Print Story Didn't they go out of fashion before they came in?
By R Mutt (Mon Apr 02, 2007 at 09:23:23 PM EST) MLP, Super high tech jet fighters (all tags)
Video. Deep dive into Mandelbrot set [:o 3 min] Web 2.0 supermarket [;) 5 min]

Improved bomber tech means jet fighters are an obsolete boondoggle. [:(]

New report says drug rape is a significant problem, despite earlier study saying most cases "just drunk". [:( (UK)]

Usability. Study says green on yellow text is most readable. [:(]

[MeFi] = Stolen from Metafilter
[/.] = Stolen from Slashdot
[M] = Stolen from Memepool
[BX] = Stolen from Blogdex
[X.] = Stolen from Christdot
[)] = Stolen from Monkeyfilter
[B] = Stolen from B3ta
[GG] = Stolen from Green Gabbro
[BFB] = Stolen from Big Fat Blog
[BB] = Stolen from Boing Boing
[PU] = Stolen from PopURLs
[S2MM] = Stolen from Stuff I Send To My mates
[JR] = Stolen from Joel.Reddit
[REC] = Stolen from Really Evil Canine
[ToM] = Stolen from Table of Malcontents
[WTH] = Stolen from Worse Than Hitler
[GR] = Stolen from Grand Rounds
[[:)] = Needs sound
[:(] = Serious
[:)] = Amusing
[;)] = Ironic
[:o] = Strange
[*] = Flash
[#] = Free registration required
[#] = Possible corporate shill
[NSFW] = Not Safe For Work
[NSFWFUP] = Not Safe For Work For Ultra-Prudish
[(UK)] = UK-centric
[LL] = Late or repeated link
< i get medicated, an old coworker gets his job back | BBC White season: 'Rivers of Blood' >
Didn't they go out of fashion before they came in? | 20 comments (20 topical, 0 hidden)
It's as simple as that: by bob6 (2.00 / 0) #1 Mon Apr 02, 2007 at 10:08:39 PM EST
If a plane is not meant to carry me towards a sunny place or to Mars, then it is worthless.

Green on yellow: yuck.

WIPO by BadDoggie (2.00 / 0) #2 Mon Apr 02, 2007 at 11:58:05 PM EST
Only when Super High-Tech.


OMG WE'RE FUCKED! -- duxup ?

Drug Policy in the UK by jump the ladder (4.00 / 2) #3 Tue Apr 03, 2007 at 12:05:56 AM EST
It's a joke based on prejeudice rather than actual harm. I read the report on so-called rape drugs in the Guardian this morning and there's no concrete evidence that people are actual using them beyond anecdoptal evidence and saying that this crime is under reported.

Seconded by gazbo (4.00 / 2) #4 Tue Apr 03, 2007 at 12:29:32 AM EST
For people who can't be arsed to read the full PDF, this statement is entirely true.  In terms of numbers, the report has two sections.  One section is a survey of people, where all results are self-diagnosed.  Unsurprisingly this shows that a large percentage of people have been drug-raped.

The other section references two independent studies where people reporting drug-rapes submitted blood, urine and sometimes hair samples.  Both of these studies showed that very few people had drugs in their system (other than those that they had knowingly ingested).

The conclusions I draw from this paper are pretty much opposite to what is being reported.

I recommend always assuming 7th normal form where items in a text column are not allowed to rhyme.

[ Parent ]
I was out with a girl once by nebbish (2.00 / 0) #5 Tue Apr 03, 2007 at 12:44:47 AM EST
Who thought her drink had been spiked. I wanted to get out of my face so I downed it. Nothing happened.

It's political correctness gone mad!

[ Parent ]
I was out with a girl once by gazbo (4.00 / 3) #6 Tue Apr 03, 2007 at 01:07:35 AM EST
Who thought her drink had been spiked.

Fortunately she'd forgotten by the morning.

I recommend always assuming 7th normal form where items in a text column are not allowed to rhyme.

[ Parent ]
I went out with a girl once by Phage (2.00 / 0) #11 Tue Apr 03, 2007 at 03:08:16 AM EST
Maybe even twice.

[ Parent ]
Wow, by ambrosen (4.00 / 2) #13 Tue Apr 03, 2007 at 03:56:54 AM EST
you know those soft wobbly bits: are they as nice as they look on the internet?

[ Parent ]
Well by Phage (2.00 / 0) #15 Tue Apr 03, 2007 at 05:31:16 AM EST
I can confirm that they look great...

[ Parent ]
Things by Herring (4.00 / 1) #7 Tue Apr 03, 2007 at 01:20:35 AM EST
The hysteria about drug rape doesn't do anyone any favours. For one thing, is it any less reprehensible to take advantage of someone if they're off their face on booze rather than anything else? Also, what's to say that alcohol isn't the spiking agent? Why go to the trouble of obtaining GHB when Vodka is available on the premesis?

You can't inspire people with facts
- Small Gods

[ Parent ]
Well by R Mutt (2.00 / 0) #9 Tue Apr 03, 2007 at 02:13:28 AM EST
The Forensic Science Service study found that out of 1014 alleged cases:
A range of benzodiazepines and other central nervous system depressants were identified in the samples examined. In 21 instances, their presence could not be explained by voluntary use.
That comes out to about 2% of allegations.

