Friday, March 13, 2009
Project Proposal
Michael and I propose to examine the intricacies of recent and future military technological achievements. I'm sure many of you have heard of some of the newer innovations currently in use (such as the unmanned predator aircraft), but there are many more that are not so commonly covered. As an additional topic, we may also delve into the relation between military and civilian technologies and the link therein. There have been many military inventions that have been retrofitted for everyday use, just as there have been some purely civilian inventions that have been seen as useful to the military. As such, we propose to delve into these subject areas.
Thursday, March 12, 2009
A somewhat less modest proposal
In this world we know, there are many problems with which we are constantly burdened. There is too little food to supply all the people who are in want of it, and there are too many people on too little land. Yet, in contrast to this, many countries focus on meaningless war between themselves, choosing to spend precious resources on weapons of devastation instead of possible aid and humanitarian purposes. One of the best examples of this is the conflict in the Middle East, or more specifically, the ongoing war between the states of Israel and Palestine. Despite years of continuous peace talks and negotiations, the two nations are still in an almost constant war. Regardless of concessions made by either of the two parties, there always seems to be some spark that reignites this conflict. Still, one thing remains that all can agree on: this sad state of affairs needs to be put to an end.
To this end, many nations have tried many numerous solutions, all of which seem to fail after some time. One of the most recent efforts was simply to put a wall (or more accurately a fence) between the contested border areas. In spite of the seemingly insurmountable challenge of actually ending this conflict, the fence did seem to lessen the fighting where it was put up. To this end, is it not reasonable to assume that a simple continuation of this effort may be what is needed to finally end this ongoing quarrel? Since it is apparent that this is the preferred method to cease the fighting, I propose simply building a larger wall. The dimensions of this wall should be approximately 100 feet high, 20 feet wide, and spanning an area of possibly 50 miles of the most contested areas. However, a wall of these dimensions is not easily constructed, and as such materials would be hard to procure, this simply creates more problems for the two nations. In addition to this, what would stop some of the extremists from trying to destroy the wall as it is being constructed? This too presents yet another problem. What material can withstand such repeated attacks? After much searching, I believe I have stumbled upon the appropriate substance from which to build the wall. Pigs. I had not previously considered pigs a viable material for construction, but I have from a very reliable source in the Americas (a good friend and renowned architect) their utmost assurance that pigs are in fact a very reliable material with which to build. In fact, my source assures me that when tanned (or submitted to harsh sun in dry conditions, the very conditions present in the Middle East) their hides provide very resilient leather, perfect for surfacing almost any structure. In addition to this, because of their stout bones, pigs provide an internal support, virtually eliminating the need to provide any sort of internal structural framework. However, this still leaves the wall in want of a type of mortar. To this, I propose an even simpler solution. Has no one noticed the congealing properties of blood? When still wet, blood is a very fluid solution, able to permeate even the smallest cracks. However, when it dries, it becomes hard, veritably the perfect glue. So, instead of spending millions of dollars on trying to find a proper mortar in order to stick the pigs together, all that needs to be done is simply gutting the pigs before stacking them to build the wall. Some may suggest that the cost of hundreds of thousands of pigs may outweigh the expected cost of building a typical wall. While this may be true in the short term, there are many reasons why the pig-wall solution is preferable. Building a hundred foot wall of cement would not only cost millions of dollars (this cost is almost assured regardless of circumstance), but would be easy to destroy, as cement chips when fired upon. Not only this, but the cement wall would need repairs, which would cost even more money each subsequent time. Why build a wall like that, when instead, pigs are softer, more easily absorbing the possible impact of bullets. Also, since the wall will be entirely comprised of pigs, were the contractors building the wall simply to procure an excess of say, one to ten thousand pigs, there would be a constantly renewing source of materials. Still, all of this pales in comparison to perhaps the most motivating reason why a wall of pigs would work better than anything else.
