Discalculia (off-topic posts split)

Discussion regarding the Outsider webcomic, science, technology and science fiction.

Moderator: Outsider Moderators

discord
Posts: 629
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2011 7:44 am
Location: Umeå, Sweden

Discalculia (off-topic posts split)

Post by discord »

GeoModder wrote:
wasp609 wrote:and now you know and knowing is half the battle.
Mind if I take a missile to it instead of a tomahawk? :twisted:
geo: americans and their throw money at it solutions, using a javelin AT missile system against some ragheads, the guy firing it if he saved every penny he earns for a year, he would not afford the weapon system he just fired, the target could not afford it if they saved their income for their whole bloody life, that is not economically defensible imho.

why not just make the M203 under barrel grenade launcher standard kit, a hell of a lot cheaper and gives the troops the extra firepower they need in most cases(not counting tanks) but no, that is not cool enough or something.

now that i think about it, the problem is probably that it does not COST enough, not enough profit margin for the industry and too much competition.

fredgiblet
Moderator
Posts: 983
Joined: Mon Mar 21, 2011 4:02 pm

Re: Miscellaneous Loroi question-and-answer thread

Post by fredgiblet »

discord wrote:geo: americans and their throw money at it solutions, using a javelin AT missile system against some ragheads, the guy firing it if he saved every penny he earns for a year, he would not afford the weapon system he just fired, the target could not afford it if they saved their income for their whole bloody life, that is not economically defensible imho.

why not just make the M203 under barrel grenade launcher standard kit, a hell of a lot cheaper and gives the troops the extra firepower they need in most cases(not counting tanks) but no, that is not cool enough or something.

now that i think about it, the problem is probably that it does not COST enough, not enough profit margin for the industry and too much competition.
Think about how much the soldier costs to train, think of the morale impact of his death and the operational impact until you can get a replacement in. The cost of a missile is cheap compared to the cost of his life. Grenade launchers have a shorter range and are harder to aim, making misses, potentially civilian-killing misses, much more likely. Dead civilians are arguably worse than dead soldiers on our side. Despite our debt we still have people throwing money at us, so money isn't a short-term problem, and in the long-term it's going to take more than swapping to grenades to fix our budget issues.

We have two advantages in the war, training and technology, it only makes sense to exploit both of them as much as possible.

Karst45
Posts: 785
Joined: Sat Mar 05, 2011 4:03 pm
Location: Quebec, Canada
Contact:

Re: Miscellaneous Loroi question-and-answer thread

Post by Karst45 »

wasp609 wrote:id rather use the orbital friendship cannon.

what about thermal discouragement beam?
discord wrote:geo: americans and their throw money at it solutions, using a javelin AT missile system against some ragheads, the guy firing it if he saved every penny he earns for a year, he would not afford the weapon system he just fired, the target could not afford it if they saved their income for their whole bloody life, that is not economically defensible imho.
assuming you were talking about that :)

Image

User avatar
GeoModder
Posts: 1038
Joined: Mon Mar 21, 2011 6:31 pm

Re: Miscellaneous Loroi question-and-answer thread

Post by GeoModder »

If missiles weren't an option, I'd use a crossbow against that tomahawk-wielding guy. ;)
Image

User avatar
Charlie
Posts: 257
Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2013 9:04 pm
Location: Somewhere in Middle Lane
Contact:

Re: Miscellaneous Loroi question-and-answer thread

Post by Charlie »

War isn`t a duel of honor, I don`t see a reason not to use a Javelin in that manor, besides prohibitive costs. In terms of shear scale of economies, I have no doubt that America could honestly afford to kill every terrorist with a Javelin each if such things could be quantified.
No sorcery lies beyond my grasp. - Rubick, the Grand Magus

User avatar
Arioch
Site Admin
Posts: 4486
Joined: Sat Mar 05, 2011 4:19 am
Location: San Jose, CA
Contact:

Re: Miscellaneous Loroi question-and-answer thread

Post by Arioch »

The Hellfire missiles launched from drones to kill terrorists allegedly cost about $68,000 apiece. I say it's money well-spent. Even from a purely financial point of view, a single terrorist can cause a whole lot more than $68,000 worth of damage, and losing a single soldier (in terms of death benefits and recruiting a replacement) also costs a lot more than $68,000.

User avatar
icekatze
Posts: 1399
Joined: Sat Mar 05, 2011 8:35 pm
Location: Middle of Nowhere
Contact:

Re: Miscellaneous Loroi question-and-answer thread

Post by icekatze »

hi hi

One wonders when murdering people became a financial equation, and at what point due process became too much of a bother to worry about. I can't imagine how different a world we would live in today if in 1215, while the Barons of England rebelled against King John, they rolled out high explosives instead of the Magna Carta.

