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

Low-cost Solution to Clearing Afghan Landmines

m.good.is

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 181 posts

Re: Low-cost Solution to Clearing Afghan Landmines

#171

Post by taejo »

michael_h wrote: post #93

We've updated our site to better accommodate you and the world. This means the browser you're currently using is no longer supported Web developers, please do not do this. I have no power over what browser is installed so this only ensures that I won't read your content. Give me a warning and display it anyway. My browser is one version behind the current version .

"To better accommodate you, we're not going to let you in at all."

Who writes this shit and thinks they're doing a good thing?

Re: Low-cost Solution to Clearing Afghan Landmines

#172

Post by pbhjpbhj »

_djo_ wrote: post #170
pbhjpbhj wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nope, you're doing it again. You're saying something akin to: 'tyres are useless because cars also need engines; people are already effectively using tyres; often tyres don't work'. > It seems silly to laud an ineffective design while there are people out there every day clearing landmines with solutions that work. // Solutions that according to you - strongly implied eve within the parent comment - include rollers.…

I find this debate a bit perplexing: You're asking me to answer a straw man argument that nobody here has made, so I'm not entirely sure what your overall point is. Mine rollers can be effective for civilian demining, but only in the right type of terrain with the right type of vegetation and when used in concert with other demining techniques. I didn't just imply that it my posts, I stated it outright when asked whe…

You've really squirmed and squeezed to ensure you can still assert the uselessness of the technique whilst still maintaining the counterpoint of it being used and effective; well played.

"Mine rollers can be effective for civilian demining".

So, hang on maybe they're not useless as _djo_ was contending. But wait, why is it they can be effective we ask, oh right it's because they

"are useless for civilian demining".

Re: Low-cost Solution to Clearing Afghan Landmines

#173

Post by _djo_ »

pbhjpbhj wrote: post #172
_djo_ wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I find this debate a bit perplexing: You're asking me to answer a straw man argument that nobody here has made, so I'm not entirely sure what your overall point is. Mine rollers can be effective for civilian demining, but only in the right type of terrain with the right type of vegetation and when used in concert with other demining techniques. I didn't just imply that it my posts, I stated it outright when asked whe…

You've really squirmed and squeezed to ensure you can still assert the uselessness of the technique whilst still maintaining the counterpoint of it being used and effective; well played. "Mine rollers can be effective for civilian demining". So, hang on maybe they're not useless as _djo_ was contending. But wait, why is it they can be effective we ask, oh right it's because they "are useless for civilian demining".

Now you're being ridiculous. I'm disappointed.

The context of those phrases, which you removed, made it clear enough that the first phrase referred to mine rolling as part of a system of complementary techniques while the second referred to it as a technique used on its own.

By intentionally removing that context so as to attempt to prove the phrases contradictory, you've proven only that you're more interesting in trolling than in debating this seriously. So I see no point in continuing this conversation.

Re: Low-cost Solution to Clearing Afghan Landmines

#174

Post by WettowelReactor »

pbhjpbhj wrote: post #159
PeterisP wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The point is that clearing a couple of mines is not useful and is even harmful. A patch of land is unusable while mined; useful when cleared, but if it's 50% cleared (or 80% cleared) then it is murderous, because then it gets used, resulting in dead and crippled locals.

> The point is that clearing a couple of mines is not useful and is even harmful. // A field that you must use to avoid starving has 100 mines in it, you can remove [on average] 55 of those mines using a locally made and affordable device. The field will be used anyway. Would you deploy the device? You're leading a demining team. A village have asked you to clear a field that they rely on for crops (other areas are t…

Your argument hinges on the statement "The field will be used anyway." As people are not binary in their decision making. The arguments of others that partial demining will increase the likely hood of use and thus increase the risk of harm is completely valid.

