SH3RL0CK

Sisyphus - I fully realize Rush has some influence. However, I just don't think it is in the best interests of the Democrats, now that they have decisively won, to go around "kicking dirt." It would be better for them the say "look at all the good things we are doing." The fact that they are still "kicking dirt" makes me think they are trying to distract the public from what they are actually doing. Considering the popularity of the bailouts, that doesn't seem too farfetched to me...and I'm not at all happy with some of the other things that they have done either. FYI, I'm not a Republican...

The democrats like to portray themselves as good vs. the bad republicans. This is a demonstration that the Democrats lack any credible "evil" republican currently in office. This is due in part to their sucesses, but also due to the fact that republicans are not "evil" (at least no more so than the democrats). I think it is a bit sad that they desire to tarnish the reputation of their only significant opposition in this way (as I think Rush is only a republican for ratings purposes, hes certainly not the spokesperson for the party) rather than highlight the things they have accomplished. It makes me ask: Have the Democrats acheived nothing they can be proud of?

This question has already been answered in this thread. Read posts # 2, 3, 4, and especially #8.

One reason there are older students in a PhD program might be because they no longer need to make money, having already done so. For me, it might be a useful and fun diversion when I retire from my present field in about 20 - 30 years.

Deflecting an asteroid is a daunting task. I do beleive there was a project a while back called "Manhattan" where a new and very powerful explosive was developed utilizing the energy released by nuclear fission. Later refinements were able to utilize the energy released by nuclear fusion (which unlike fission, has no known limit to the energy that can be released). It is possible that this might just have sufficient power to deflect the object. Or not. There are other ways to deflect the asteroid. For example, the gravitational attractor...I would suggest a google or wiki search.

There is the additional problem with the tripwire theory that if something DID pass through the laser, you still would not know if it were headed for the earth, or away from the earth.

By feasible, I mean compared to all the alternatives (including, but not limited to fossil fuels). If plan B was clearly a better alternative than plan A, in terms of cost, user-friendliness, and in terms of the environment, then clearly plan A is not feasible. There should be clear data and studies regarding the costs of alternative fuels (I'm sure these already exist) so that legislators, utilities, the public, etc. can make the best decisions. However, there is still going to be differences of opinion regarding these matters. For example, 9% of GDP for the next 11 years might seem ok with some people, but might be unacceptable to others in the Netherlands. Do you think the Netherlands would be willing to spend this much?

True, peak demand tends to be around 5:00 PM. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peaking_power_plant However, note that the demand is normally still very high as late as 8:00 PM, long after the sun would have set in the winter. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Tagesgang_engl.png So it will be necessary to maintain and expand the current back-up systems and/or develop a storage system(s). I'm not fundamentally opposed to this, however it seems to me that this will result in additional costs. At some point, these additional costs would make the idea not feasible, but without a careful cost analysis we don't know exactly where.

To add to Mokeles point, how much of these revenues and investments actually help the academic programs? For example, its fine if rich alumni want to donate money to build a new football stadium (which I'm sure is counted as investment). But I fail to see where this will develop any significant scientific breakthroughs. Regarding the future students attending one school over another just because of the winning football program, I suppose this could be true. These students might not be the most devoted or intelligent students (otherwise they would be looking at, say, the reputation of the medical school as opposed to the football program); but certainly this might be a consideration for some.

Well, I am not sure that anyone would be more than willing to spend Billions (or Trillions) of dollars for power plants which will only be used half the time - not even the US government. Most power companies expect their main power generators to operate 24/7 and very infrequently shut down for operation maintenance...offhand I'd expect downtime of less than 5%. Granted there are (and must be) ways to adapt for peak demands, but additional power generators are kept to a minimum, some utility companies will actually pay industrial users to shut down during times of peak demand. Now these could potentially help provide this peak demand power, but thats not what we are discussing here... To melt snow on top of the solar panels could require more energy than they generate. It might be better to leave the snow. Regarding this energy storage; its very easy to transport electricity efficiently. It is very difficult to store it efficiently. There will be considerable losses with either batteries or capacitors; assuming of course they could be scaled up appropriately. And swansont has probably the best argument against this idea, how to pump 10MW into your car in a few minutes via electricity? Despite the problems noted above, I think this plan is actually a good idea for two reasons: 1) The solar panels could be used to provide electricity in a clean manner. But only for select locations where it could make economic sense (i.e. in warm, sunny climates near major cities). And in a manner which makes sense (i.e. for peak or industrial demand; maybe for energy storage if there were a good way to do so available). 2) The covered roads would be safer than uncovered roads by keeping the rain/snow/sunglare away.

