called home...

I don't understand the joke....I need to be more British lol.

And Tolstoy - yeah they were wrong big time. Some of them were probably paid to be wrong too. But they did the best job with the information available, and if the financial sector is giving them misleading information, then there's not much they can do about that. Since the US government is completely transparent as to how much they are spending and how much they owe to whom, I would hope that they're at least less wrong this time.

abge - That's such a dangerously bad line of logic to follow. Why invest in most of our military upgrades then? We're not going into any huge wars any time soon, so why do we need heavy artillery? Tanks provide all the close combat support we need for insurgent operations anyways, so lets just not worry about keeping up to date with our artillery. You know what, we're not gonna get into any air wars either, so lets just drop the whole Joint Strike Fighter because its too expensive.

The point is to invest in the future and be prepared for anything, because we have *zero* clue what will happen a decade from now. In the 1980s, everyone thought Japan was gonna overtake the US, in 1970 we couldn't predict that Iran was going to become hostile within the decade. We just don't know, so we have to be prepared.

@goldie -- Robots have a very practical application in almost every day life. Easily transferable to law enforcement and emergency rescue. The robots we currently have are...eh...so so ....we have drone that fly around, do surveillance work, shoot missiles...and we still have soldiers in body armor doing foot patrol. I want to take soldiers all the street. This is of *way* more value than a big ass laser that will only ever be fired for demonstration purposes.

So to answer your questions, yes, the big ass laser is not immediately useful, so it's time to scrap the program. the research won't disappear...you can continue playing with lasers when we have the money.

As for the economy...if you are listening to the morons that think doubling our debt over the last 4 years isn't a problem...you're insane.

I don't have a problem with some debt per se...as long as it's contained. I have debt - it allows me to live in a house instead of a tent. BUT...I can only get loans that are a contained percentage of my income.

The government doesn't have an off button...the growth of government is increasing in it's percentage of GDP at a trajectory that is not sustainable. I'm not sure what economists you are listening to that say unchecked growth of deb is OK...I don't know anyone that thinks our current debt trajectory is a good thing. Hell...OBAMA 5 years ago when campaigning said Bush's $9 trillion debt was "Unpatriotic". what happened since then that $16 trillion and growing is the responsible thing to do?

Ugh....there is really no point in discussing this...the mere fact that you think our debt is OK is just mind boggling...

@goldy - ESPECIALLY when you then admit to Tolstoy that some of these great economists were wrong...and some of them were *intentionally* wrong. SO...if you openly admit that you can't trust an economist....then....I don't....try this:

USE COMMON SENSE. Stop spending more than we have! gee....there's a concept...

"Some of them were probably paid to be wrong too. But they did the best job with the information available"

Um... if someone is being paid off to promote a particular point of view, they're not doing the best job with the information available. They're lying to get rich.

Even if they were on the 'up and up', the predictions of professional economists are so off the mark that no more stock can be put in them than we can in astrologers.

@Krellin - Well I have some good news and bad news for you. The bad news is that government spending as a portion of gdp is falling.

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/us_20th_century_chart.html

Maybe that's not fast enough for you, but you should really check your facts.

As for who these "experts" are? I don't really know.
http://articles.latimes.com/2013/jan/31/business/la-fi-debt-economy-20130201

As for robots though, I do have good news for you! DARPA is doing *lots* of work in robotics!
http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2012-12/20/darpa-robotic-mule
http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2013-01/29/odor-sniffing-robots
http://www.bostondynamics.com/robot_cheetah.html

An example of the economists though. The author of one of my textbooks and a former member of the Board of Governors for the Fed, Frederic Mishkin, wrote a great review of Iceland's economy in 2008, just before its banks went under and lost the savings of the entire country. If you've seen the movie "Inside Job" then you know this. Here's his rebuttal to the claims laid out in Inside Job.

http://movie.douban.com/review/4983037/

And yes Tolstoy, there will always be people who are paid for an opinion. Lobbyists, analysts, and academics are all subject to this corruption. Better measures need to be taken to prevent the corruption of academia. Just don't think its only economists who have fallen to this - it probably is just as prevalent in other professions (my opinion).

