pro industry and pro environmental) I don't think either side is giving us completely fair, unbiased studies and results. I don't know if that is the fault of the researchers, the groups that set up the grants, the way it is reported, or what. But when we're talking about making decisions involving billions of dollars, affecting hundreds of millions of people, and the very environment we all live in, I'm not willing to accept even a little obvious bias - either way. I don't think legislators can reasonably nor in good conscious make informed decisions on this issue, yet. Not until there is a viable body of research results that are not so obviously biased either way. Or would you prefer our lawmakers go off on a tangent with known-bad information?
4. The scientist who wants to spread reflective dust into the atmosphere is also spreading BS. If it reflects, then it would reflect light back onto Earth, probably creating a greenhouse effect times ten.
Yes, because we all know that the Earth is a radiant body. Oh, wait...
I have to go off on a tangent here for a minute. This has to be, without a doubt the single dumbest idea I have ever heard in my life. I'd nominate it for one of the all-time stupidest ideas mankind has ever come up with. Why? Lets see:
First off, no-one is sure if global warming is really happening. Yes I know, there's a "consensus" - which means only that something more than one, scientist and/or group would like us to buy-in to the theory. Funny thing is, a lot of temperature records don't support it. Most of the temperature records have "corrections" applied to them to account for land-use changes, urbanization around temperature recording sites etc. Problem is, these corrections and factors are far, far larger than the alleged trends up (or down in many cases) observed in the long-term data. That means if we're wrong in our guesses as to the effects of population, urbanization, land use etc. we can bias the data up or down and prove either global warming or the coming of an ice age. Speaking of ice ages, if global warming is for real, why is Antarctica experiencing a net gain of 29 billion tons of ice per year? This from a C02 study group... See http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2ScienceB2C/ar ticles/V9/N45/C2.jsp But even if you believe in global warming, read on and you'll see why this is still the stupidest idea ever.
He/she has no idea what the long term, or even short term, effect(s) would be on our climate. Think I'm wrong, think they know what would happen? To estimate long term effect
If you've got Linux and MP3s, you've got to try amarok. I'd run Linux if for no other reason than that.;-)
For me the Vista "upgrade" decision is easy. No. Actually, h*ll no. I run Linux boxes. My token XP machines in the house (wife and kids) will stay XP until the kids outgrow their windows only games. Then they may become Suse or Red Hat machines. Wife actually could be running on Linux right now and she'd never know. Hmm, "Honey, can I see your laptop for a couple of hours?";-) Nah, I had better not...yet...
Back to Vista though. There is absolutely zero chance of me ever running Vista in my house. If/when I buy another system, if it comes pre-loaded with Vista (ie. I can't get a no-OS option or Linux option) it will be immediately upgraded to Linux.;-)
The other problem with "consensus" is that proponents of global warming use it to gloss over, diminish, ridicule, and flat-out ignore a lot of counter opinions and studies. Consensus does not mean correct! There was consensus that the earth was flat. There was a consensus that there were witches in Salem.
Global warming may very well be for real. The earth should be warming during an inter-glacial period. The questions really are: Is it warming? If so, is it warming too much? Further, if it is warming too much, is it our fault? If all this is true, are there any effective and practical measures we can take? Finally, should we even try to intentionally alter the climate, given our disastrous history with attempting to manage anything in the environment. (ie. if history is any judge, we're far more likely to screw things up worse)
Beats me, Open Office 2.0 on Linux does everything I want/need...
I think there is real trouble ahead for MS. Yesterday I was in a local Barnes & Noble bookstore and drifted into the computer book section. (grin, yeah, like that's news) What is noteworthy however is that there is more shelf space devoted to Linux books than there is to Windows books. That was an eye-opener for me.
For about $40 - $50 I could've walked out with any one of several complete distros on DVD including office apps, pointers to where to get just about anything else I might have wanted, and a book/tutorial on how to set it all up. If I were MS, that would scare the h*ll out of me.
The real question is not just why would anyone upgrade from XP to Vista and the new Office apps... But why would anyone spend literally hundreds of dollars upgrading their hardware and software when there is a much cheaper alternative? Sure, I'm stuck keeping one Windows box around for a couple of things that are windows only. (eg. my GPS map software) But otherwise, MS has nothing I want/need.
