Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Congress is clueless about tech because it killed its tutor

wired.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 69 posts

Re: Congress is clueless about tech because it killed its tutor

#41

Post by pc86 »

OliverJones wrote: post #40

Unfortunately, the US Congress is a failed institution: proudly ignorant, uncooperative, and inwardly focused. It pains me to say it, but that failure is one eventuality the second amendment to the US Constitution contemplated.

The second amendment was crafted with the express purpose of allowing American citizens to defend themselves against a tyrannical, oppressive government, using that force as a last resort to maintain their freedom.

I don't think "LOL the internet is a series of tubes" quite qualifies.

Re: Congress is clueless about tech because it killed its tutor

#42

Post by falsestprophet »

OliverJones wrote: post #40

Unfortunately, the US Congress is a failed institution: proudly ignorant, uncooperative, and inwardly focused. It pains me to say it, but that failure is one eventuality the second amendment to the US Constitution contemplated.

I accept the premise that many people elected to Congress act in their own interests before their constituents.

But I think long before violently overthrowing the government, people would first try electing different people.

Re: Congress is clueless about tech because it killed its tutor

#43

Post by hga »

selimthegrim wrote: post #37
hga wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thanks. From http://www.princeton.edu/~ota/disk2/1985/8504/850403.PDF , the Executive Findings (all of which I skimmed), the OTA Findings section (all of which I read): At the end of 1: While it is certainly possible that defensive technological development could outpace the development of offensive weapons and countermeasures to defenses, this does not appear very likely. Ignores the economic issues, the Soviets, es…

The Union of Concerned Scientists report was probably the most effective one in my mind; Panofsky and Bethe among others showed that SDI was not cost effective at the margins, meaning that the marginal Soviet costs of more missiles was lesser than our marginal cost to scale SDI up to deal with them.

I'm pretty sure a UCS report was the single most bogus "scientific" study I've ever heard of, based on my memory and what I was just able to look up with Google:

It postulated that the entire battle would have to be fought by a single space battle station (ignoring for example that the Earth revolves), and therefore a huge number of huge stations would have to be built, and that we could only loft them into space at current Space Shuttle costs (as opposed to spending a fraction of the cost on building some cost effective rockets), all of this costing "hundreds of billions of dollars" (that's the key phrase to look for, and note the dollar has lost about half its value since then).

Bottom line would be that no one denied that the UCS could design an entirely impossible strategic defense system, but the construction and destruction of such strawmen are entirely uninteresting to those who care about the truth.

Marginal cost analysis are entirely irrelevant to a discussion of the real Cold War as I noted above, the Soviets simply didn't have the money to do it, even if it would have been cheaper for them.

They'd spent several fortunes in equipping North Vietnam with three complete mechanized armies (1st used up piecemeal, 2nd crushed in their first invasion, when only 40,000 of the 150,000 men committed even made it back to the north, and of course the 3rd succeeded after the Congress stopped supplying ammo to South Vietnam), building their Strategic Rocket Forces, all their other military expenses, vast armies and air forces to invade Western Europe (including maintaining up to date lists of "future war criminals", about 10,000 for France), their vast borders guarded to keep their people in and us out, in such a way that even the rather distant and not precisely strategic territory KAL 007 overflew generated a massacre, the money they had to spend to buy grain every year they had "a bad harvest", etc. etc. etc. etc.

Combine that with things like our support of the mujahideen, our economic warfare, our moral warfare including capturing Grenada (our denial of the Brezhnev Doctrine was a shock to the system), and it was game over. Funny how after the US President to decide to actually end the Soviet Union started the effort, it went poof in one decade....

Re: Congress is clueless about tech because it killed its tutor

#44

Post by hga »

falsestprophet wrote: post #42
OliverJones wrote: post #40

Unfortunately, the US Congress is a failed institution: proudly ignorant, uncooperative, and inwardly focused. It pains me to say it, but that failure is one eventuality the second amendment to the US Constitution contemplated.

I accept the premise that many people elected to Congress act in their own interests before their constituents. But I think long before violently overthrowing the government, people would first try electing different people.

Indeed; you'll note that while those of us who compose the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy are still buying guns and ammo at record levels, we're not using them for such, we're still trying the "electing different people" approach. And that's why so many of us are at this point willing to try using such a blunt instrument as Donald Trump....

Re: Congress is clueless about tech because it killed its tutor

#45

Post by selimthegrim »

hga wrote: post #43
selimthegrim wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Union of Concerned Scientists report was probably the most effective one in my mind; Panofsky and Bethe among others showed that SDI was not cost effective at the margins, meaning that the marginal Soviet costs of more missiles was lesser than our marginal cost to scale SDI up to deal with them.

I'm pretty sure a UCS report was the single most bogus "scientific" study I've ever heard of, based on my memory and what I was just able to look up with Google: It postulated that the entire battle would have to be fought by a single space battle station (ignoring for example that the Earth revolves), and therefore a huge number of huge stations would have to be built, and that we could only loft them into space at…

I see. I suppose you think Vietnam was winnable then? Methinks you need to read some John Paul Vann.

