First off $6,500 (according to Wikipedia) is the Unit Cost of the RT-1523E (Current Version). It's like an internal cost to track how much each Company/BN whatever spends. Same as in the civilian world (or at least close). According to this http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/budget/fy1998/dot-e/army/98sincgars.html/ the average unit cost is more like $13,000.
And while $80k does sound like a lot, it really depends on how they go about procuring the system. If they are developing it, it's going to be INSANELY expensive. So $80k might not be too far off. This is because you are asking a company to create exactly what you want with the exact specifications, and be able to make as many as you originally ask for (and usually have an option of more). While the components might not cost that much, it's the Research and Development that really get the cost up.
They have started to change the process as of lately. They'll take COTS (Commercial Off The Shelf) equipment, throw it in a ruggedized casing, put some Army encryption on it, and use it. That reduces the cost considerably. This method not only makes the process cheaper, it avoids the huge disparity between civilian capabilities and military capabilities.
On a side note, whoever said that Abdul (or some other stereotypical name) gets more bang for their buck from a cell phone and a bomb is absolutely correct. Killing people is easy and cheap. All armies are great at that. It's killing just the enemy and staying alive afterwards thats difficult and expensive. That's what our Army does better then most, if not all.
One of the problems is that it is free, meaning they don't pay for it. The Army doesn't ever get something for free. There are policy's against it.
The idea is that, eventually Guido is going to want you to repay the favor. The Army can't get something for free because, later on, it might be seen as biased.
Also, they want to be seen as supporting American buisnesses. When you use open-source, and get it for free, it is almost like you are taking it away from the economy.
Now, I don't dispute that there are more reasons... Someone to blame and all that kind of stuff. But it is not necessarily cloak and dagger, nor just being against change.
Maybe I'm missing a key detail here, but the term "can't breed" seems to me like it can't spread. I could have a whole crop of GM right next to a whole crops of naturals, and no cross contamination. Thus, it only spreads if a farmer buys the seeds, and plants them. While I agree that this could lead to a monopoly on a particularly successful seed, It won't take over, unless it is allowed to. Unlike Velociraptors, those horny bastards.
Now, if the governments allow a monopoly, that's another problem. But as for being against GM just because of possible monopolies built more on the economy then their own attributes seems a bit foolish. It's like not giving out Polio vaccines because the virus might mutate. That's fine, but I really like walking now.
Yes, in theory you could contact everyone. Why didn't they just do that in Florida? (that's mean, I'm sorry)
Without a physcial paper trail, which I hope could be verified by the voter, recounts would take a VERY long time.
Furthermore, even if you could reliably contact each person, who is to say they are going to tell you the truth? They may have voted for X, but once questioned can't remember and just say Y. That is why you have one chance to vote, no take-backs.
Finally, without a physcial, voter-verified paper trail; the software could invalidate an entire election. With the software controlling every part of the voting system, even the backup (if it is only electronic) one bug and the whole vote must be done over. With a user-verified, paper copy; even if the software screws up, it is the users fault for not checking the paper backup, and their vote is their vote.
Final note, really this time. If you give someone a reasonably simple voting mechanism, and they screw it up, that's ok. If you give them a reasonably simple, electronic voting mechanism, and it screws up, there goes the democracy.
I think this discussion is missing a bit of scope. This isn't a problem with GM crops, it's a problem with ALL crops, natural selection or GM. If I grow a new, totally natural variant of grain, I own it. And the same contamination laws apply. If I patent it, and it ends up in someone's crop, I can sue them. Even if it was the wind, not file-sharing (RIAA joke, sorry).
The problem is agricultural laws, not GM in this case at least.
Also, While I didn't RTFA (it's blocked behind DOIM) I think the fact that this crop can't breed was buried earlier. All "Jurassic Park" quotes aside, this crop can't breed, and thus won't drive out natural breeds, or kick your dog, or get your daughter pregnant.
I haven't found this mentioned, but I do think that the DVD sales can be incredibly effective. Sci-Fi should just look at "Family Guy" for a reason to bring this show back. In the case of that show, it was the DVD sales that made the corporation take another look at the show, and finally bring it back. Also, I don't think that the companies have enough faith in their own start-ups. It seems like REALLY good shows like this get chopped their first season because not enough people have been exposed to this. I personnally never heard of this show until it was on a re-run marathon like this one. Then, I sat and watched four episodes in a row. The DVD sales get the word out, and can build enough popularity for the show to be brought back, and be an immediate sucess.
Re:I'm reminded of what Colnel Kurtz said
on
iPods at War
·
· Score: 1
Are short stints and relatively comfortable surroundings really not motivating the troops to do their job? Are people who sit on the sidelines really allowed to use the terms "short stints" or "relatively comfortable?" I'm all for being hypothetical, but realize what you are saying. Yes, we want to win this war, regardless of why it started. But do we want to win it at the cost of thousands of men and women's sanity? Not to mention the families back home who suffer everyday because their loved one is gone for that "short stint." I have a baby coming two weeks before I deploy for a year. And you sit there and tell me coming home to a baby old enough to walk, who doesn't know you is "short." And I won't even begin to talk about "comfortable." I don't care if they had hot tubs and massage parlors; how comfortable can you be when any day, even sitting on the shitter, you could die?
Please, Think before you post some BS quote from a movie.