The conflict is mainly based in religion, pitting the Muslims against the Jews. (Israel is primarily a Jewish state, and Palestine is controlled by an Islamist Fundamentalist government.) Both religions have many tenets among them, but one of the more characteristic of these is the refusal of both religions to eat pork. This is one standing tenet that both Judaism and Islam apply to. So, were this wall to be made of pigs, both states would be hard pressed to destroy the wall without first breaking some tenet of their respective religions (religion being one of the bigger issues fuel the conflict). Not only this, but the eventual rot of the wall will be so repugnant that even should someone wish to break their religious decrees in the name of pointless war, the smell will repel them.
Some may suggest that this undertaking may be a bit overzealous. After all, why not try furthering some other means to end the warring? Could trying to further peace talks work just as well and cost less? No, by no means! The pig-wall solution is by far the better. My proposed solution ends the fighting immediately; can any other solution boast this? Perhaps ceasing to fund these countries that continue to choose to go to war is a valuable solution? Nay, I say. They would find some way to bypass these minor setbacks, going back to their unfortunately familiar ways. Could we then seek to remove from their hands the weapons being used? Again, this is a valued effort, but far too costly. There can be no other solution anywhere near as effective simply building this proposed wall of pigs.
Still, please do not observe this as merely trying to push a solution which may in turn benefit my own person. I stand in no way to gain anything from this; I have only the best intentions in mind. In fact, I hold no stake in any company either producing pigs or any company wishing to construct any new undertakings. I simply wish to procure peace in an often violence beset area of this Earth that we all share.
To this end, many nations have tried many numerous solutions, all of which seem to fail after some time. One of the most recent efforts was simply to put a wall (or more accurately a fence) between the contested border areas. In spite of the seemingly insurmountable challenge of actually ending this conflict, the fence did seem to lessen the fighting where it was put up. To this end, is it not reasonable to assume that a simple continuation of this effort may be what is needed to finally end this ongoing quarrel? Since it is apparent that this is the preferred method to cease the fighting, I propose simply building a larger wall. The dimensions of this wall should be approximately 100 feet high, 20 feet wide, and spanning an area of possibly 50 miles of the most contested areas. However, a wall of these dimensions is not easily constructed, and as such materials would be hard to procure, this simply creates more problems for the two nations. In addition to this, what would stop some of the extremists from trying to destroy the wall as it is being constructed? This too presents yet another problem. What material can withstand such repeated attacks? After much searching, I believe I have stumbled upon the appropriate substance from which to build the wall. Pigs. I had not previously considered pigs a viable material for construction, but I have from a very reliable source in the Americas (a good friend and renowned architect) their utmost assurance that pigs are in fact a very reliable material with which to build. In fact, my source assures me that when tanned (or submitted to harsh sun in dry conditions, the very conditions present in the Middle East) their hides provide very resilient leather, perfect for surfacing almost any structure. In addition to this, because of their stout bones, pigs provide an internal support, virtually eliminating the need to provide any sort of internal structural framework. However, this still leaves the wall in want of a type of mortar. To this, I propose an even simpler solution. Has no one noticed the congealing properties of blood? When still wet, blood is a very fluid solution, able to permeate even the smallest cracks. However, when it dries, it becomes hard, veritably the perfect glue. So, instead of spending millions of dollars on trying to find a proper mortar in order to stick the pigs together, all that needs to be done is simply gutting the pigs before stacking them to build the wall. Some may suggest that the cost of hundreds of thousands of pigs may outweigh the expected cost of building a typical wall. While this may be true in the short term, there are many reasons why the pig-wall solution is preferable. Building a hundred foot wall of cement would not only cost millions of dollars (this cost is almost assured regardless of circumstance), but would be easy to destroy, as cement chips when fired upon. Not only this, but the cement wall would need repairs, which would cost even more money each subsequent time. Why build a wall like that, when instead, pigs are softer, more easily absorbing the possible impact of bullets. Also, since the wall will be entirely comprised of pigs, were the contractors building the wall simply to procure an excess of say, one to ten thousand pigs, there would be a constantly renewing source of materials. Still, all of this pales in comparison to perhaps the most motivating reason why a wall of pigs would work better than anything else.