Come on now, lets be realistic here. After all, which is more important; a quality engineering department, or taking your football team to a bowl game every year? You can't overstate the value of winning big games, I'm not even going to begin to illustrate the many obvious ways the athletic programs builds a solid foundation of excellence for all the students. You sound like you have no school spirit. [/end sarcasim]

I'm not meaning to be negative as I think the idea has merit. But I'd like to play devils advocate and point out some potential problems. One problem would be that the entire USA (and all of Europe as well) will be in the dark approximately 12 h a day. What do you propose will power the cars at night and/or where will the electricity be stored during the day? Another problem compounding this issue would be during the winter months, there is darkness for considerably more than 12h per day. And during the day, it is often overcast and/or perhaps snow covering a significant portion of the solar panels. In addition, I wonder how much of this area corresponds to the traffic density? There are lots of roads which are very rarely used and far away from the major cities where the roads are heavily used. And would the public accept driving in a dark tunnel most of the time if the panels were placed above the road?

I really like this idea. What, really, is the value of a degree when much of the time it isn't utilized? I know many people who got into debt to get their degree, then wound up with a job that didn't really require the degree (or paid no more than a job they could get without the degree). I think there is a bubble in the academic world in that the supply of degreed people exceeds the demand (evidenced by so many people who don't use their degree in a meaningful fashion). And with the costs of education increasing much faster the inflation, at some point people will stop enrolling into the school. What will happen then?

In light of this, I think it is also important to note that the Israeli military bases are, AFAIK, set apart from their cities. Yet Hamas is launching their missiles towards the cities rather than the military bases. JohnB is incorrect in stating the everyone would prefer fighting not occur near civilians as Hamas is an exception. It would be better worded to state instead that all legitimate and legal combatants prefer fighting occurs away from civilians.

Agree completely.

I don't think it has been established that there even are equally effective alternatives.

Its not a strawman because I'm not arguing they should. But it appears, to me, that this is really the case. Maybe it is media hype, but there are many more stories about Israeli "atrocities" than those committed by Hamas. But when I do some research, it becomes clear to me that the Israeli "atrocities", as in the case here, are debateable. But there are no doubts about the Hamas atrocities, which are greatly underreported. The same is true with AI condemnation; Israel = bad, Hamas = ? And even on this site, there are many threads with titles regarding the evils of Israel, but none on Hamas. There is a very clear double standard here. Back to the main point, where did you think the weaponry would be purchased? After all, WP is not in itself, a banned article. And even common household items can be used in an inhumane way. Where do you draw the line regarding what we should sell or not sell to them? Bullets? Knives? Dental Floss? Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged This is not an equivalent analogy to the situation between Israel and Hamas.

Well, you are very, very, very much mistaken (or borderline trolling). I'd rather minimize ALL casualties. I can see in certain circumstances where the IDF has a choice for a quick retreat, or get involved in a desperate firefight. The WP could enable the quick action (perhaps a retreat) which otherwise might result in the bullets flying everywhere. Phosphorus, which admittedly can cause civilian injuries, may cause less than Lead. B.T.W. you still haven't answered my question regarding why Hamas (but not Israel) gets a pass on inhumane behavior and whether or not this encourages bad, rather than good behavior. After all, AI can only influence actions by the presence or absence of condemnation (or praise, but that won't happen) The choices are to be somewhat bad (which is inevitable in war) and receive much condemnation, or ALL BAD and receive no condemnation. Therefore, as I see it, obviously AI is encouraging despicable behavior. Shouldn't AI therefore be criticizing Hamas at least as much as the IDF? And why are they not, if their goal is to reduce the violence? Care to answer, or are you still thinking about it?