I always figured the Aussies to be straightforward, very practical and pragmatic people. This just goes to show they have nutjobs making some of their laws just as whacko as we do. I feel better already - misery loves company.
The minute they do this, someone else is going to point out the study just completed that shows the Antarctic ice sheet is growing... (to the tune of about 29G tons/year, that's a lot of ice!)
Then they'll want to tax us and spend it on studies and oddball schemes to induce warming to prevent an ice age. What I've come away from the last 30 years of "environmental study" and "environmental science" with is this. There's not enough useful studying going on, too much reliance on computer modeling and assumptions, and not really much science.
I didn't see any mention in the article that a match from the computer system would be admissible in court. It is just a tool for narrowing the suspect list down from "everyone but me" to maybe this one or more people from the database, to maybe someone not in the database...
Much as I like the slick interface and install of Suse 10.0... Given Novell's recent actions I'm thinking of going back to Red Hat... Got this Fedora Core DVD here...
That MS would turn around and slam the Open Source and Linux communities after making a slight gesture towards them. Anytime you see MS extend an olive branch, watch out. They probably have the rest of the olive tree in the other hand ready to club you over the head.
Funny though. You know MS must be worried when they start trying to put a little fear into their customer base. Just a thinly veiled threat that there might be legal / financial exposure down the road with "non MS" solutions/options. Boy, it must be so much fun to be a MS corporate user, having your primary IT solution threatening you! Sounds almost like a protection racket, doesn't it? "Stick with us, 'cause if you don't... Well, bad things might happen..."
As if I needed it, yet another reason I love Linux, Open Office, Firefox and Thunderbird == they're not from MS!
When I worked at IBM in 90s we had several clients that rebooted their servers once a quarter. A couple were asking for once a year reboots... Even then, they complained about a 45 min reboot cycle. That's roughly 99.966% uptime for the server. Just about all our operating system, application, even hardware updates had to be set up such that they could go into a running system without halting it. There are probably systems out there that would consider that downtime budget lavish...
I just thought the whole idea was funny. (funny as in laugh out loud, not odd-funny) Honestly, what is an article like that doing in Esquire? I don't read Esquire, and as I said, my impression is it is some kind of non-technical mens magazine focused more on image. ??? Can someone that does read Esquire regularly tell me what the real focus of the magazine is, and why they might be delving into defense related issues?
Global warming causes colder weather? Icebergs that don't melt are because of warming? Sure, there may be all kinds of complicated theories as to how this apparent contradiction comes about. Occam's razor though would point me towards "It's just colder. Global warming is just so much hot air!";-)
Every weapons system has a counter. If you want to dodge under the 'missile defense system', just don't use a missile. Deliver the payload in a Ryder truck. Reputedly, it worked in Oklahoma City with a fuel oil bomb. I'd imagine it'd work even better with a nuke...
Yes, just as our Missile Defense system is the counter to a threat set.
As for a Ryder truck being a viable alternative. Might work. I'd probably go U-Haul, aren't they air-ride equipped? Wouldn't want to bounce "the device" around too much.;-) Wasn't that a Clancy novel? No wait, that was a TV truck...;-) Anyway, seriously, that is a real threat. Hence the emphasis on improving border security, harbor security, screening and detection etc. But the missiles are also a real threat, and not just to us here at home. (ask Israel about short range rockets...) In the past several months both NK and Iran have test fired missiles. They continue to develop better, longer range missiles. That threat is equally real. I contend that realistically, there is absolutely nothing we can do to stop them from continuing their development. Consider, even when NK struck a deal with then President Clinton to halt nuclear development, they continued, just more secretively. Iran went back on its word and reopened its nuclear facilities.
Star Wars was a contractor's wet dream, tons of cash to develop science fiction weapons against a nonexistent and unproveable threat.
It is interesting work. But the systems are not sci-fi, they are real. So is the threat, or did you miss NK's little fourth of July fireworks show, and later the big bang?
You're right in that a ship-borne bomb is a very real possibility. Probably part of the reason Japan no-longer allows any NK shipping in any of its harbors. Although that may be a temporary tit-for-tat over their nuclear test.
