Toxn

Which is the thing that nobody wants and everyone is sure will happen anyway. Although look at some of my previous posts for the argument that standards themselves are not exactly designed only with the task in mind. So I guess another question is: what standards are indisputably necessary for the role?

No, we want crushed garlic not nuclear fusion.

Protip: store your flash-ripened tomatoes somewhere warm for a few days before eating. In the sun and next to a banana, if possible. It gives the poor thing time to ripen properly and develop a bit of flavour. Actual vine-picked tomatoes are incomparably better though, and relatively easy to grow if your soil is any good.

Not fine enough for burgers sez I, but have at it in your own fashion. I'd still like your and other people's take on this one

Well, that or it's Friday afternoon. In any case, this thred was a good 'un and I felt like hauling it out of the dirt and adding to it. Though I am, as always, in danger of contradicting myself to the point that my posts become schizophrenic. Edit: Really, look at this thread. I genuinely think that we few schlubs had more constructive debate, in under three pages, than the websites I quoted in the OP managed in months of back-and-forth between ostensibly-qualified pundits.

I think that due to the peculiarities of the US this was destined to become a big deal no matter what. But yeah, from outside it seems like a lot of moaning and wailing over something pretty trivial. Inside the warm (dare I say womb-like) confines of SH, however, we are all about non-trivial arguments. Like so: Read that thing, savour it. Its kind was hunted to extinction and now it stands alone, braying in the mist-soaked air.

I usually use fresh garlic paste, as I don't have a garlic squeezer.

While we're doing the burger wars, what is the best way to make a patty? I tend to be of the school that thinks that pure beef is actually worse than mince (not lean) plus finely minced onions, garlic powder, salt, pepper and bread crumbs. But then I grew up with Frikadel... edit: forgot mustard powder and the egg that holds it together. The latter is more of an optional extra though.

The fact that I seemed to have set of an argument pleases me. The fact that everyone is making good arguments pleases me even more. The fact that it then descended into the grapefruit wars pleases me most of all

I'm necroing this thread because 1) dabbling in the necromantic arts is entirely within the purview of a decadent princeling and 2) I had a thought about this and (may) have something coherent to add. So, here is my thought: Firstly, one of the remarkable aspects of modern society is that it has significantly reduced the rate at which women die in pregnancy and childbirth. Now, apparently the old "20-40% of women used to die in childbirth" thing is more an artefact of the 1800s than anything like a solid historical trend, but I'll happily accept that a rate of something like 10% overall (ie: better than some countries today) was relatively normal. This means that 10% of your adult males of fighting age were (historically) sitting without a mate. Secondly, it is pretty common cause amongst the vast majority of people that stable, long-term relationships between partners (historically almost exclusively some combination of men + women) are beneficial for the functioning of a society. I'd also accept the argument that the most stable form of partnership is between two people rather than multiples, for the simple reason that property rights and succession (which are already a godawful mess to work out) are easier to work out than in a group arrangement of any sort. I have direct experience with this, as South Africa recognises polygamous marriages in the form of traditional marriage. Said marriages come with a fairly intricate system of property rights based on the concepts of independent households run by the wives, with the husband acting as an administrator. Thirdly, it is pretty unequivocal that people in developed societies (and, increasingly, developing ones) are not having kids at the rate at which they could. My grandfather, for instance, was one of eight children. My mother was one of four. I was one of three siblings, and my child is likely to be either alone or one of two (if we follow the current trend). It is also pretty obvious that this is a social and economic issue rather than a biological one. Couples are waiting longer and longer to have kids, because the cost of living is rising, and the earning power of the parents is falling and heavily dependant on education level (which takes time). Finally, it should be common cause for the more conservative folk that marriages as an institution; in whatever form they currently occupy; should be preserved rather than undermined. This is generally seen as being a requirement for a stable and harmonious society. Putting it all together, I'd argue that conservatives should be especially interested in allowing women into combat positions for the simple reason that not doing so is likely to create a generation of spinsters, illegitimate children and faithless husbands whenever a war breaks out. This is because modern societies simply do not have 'spare' males to throw away (women aren't dying in childbirth) and the results of creating too many 'spare' females would be to undermine the monogamous societies that they are supposedly defending. Happily, casualties should not actually have any effect on a society's ability to reproduce as modern societies also run (as mentioned) with very low overall rates of childbirth. Which means that, in the event of a war, your population would still have excess capacity to produce children so long as enough breeding pairs remain to fill the hole in your population. My great-grandparents could have done this damn near single-handed. But I'd say that 5 kids is probably the limit for most parents. Thus, as long as more than 20% of your breeding pairs make it back home to repopulate the nation you're good. For the progressive this is, of course, something of a non-starter. They could look at the idea of resurrecting widespread polygamy or developing government-controlled artificial wombs as viable options. For conservatives who want to maintain a one-mother, one-father nuclear family (which is and was a myth, by the way) as the normal type of human reproductive unit, however, I'd seriously consider finding ways to allow more women to fight and die in the event of a total war breaking out.