The conflict is mainly based in religion, pitting the Muslims against the Jews. (Israel is primarily a Jewish state, and Palestine is controlled by an Islamist Fundamentalist government.) Both religions have many tenets among them, but one of the more characteristic of these is the refusal of both religions to eat pork. This is one standing tenet that both Judaism and Islam apply to. So, were this wall to be made of pigs, both states would be hard pressed to destroy the wall without first breaking some tenet of their respective religions (religion being one of the bigger issues fuel the conflict). Not only this, but the eventual rot of the wall will be so repugnant that even should someone wish to break their religious decrees in the name of pointless war, the smell will repel them.
Some may suggest that this undertaking may be a bit overzealous. After all, why not try furthering some other means to end the warring? Could trying to further peace talks work just as well and cost less? No, by no means! The pig-wall solution is by far the better. My proposed solution ends the fighting immediately; can any other solution boast this? Perhaps ceasing to fund these countries that continue to choose to go to war is a valuable solution? Nay, I say. They would find some way to bypass these minor setbacks, going back to their unfortunately familiar ways. Could we then seek to remove from their hands the weapons being used? Again, this is a valued effort, but far too costly. There can be no other solution anywhere near as effective simply building this proposed wall of pigs.
Still, please do not observe this as merely trying to push a solution which may in turn benefit my own person. I stand in no way to gain anything from this; I have only the best intentions in mind. In fact, I hold no stake in any company either producing pigs or any company wishing to construct any new undertakings. I simply wish to procure peace in an often violence beset area of this Earth that we all share.
Wednesday, March 11, 2009
Listen to the WHOLE piece.
...Please?
One thing that really irks me is when people do things half-assedly (pardon the language, it really gets me angry). Most of the most egregious (in my mind at least) is when people listen to pieces of music halfway through. Like, take for example my last post, in which I basically slobbered over Beethoven's Moonlight Sonata for a few minutes. Most people don't even know that the piece has anything apart from the first movement. Another big one, Beethoven's 5'th Symphony. Most people know the characteristic 4 notes that start off the piece (BA-BA-BA-BUM), but that's all they know. I really wish today's society were a little more appreciative of music. In part, I believe some of these new "compilation" discs are to blame. Yes, I do think that the first movement of the 5'th Symphony is great; about that there's no argument. However, Beethoven wrote the whole piece, not just one movement to it. It's meant to be listened to in it's entirety. Much the same thing has happened to many composers. Please do them a favor, and listen to the whole thing. (that's just the first part, please listen to all parts, lol.)
One thing that really irks me is when people do things half-assedly (pardon the language, it really gets me angry). Most of the most egregious (in my mind at least) is when people listen to pieces of music halfway through. Like, take for example my last post, in which I basically slobbered over Beethoven's Moonlight Sonata for a few minutes. Most people don't even know that the piece has anything apart from the first movement. Another big one, Beethoven's 5'th Symphony. Most people know the characteristic 4 notes that start off the piece (BA-BA-BA-BUM), but that's all they know. I really wish today's society were a little more appreciative of music. In part, I believe some of these new "compilation" discs are to blame. Yes, I do think that the first movement of the 5'th Symphony is great; about that there's no argument. However, Beethoven wrote the whole piece, not just one movement to it. It's meant to be listened to in it's entirety. Much the same thing has happened to many composers. Please do them a favor, and listen to the whole thing. (that's just the first part, please listen to all parts, lol.)
Beethoven
(not pronounced BEE-though-ven)
Alright. One of the things that I'm more interested in in life is music. My favorite composer is Ludwig van Beethoven. As of now, I'd rather not go through his whole life story (or rather, I'd love to but I just don't have the time, and neither do you, especially if I'm the one explaining as I tend to be overly wordy), so instead I figured I'd link his name to the Wikipedia page; they have a good mini-bio.
