HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Warren DeMontague » Journal
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next »

Warren DeMontague

Profile Information

Name: Rumdrinkin DeMonattea
Gender: Male
Hometown: This un
Member since: Thu May 20, 2004, 05:02 AM
Number of posts: 58,338

About Me

What do you call a man with 10 rabbits in his ***?

Journal Archives

Except, NASA is not suggesting sending astronauts to Mars just in the Orion capsule.

The capsule willl be an important part of the mission, but other habitation and shielding requirements will clearly need to be met.

And remember, no one is talking about going next week.

But to imply that this is all some huge deliberate waste of time and money, or that somehow no one has thought of the issues you bring up, is wildly disingenuous.

Posted by Warren DeMontague | Sun Dec 7, 2014, 03:53 AM (1 replies)

He covered his face but not his license plate.

Not the brightest Wizard at Hogwarts.
Posted by Warren DeMontague | Fri Dec 5, 2014, 08:21 PM (1 replies)

What happens in Vegans should stay in Vegans.

Posted by Warren DeMontague | Wed Oct 8, 2014, 08:52 PM (1 replies)

I am pretty well informed on this topic, without having to abuse my brain listening to that turd.

I am not sitting here going "holy fuck we're doomed". We're not doomed. I do believe that our health care system can handle small outbreaks, as they did in Nigeria; although it's worth noting that Patrick Sawyer flying into Lagos managed to infect some 20 odd other people before they brought that under control, and even the Nigerians would admit to some nail-biting moments, because as they saw in Port Harcourt, the more secondary cases and vectors you have to control, the harder it becomes.

Sure, maybe 20 secondary and tertiary cases is not a bad ratio for a single importation- great, unless you or one your family members, your spouse, your kids, happen to be one of those cases.

Its been a while since those two volunteers returned with ebola, its also been a while since the guy came over with ebola, to date no one in America has contracted the disease or died from it, i'd say we are taking it seriously enough that it isnt a danger..

...Um, really? You can't possibly believe the conclusion you come to in that sentence, if you parse out the underlying facts. The "volunteers returned with ebola" under strict medical supervision, in the only plane on Earth designed to handle a level 4 pathogen, I might add. And they spent every second under treatment here in strict isolation, also in a negative pressure enviroment (which you don't happen to find "in every hospital", by the way) ... I mean, if someone else had gotten sick from either of those people, over here, despite all that precaution, I'd say we all were roundly and truly fucked.

But again, you have to understand that a sick person getting on a plane in Monrovia, coming over to Dallas, being sent home from the ER, puking all over the common grounds of the apt. complex and an ambulance only THEN to be put in isolation at a hospital-- is a far different situation than the volunteers being brought back under medical supervision. To wit, a sick person traveling with this thing is not the same ball of wax as a medical evacuation- not even close.

And "the guy came over with ebola" on Sept. 20. He was reportedly exposed on Sept. 16 (and knowingly got on a plane 4 days later, apparently) and got sick on Sept. 24, which is 4 days after that. He went to the hospital on the 25th and was sent home, was home for 2 or 3 more days potentially exposing people, only to be put into isolation on the 28th. So presumably most of the people he could have exposed were between 9/24 and 9/28. Sept 28 was, what, 6 days ago? Duncan didn't show symptoms for 8 days. It is 21 days before medical authorities will declare someone not infected, after exposure. Understand? You can't SAY "no one in America has contracted the disease from it" when the first week of the 3 week period it normally takes to develop the disease, isn't even over from presumably the last exposure.

As for "isn't a danger", that sort of ties into your "only about 4000 deaths". Okay, "only" 4000. A few weeks ago, it was only 2000. A few weeks before, it was only 1000. Which means in a few more weeks we will likely be looking at 8000, then 16000, then 32000, etc. That's what "exponential" means. And as the numbers of cases there grow, the more likely it is that we will be having people- one, two, then five, then ten, etc. coming over here or going elsewhere with the disease. The more people who have it, the more who can spread it. To say it "isn't" a danger now is ludicrous, because the situation is clearly changing day by day, and not only that but getting progressively worse. The odds of additional passengers with ebola getting on airplanes get higher and higher as the thing grows. How can anyone say it "isn't" anything, when you're dealing with that kind of flux? It wasn't terribly likely that we'd get a case in the US in July, some statisticians had the probability at 20% by the end of Sept, and they were right. Do you suppose that probability is going to get lower if, God Forbid, by early next year there are really a million cases in L/SL/G?

And the more people who come over with it, the more opportunity there is for chaos, for additional cases. It IS something we should be concerned about, which is not the same thing as saying it's likely there will be a widespread outbreak of it here. I'd rather have no cases, than a small number or a bunch of little clusters. Those little clusters will wreak havoc, close schools, shut down buildings, etc. too. And probably fuck up some hospitals that are NOT as well prepared as they all are claiming to be.

Lastly, I'll say this- which is what I've said from the get-go on this deal. It is incumbent, OBVIOUSLY, on us and the rest of the world, to assist West Africa in shutting this down over there, and when this is all over, NOT leaving them with these dilapidated health care systems (or lack thereof) ... we have a moral responsibility as well, as we can see, as one which has no small amount of our own self-interest involved.

