Making Baby Jesus Cry

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Docs make micro level decisions on treatment using epidemiological models based on macro cost benefit calculations all the time.

If you quiz your doc on why he's doing one thing and not another, you may get scared at what you hear.

I actually ask the docs to chuck the epidemiological shit and tell me what they'd do if the cash were unlimited and I were the only person alive.*

* And, validating your theory, I usually wind up soending piles of money on usless tests for things the macro data properly assumed I did not have. Its really interesting the way the macro stuff can predict things on the micro level, because technically, its seems like it shouldn't. Or I'm just dumb.

You know, actually case studies are used almost as often as epidemeological studies or clinical trials for validating protocols. Which I, for one, think is scarier.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Dimwit- they kept working on airbag technology until it was feasible. Ty and them want to drop SDI because its not ready yet. Go wild on stem cell because MAYBE someday things could be better- drop SDI because TODAY thinkgs aren't perfect.

there are probably good arguments to be made against SDI, but you guys don't make them. you all have to upgrade your advocate brain power around here.

I am not saying to drop SDI. I'm saying that maybe we don't need to fund every single proposal to the tune of billions of dollars.

I think the airbag thing was more about people being obsessed with safety, or someone adding it and it was really popular and people saw how well it worked and demanded it be mandated, than about them "working on it until it was feasible." Not that that has anything to do with the price of whatever thing you say "anything to do with the price of _____" about.

like I would want SDI dropped. puh-leaze.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Spanky
We My guess the loss of San Francisco or Los Anglese would be in the trillions of dollars.

You're not factoring in probability that the defense system would work into your equation.

[Spanky]

SDI is not about being obsessed with safety. Right now from a cost benefit analysis SDI if by far the best return I get for my tax dollars. I don't really get much return for my federal tax dollar. Almost none I can think of.

The nukes in North Korea and China poses an immediate threat to not only my family and me but to my property and pretty much my entire world.

The government spends about one percent of the budget or less on SDI. I spend a lot more on almost every other kind of insurance but these missiles would be much more devasting to me economically or physically than any other danger I can imagine. And it is a very real threat.

So as far as I compute the economics of it, the federal government should spend a great deal more on SDI before the costs would outweight the benefits. Even a small chance of working out is worth a lot of money to me, so from an Economic persective even if it never works, just the chance of it working is worth a lot more money than any other federal project to me.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
SDI is not about being obsessed with safety. Right now from a cost benefit analysis SDI if by far the best return I get for my tax dollars. I don't really get much return for my federal tax dollar. Almost none I can think of.

The nukes in North Korea and China poses an immediate threat to not only my family and me but to my property and pretty much my entire world.

The government spends about one percent of the budget or less on SDI. I spend a lot more on almost every other kind of insurance but these missiles would be much more devasting to me economically or physically than any other danger I can imagine. And it is a very real threat.

So as far as I compute the economics of it, the federal government should spend a great deal more on SDI before the costs would outweight the benefits. Even a small chance of working out is worth a lot of money to me, so from an Economic persective even if it never works, just the chance of it working is worth a lot more money than any other federal project to me.

Setting aside North Korea for the moment, why do you think China would be irrational enough to launch ICBMs at us, incurring certain retaliation?

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Setting aside North Korea for the moment, why do you think China would be irrational enough to launch ICBMs at us, incurring certain retaliation?

I think North Korea is a much higher probablity, but with China the area the troubles me is the Taiwan Straight. If China tries to invade Taiwan, or something happens to spark a dispute, we will end up involved. Once shots are being fired things can escalate and get out of hand.

During the Cold War there was a fear of Nuclear War even thought it meant annihalation for both sides. Same thing could happen with China.

Unlike the then Soviet Union China only has a few hundred missiles without the MIRVs. So with the proper technology we could shoot them down.

There is also the problem if a lunatic taking over in China or a mistaken luanch. In either case I really don't like the idea that there is nothing we can do.