But I have to disagree with you on the missiles. Both NK and Iran are pouring a lot of money into their programs, and willing to put up with a lot of international flak and pressure to stop, yet they aren't. You have to ask yourself, why? And you have to look at what they are working on - long range missiles. That tells you who they want to be able to threaten. Both countries already have short to medium range missiles, so if they feel threatened by their immediate neighbors they can respond in kind. There's really only one reason to develop long range missiles and nuclear weapons - to threaten people far off a city at a time. That would be us. The other thing to remember is that Missile Defense isn't just about defending the continental United States. Many of the systems under development or being deployed now can be, well, deployed. They can protect US citizens, interests, military forces, and allies overseas. Just ask the Israelis about defending themselves from short range rocket attack. I'll bet it is very high on their priority list after this past summer...
As for counting on them -- NK, Iran, or whoever they sell their missiles to -- to be rational, for MAD to work with them... I wouldn't bet the country, or even a city on it. Look at the 9/11 terrorists' organization. They attacked us so violently, with such intensity, that we could not help but respond militarily. Did they really think we would just say "Wow, guess we have to take these guys seriously and negotiate with them and their demands?" No, they couldn't be that delusional.
They knew, had to know, that by attacking us that way we would come after them. Yet they did it anyway. Is that rational? They were willing to trade an entire country away (well, ruling it) to strike one good blow against us. Do you doubt that such "leaders" would hesitate for a second to strike a nuclear blow against us with a long range missile if they were able? Sure, they'd know we would almost certainly respond in kind with a nuclear strike against their launch facility. To them and their kind, no big deal, just another sacrifice in their so-called Jihad against the west.
The really scary thought is, even if NK and Iran are the peace loving misunderstood victims here that they'd like us to believe...;-) They've demonstrated a willingness to sell or trade their technologies. In the abstract sense, I can see why they're doing it (but that's another long discussion). I don't think we can realistically prevent them from developing viable nuclear weapons and long range missiles. All I'm saying is we have to, have to be ready to counter them.
I can see it is pointless to try to have a real discussion with a zealot. Thanks for the laughs though. I could tell you exactly how well it works, doesn't work, and why. But it wouldn't be worth losing my job and getting arrested just to rub your face in it. So, sleep well under the blanket of our protection, even while you deny it exists.
Merely trying to put it in perspective. As in, if you think Missile Defense is expensive, it really isn't. Particularly when you compare it to what our enemies were capable of doing with a handful of airliners. A missile attack would be far far worse.
It is only a matter of time before our enemies have sophisticated missile technology. Several countries openly hostile towards us and our allies are actively pursuing missile and nuclear weapons development programs. Unless you advocate nearly immediate pre-emptive military attacks, nation-states hostile towards us, our policies, and our allies will develop long range nuclear equipped missiles.
Sure, that is nothing particularly new. We survived 50 some years of MAD with the former Soviet Union. However, the groups pursuing nuclear and missile technology today at their best are far less stable and rational than the leadership of the Soviet Union was, even at its worst.
I guarantee you the US will need a viable Missile Defense. Maybe sooner, maybe later. The problem is, once we need it, there will be no time to develop it. The time to develop and perfect a defensive system is before you need it. Taking judo lessons after you're mugged doesn't help.
If anyone believes North Korea and Iran are developing their missile and nuclear programs as interesting science projects... I've got this bridge outside Tucson...
I would suggest you refrain from making a baseless personal attacks on Generals and Corporations.
I never said anything about Iraq or Al-Qaeda. I don't claim any in-depth knowledge in those areas. When it comes to Missile Defense however, I do know what I'm talking about. Does your work email address end in @mda.mil? If not, I suggest you listen to people who do know. Diluting your argument with ad hominem attacks and other topics does not help your case.
Isn't that a Men's clothing magazine? Since when do we get technology information from Esquire? That's like going to Dr. Dobbs looking for a pie recipe or Car and Driver for gardening tips.
Not hardly, it works, and works a heck of a lot better than you might think from reading "mainstream media" accounts. Also note, it is less expensive than you might think. If you sum up all the $ spent on missile defense since the mid 1980s, it is just slightly over the amount the attacks on 9/11 cost this country's economy. In my book, that's cheap insurance against events that would be significantly more costly to the country than 4 airliners.
