5 ms·

I disagree. I said 'solutions like this', i.e. mine rollers as a single technique, were useless. I stand by that statement because the stats are quite clear on

by _djo_ 14y ago

I disagree. I said 'solutions like this', i.e. mine rollers as a single technique, were useless. I stand by that statement because the stats are quite clear on this as even in ideal conditions (which are seldom present) a roller can only be expected to detonate half the mines in an area. In fact in many areas rollers can't be used at all because of the terrain and vegetation, so demining teams use a combination of other techniques. This concept is actually worse than useless because of the debris it scatters across a minefield and the false confidence it provides. While I applaud the designer's attempt to create something useful, his lack of domain knowledge has resulted in a design that doesn't solve the problem and may make things worse. If I come across as bit hyperbolic, it's because I strongly believe that this is a horrible and underreported problem which demands both carefully-considered and effective solutions and acknowledgement of the people whose hard work and sacrifices have made so many places safe again. It seems silly to laud an ineffective design while there are people out there every day clearing landmines with solutions that work.

pbhjpbhj 14y ago
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. So "Mine rollers are useless [for that purpose] and so should never be used to clear mines under any circumstances." Yes or no?
- _djo_ 14y ago
  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 when and where mine rollers could be effective. But when used independently, as the Mine Kafon's video shows, mine rollers are useless for civilian demining and, because of the false sense of security they provide, could even be harmful. A minefield that people believe to be cleared, but isn't, is far more dangerous than a minefield that's demarcated and which most people know to avoid. So I'd amend your provided phrase and say: "Mine rollers used independently are useless for civilian demining and should not be seen as civilian mine clearance solutions." I'm not sure how much clearer I could be on this.
  - pbhjpbhj 14y ago
    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".
    - _djo_ 14y ago
      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.
      - pbhjpbhj 14y ago
        >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.

by _djo_ 14y ago

pbhjpbhj 14y ago

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. So "Mine rollers are useless [for that purpose] and so should never be used to clear mines under any circumstances." Yes or no?

_djo_ 14y ago
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 when and where mine rollers could be effective. But when used independently, as the Mine Kafon's video shows, mine rollers are useless for civilian demining and, because of the false sense of security they provide, could even be harmful. A minefield that people believe to be cleared, but isn't, is far more dangerous than a minefield that's demarcated and which most people know to avoid. So I'd amend your provided phrase and say: "Mine rollers used independently are useless for civilian demining and should not be seen as civilian mine clearance solutions." I'm not sure how much clearer I could be on this.
- pbhjpbhj 14y ago
  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".
  - _djo_ 14y ago
    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.
    - pbhjpbhj 14y ago
      >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.