But that said, it is absurd and even a bit offensive to chastise people for worrying about this or suggesting they shouldn't. It's a dreadful disease, and it kills quickly and brutally. Of course people are going to worry about it.
Posted by Warren DeMontague | Sun Oct 5, 2014, 07:02 AM (4 replies)

Let me start by saying that this ebola outbreak is something I've been worried about since April.

When there were little or no indications that it was going to be any different, substantially, than previous outbreaks, which have all been fairly quickly contained.

I claim no special insight; rather, like a character in a star wars flick, I've just had a bad feeling about this.

And, by even the most conservative estimations, it is set to be a catastrophe- hitting precisely the poorest, most ill equipped countries and health systems it possibly could.

Simply by spreading how it normally does, this outbreak is likely to take a simply horrific toll on the populations of Guinea, Sierra leone, and particularly Liberia. And make no mistake, it could spread elsewhere- it has, and it likely will again. Much will depend on how well those further outbreaks are contained, and how quickly.

There has been talk, like the osterholm piece, of the potential of ebola to mutate into an airborne mode of transmission- and likewise other prominent voices have come forth to calm the alarm by suggesting it is not terribly likely. I am not a virologoist so I don't really know, but I have done some reading and try to stay well-informed about the science. I'll say a couple things- one, ebola scares the fuck out of me, as it should any human, since the zaire strain at least has traditionally had up to a 90% lethality rate- although in this epidemic it has been running around 50-55%. Which indicates, perhaps, that it already HAS mutated, mutated in such a way to lessen the "burn-out" of previous outbreaks, perhaps by not killing as quickly, or effectively. Word on the ground is that the ebola currently infecting west Africans does not produce, at least as often, the gruesome "bleed-out" hemorrhagic end stage that is so horribly described in books like The Hot Zone.

Edited to add- as for evolving in a way that would require less viral load for infection- according to some accounts of the virus, it already is incredibly infectious, at least in terms of viral load. It would be hard for me to imagine how it could get any moreso, since as it is I dont believe it takes much virus exposure to produce infection anyway.

So a few things-

One, if it does have the potential to become airborne, it does not seem to have done so yet. If it had, i believe we would know. And fairly quickly.

Two, as others have noted in response to the Osterholm piece- ebola mutating to an entirely different mode of transport would be fairly unprecedented in the viral world. Early in the AIDS crisis there was fear of that virus doing the same. As we can see, that never happened. The ebola virus is big, in virus terms- and it is a strange, if particularly lethal, fucker. Basically a strand of RNA in a protein tube, that steals the lipid cell lining of its host for its own outer coat- which explains why the hosts cells burst so spectacularly, and nastily, in large numbers when the virus really takes hold. But what this means is that, design wise, it is fundamentally unlike a spherical flu virus wrapped in an ever-changing protein ball. Evolving to be able to survive in the air as a flu virus does, would likely require more than just a series of random mutations. At least, I hope.

Three, yes, as was extensively detailed in the Hot Zone, there has been evidence of the Reston strain of ebola being transmitted by air, by animals, in closed situations. This may be relevant to the human experience with ebola, it may not.

The bottom line is that at best this is a massive humanitarian crisis for west africa and it is the responsibility of the rest of the species and planet to come to their immediate aid, and when and if this is all over, not leave them with the shamefully inadequate health systems they went into this with. Because as we see, it is all our problem.
Posted by Warren DeMontague | Sun Sep 14, 2014, 02:59 AM (1 replies)

These are all really good questions.

1) Higher, absolutely. NASA currently gets a sliver of the discretionary budget and yet, science and exploration always pay off not just in material benefits but also in knowledge (and the two are linked). Prime areas for redirecting funding towards NASA could come from the Military/Industrial Complex and the Drug War, for starts.

2) See above: I think it's ludicrous that we spend a Trillion on the Military, we spend 60 Billion a year to try to keep people from smoking pot... NASA gets, what, 12? 16? I think that the entire DEA budget could be subsumed and given to NASA, that's a start. How much, dollar figure? Increase it by an order of 10 from where it is, just for starters.

3) Both are important. Obviously given the current status of technology, deep exploration will need to be robotic for the time being. I'd like to see a situation where one does not always need to come at the expense of the other.

4) Is pretty tied up with 3), also 2) and 1). If we're talking percentages, split it down the middle.

5) I actually think the idea of a specialty-focused science and environmental gov. org separate from NASA is not a bad idea; nevertheless, NASA is leading the way in understanding planets as whole systems, which is what the Earth is. But NASA's core mission should be exploration and knowledge of the universe off-Earth. If budget allowed, Earth sciences going to a new department is a reasonable idea.

6) Solar observation? Sure. Solar science could remain a NASA job. Perhaps a partnership.

7) If by "worlds" you mean Planets, moons, and dwarf planets, that's another good question. Mars first. Then Europa. Ceres if it looks interesting enough (we should have an idea next year) Enceladeus, Titan.. Venus has gotten short shrift but I think it could be an interesting case study. Jupiter. I'd also like to know what is out in the Kuiper belt. We're going to get a close up look at Pluto-- so how about Eris next?