Anyway, for this blog at least, I'll focus on his Opus 27, no. 2; Piano Sonata 14, "Quasi una fantasia" (Moonlight). Most people know this work for it's haunting beginning melody, which repeats the same motive over and over again. It's a piece full of longing, with a relatively simple melody. For this reason, I believe most people are able to relate to it fairly well. However, to most who do not avidly listen to music or play the piano, the second and third movements of the piece are almost unknown. The second movement is a relatively short interlude between to giants of music. The first movement is filled with emotion, while the third is one the most intense pieces for solo piano I believe there has ever existed. Really, I've been trying for like 20 minutes to try and describe a piece that I don't think words can do justice to. SO, after my rant, here's the piece in it's entirety (I even made the playlist myself). This particular version is of Daniel Barenboim playing the piece (I think his interpretation is one of the best). With out further ado, please enjoy.
Alright. One of the things that I'm more interested in in life is music. My favorite composer is Ludwig van Beethoven. As of now, I'd rather not go through his whole life story (or rather, I'd love to but I just don't have the time, and neither do you, especially if I'm the one explaining as I tend to be overly wordy), so instead I figured I'd link his name to the Wikipedia page; they have a good mini-bio.
Anyway, for this blog at least, I'll focus on his Opus 27, no. 2; Piano Sonata 14, "Quasi una fantasia" (Moonlight). Most people know this work for it's haunting beginning melody, which repeats the same motive over and over again. It's a piece full of longing, with a relatively simple melody. For this reason, I believe most people are able to relate to it fairly well. However, to most who do not avidly listen to music or play the piano, the second and third movements of the piece are almost unknown. The second movement is a relatively short interlude between to giants of music. The first movement is filled with emotion, while the third is one the most intense pieces for solo piano I believe there has ever existed. Really, I've been trying for like 20 minutes to try and describe a piece that I don't think words can do justice to. SO, after my rant, here's the piece in it's entirety (I even made the playlist myself). This particular version is of Daniel Barenboim playing the piece (I think his interpretation is one of the best). With out further ado, please enjoy.
Tuesday, March 3, 2009
Water
Or rather, just another aspect of this world's ridiculous overpopulation problems.
Okay, assume for a second we're back in 1950. Everything's hunky-dory (accepting the impending threat of nuclear doom from the Russians, but they're cool for now). Was infrastructure a problem then? Really think about it, was worrying about water even remotely a concern for the people of the time? No, of course not. Now let's look at what was different. For many cities, the infrastructure (at least piping, etc.) remains much the same as it was 50 years ago, so what's the problem? Well, the world population has tripled since then. (Just to give you an idea of what the population was and has been.) That gives us a little bit of a problem. Though the United States's population has only doubled since then, that gives us twice as many people using the same water systems designed to work at half the capacity we expect of them now. Really, is this that unexpected? This gives us two possible solutions: spend billions of dollars to try to update our woefully out of date water works, or perhaps, possibly, we might just try to reduce our population growth in an attempt to stem this and so many other problems resulting from overpopulation of an already too-stressed world.
Use a condom, people.
Okay, assume for a second we're back in 1950. Everything's hunky-dory (accepting the impending threat of nuclear doom from the Russians, but they're cool for now). Was infrastructure a problem then? Really think about it, was worrying about water even remotely a concern for the people of the time? No, of course not. Now let's look at what was different. For many cities, the infrastructure (at least piping, etc.) remains much the same as it was 50 years ago, so what's the problem? Well, the world population has tripled since then. (Just to give you an idea of what the population was and has been.) That gives us a little bit of a problem. Though the United States's population has only doubled since then, that gives us twice as many people using the same water systems designed to work at half the capacity we expect of them now. Really, is this that unexpected? This gives us two possible solutions: spend billions of dollars to try to update our woefully out of date water works, or perhaps, possibly, we might just try to reduce our population growth in an attempt to stem this and so many other problems resulting from overpopulation of an already too-stressed world.
Use a condom, people.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)