Re: Low-cost Solution to Clearing Afghan Landmines

#175

Post by lilsunnybee »

Vivtek wrote: post #29
_djo_ wrote: post #13

Sadly, demining is not this simple or easy. Mine rollers and mine flails like this have been tried and tested since WWI but none have proven completely effective in finding and clearing mines. This is partially because they only work well on totally flat terrain and rapidly lose effectiveness in rougher terrain where a large number of mines are typically buried. In practice, solutions like this achieve only 50-60% ef…

The difference is this costs 40 € and can clear a couple of mines for that money. Afghanistan is not exactly rolling in cash, so any cheap improvement is a valuable addition to the toolbox - it provides a way for poor communities to do something while they're waiting for America to donate enough money to clean up their mess. My guess is that demining NGOs will be using something like this soon enough if it proves eff…

Coldarchon you are linkdead.

Re: Low-cost Solution to Clearing Afghan Landmines

#176

Post by pbhjpbhj »

_djo_ wrote: post #173
pbhjpbhj wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You've really squirmed and squeezed to ensure you can still assert the uselessness of the technique whilst still maintaining the counterpoint of it being used and effective; well played. "Mine rollers can be effective for civilian demining". So, hang on maybe they're not useless as _djo_ was contending. But wait, why is it they can be effective we ask, oh right it's because they "are useless for civilian demining".

Now you're being ridiculous. I'm disappointed. The context of those phrases, which you removed, made it clear enough that the first phrase referred to mine rolling as part of a system of complementary techniques while the second referred to it as a technique used on its own. By intentionally removing that context so as to attempt to prove the phrases contradictory, you've proven only that you're more interesting in t…

>you've proven only that you're more interesting in trolling than in debating this seriously //

The point was that you started by saying the thing was useless and persisted to try and defend that point despite acceding that similar devices are used and useful.

There was nothing to debate, I simply called you on over-exaggeration and you refuse to accept it is. Fair enough you clearly know more about the domain in question. But the information you've given is the counterpoint to your initial claim.

The reason I quoted without the full context was because that indicated your initial argument. The extended quote was how you adapted your argument against the claim that you were wrongly portraying the true position.

Re: Low-cost Solution to Clearing Afghan Landmines

#177

Post by pbhjpbhj »

WettowelReactor wrote: post #174
pbhjpbhj wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The point is that clearing a couple of mines is not useful and is even harmful. // A field that you must use to avoid starving has 100 mines in it, you can remove [on average] 55 of those mines using a locally made and affordable device. The field will be used anyway. Would you deploy the device? You're leading a demining team. A village have asked you to clear a field that they rely on for crops (other areas are t…

Your argument hinges on the statement "The field will be used anyway." As people are not binary in their decision making. The arguments of others that partial demining will increase the likely hood of use and thus increase the risk of harm is completely valid.

I'm responding to a universal claim by indicating a single instance in which the claim would be wrong, falsification basically. My argument is that those saying this is useless appear to be going against evidence that it has - whilst limited - genuine utility.

The argument for partial demining leading to increased harm requires that land that is mined remain completely unused otherwise or be completely demined. As soon as there is any use then reducing the number of mines statistically [and yes maybe simplistically] will be better - which would you rather, walk across a field of 200 mines or 400 mines?

Professionally demined areas are only cleared to a level of about 99.6% according to the thread so the argument for increased risk of harm still works in that case - more risk from mines when walking in a 'completely' demined area than in an area in which mines have never been placed.

Re: Low-cost Solution to Clearing Afghan Landmines

#178

Post by bathat »

pbhjpbhj wrote: post #177
WettowelReactor wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your argument hinges on the statement "The field will be used anyway." As people are not binary in their decision making. The arguments of others that partial demining will increase the likely hood of use and thus increase the risk of harm is completely valid.

I'm responding to a universal claim by indicating a single instance in which the claim would be wrong, falsification basically. My argument is that those saying this is useless appear to be going against evidence that it has - whilst limited - genuine utility. The argument for partial demining leading to increased harm requires that land that is mined remain completely unused otherwise or be completely demined. As so…

>I'm responding to a universal claim by indicating a single instance in which the claim would be wrong, falsification basically. My argument is that those saying this is useless appear to be going against evidence that it has - whilst limited - genuine utility.