8) Mars is the obvious next destination for landing humans, to my mind.

9) Ceres, again. A Venus flyby is technologically feasable near-term and could provide crucial mission experience for long-duration spaceflight outside the near-Earth environment. Science might be low but the historic factor would be high. Plus, again, everyone likes to blow off Venus because, obviously, it's so frikken hellish there, but it is close and might have some interesting data points. Beyond that the moons of the 2 big gas giants are an obvious additional destination for human spaceflight, depending on how well issues like radiation can be dealt with.

10) I think the shuttle, with its inherent design flaws, brought the risk rate too high. There will always be risks. That said, I don't know what the acceptable rate is.

11) Depends on my personal life situation. I have others who depend on me so that factors pretty highly into any decision I would make that would put me in danger at this point in my life. Plus, I'm probably getting too old.

12) Yes, although like I said, I'd like to see the military cut and the drug war ended first. Yes. Unknown, since again these things don't take place in a vacuum. The fantasy political will to raise NASA's budget significantly (namely, in a universe where I ran everything) would also include the will to re-prioritize the areas I've mentioned, as well as others.

13) Unknown, although I personally believe that humans will be living, for instance, on Mars permanently by the end of this century. Colonization implies familes and children. I think when humans decide to go to live there, they will take their kids. That's how it works.

14) If I could go anywhere? I'd like to see other solar systems. That's not likely to happen. If I could go anywhere in this solar system? I think looking at Saturn from one of its moons would be the best view imaginable. But I'm old school, I'd have to go to Mars to appease my inner 8 year old, who would never forgive me if I didn't make that my first choice.

15) Another good question. I think humans will live on the moon and Mars- I think eventually (1000 year timeframe) humans will begin to Terraform Mars and, perhaps, other worlds of the solar system, depending on our abilities. Mars seems most doable. I suspect humans will establish outposts on Ceres and also Jovian and Saturnian moons. If we're still technologically backwards enough to need to burn hydrocarbons, humans may utilize the methane lakes on Titan, etc.

16) Another excellent question. I think social predictions for the future are hardest of all (look how ludicrous past ones all turn out, like how in the 1950s by 2000 we were all going to be wearing shiny unitards and plastic skullcaps) but I do think, if history and human nature are any guide, social and governmental experimentation will continue to take place in their most innovative, or at least different, forms at the frontiers of human exploration.
Posted by Warren DeMontague | Fri Sep 12, 2014, 06:02 AM (0 replies)

Because her aspect ratio is all fucked up?

Seriously, that thing is giving me a headache.

Anyway, if there's one thing I can't stand almost as much as Kardashians, Hiltons, and other emblems of vacuous famous-for-being-famous-osity, it's breathy, overwrought pontificating on the ominous implications impled by said phenomena.

Yeah, who cares. Kim Kardashian is a celebrity mobius strip, an Escheresque strange loop of self-feeding (and self-enriching) media pretzel logic. So what? Is (so-called) "late-stage American-style capitalism" really the only human endeavour that glorifies, basically, nothing? (Let's avoid dovetailing into what seems to me an almost inevitable digression into religion, here) No, actually, it's not. Very few "celebrities" around the world are Dalai Lamas, at least compared to the number who are on TV because they can look good in a tank top while eating a banana.

And ever was it thus.

And that "famous for nothing, rich for just being there" as thing? Yeah, okay, maybe the part about fighting the revolutionary war to be free of royalty is a bit overstated, given that the impulse seems to be hard-baked into at least the supermarket tabloid aspects of our collective English-speaking psyche.

But come on. Whatever it is, it's not exclusive to the US, and it's certainly not new.

Posted by Warren DeMontague | Sat Sep 6, 2014, 06:12 AM (2 replies)

The point is, to say that anyone who doesn't lose their shit over porn, swimsuits, and

Spiderwoman's butt, isn't a "real liberal", and in fact is somehow echoing right wing views - is facile, flat out false, and in fact 180 degrees from the actual political reality.
Posted by Warren DeMontague | Fri Aug 29, 2014, 09:40 PM (2 replies)


Now THERE is an actual, real gaping hole on DU.

But then, that was someone who never went in for self-congratulatory bs or the like... Who simply showed up and fought the good fight, and defended her right to make up her own mind on her own terms.

The word "loss" is tossed around too easily, when anyone can post a GBCW thread in GD, drum up 100 "please don't go" responses, and then make a dramatic exit, only to show up six months later "I'm back!!!! miss me?"

And we're talking about screen names, fake nom de plumes by people who, for all we know, have 20 socks in the drawer. Raindog was a real loss, an actual loss.

The good ones don't announce their leaving. The great ones, like raindog- man, I sure wish I could have at least said goodbye.

Posted by Warren DeMontague | Thu Aug 28, 2014, 02:53 AM (1 replies)

He's spider-man, remember

those are egg sacs.
Posted by Warren DeMontague | Sat Aug 23, 2014, 05:58 PM (0 replies)
Go to Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next »