It's hard to know how to interpet it though, Given the large numbers of allegations, that could still suggest it happens relatively often. Or, it could be that even that 2% are still wrong: they might not know what their voluntarily-taken drugs have been cut with, for instance.

[ Parent ]
I read that and even double-checked the figures by gazbo (2.00 / 0) #10 Tue Apr 03, 2007 at 02:30:42 AM EST
The thing is, 2% is Fuck.  All.

1 in 50 rapes - no, scratch that, 1 in 50 suspected drug rapes may be a drug rape.

The smaller survey (n=120) seemed to indicate closer to 3%, which still counts as "fuck all" in my book.  It just seems like such a tiny cause to be tackling and inexplicably scaremongering.

More interesting is the far more common way that people are using alcohol either opportunistically or actively, either way with full awareness from the victim, to perpetrate the crime.  That raises a whole load of interesting questions which can't be wrapped up in a headline like "Evil rape drug forced into girls' drinks".

Just to be explicit about it, I should point out that one of the questions that isn't raised is whether willfully drinking to a stupor somehow makes the victim responsible.  At risk, yes, but not responsible.

I recommend always assuming 7th normal form where items in a text column are not allowed to rhyme.

[ Parent ]
Greg Easterbrook is a maroon by LinDze (4.00 / 2) #8 Tue Apr 03, 2007 at 01:33:28 AM EST
Though im totally ++shocked that Slate has such a fucking worthless "Military Analysis." Maybe they should stick to something they know, like reinventing the media. Oh, wait, nevermind.

I just got back from the pub, and im sure cam can elaborate, but were spending billions on 4.5/5th gen fighters is because some people actualy plan for the war we might fight tomorrow.

The reason we can use these big dumb bomb trucks is because our adversary dosnt have a fucking airforce. Not only that but JDAMs from 20,000ft aint fucking possible without JTACs on the ground. In a real war you dont get to roll around in your humvee and paint bitches with your soflam at your conveince. Traditionally there are these things called "lines" and cant just pop over and light up some targets for SAC2.0. You know why we need new fighters? 'Cause those SU 27s variants with upgraded avionics and weapon systems can match, and better, our current fighters. Look what happened at the India/US joint exercises about 9 months ago.

You think Iranians cant drive an F14 just cause theyre crazy mohammedians? Power of the beard works both ways bitches. How about Indoneisa, or all of the south pacific for that matter? Yeah, their SUs & SAs are just going to roll on over when our B52 bomb trucks go lumbering by.

Now, to be fair, he did make one relevant point in that teeming pile of idiocracy. Our F series airframes are looking more and more like A series. But, simply put, its cause theres nothing else for them to do. Our F/As are pretty dandy about putting 5K/1K/2K JDAMS where they belong.=, even if itsw not a primary design point. Youll see even more of this as the Small Diamtere Bomb use really ramps up.

Anyways Greg Easterbrook couldnt analyse his way out a fucking cardboard box. If you want real defense analysis go visit the fine folks over at stratfor.

-Lin Dze
Arbeit Macht Frei

i don't know what you're talking about by tps12 (4.00 / 2) #12 Tue Apr 03, 2007 at 03:31:01 AM EST
But the quantity of acronyms suggests you're well-informed. Either way, any debate over arguments put forward by Gregg Easterbrook can begin and end at his byline, as far as I'm concerned. Doubly so if he's taking a contrarian position in an area he normally doesn't write about. He's a crank of the highest order and should be taken as seriously as the argumentative regulars at your local bar. From what I gather from others who are informed on the sport, even his football analysis is terrible when he's discussing anything beyond cheerleaders.

[ Parent ]
Sigged ! nt by Phage (4.00 / 1) #14 Tue Apr 03, 2007 at 05:30:00 AM EST

[ Parent ]
tps12? by Dr H0ffm4n (2.00 / 0) #19 Wed Apr 04, 2007 at 12:01:15 AM EST
Not seen you around these parts for a while. Did you go get one of then 'lives' or summat?

[ Parent ]
not a life per se by tps12 (2.00 / 0) #20 Wed Apr 04, 2007 at 11:20:38 AM EST
Does a bicycle count?

[ Parent ]
Thank you by ucblockhead (2.00 / 0) #16 Tue Apr 03, 2007 at 07:32:24 AM EST
For saving me from having to rant about it. That article was the biggest heap of idiocy I've read in a long time.
[ucblockhead is] useless and subhuman
[ Parent ]
I have no comment at this time. by garlic (4.00 / 1) #18 Tue Apr 03, 2007 at 10:21:47 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Interesting by ucblockhead (2.00 / 0) #17 Tue Apr 03, 2007 at 07:34:22 AM EST
Back in the DOS days, it used to be said that White/yellow on blue was the easiest to read. I never entirely understood why they gave up on that with Windows.
[ucblockhead is] useless and subhuman
Didn't they go out of fashion before they came in? | 20 comments (20 topical, 0 hidden)