Also, Missile Defense is not the same as Reagan's "Star Wars." The real Missile Defense system is far more practical and pragmatic than the grand vision. Someday, yes, there will be a version of that vision. But the current Missile Defense system is firmly rooted in real-world technologies.
Where I work, we run a huge simulation in real-time. Right now, today, I could use every single cycle they have on their quad cores and more. Bring it on! Right now we have to reconfigure the simulation for highest fidelity but less than real-time, vs real-time at lower fidelity. Give me more cycles, more cores -- the sim is multiprocess -- and I can maybe, maybe go hi-fi and real-time. Of course, as soon as we have more CPU horsepower, we'll up the fidelity even more...
There are very few things you can do on Linux that you cannot do on a Windows system based on the NT architecture of today.
Several things spring to mind:
Run in relative safety without a virus scanner.
Copy and install my {insert favorite distro} on as many machines as I like/have. No licensing fees, no guilt.
Run a for-real OS on relatively resource constrained systems.
Yes, I know we could argue back and forth over the number, relative merits, and relative ease of use of the various things you can do with Windows vs Linux vs Mac OSX. I would just like to point out that we should all realize our favorite OSes, apps, and needs are not necessarily the number ones for someone else. For some people, Windows is the answer, for others, Macs, for some of us, Linux is the one. There is no one OS for everyone, and honestly, I hope there never is.
And do you know what the net effect of the treaty is estimated to be? If signed, and complied with, and if the computer models are correct, and if the assumptions about C02 effecting climate these models are based on are correct... Then Kyoto will reduce the temp 0.04 C in 100 years. Woo wee... It is nothing but a political stunt, not a real attempt to do anything but buy votes.
Excellent point. And as you mention, in a broader sense, for something as critical as crew evac... A redundant system or set of systems is just good design.
Slashdot Mirror
Some Scientists be believe that one of the effects of warmer global temperatures could be more and stronger hurricanes.
That's not exactly unequivocal language... Believe...could be...
This is one effect that may be caused by global warming. There are other effects that Might be caused by global warming including :
* more drought
* more floods
* desertification
* loss of productive farm land
* more extreme weather changes in local areas
So basically, no matter what happens, more or less moisture, any weather out of the "ordinary" (for a suitably loose definition of "ordinary") you can blame it on global warming and use it to support the theory? That's great, if you can get people to buy into it. Reminds me of tossing a coin - heads I win, tails you lose.
You also forgot to mention that some studies suggest that more C02 and warmer temperatures result in longer and more productive growing seasons and a net increase in food production. Oh wait, a plus side to "global warming?" We can't publicize that... ;-)
All of these effects are predictions of what might happen because of global warming based largely on data and simulation. Some effects are more widely accepted then other effects.
Simulations cannot prove anything. You know and can predict that putting X amount of energy into a given mass of water will raise its temperature by some amount. You know that from empirical tests and real science. Simulations of complex systems such as the global climate models can't even accurately predict the next El Nino event or two or three, let alone complex interactions of all the elements and factors that go into climate over the next 100 years. Different models predict different outcomes, and all are sensitive to a number of input criteria, weighting factors, etc. What you end up with is an educated guess, running monte-carlo simulations and taking what looks like the best or most likely outcome. But it is an estimate of what could happen, not a proof of what will happen. The real "inconvenient truth" is that we simply don't know enough to know what is going on - yet.
but what is OBVIOUS is that
1. we now have more carbon in the atmosphere then at any time in well a really long time.
2. CO2 is a green house gas
3. Global temperatures are starting to go up
Yes, but man's output of C02 into the atmosphere accounts for something like just under 2% of the total CO2 put into the atmosphere. Even if we stopped all our emissions, it wouldn't be but a drop in the bucket.
Global temperatures are not starting to go up, they have been going up for 6000 years - since the last ice age. There is some debate on if the global temps are really going up. You see, most of the temperature reporting stations have upgraded equipment over the last century - no longer Uncle Joe reading the mercury every day and writing it in his notebook. Unfortunately, many of the stations have been overtaken by rural land use changes (farm fields are hotter than forest), or urbanization (cities are hotter than country). So in order to "back out" these localized effects on the temp data "corrections" are applied to the data based on land use, population densities, etc. The problem is, these corrections are typically more than an order of magnitude greater than the "trend" we're looking for in the data! So how do you know there is a 0.3 degree trend/rise over the last 50 years if you've applied a graduated -6.0 degree correction? What if the correction is wrong or off just a little, or the graduation scale is off? You can adjust your corrections and "prove" to yourself we're going to bake-out in a decade, or that we're heading into another ice-age. Finally, if global warming really is happening, and is a global phenomenon,
Sounds like a consensus of researchers to me...