Grenada was moral warfare? I am at a loss to understand you here.

Re: Congress is clueless about tech because it killed its tutor

#46

Post by jonathankoren »

pc86 wrote: post #41
OliverJones wrote: post #40

Unfortunately, the US Congress is a failed institution: proudly ignorant, uncooperative, and inwardly focused. It pains me to say it, but that failure is one eventuality the second amendment to the US Constitution contemplated.

The second amendment was crafted with the express purpose of allowing American citizens to defend themselves against a tyrannical, oppressive government, using that force as a last resort to maintain their freedom. I don't think "LOL the internet is a series of tubes" quite qualifies.

No. That's a rather modern invention of the 1970s. It was to create a state militia, that's why it talks specifically talks about a "Militia" (capitalization original). It's prima facie absurd to think that the very document that defines treason as "levying war against [the United States]" and talks about using "Militia to [...] suppress Insurrections" would also codify insurrection as a good thing.

Re: Congress is clueless about tech because it killed its tutor

#47

Post by hga »

selimthegrim wrote: post #45
hga wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm pretty sure a UCS report was the single most bogus "scientific" study I've ever heard of, based on my memory and what I was just able to look up with Google: It postulated that the entire battle would have to be fought by a single space battle station (ignoring for example that the Earth revolves), and therefore a huge number of huge stations would have to be built, and that we could only loft them into space at…

I see. I suppose you think Vietnam was winnable then? Methinks you need to read some John Paul Vann. Grenada was moral warfare? I am at a loss to understand you here.

Not winnable, it was won, "Peace With Honor" and all that jazz, the North had given it their best shot after we'd withdrawn our troops and got skunked. Then the Congress threw away the victory. And the end game happened while I was politically aware, so I don't exactly have to read historical accounts, although I've read plenty. Note also that Vann died a little too early in mid-72 to have any final words on the subject.

Grenada as moral warfare: it was the first time the West had ever taken back any Communist territory since the Korean War (which was ultimately unsuccessful), and by force of arms at that. Many then living in the Soviet Union attested to it being a shocking action.

In general, you could say that Reagan himself was "moral warfare". There's a huge difference between an opponent who's merely trying to delay your victory, and one who's determined to end you. One of the things that made George Washington such an effective and feared leader in our Revolutionary War.

Re: Congress is clueless about tech because it killed its tutor

#48

Post by d33 »

quanticle wrote: post #15

These are also (largely) the same Congresspeople who voted to reduce funding to NOAA, because, as it turns out, weather satellites are a good source of evidence in favor of man-made climate change.

Hopefully at some point they'd get too dumb to be able to enter the congress and something a bit cooler will ensue from the imminent anarchy... In the meantime, say "hi" to Trump.

Re: Congress is clueless about tech because it killed its tutor

#49

Post by hga »

jonathankoren wrote: post #46
pc86 wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The second amendment was crafted with the express purpose of allowing American citizens to defend themselves against a tyrannical, oppressive government, using that force as a last resort to maintain their freedom. I don't think "LOL the internet is a series of tubes" quite qualifies.

No. That's a rather modern invention of the 1970s. It was to create a state militia, that's why it talks specifically talks about a "Militia" (capitalization original). It's prima facie absurd to think that the very document that defines treason as "levying war against [the United States]" and talks about using "Militia to [...] suppress Insurrections" would also codify insurrection as a good thing.

You're conflating the Constitution created by the Federalists, which defined the latter two items, and the different document known as the Bill of Rights which was the price of the Anti-Federalists to accept to that Constitution.

And the very same Congress that drafted the Bill of Rights also defined the militia in law, and basically that same definition holds to this day in 10 U.S. Code § 311 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/311, modulo modern interpretation that holds "men" equals men and women, folding in the National Guard, etc.

Note also that the Founders were hardly of a single mind on the subject, with, say, Jefferson being the most noted, "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure." (see e.g. http://wiki.monticello.org/mediawiki/index.php/The_tree_of_l... ), but he had plenty of company. We've always had seriously ornery factions in the nation....

Re: Congress is clueless about tech because it killed its tutor

#50

Post by GFK_of_xmaspast »

pc86 wrote: post #41
OliverJones wrote: post #40

Unfortunately, the US Congress is a failed institution: proudly ignorant, uncooperative, and inwardly focused. It pains me to say it, but that failure is one eventuality the second amendment to the US Constitution contemplated.

The second amendment was crafted with the express purpose of allowing American citizens to defend themselves against a tyrannical, oppressive government, using that force as a last resort to maintain their freedom. I don't think "LOL the internet is a series of tubes" quite qualifies.

Well, there was also the whole 'suppression of slave revolts' thing too.
Post reply on HN