User avatar
Charlie
Posts: 257
Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2013 9:04 pm
Location: Somewhere in Middle Lane
Contact:

Re: Miscellaneous Loroi question-and-answer thread

Post by Charlie »

That is nothing even close to murdering them, they are legitimate threats to soldiers lives and one should feel nothing for them when they are extinguished.
No sorcery lies beyond my grasp. - Rubick, the Grand Magus

discord
Posts: 629
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2011 7:44 am
Location: Umeå, Sweden

Re: Miscellaneous Loroi question-and-answer thread

Post by discord »

ice: war has always been an economical equation, unless it's collective insanity.

sadly the people responsible for doing those calculations are often enjoying dyscalculia(having problems understanding math), sad but true.

User avatar
cacambo43
Posts: 301
Joined: Wed Oct 31, 2012 11:39 am
Location: The Space Coast
Contact:

Re: Miscellaneous Loroi question-and-answer thread

Post by cacambo43 »

discord wrote:ice: war has always been an economical equation, unless it's collective insanity.

sadly the people responsible for doing those calculations are often enjoying dyscalculia(having problems understanding math), sad but true.
Dyscalculia isn't just "having problems understanding math." It is much more serious and is a disorder no one "enjoys" having (myself very much included).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dyscalculia

But yes, the bean counters often have the least understanding of the beans...

CJSF

User avatar
icekatze
Posts: 1399
Joined: Sat Mar 05, 2011 8:35 pm
Location: Middle of Nowhere
Contact:

Re: Miscellaneous Loroi question-and-answer thread

Post by icekatze »

hi hi

I suppose it has always been an economical equation for those who stand to reap the profits, but for everyone else who doesn't benefit monetarily I would wager there's something else. There is that point where "the other" becomes subhuman. As we are also a legitimate threat to their lives, one wonders where it can possibly end. (If we were to follow that reciprocation all the way down, surely nukes would be even cheaper to end the threat once and for all.) Of course, any single person can be a threat to others, regardless of nationality, ethos or social status. (Americans have killed vastly more Americans than "terrorists," ever have, and probably ever will.)

fredgiblet
Moderator
Posts: 983
Joined: Mon Mar 21, 2011 4:02 pm

Re: Miscellaneous Loroi question-and-answer thread

Post by fredgiblet »

icekatze wrote:One wonders when murdering people became a financial equation, and at what point due process became too much of a bother to worry about.
The victors have ALWAYS written the histories and the losers have ALWAYS been crucified.
I can't imagine how different a world we would live in today if in 1215, while the Barons of England rebelled against King John, they rolled out high explosives instead of the Magna Carta.
I'll agree that a LOT of wars would be better off worked out diplomatically, the problem is that some of them can't be.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peace_for_our_time
Knowing which is which is the mark of a good politician, unfortunately you don't know what you're getting until it's too late in most cases. Sometimes the best response to a provocation is to turn the other cheek, sometimes the best response is to send in the Marines.

Negotiating with terrorists empowers them. I think that terrorism SHOULD give us pause and make us question our course and the reasons they acted, but at the same time letting terrorists get away with it emboldens others to strike out as well. So the proper response to terrorism is honest introspection coupled with thermobaric bombs.
discord wrote:ice: war has always been an economical equation, unless it's collective insanity.
Truth, as in everything else, follow the money.
icekatze wrote:I suppose it has always been an economical equation for those who stand to reap the profits, but for everyone else who doesn't benefit monetarily I would wager there's something else. There is that point where "the other" becomes subhuman. As we are also a legitimate threat to their lives, one wonders where it can possibly end. (If we were to follow that reciprocation all the way down, surely nukes would be even cheaper to end the threat once and for all.) Of course, any single person can be a threat to others, regardless of nationality, ethos or social status. (Americans have killed vastly more Americans than "terrorists," ever have, and probably ever will.)
"Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country."

You are correct, nukes (or better yet, gas) would be a much more efficient and complete solution to the Afghanistan problem. However genocide requires FAR more pushing than the average person has had, and also requires that a significant portion of the world agrees with us. Globalization means that anything that risks our connections to the rest of the works is far too expensive to try. They may look down on us for a war of aggression in Iraq, but they're not going to embargo us over it.

The truth is that the war in Afghanistan is no longer a punishment for 9/11, ti's an attempt to prevent a new 9/11. If we leave Afghanistan then it WILL fall to a new Taliban, which will in all likelihood support a new Al-Qaeda against us (and probably the British as well). We can't leave until we are sure the Afghan people will stand against them, or else we'll simply be back in another decade. In the meantime we can't ignore the activities of the terrorists that are there, because ignoring them will let them grow in power and influence.