The problem with this statement is, people assume consensus means all, nearly all, or even most. When in fact it is not necessarily the case. People use fuzzy terms like consensus when they need to gloss over some weak points in their arguments. Consensus automatically minimizes counter viewpoints as non-mainstream and minority. Remember, there once was a consensus the Earth was flat, and that there were witches in Salem. Even if the consensus is the majority, that doesn't magically impart or even imply correctness.
Do you think the scientists and researchers that happen to report results counter to your belief in global warming like having their honesty and integrity automatically called into question? Do you similarly say researchers that report results supporting global warming must be in the pockets of the big environmental interests? I'll grant you it is suspicious - on both sides - that the results of the research correlate so well with the interests that funded them. (both pro industry and pro environmental) I don't think either side is giving us completely fair, unbiased studies and results. I don't know if that is the fault of the researchers, the groups that set up the grants, the way it is reported, or what. But when we're talking about making decisions involving billions of dollars, affecting hundreds of millions of people, and the very environment we all live in, I'm not willing to accept even a little obvious bias - either way. I don't think legislators can reasonably nor in good conscious make informed decisions on this issue, yet. Not until there is a viable body of research results that are not so obviously biased either way. Or would you prefer our lawmakers go off on a tangent with known-bad information?
4. The scientist who wants to spread reflective dust into the atmosphere is also spreading BS. If it reflects, then it would reflect light back onto Earth, probably creating a greenhouse effect times ten.
Yes, because we all know that the Earth is a radiant body. Oh, wait...
I have to go off on a tangent here for a minute. This has to be, without a doubt the single dumbest idea I have ever heard in my life. I'd nominate it for one of the all-time stupidest ideas mankind has ever come up with. Why? Lets see:
For me the Vista "upgrade" decision is easy. No. Actually, h*ll no. I run Linux boxes. My token XP machines in the house (wife and kids) will stay XP until the kids outgrow their windows only games. Then they may become Suse or Red Hat machines. Wife actually could be running on Linux right now and she'd never know. Hmm, "Honey, can I see your laptop for a couple of hours?"
Back to Vista though. There is absolutely zero chance of me ever running Vista in my house. If/when I buy another system, if it comes pre-loaded with Vista (ie. I can't get a no-OS option or Linux option) it will be immediately upgraded to Linux.
Global warming may very well be for real. The earth should be warming during an inter-glacial period. The questions really are: Is it warming? If so, is it warming too much? Further, if it is warming too much, is it our fault? If all this is true, are there any effective and practical measures we can take? Finally, should we even try to intentionally alter the climate, given our disastrous history with attempting to manage anything in the environment. (ie. if history is any judge, we're far more likely to screw things up worse)
I think there is real trouble ahead for MS. Yesterday I was in a local Barnes & Noble bookstore and drifted into the computer book section. (grin, yeah, like that's news) What is noteworthy however is that there is more shelf space devoted to Linux books than there is to Windows books. That was an eye-opener for me.
For about $40 - $50 I could've walked out with any one of several complete distros on DVD including office apps, pointers to where to get just about anything else I might have wanted, and a book/tutorial on how to set it all up. If I were MS, that would scare the h*ll out of me.
The real question is not just why would anyone upgrade from XP to Vista and the new Office apps... But why would anyone spend literally hundreds of dollars upgrading their hardware and software when there is a much cheaper alternative? Sure, I'm stuck keeping one Windows box around for a couple of things that are windows only. (eg. my GPS map software) But otherwise, MS has nothing I want/need.
See http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2ScienceB2C/ar ticles/V9/N45/C2.jsp
I always figured the Aussies to be straightforward, very practical and pragmatic people. This just goes to show they have nutjobs making some of their laws just as whacko as we do. I feel better already - misery loves company.
Then they'll want to tax us and spend it on studies and oddball schemes to induce warming to prevent an ice age. What I've come away from the last 30 years of "environmental study" and "environmental science" with is this. There's not enough useful studying going on, too much reliance on computer modeling and assumptions, and not really much science.
