costard

No, you read that wrong: it is the instinct that is to be tranquilized. We're looking at selective breeding through gene technology within the lifetime of the next generation. You're tilting at windmills ASL, and I doubt that your proposed solution for the manifest (according to you) ills and threats presented by any "progressive" group will be anything other than as arbitrary and mentally incompetent as the manifestos you subject to [mediocre] analysis.

No worries - but I'm still a little hazy as to the point of the analysis. A new world order, big deal. Will it be in the mode of Pol Pot, or will we be happily led? Will the world go ahead and change anyway, with the supposed conspirators claiming the credit (and assigning the blame for the predictable messes) along the way? Sounds like SNAFU, with emphasis on the SN. The intellectual shortcomings so freely admitted to - in that our understanding of the world is neccesarily limited by our imperfections, our languages and models, are in the next para ignored as it is claimed that "intelligent, well-educated leaders" will not only know what to do, but will be able to bring about these doings by forming some sort of political/religious group of like minded souls. My point is that these groups already exist and always have done. It's a crock, and any attempt to lay the misery of the world at this putative group's feet is equally misguided (if done at all innocently, something I have the gravest reservations about.) Progress will occur where the commonwealth is husbanded - something that didn't happen over the last decade. If the intellectual fashion of our leadership is to remain ignorant of our history and the processes that led to the events therein, we will see the opposite of progress, a repeating of the same mistakes and a new "Dark Age". That this might be considered a good thing by anyone only displays their fundamental worth as a human being: fertilizer grade.

... and then WW2 happened along and changed everything again. Experiments in social evolution are nothing new; most religions started with exactly this premise. And if you were really intelligent, you might realise that mores - traditions, customs and laws - generally change with time in response to changing conditions, and that the task of forcing people to do what they don't want to do is very rarely a thankful one. As for the Fabians - either they abide by a doctrine that was set down in the early part of the twentieth centurry, in which case they are not progressive, or they truly and effectively debate the challenges facing any leadership group in the modern world, in which case they're probably better off being robustly critiqued and provided with accurate intelligence.

Nice one ASL Veteran. Thanks.

To continue; Arguably, the strengths of the US, socially and economically, in the twentieth century came from the Henry Ford model of industrial relations: pay your skilled workers enough so that they can afford to buy your product. Your market grows, demand for your product grows and your profits grow. The thinking amongst the leadership of the US over the last twenty years has been along the lines of: a decreasing employment market forces lower wages and higher (short term) profits. So, profits have routinely been generated by downsizing, rationalising, moving offshore. The decay in relationships between managers and the workforce has followed suit - fraud has increased threefold in companies in Australia in the last two years, and twofold in the fifteen years before that. You cannot, as a leader, hope to inculcate and engender loyalties and effective team behaviours when your own example is one of sloth, venality and gross disrespect for your workforce. You end up running a slave labour camp, which is fine, because you're competing with China. The Chinese are having problems expanding their domestic market because the industry leaders there have been thinking along the same lines: they aren't paying their skilled workers enough to get into the market, therefore their market isn't growing. sigh, nappy time.

I think the American Thinker article is cogently argued and well worth reading. Quantitative Easing is not Keynesian economics - Keynesian economics seeks to expand the market by putting more money in the hands of a broader base of the population. It worked in the thirties because the base it started from was very low: the world had already endured a couple years of economic contraction and the disposable income of some thirty percent of the populace (those who were out of work) was nil. The funding of social security payments, where the money went directly to the consumer, enabled the expansion of the market and the funding of expansion in all tiers of industry ( an expandng market meant that the likelihood of a return on the investment was high). QE is seeking to create demand for US goods by inflating the US currency. It is aimed at an offshore market for a manufacturing industry that has largely moved offshore in search of higher profits driven by lower labour costs. The money will go to large investors (read banks) who will invest that cash in offshore assets: currencies that will appreciate against the $US and loans for the acquisition or construction of assets that are likely to be repaid (or will generate a return: expect the markets to rise even further.) The correlation between the price of the Stock Market and the confidence of the average consumer will be destroyed by the time this exercise is over: only the ignorant believe that there is any meaning in the correlation in the first place. There is nothing in this for the US taxpayer: in fact, it is the US taxpayer who will pick up the bill for bailing out the banks yet again, for no return. [Gotta go bath a baby]

This is just the fashion of the time - we're all victims, we don't need to take responsibility for our actions, blah blah blah. It'll swing around again when it's noted that we do have free will and can exercise it: we can change not only our environment but also ourselves to meet our needs.

This is a little rough on the Republicans - the law giving corporate donors the right to remain anymous was passed when the Democrats held the majority. They might be out to screw the little guy, but at least they aren't two-faced about it.

I wonder if the problem has something to do with the vertex of adjoining tiles being, effectively, not modelled: the ELOS/LOS takes place from the action spot, the vertex (i.e. the ridge/cliff edge behind which most of the infantryman's body lies) lies between action spots. If so, a possible workaround might be to have a specific "edge condition" tile - a bit like having building wall/roof junctions handled by a specific tile. More work for the map builders (and code builder, granted), but they can place ambush points and suchlike, so it isn't all bad. (It could also be that I have misunderstood this completely.)

Bones re: AT guns would be most appreciated.

What a handsome devil that fellow is! thefeacal is jealous!