Yes, but the other ways are not as effective. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_phosphorus_(weapon) From the article: The IDF could just toss lit cigarettes over to make a smokescreen. Doesn't mean they should. The issue here is not a lack of alternate technology. It's what technology should be used in battle zone densely populated by citizens to minimize casualties. IMO, WP may, depending on the circumstances, be the best choice to minimize casualties both for the IDF and for the civilians as it permits the IDF to operate quickly and then get out, rather than get entangled in a long, drawn-out firefight.

I am basing the scale not on the capability of doing harm, nor even the acutal harm committed, but rather the willingness/eagerness to do so. There is ample evidence of no action being beneath Hamas...indeed, few things are worse than launching rockets at schools filled with children. I thought I had made that clear. Its not. But please stop overlooking the evil Hamas perpetrates just because they often fail to acheive the destruction they desire. So then Hamas gets a pass for any and all wrong behavior? Don't you think Hamas "aught to know better"? Doesn't a lack of standards indicate they should be criticized because otherwise they will never "know any better"? I find it very fascinating that some criticize only those willing to hold any standards at all. Now would someone please answer my previous question posted earlier:

Hmm. Hamas deliberately attacks civilian populations and freely admit to such. Israel takes great pains to avoid attacks in civilian populations, though that is often difficult as Hamas uses civilian locations,as human shields. I'd call that much different standards, wouldn't you? A very small sampling of Hamas attrocities. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamas http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article3512014.ece http://domino.un.org/unispal.nsf/0145a8233e14d2b585256cbf005af141/6086bf730ec168cd8525701b004e0318!OpenDocument Note HRWs and Israels response when civilian casualties occur, in this case due to "loose instructions" given to their soldiers... http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article5601177.ece If you cannot see a distinction between one side deliberately, intentionally attacking civilians, and one side trying not to harm civilians in a conflict fought in a densely populated area, and then carefully reviewing the situation afterwards, even publicizing and lauching investigations when things go wrong, then I'm not sure what else can be said except...why not?

Gracious, it would seem that Israel will get no breaks. They are engaging in warfare (which b.t.w. they do NOT want) using permitted (by the letter of the law) weapons in permitted (by the letter of the law) fashions. SH-T happens in war. Hamas isn't being criticized nearly this much, despite being orders of magnitude worse. With this kind of criticism, Israel simply cannot win in the court of public opinion. I think the overkill on criticism is very counter-productive to the stated goals of AI (though maybe they have goals they don't publicitize?). As the criticisms are not equitable, the incentive lends itself to an attempt to be the worst rather than the best. Answer me this: why then, should Israel not simply resort to the tactics of Hamas and really try to inflict pain on the civilians of Gaza? Would AI then speak out as loudly as they do regarding Hamas (which, b.t.w. appears to me to be considerably less)? Would you then speak out with the same vigor as you are regarding Hamas?

There are many varieties of body paint available, I'm sure a party store or sports store would have them, or you could do a google search and buy them over the internet. I beleive there are both spray-on and brush-on products. It is certainly important they be eco-friendly since this will be in contact with your skin. Are you talking Boston Celtics green? or Incredible Hulk green? Hunters green, maybe in a mossy oak design? Please provide more information so we can help you further.

Does who the accusers are automatically make them wrong? I agree this is a very valid point. But why is AI officially placing blame squarely on nations (rather than just documenting and criticizing specific actions along with proper disclaimers due to incomplete information available, etc.) if not to obtain a headline and therefore publicity? After all "Israel commits war crimes!" is a headline while "Israel uses smokescreens." winds up on page 12. It doesn't seem to me that AI is being taken out of context by reporters looking for a headline story, although that may be what is actually happening.