Right now the only really imminent security threats to the United States are nuclear missiles or terrorist attacks. Everything else is just Geopolitical games (albeit important games). I just can't fathom throwing in the towel on the first threat.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

• Nuclear war (yeah)
  Nuclear war (yeah)
  Talkin about (yeah)
  Nuclear War (yeah)
  
  It's a motherfucker,
  don't you know.
  If they push that button,
  your ass gotta go.

"Nuclear War"
-- Yo La Tengo

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop

• Nuclear war (yeah)
  Nuclear war (yeah)
  Talkin about (yeah)
  Nuclear War (yeah)
  
  It's a motherfucker,
  don't you know.
  If they push that button,
  your ass gotta go.

"Nuclear War"
-- Yo La Tengo

"Ronnie talk to Russia before its too late,
before you blow up the world."

Ronnie talk to Russia- Price/Symbol

Guess what. he did talk to them, told them how it was going to go. You just sit back- the country is in competant hands now.


ps Ishiguro has a new novel out.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Spanky
My guess the loss of San Francisco or Los Anglese would be in the trillions of dollars.

always looking at a half empty cup?

Take out SF and LA and we don't need spend for national elections anymore. with Cali gone its just the Rep primaries and thats it. Within 3 election cycles we'd recoup the trillions, wouldn't we?

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
always looking at a half empty cup?

Take out SF and LA and we don't need spend for national elections anymore. with Cali gone its just the Rep primaries and thats it. Within 3 election cycles we'd recoup the trillions, wouldn't we?

The only drawback is that Spanky would be a pile of silt. No more Spankyland.

[Spanky]

The Evil Democrats were defeated.

CAFTA passed. Now it on to AFTA.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/07/...fta/index.html

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Spanky
The only drawback is that Spanky would be a pile of silt. No more Spankyland.

This is not the happy friendly (and heavily censored) Spanky Show. You are on P to tha B here. And that means sacrifices must be made. Maybe Spankyland has to go for the good of the world and the American Way. Are you willing to make that sacrifice? To help bring market economies and democracy (American-style) to the Middle East and beyond?

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Spanky
The nukes in North Korea and China poses an immediate threat to not only my family and me but to my property and pretty much my entire world.

The government spends about one percent of the budget or less on SDI. I spend a lot more on almost every other kind of insurance but these missiles would be much more devasting to me economically or physically than any other danger I can imagine. And it is a very real threat.

So as far as I compute the economics of it, the federal government should spend a great deal more on SDI before the costs would outweight the benefits. Even a small chance of working out is worth a lot of money to me, so from an Economic persective even if it never works, just the chance of it working is worth a lot more money than any other federal project to me.

what? immediate threat? hogwash.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Setting aside North Korea for the moment, why do you think China would be irrational enough to launch ICBMs at us, incurring certain retaliation?

Spanky, I've heard enough:

1. None of the rogue countries we worry about have ICBMs. Notwithstanding that they would never fire a misssile at us because it would mean their immediate destruction, they can't get a missile to us.

2. The countries that do have ICBMs (Russia), are not going to attack us.

3. And if Russia did decide to attack us, no SDI system could protect us. SDI can only stop a small percentage of incoming ICBMs. Russia has thousands of ICBMs. All you need is a few dozen properly placed ICBMs to hit us and we're through - the whole country is contaminated.

SDI was and always will be (1) a bluff to scare the Soviets and force them into a defense spending war which would cave their economy (which it probably helped to do), and (2) a long blowjob for the defense contracting industry (the R&D contracts alone were worth ungodly sums).

SDI is a cold war strategy game, never intended to actually be built by anyone other than a few greedy defense contractors and clueless "experimenters" at the Pentagon.

In a world where the primary nuclear threat is a dirty bomb or smuggled tactical nuke, advocating SDI is criminally stupid.

Sorry to sound nasty, but this debate is infuriating.