It's a shitty situation, but there is NO likely bloodless solution. If we leave there's a possibility that Afghanistan will limp by and hold out against the darkness, but the likely result is a backslide and more terrorism.

Absalom
Posts: 718
Joined: Sat Sep 24, 2011 4:33 am

Re: Miscellaneous Loroi question-and-answer thread

Post by Absalom »

discord wrote:geo: americans and their throw money at it solutions, using a javelin AT missile system against some ragheads, the guy firing it if he saved every penny he earns for a year, he would not afford the weapon system he just fired, the target could not afford it if they saved their income for their whole bloody life, that is not economically defensible imho.

why not just make the M203 under barrel grenade launcher standard kit, a hell of a lot cheaper and gives the troops the extra firepower they need in most cases(not counting tanks) but no, that is not cool enough or something.

now that i think about it, the problem is probably that it does not COST enough, not enough profit margin for the industry and too much competition.
The M72 LAW costs around $900 for the British (or apparently ~ $2000 if you're a US negotiator; I wonder if the rounds came with the Corinthian Leather accessory package?) and weighs ~5.5 pounds, the AT4 costs around $1500 and weighs ~15 pounds, and the Javelin is $78000 and weighs ~50 pounds. Soo... pretty sure that the most common missile for US infantry to fire at anyone is the LAW, followed by the AT4, not the Javelin, which they probably only carry in vehicles, because it's freaking 50 pounds. You don't carry a lot of those things around, you carry LAWs, and maybe an AT4 if you feel like exercising that day.

Karst45 wrote:
wasp609 wrote:id rather use the orbital friendship cannon.

what about thermal discouragement beam?
Orbital friendship cannons are what you use if the scorch marks come out too easy ;) .

Arioch wrote:The Hellfire missiles launched from drones to kill terrorists allegedly cost about $68,000 apiece. I say it's money well-spent. Even from a purely financial point of view, a single terrorist can cause a whole lot more than $68,000 worth of damage, and losing a single soldier (in terms of death benefits and recruiting a replacement) also costs a lot more than $68,000.
Regretfully, every once in a while you can't help getting the feeling that our target choices suck. How many negotiation attempts have we ended by shooting the negotiators, now? I'm all for running out of guys to shoot, but it sometimes feels like we're taking the scenic route (through rather non-scenic deserts, none the less) to get there...

icekatze wrote:One wonders when murdering people became a financial equation, and at what point due process became too much of a bother to worry about.
To the best of my knowledge, the first peace treaty was negotiated between Egypt and the Hittites. Given that both empires already existed, and the war was over territory, we can be supremely confident that the financial equation in war came long before that. And likely before writing. After all, even animals sometimes do it.
icekatze wrote:I can't imagine how different a world we would live in today if in 1215, while the Barons of England rebelled against King John, they rolled out high explosives instead of the Magna Carta.
I'm certain the result would have been a much more expensive intermittent war between the various aristocrats, hence a likely reason why they kept him as a figurehead. Sometimes you're the top dog, sometimes you're just the excuse used to keep the civil wars affordable...

icekatze wrote:I suppose it has always been an economical equation for those who stand to reap the profits, but for everyone else who doesn't benefit monetarily I would wager there's something else.
There is such a thing as self-defense, whether poorly implemented or otherwise, yes. Things tend to work out better for your civilization if you actually put the occasional effort into it. It's actually more important than social services, incomprehensible as that may seem. Violence (no matter how much this sentence upsets people) is a form of communication, and in the case of violence applied in reaction to the actions of another, can be an important one. Assuming that they're actually thinking about your actions, instead of indulging their emotions. To completely remove violence is the same as saying that the importance of the rules whose violation it tends to result from are greatly overrated, and not to be taken too seriously.

fredgiblet wrote:
icekatze wrote:One wonders when murdering people became a financial equation, and at what point due process became too much of a bother to worry about.
The victors have ALWAYS written the histories and the losers have ALWAYS been crucified.
There are of course exceptions (e.g. Japan), but they mostly serve to illustrate the rule.
fredgiblet wrote:
discord wrote:ice: war has always been an economical equation, unless it's collective insanity.
Truth, as in everything else, follow the money.
A little too specific for reliability, "benefit" or "gain" is better than "money" in the case of war.
fredgiblet wrote:It's a shitty situation, but there is NO likely bloodless solution. If we leave there's a possibility that Afghanistan will limp by and hold out against the darkness, but the likely result is a backslide and more terrorism.
The worst thing about it is that the military and police are possibly the only parts of the government worth our attention at the moment. The current assessment is supposedly that they'd keep fighting the Taliban even if the Kabul government fell, and at least then we'd have a relatively fresh slate.