I didn't see any mention in the article that a match from the computer system would be admissible in court. It is just a tool for narrowing the suspect list down from "everyone but me" to maybe this one or more people from the database, to maybe someone not in the database...
Much as I like the slick interface and install of Suse 10.0... Given Novell's recent actions I'm thinking of going back to Red Hat... Got this Fedora Core DVD here...
Funny though. You know MS must be worried when they start trying to put a little fear into their customer base. Just a thinly veiled threat that there might be legal / financial exposure down the road with "non MS" solutions/options. Boy, it must be so much fun to be a MS corporate user, having your primary IT solution threatening you! Sounds almost like a protection racket, doesn't it? "Stick with us, 'cause if you don't... Well, bad things might happen..."
As if I needed it, yet another reason I love Linux, Open Office, Firefox and Thunderbird == they're not from MS!
When I worked at IBM in 90s we had several clients that rebooted their servers once a quarter. A couple were asking for once a year reboots... Even then, they complained about a 45 min reboot cycle. That's roughly 99.966% uptime for the server. Just about all our operating system, application, even hardware updates had to be set up such that they could go into a running system without halting it. There are probably systems out there that would consider that downtime budget lavish...
I just thought the whole idea was funny. (funny as in laugh out loud, not odd-funny) Honestly, what is an article like that doing in Esquire? I don't read Esquire, and as I said, my impression is it is some kind of non-technical mens magazine focused more on image. ??? Can someone that does read Esquire regularly tell me what the real focus of the magazine is, and why they might be delving into defense related issues?
Global warming causes colder weather? Icebergs that don't melt are because of warming? Sure, there may be all kinds of complicated theories as to how this apparent contradiction comes about. Occam's razor though would point me towards "It's just colder. Global warming is just so much hot air!" ;-)
Yes, just as our Missile Defense system is the counter to a threat set.
As for a Ryder truck being a viable alternative. Might work. I'd probably go U-Haul, aren't they air-ride equipped? Wouldn't want to bounce "the device" around too much. ;-) Wasn't that a Clancy novel? No wait, that was a TV truck... ;-) Anyway, seriously, that is a real threat. Hence the emphasis on improving border security, harbor security, screening and detection etc. But the missiles are also a real threat, and not just to us here at home. (ask Israel about short range rockets...) In the past several months both NK and Iran have test fired missiles. They continue to develop better, longer range missiles. That threat is equally real. I contend that realistically, there is absolutely nothing we can do to stop them from continuing their development. Consider, even when NK struck a deal with then President Clinton to halt nuclear development, they continued, just more secretively. Iran went back on its word and reopened its nuclear facilities.
Star Wars was a contractor's wet dream, tons of cash to develop science fiction weapons against a nonexistent and unproveable threat.
It is interesting work. But the systems are not sci-fi, they are real. So is the threat, or did you miss NK's little fourth of July fireworks show, and later the big bang?
But I have to disagree with you on the missiles. Both NK and Iran are pouring a lot of money into their programs, and willing to put up with a lot of international flak and pressure to stop, yet they aren't. You have to ask yourself, why? And you have to look at what they are working on - long range missiles. That tells you who they want to be able to threaten. Both countries already have short to medium range missiles, so if they feel threatened by their immediate neighbors they can respond in kind. There's really only one reason to develop long range missiles and nuclear weapons - to threaten people far off a city at a time. That would be us. The other thing to remember is that Missile Defense isn't just about defending the continental United States. Many of the systems under development or being deployed now can be, well, deployed. They can protect US citizens, interests, military forces, and allies overseas. Just ask the Israelis about defending themselves from short range rocket attack. I'll bet it is very high on their priority list after this past summer...
As for counting on them -- NK, Iran, or whoever they sell their missiles to -- to be rational, for MAD to work with them... I wouldn't bet the country, or even a city on it. Look at the 9/11 terrorists' organization. They attacked us so violently, with such intensity, that we could not help but respond militarily. Did they really think we would just say "Wow, guess we have to take these guys seriously and negotiate with them and their demands?" No, they couldn't be that delusional.