Congratulations, you have imagined an instance where the this device can be used. The constraints you have imposed are: that the land comprising the minefield must be used and will be used regardless of whether the mines are cleared; that there is no predetermined upper bound of what constitutes acceptable civilian casualties; that the cost of subsequent de-mining is immaterial (e.g., when the local population decides that maybe 50% wasn't good enough after all); that the terrain is suitably flat for the Kafon; and that the extant vegetation will not interfere with it.

Now, does the scenario you imagined actually exist in the real world? Or is this purely an exercise in mental masturbation? I would suggest that the scenario you imagine is not one that is common in the real world. Afghanistan is not the first place where mines have been used, and yet there don't seem to be many farmers in Vietnam or Cambodia re-purposing known, uncleared minefields. Almost all civilian mine casualties seem to be the result of people using areas where they thought there were no mines. My take-away from _djo_'s comments is that the Mine Kafon primary effect will be to make it very cheap and very easy to create large areas where people believe there are "no" mines, and that is a problem.

In engineering it is often true that a general solution is preferred to one which only works in special cases. The Mine Kafon seems to be, when viewed in the most charitable light, a very special-purpose solution which adds no value above the general solution. Viewed in a more balanced way, the Mine Kafon is a solution in search of a problem[1]. User _djo_ seems to be saying that, there are already tools which do what the Mine Kafon does, and they minimize not just the economic cost to the de-mining organization but also the human cost to the local population.

[1] Do you recall the article several days ago by Paul Graham about how to find good start-up ideas? One thing I took away from that discussion is that you should try to find solutions to existing problems instead of looking for problems that fit your existing solution.

Re: Low-cost Solution to Clearing Afghan Landmines

#179

Post by kragen »

ThomPete wrote: post #113

I was involved in a startup that tried to find landmines using a genetically engineered plant. The semen would be spread out over an area and then wherever there was landmines it would turn red. The other area would stay green. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aresa_Biodetection

English usage note: "semen" refers specifically to fluid containing spermatozoa, used to fertilize humans or other animals, not generically to seeds of any life form.

Re: Low-cost Solution to Clearing Afghan Landmines

#180

Post by PeterisP »

LaGrange wrote: post #162
PeterisP wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If it was neccessary to save my child, I'd eagerly murder every sheep in the world in the most painful way possible with my hands. Animal lives and welfare do matter, but when it comes to weighing human lives against animal lives, only a ratio of something like a million-to-one may be ethically justified. Definitely not one-to-one sheep to a kid. Definitely not even hundred-to-one. It could be reasonable to sacrifice…

Wow, it must be really scary to be a kid of someone with that kind of violent fantasies. Now, as a mental exercise, I suggest you replace "animal" with a racial slur of choice. Because, seriously, 100 years ago people said that about all kinds of other people. They actually still do. Having a slightly higher amount of common DNA is not a justification of whatever-the-hell. And at the point where you say "however sent…

The first sentence was an overexagerration, but I have had near-death experience for my kid, and that makes you reconsider various things in life seriously. I am certainly not a violent person whatsoever, but from that incident I understood that I would disregard almost everything if stakes were that high once more.

But, coming back to the original issue - it all comes down to two different theories of ethics, opinions about what is good and just: in essence, if some choice equals to murdering one to save ten others [a simplification for the sake of argument, assume that no alternatives exist] , would doing so be good or evil?

There are valid arguments to say that doing so would be evil by the nature of the act.

There are valid arguments to say that not doing so would be evil, by the result of the act (10 others dying instead of 1).

And I do value a human life of "a racial slur of choice" more than a hundred sheep - archaic laws did value human lives in a couple dozen of domestic animals, and that whas when a peasant's life was considered cheap; we can and should be better than that.

And I do value my kids life more than your life - that is also quite natural, I doubt that you'd find any parents who think otherwise.

It all adds up. I mean, if you start discussing life and death, then most solutions aren't pretty; and discussing only 'pure' solutions means not saving (= murdering) lives - such as the lives of people that could have been saved by some sheep.

Post reply on HN