fredgiblet
Moderator
Posts: 983
Joined: Mon Mar 21, 2011 4:02 pm

Re: Miscellaneous Loroi question-and-answer thread

Post by fredgiblet »

Absalom wrote:now that i think about it, the problem is probably that it does not COST enough, not enough profit margin for the industry and too much competition.
The M72 LAW costs around $900 for the British (or apparently ~ $2000 if you're a US negotiator; I wonder if the rounds came with the Corinthian Leather accessory package?) and weighs ~5.5 pounds, the AT4 costs around $1500 and weighs ~15 pounds, and the Javelin is $78000 and weighs ~50 pounds. Soo... pretty sure that the most common missile for US infantry to fire at anyone is the LAW, followed by the AT4, not the Javelin, which they probably only carry in vehicles, because it's freaking 50 pounds. You don't carry a lot of those things around, you carry LAWs, and maybe an AT4 if you feel like exercising that day.[/quote]

IANAS, but I think the LAW has been declining since it was supposed to be replaced by the AT-4. Given the lack of armor they may have switched back, but I'm not certain. The soldiers, of course, use what they are issued, if the armory only has AT-4s, you take AT-4s or storm the bunker yourself.
Regretfully, every once in a while you can't help getting the feeling that our target choices suck. How many negotiation attempts have we ended by shooting the negotiators, now? I'm all for running out of guys to shoot, but it sometimes feels like we're taking the scenic route (through rather non-scenic deserts, none the less) to get there...
Part of the problem when your enemy hides among civilians. But then I wonder how much of this is truth and how much of it is the media reporting every dead civilian they can while ignoring successful strikes.
There is such a thing as self-defense, whether poorly implemented or otherwise, yes. Things tend to work out better for your civilization if you actually put the occasional effort into it. It's actually more important than social services, incomprehensible as that may seem. Violence (no matter how much this sentence upsets people) is a form of communication, and in the case of violence applied in reaction to the actions of another, can be an important one. Assuming that they're actually thinking about your actions, instead of indulging their emotions. To completely remove violence is the same as saying that the importance of the rules whose violation it tends to result from are greatly overrated, and not to be taken too seriously.
This is the truth as well. If you never raise a hand then no one will take you seriously when you threaten, if you never threaten then everyone will assume you won't act. Until we have a utopian society where everyone is on the same page and agrees to work things out diplomatically, in good faith, every time, we will need to maintain a military and the will to use it when necessary. All we need to do is develop the wisdom to know when it's necessary...we're working on that...OK I lied, we're not.
A little too specific for reliability, "benefit" or "gain" is better than "money" in the case of war.
Yes, but that's not the quote :P
The worst thing about it is that the military and police are possibly the only parts of the government worth our attention at the moment. The current assessment is supposedly that they'd keep fighting the Taliban even if the Kabul government fell, and at least then we'd have a relatively fresh slate.
With a military dictatorship in charge that is only marginally disposed towards us since we abandoned them (if we're lucky).

User avatar
icekatze
Posts: 1399
Joined: Sat Mar 05, 2011 8:35 pm
Location: Middle of Nowhere
Contact:

Re: Miscellaneous Loroi question-and-answer thread

Post by icekatze »

hi hi

When the USSR left Afghanistan in February 1989, it didn't usher in an era of unstoppable terrorism in their homeland, and they weren't even separated by an ocean. (Nevermind that 15 of the 19 hijackers on 9/11 came from Saudi Arabia, who remains a strong partner of the United States. Two were from the United Arab Emirates, 1 from Egypt and 1 from Lebanon, and a whopping zero hijackers came from Afghanistan.)

User avatar
Charlie
Posts: 257
Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2013 9:04 pm
Location: Somewhere in Middle Lane
Contact:

Re: Miscellaneous Loroi question-and-answer thread

Post by Charlie »

icekatze wrote:hi hi

When the USSR left Afghanistan in February 1989, it didn't usher in an era of unstoppable terrorism in their homeland, and they weren't even separated by an ocean. (Nevermind that 15 of the 19 hijackers on 9/11 came from Saudi Arabia, who remains a strong partner of the United States. Two were from the United Arab Emirates, 1 from Egypt and 1 from Lebanon, and a whopping zero hijackers came from Afghanistan.)
Mainly, because it collapsed not long after. They used better trained terrorists, rich(-ish), well read, high educated men. They weren`t goat herders that flew those planes, they were university educated fundamentals.
No sorcery lies beyond my grasp. - Rubick, the Grand Magus

User avatar
saint of m
Posts: 137
Joined: Sat Jul 30, 2011 8:10 am

Re: Miscellaneous Loroi question-and-answer thread

Post by saint of m »

wasp609 wrote:who cares, gives me a moral boost.