Slashdot Mirror
First off $6,500 (according to Wikipedia) is the Unit Cost of the RT-1523E (Current Version). It's like an internal cost to track how much each Company/BN whatever spends. Same as in the civilian world (or at least close). According to this http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/budget/fy1998/dot-e/army/98sincgars.html/ the average unit cost is more like $13,000.
And while $80k does sound like a lot, it really depends on how they go about procuring the system. If they are developing it, it's going to be INSANELY expensive. So $80k might not be too far off. This is because you are asking a company to create exactly what you want with the exact specifications, and be able to make as many as you originally ask for (and usually have an option of more). While the components might not cost that much, it's the Research and Development that really get the cost up.
They have started to change the process as of lately. They'll take COTS (Commercial Off The Shelf) equipment, throw it in a ruggedized casing, put some Army encryption on it, and use it. That reduces the cost considerably. This method not only makes the process cheaper, it avoids the huge disparity between civilian capabilities and military capabilities.
On a side note, whoever said that Abdul (or some other stereotypical name) gets more bang for their buck from a cell phone and a bomb is absolutely correct. Killing people is easy and cheap. All armies are great at that. It's killing just the enemy and staying alive afterwards thats difficult and expensive. That's what our Army does better then most, if not all.
1) Give child data-eating name
2) destroy all records school records
3) ???
4) Profit (that is until Bobby gets his revenge!)
One of the problems is that it is free, meaning they don't pay for it. The Army doesn't ever get something for free. There are policy's against it.
The idea is that, eventually Guido is going to want you to repay the favor. The Army can't get something for free because, later on, it might be seen as biased.
Also, they want to be seen as supporting American buisnesses. When you use open-source, and get it for free, it is almost like you are taking it away from the economy.
Now, I don't dispute that there are more reasons... Someone to blame and all that kind of stuff. But it is not necessarily cloak and dagger, nor just being against change.
Maybe I'm missing a key detail here, but the term "can't breed" seems to me like it can't spread. I could have a whole crop of GM right next to a whole crops of naturals, and no cross contamination. Thus, it only spreads if a farmer buys the seeds, and plants them. While I agree that this could lead to a monopoly on a particularly successful seed, It won't take over, unless it is allowed to. Unlike Velociraptors, those horny bastards.
Now, if the governments allow a monopoly, that's another problem. But as for being against GM just because of possible monopolies built more on the economy then their own attributes seems a bit foolish. It's like not giving out Polio vaccines because the virus might mutate. That's fine, but I really like walking now.
Yes, in theory you could contact everyone. Why didn't they just do that in Florida? (that's mean, I'm sorry)
Without a physcial paper trail, which I hope could be verified by the voter, recounts would take a VERY long time.
Furthermore, even if you could reliably contact each person, who is to say they are going to tell you the truth? They may have voted for X, but once questioned can't remember and just say Y. That is why you have one chance to vote, no take-backs.
Finally, without a physcial, voter-verified paper trail; the software could invalidate an entire election. With the software controlling every part of the voting system, even the backup (if it is only electronic) one bug and the whole vote must be done over. With a user-verified, paper copy; even if the software screws up, it is the users fault for not checking the paper backup, and their vote is their vote.
Final note, really this time. If you give someone a reasonably simple voting mechanism, and they screw it up, that's ok. If you give them a reasonably simple, electronic voting mechanism, and it screws up, there goes the democracy.
I think this discussion is missing a bit of scope. This isn't a problem with GM crops, it's a problem with ALL crops, natural selection or GM. If I grow a new, totally natural variant of grain, I own it. And the same contamination laws apply. If I patent it, and it ends up in someone's crop, I can sue them. Even if it was the wind, not file-sharing (RIAA joke, sorry).
The problem is agricultural laws, not GM in this case at least.
Also, While I didn't RTFA (it's blocked behind DOIM) I think the fact that this crop can't breed was buried earlier. All "Jurassic Park" quotes aside, this crop can't breed, and thus won't drive out natural breeds, or kick your dog, or get your daughter pregnant.
I haven't found this mentioned, but I do think that the DVD sales can be incredibly effective. Sci-Fi should just look at "Family Guy" for a reason to bring this show back. In the case of that show, it was the DVD sales that made the corporation take another look at the show, and finally bring it back.
Also, I don't think that the companies have enough faith in their own start-ups. It seems like REALLY good shows like this get chopped their first season because not enough people have been exposed to this. I personnally never heard of this show until it was on a re-run marathon like this one. Then, I sat and watched four episodes in a row. The DVD sales get the word out, and can build enough popularity for the show to be brought back, and be an immediate sucess.
Are short stints and relatively comfortable surroundings really not motivating the troops to do their job?
Are people who sit on the sidelines really allowed to use the terms "short stints" or "relatively comfortable?" I'm all for being hypothetical, but realize what you are saying. Yes, we want to win this war, regardless of why it started. But do we want to win it at the cost of thousands of men and women's sanity? Not to mention the families back home who suffer everyday because their loved one is gone for that "short stint." I have a baby coming two weeks before I deploy for a year. And you sit there and tell me coming home to a baby old enough to walk, who doesn't know you is "short." And I won't even begin to talk about "comfortable." I don't care if they had hot tubs and massage parlors; how comfortable can you be when any day, even sitting on the shitter, you could die?
Please, Think before you post some BS quote from a movie.