Feel for us poor biologists trying to understand ATP synthase and proton pumps.

This has happened to a few people I know. There are so many South African expats floating around that speaking afrikaans behind peoples' backs has a good chance of backfiring.

Marshall plan was great for Japan and Germany. Pity all the other countries (China, for instance) whose major takeaway must have been "if you destroy enough stuff and murder enough people, we'll pay to rebuild you. Otherwise you're on your own."

Generals Porke and Bedryf will, of course, be overseeing the entire process.

Something a bit more... gimmicky to add. One way of compressing a debate is to personify the relevant trends involved. In this case, you could draw an analogy by using fictional avatars to represent the real-life camps and cliques which will weigh in on the matter: Gen. Metraje - represents the Afghanistan/range overmatch camp. Is very concerned that infantry have a rifle which can outrange the enemy and still deliver a lethal blow. Gen. Voet - represents the weight-savings camp. Is very concerned about soldier injury rates and wants to 'lighten the load' by tweaking equipment instead of doctrine. Gen. Comptable - represents the bean counters. Is convinced that rationalising supply lines by minimising the number of ammunition types will make everything run better. Gen Glänzend - represents the whiz-bang crowd. Wants every bullet design to be barrier-blind, capable of accommodating tracer and incendiary, accuratised and Geneva-compliant. Gen. Powers - represents the big rock brigade. Is convinced that knock-down power and one-stop shots, rather than casualties, should be the primary focus of development. Gen. Greene - represents the lead-free camp. Is determined to prevent training ranges from turning into superfund sites while polishing armed forces PR with an 'increasingly environmentally aware' public.

Simple solution: simply turn it around for close range flamethrowing action! "Close range flamethrowing action!" is a trademark of the stupid ideas corporation. Warning: flamethrowing has been shown to result in a number of medical issues including: first degree burns, second degree burns, third degree burns, hair loss, skin loss, ignition of subcutaneous fat, asphyxia, uncontrolled bowel movements, cataracts and death. Flamethrowing should only be done in a carefully controlled environment and under adult supervision. Use at own risk.

Yup. People suck at understanding the concept of tradeoffs for some reason.

One of our perennial problems is that the few things we develop ourselves invariably end up sitting on a shelf until someone else steals them. See also: V-shaped hulls, Mark Shuttleworth and 90% of our medicine/veterinary graduates. We're crap at retaining the value we create; partly through our own stupid decisions and partly because 'free trade' is a lot freer one way than the other.

My point was more that they shouldn't have tried to have it all ways. Better to 'fess up to it being a crap fighter and work harder to optimise stealth and payload. Instead they tried to make it manoeuvre on top of every other thing it got burdened with and added one more shitty compromise into the mix.

Oh so seconded. Two South Carolinas got the axe last night. Also: BBs = god (the ineffectual) father, CCs = the (much cooler) son and CAs = the holy ghost. DDs = Satan

Thanks, hope it helps

Thinking about it some more, this actually sounds like a two-parter: 1- setup. Start by referencing pentagon wars. Use as analogy to explain real tendency in any bureaucracy. Explain how big projects tend to get funded more than a bunch of little ones. Now introduce your role players. Explain what strands of thought were smushed together to get gpc, then finish by spelling out all the requirements that have been shoved in. 2- payoff. Reiterate the requirements, then go step by step through the process of designing a cartridge to meet them. Then reveal the thing, do comparisons and demonstrate how you end up with a bloated mess instead of a one-size-fits-all solution. Reference other projects that have failed due to this issue, cap off with 'perfect is the enemy of good'.