Yes, give the others something to reimind them what they are fighting for.


I want to get this out of my system about the Afghanistan part, then back to fun Loroi questions: The problem we have with these terrorists is fundamental: what could we offer to them that they could want? Terrorism is an expensive venture, coasting millions in supplying materials in food, weapons, munitions, training, buildings, planning and so on. Prior to 9/11, most terrorists that attacked plains were looking for hostages to exchange for money (in fact the plan for an aircraft at the time if they were in a hostage situation is to not fight, they would be let go once the demands were met or the rescue team was sent).

Also, when dealing with these individuals, most are easily influenced by charismatic leaders, and for lack of a better term are in a cult. They have been twisted by their puppeteers so much, they believe them and are willing to die for their beliefs.

Loroi question, now that that is out of the way:

If the Loroi ever found a Umiak ship with damaged engines and a lack of a working self destruct ability, would the Loroi take the opportunity to board to go through enemy tech and databases?

fredgiblet
Moderator
Posts: 983
Joined: Mon Mar 21, 2011 4:02 pm

Re: Miscellaneous Loroi question-and-answer thread

Post by fredgiblet »

icekatze wrote:hi hi

When the USSR left Afghanistan in February 1989, it didn't usher in an era of unstoppable terrorism in their homeland, and they weren't even separated by an ocean. (Nevermind that 15 of the 19 hijackers on 9/11 came from Saudi Arabia, who remains a strong partner of the United States. Two were from the United Arab Emirates, 1 from Egypt and 1 from Lebanon, and a whopping zero hijackers came from Afghanistan.)
The USSR was a police state that collapsed shortly thereafter, leaving little worth attacking and losing influence rapidly. The US is not, despite things like the NSA wiretapping, and still retains the vast amount of our influence and targets. I will agree that it would be more difficult to attack us now than it was 12 years ago, but the fact remains that we are still vulnerable, and leaving an enemy that will openly target civilians and strike from the shadows behind is a bad policy.

While none of the hijackers are from there, Afghanistan was the headquarters of the people backing them.

Turrosh Mak
Posts: 126
Joined: Fri Mar 16, 2012 5:14 pm

Re: Miscellaneous Loroi question-and-answer thread

Post by Turrosh Mak »

icekatze wrote:hi hi

When the USSR left Afghanistan in February 1989, it didn't usher in an era of unstoppable terrorism in their homeland, and they weren't even separated by an ocean. (Nevermind that 15 of the 19 hijackers on 9/11 came from Saudi Arabia, who remains a strong partner of the United States. Two were from the United Arab Emirates, 1 from Egypt and 1 from Lebanon, and a whopping zero hijackers came from Afghanistan.)
Yes, the hijackers were not citizens of Afghanistan, but their paymasters and directors were there, and they got their indoctrination there and in the Pakistani tribal lands. I've seen estimates that the operation cost around half a million dollars (details here). How much have we spent to prevent the next attack? Billions? Tens of Billions? That's pretty cost effective. Now imagine how much mischief an organization like that can cause with the treasury of ... Iraq or Syria?

Did the US overreact? Undoubtedly. One fool sets his shoe on fire in 2001 and now 7 million Americans a year stand around in stocking feet for security checks. Ben Franklin would be appalled. (Those who surrender freedom for security will not have, nor do they deserve, either one.)

I personally believe in proactive solutions. I think the drone strikes are a great example. Everyone within 100 meters of one of these fools should know they are at risk. If our civilians aren't off limits buddy, yours aren't either. Maybe the civilians will get a clue and kill their bad actors, if only to save themselves. One can hope...

EDIT: Added link to 9/11 cost breakdown
Last edited by Turrosh Mak on Sun Dec 01, 2013 12:56 pm, edited 2 times in total.

discord
Posts: 629
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2011 7:44 am
Location: Umeå, Sweden

Re: Miscellaneous Loroi question-and-answer thread

Post by discord »

turrosh: do not get me started on the oxymoron 'cost effective' and US military, it's a bad joke...lets just say i have some issues when 50% cost gets you 90% efficiency, but when 30% cost would get you 130% efficiency(give or take) i just get angry.

Post Reply