@gold

I completely disagree.

1) We have a limited amount of money and skilled engineers. Because of this, projects should be prioritized based on how useful they are likely to be.

2) Recent history has shown a clear decrease in traditional warfare and an increase in guerrilla-style warfare.

3) Because of points 1 and 2, I don't think it's unreasonable to think that investing in high-tech weapons made for traditional warfare that don't work better than weapons we already have is a complete waste of time and money.

@abge

While I agree with point 1, I believe points 2 and 3 show a complete disregard for military history.

From the end of the 17th century to the beginning of the Napoleonic Wars at the end of the 18th century, warfare became rather "tame". Battles were fought in a civilized manner on an open field between two sides. They even offered the other side to shoot first. Pillaging and wanton destruction were less significant than they were during the 30 Year's War. But, had an observer thought that this trend would keep continuing would be sorely mistaken. It is the same today. Just because guerilla warfare is prominent today does not mean that will always be the type of warfare fought.

As for point 3, I will offer the very good comparison to the V1 and V2 rockets developed by Germany. These rockets were slow, inaccurate, and prone to failure. Bombing runs would have been more effective and scientists could have been used to make better planes. However, while these first generation weapons were failures, they paved the way for cruise missiles, space exploration, etc. Just because something isn't that good as a first gen product, doesn't mean it isn't worth the investment in the long run.

I agree that warfare changes. I'm not saying we should stop all military research. I'm just saying this in particular doesn't seem like a good investment.

I also agree with your general premise that research often results in unexpected products. This is why I'm usually in favor of long-term research. Again, though, with my understanding of lasers, I just don't think it's worth it.

That's fair enough abge. I guess I just want Star Wars to become reality a little sooner haha.

Its really interesting what they're doing though. The laser they're testing is a solid state one, but they're working on one that ionizes the air around it to create a conductive "tube" of sort that the laser would travel through without disapating.

Yeah, as I said initially, I think it's wicked cool; just not something we should be spending money on.

Ships build up static that require magnesium rods?

Thats news to me. I don't recall that ever being of concern at all on my submarine.

I work with a guy who was a maintenance tech onboard a sub tender. He knows lots of things about maintaining them that the submariners wouldn't. I will get more details as he is allowed to tell me (as I said, may not have been magnesium, I couldn't remember for certain).

The Germans and Japanese did it with cables running from bow to conning tower and conning tower to stern as the buildup was dangerous in their steel hulls.

Yeah. I've never heard of it. Unless he's talking about galvanic corrosion. Or degaussing.

Neither of which is static buildup. Sorry, Draug. I think you misheard or misunderstood.

Misunderstood then. But I do know steel hulls can buildup static electricity that has to be discharged by grounding the boat in some form.

A small footnote in the following talks about the Japanese way of discharging the buildup.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I-400-class_submarine
"Strung along the submarine's gunwales were two parallel sets of demagnetization cables, running from the stern to the bow planes. These were intended to dissipate the static charge that normally builds up when a boat's hull slices through the water, causing the steel in the hull to deteriorate over time."

Thats galvanic corrosion. Happens with two different metals in contact in a conductive solution... like seawater.

Sacrificial anodes (zinc usually). Also can be corrected by counteracting the galvanic effect with a small charge in the opposite direction.

The entire ship is grounded... the earth is the ground, and therefore the sea is also ground.

Since fresh water is significantly less electroconductive than salt/sea water, would static buildup be a concern on freshwater ships?

Thanks Jack. And ues it was the zinc, not magnesium. I confirmed that this morning. I knew it had something to do with the salt water and the steel hulls. As I said, my coworkers was the repair tech on the sub tender.