Sorry diesel, I have to take issue with this. The one feature of human consciousness that a computer will not match is an awareness of the future. Humans are capable of making decisions ahead of time - based on "hunch" or "gut feeling", which are common terms for processes we don't yet fully understand. As for processing multiple data channels, we have five senses, each of which represents at least one spectrum of value in a mode of perception. The human brain is quite capable of forming a gestalt of this information in something approaching real time. The biggest advantage a non-human pilot gives is the lack of a casualty when things go pear shaped. The next biggest is the performance gain of the vehicle, in terms of manouvrability (no blackouts due to excessive 'g', etc.)

Hang on, Emrys creature is Pshaw's son? That'd explain the christmas list. The beclogged dyke-poker painted quite a flattering portrait I thought. I'd give my left tonsil to be a Frenchman. Time to go and work on that excess of wine (and the gut, mustn't forget to tone the gut).

Thanks for the link Jon. 2.4 million prisoners @ $62 / day = $150 million / day, for incarcerating people. That's a big privatised industry, and it's sucking on the public tit. Gee we got off topic somewhat here....

Interesting article. Ok, some thoughts on where the debate goes from here. Outright denial of the demonstrated facts, followed by an emotional appeal to "save the kiddies" followed by "big business will come in and take over our society if we let this get through". Throw in an "elite" somewhere - "Only the elite (sportsmen, actors, bankers, rock'n'rollers) can afford to take drugs and manage to lead a good life: why let them get away with it?". We've had the call for a debate over here by a top policeman, but his contribution was "If we had our time again we'd ban alcohol and tobacco." so I can only see it as trying to steer the outcome (i.e. nothing's going to happen - 'cept more money for the cops). When the dill sets the tone you have a lot to do to get anywhere. That stat on the world prison population (America houses 25% of prisoners) has to be a typo, yeah? I mean, that's not scary, that's proof by inspection of a police state.

Apology NOT accepted, lethabum. Put up your dukes and fight like a donkey stuffed full of gnome.

Useful apertures those - unlike the leaky dykes aforementioned. Not to be taken personally facelikemydogsbum, but what was it my mother stole from you: your neuron?

Like you lot need an excuse to shoot possums (with hollow-nose .223 I hear). Not so good for the fur, but.

Nice point diesel. I meant the "poorly" to relate to the training and the motivation. Enemies of the US have suffered hugely for the gap in technology and training since WW2: where this price has been willingly paid (i.e. where the motivation of the enemy was (presumably) not measured in terms of money and has been sustained by superior leadership) the US has not prevailed.

Hmmm... 1. The private contracting of shooters sprang from the vertical integration of "military services" from a base of logistics support. The first pickup was Intelligence after the decentralisation of the CIA, it was to be expected that specialists in wet work and training followed closely behind. So you had the establishment of a private army - under contract. The taxpayer still foots the bill, s/he just doesn't have the wherewithal to inspect the terms of the contract. 2. All troops are expendable. A person prepared to sell his life for a flag is more reliably called upon to do just that than someone who believes he will be used by whichever politician to further that politician's career. See 3 and 4. 3. This is a moral duckshove to be expected from a class of person who would abdicate moral responsibility whilst claiming moral superiority. Line the whole lot up against a wall and see how their arguments about moral responsibility develop. If they're still arguing for the burden to be someone else's, shoot 'em: they're not prepared to take responsibility for their actions and certainly don't deserve to be in positions of power. 4. You are relying on the same person who has no legal responsibility with regard to their actions to perform military missions with definable outcomes of a set standard. No ****ing way. 5. If massive armies of poorly trained and motivated soldiers were the way to success in military adventure, we wouldn't have the circumstance where the opposite has been shown to be true. e.g. the US wouldn't be the world leader in military technology and its applications. The largest impediment to any nation's ability to wage successful war is the number of casualties it takes. The moral standing of the cause behind the troops is one of the greatest determinants of the political willingness to sustain casualties. If the populace of a democratic state understands that they are funding the lining of some rich arms/oil/logistics shareholders pockets through the adventure they are asked to believe in, and they have the understanding that no-one is to be held responsible for the outcome (apart from themselves, if they're halfway decent human beings), then they are not at all willing to have their loved ones killed and will vote for the candidate most likely to end the war.

Nup - cows get TB and pass it on through the milk. This isn't a huge problem in the west because the disease is well controlled through veterinary programs designed to eradicate the disease in cattle (did you know that 80% of the economic benefit of veterinarians is in the management of zoonoses?). Mostly the benefits of pasteurisation would be economic - not so much waste of the product with a longer shelf life. You'd get rid of the e. coli that hangs around milking yards, too.

Well, the FBI had the opportunity to take the defendants to court - I'd assume the likely outcome wouldn't suit them re: their role as a domestic spying agency. Elect some politicians who believe that an individual has the right to privacy and who have the integrity not to see themselves as having a price. [Here in Australia (Victoria) we just had the pollies pass a law that required phone taps / computer searches on journalists and MPsbe ok'ed by a senior public servant of some ilk. The rest of us oiks have no recourse. Great stuff.]

Well, if the artist's impression is anything to go by, we'll have developed a means of transfering power without the use of gearboxes or drive shafts. Fantastic stuff.

Do you tune into radio Mace often? Just for the company? Boo's Panthers were smitten good and hard, his troops acquired wisdom running over the crests of bare hills. Quad .50 cals rule. The next map is all trees and gullies and towns, so I'm told. "..and I ask myself the same question."

Empires of Steel is worth a look, too.