They knew, had to know, that by attacking us that way we would come after them. Yet they did it anyway. Is that rational? They were willing to trade an entire country away (well, ruling it) to strike one good blow against us. Do you doubt that such "leaders" would hesitate for a second to strike a nuclear blow against us with a long range missile if they were able? Sure, they'd know we would almost certainly respond in kind with a nuclear strike against their launch facility. To them and their kind, no big deal, just another sacrifice in their so-called Jihad against the west.
The really scary thought is, even if NK and Iran are the peace loving misunderstood victims here that they'd like us to believe... ;-) They've demonstrated a willingness to sell or trade their technologies. In the abstract sense, I can see why they're doing it (but that's another long discussion). I don't think we can realistically prevent them from developing viable nuclear weapons and long range missiles. All I'm saying is we have to, have to be ready to counter them.
I can see it is pointless to try to have a real discussion with a zealot. Thanks for the laughs though. I could tell you exactly how well it works, doesn't work, and why. But it wouldn't be worth losing my job and getting arrested just to rub your face in it. So, sleep well under the blanket of our protection, even while you deny it exists.
It is only a matter of time before our enemies have sophisticated missile technology. Several countries openly hostile towards us and our allies are actively pursuing missile and nuclear weapons development programs. Unless you advocate nearly immediate pre-emptive military attacks, nation-states hostile towards us, our policies, and our allies will develop long range nuclear equipped missiles.
Sure, that is nothing particularly new. We survived 50 some years of MAD with the former Soviet Union. However, the groups pursuing nuclear and missile technology today at their best are far less stable and rational than the leadership of the Soviet Union was, even at its worst.
I guarantee you the US will need a viable Missile Defense. Maybe sooner, maybe later. The problem is, once we need it, there will be no time to develop it. The time to develop and perfect a defensive system is before you need it. Taking judo lessons after you're mugged doesn't help.
If anyone believes North Korea and Iran are developing their missile and nuclear programs as interesting science projects... I've got this bridge outside Tucson...
I never said anything about Iraq or Al-Qaeda. I don't claim any in-depth knowledge in those areas. When it comes to Missile Defense however, I do know what I'm talking about. Does your work email address end in @mda.mil? If not, I suggest you listen to people who do know. Diluting your argument with ad hominem attacks and other topics does not help your case.
Isn't that a Men's clothing magazine? Since when do we get technology information from Esquire? That's like going to Dr. Dobbs looking for a pie recipe or Car and Driver for gardening tips.
Not hardly, it works, and works a heck of a lot better than you might think from reading "mainstream media" accounts. Also note, it is less expensive than you might think. If you sum up all the $ spent on missile defense since the mid 1980s, it is just slightly over the amount the attacks on 9/11 cost this country's economy. In my book, that's cheap insurance against events that would be significantly more costly to the country than 4 airliners.
Also, Missile Defense is not the same as Reagan's "Star Wars." The real Missile Defense system is far more practical and pragmatic than the grand vision. Someday, yes, there will be a version of that vision. But the current Missile Defense system is firmly rooted in real-world technologies.
Where I work, we run a huge simulation in real-time. Right now, today, I could use every single cycle they have on their quad cores and more. Bring it on! Right now we have to reconfigure the simulation for highest fidelity but less than real-time, vs real-time at lower fidelity. Give me more cycles, more cores -- the sim is multiprocess -- and I can maybe, maybe go hi-fi and real-time. Of course, as soon as we have more CPU horsepower, we'll up the fidelity even more...
Several things spring to mind:
Yes, I know we could argue back and forth over the number, relative merits, and relative ease of use of the various things you can do with Windows vs Linux vs Mac OSX. I would just like to point out that we should all realize our favorite OSes, apps, and needs are not necessarily the number ones for someone else. For some people, Windows is the answer, for others, Macs, for some of us, Linux is the one. There is no one OS for everyone, and honestly, I hope there never is.
And do you know what the net effect of the treaty is estimated to be? If signed, and complied with, and if the computer models are correct, and if the assumptions about C02 effecting climate these models are based on are correct... Then Kyoto will reduce the temp 0.04 C in 100 years. Woo wee... It is nothing but a political stunt, not a real attempt to do anything but buy votes.
Excellent point. And as you mention, in a broader sense, for something as critical as crew evac... A redundant system or set of systems is just good design.