Slashdot Mirror

Its an execeptionally good riot control device since it leaves no physical evidence, especially if the antenna is somewhat concealed. No clouds of tear gas, no protesters eyes burning from mace, no batons swinging, no soldiers shooting rubber or lead bullets to stoke sympathy from TV viewers. The protester will just start screaming in pain and running away. Sure to be a big hit in Israel and Iraq.

I'm wondering if they are working on an indoor version since it is a perfect tool for torture, it leaves no marks. The victim wouldn't even know what was happening to them.

It appears I now have a good reason to wear a tin foil hat, or really a full body suit like everyone keeps telling me I should. Its not just a Bush Big Brother Weapon either. I believe it was started by Clinton and is roundly endorsed by John Kerry.

This weapon is perfect for a dictatorship wanting to keep its people in line.

But getting a verifiable receipt that shows how you voted, and when its put in an old fashioned ballot box its priceless. You can then go back and do a manual recount of the paper and establish if the machine count was accurate or not.

As long as there are truly random recounts of at least a percentage of all votes cast you will most probably catch rigging or machine errors. I don't care how careful you are in making sure the machines are certified and locked, a paper trail is the only way to make them reliable.

I read an interesting observation the other day. It does appear the Bush administration has a life or death reason to make sure they win the next election, both the White House and the Congress.

It appears the Bush administration has, at the highest level, violated the Geneva conventions and U.S. law against torture, perhaps not against Al Qaeda since they are in a legal gray area but most certainly they tortured people in Iraq who were under Geneva protections.

It is extremely important to the Bush administration that they win the election so they can white wash the investigation. If someone truly independent did the investigation and found them guilty and it appears there is a pretty big paper trail and a lot of people involved, both in recently unveiled memos in which the DOJ and the Pentagon were engaged in a failed attempt to give a legal basis for torture and in revelations about Copper Green which suggest this program of torture was approved at the highest levels by Bush, Rumsfeld and his deputy Cambone.

Today it was revealed that dog handlers who were used in Iraq to scare prisoners were in fact doing so under orders from military intelligence officers which debunks the Bush administration's BS that the torture was just a bunch of rogue army reservists. If the investigation isn't a sham its nearly certain the torture will be traced to the Pentagon and the White House. It simply was a war crime to authorize to the Bush administration has a life or death reason to make sure they win the next election at all cost.

If you want to see the latest thing in torture look here.ts Its the U.S. military's Active Denial System developed by Raytheon scheduled to start trials this fall. Its a millimeter wave beam weapon designed for non lethal crowd "control". Volunteers at Raytheon subjected to it described it as "unbearably painful, saying they felt as though their bodies were on fire". It should put an end to any unauthorized demonstrations against the U.S. or any of its allies. Its not entirely clear what happens to your eyes if you take the beam in the face at close range, or if it will cause cancer long term. I'm wondering if they are working on an indoor version since it is a perfect tool for torture, it leaves no marks. The victim wouldn't even know what was happening to them. It appears I now have a good reason to where a tin foil hat, or really a full body suit like everyone keeps telling me I should when I propose the possibility that the Bush administration is, in fact, on a fast track to dictatorship.

Titan: NASA

While the Titan 2 has been retired and the Titan 4 is being phased out, those vehicles are not operated by NASA, nor are they commercially avaiable. They are built by Lockheed Martin for the US Air Force.

Delta: NASA

The Delta is built and operated by Boeing.

Ariane: unreliable, and run by a baby NASA that speaks French

Ariane is operated by Arianespace, although they do receive some funding from ESA to support development of the Ariane 5.

Pegasus: NASA

Pegasus is built and operated by Orbital Sciences Corporation.

Russian launchers: you're kidding right?

Russian launch vehicles, built by a number of Russian firms, are often an economically-attractive alternative to US and European boosters. Nothing funny about it.

yes you are right - the correct link is:

Its the U.S. military's latest Active Denial System developed by Raytheon scheduled to start trials this fall. Its a millimeter wave beam weapon designed for non lethal crowd "control". Volunteers at Raytheon subjected to it described it as "unbearably painful, saying they felt as though their bodies were on fire". It should put an end to any unauthorized demonstrations against the U.S. or any of its allies. Its not entirely clear what happens to your eyes if you take the beam in the face at close range, or if it will cause cancer long term.

In case you think this is just Bush administration big brotherism, John Kerry is a big fan too.

There are two CIPs in each F-22, with 66 module slots per CIP. They have identical backplanes and all of the F-22's processing requirements can be handled by only seven different types of processors. Currently, 19 of 66 slots in CIP 1 and 22 of 66 slots in CIP are open and available for expansion.

Each module is limited by design to only 75 percent of its capability, so the F-22 has 30 percent growth capability with no change to the existing equipment. There is space, power and cooling provisions in the aircraft now for a third CIP, so the requirement for a 200 percent avionics growth capability in the F-22 can be easily met.

There is coordinated plan for technology growth that will help keep the CIP at state-of-the-art levels. As electronics continue to get smaller and more powerful, it is conceivable that there could be 300 percent increase in avionics capability.

Muahaha. Languages from the stone-age. Jovial is an ancient semi-descendant of Algol, originally written especially for avionics systems. I'm not nearly old enough to have worked with it myself - Jovial's heyday was the mid-'70's or so - but I used to work with a couple of DoD greybeards who had done so, although even they hadn't touched the thing in years, as it's mostly been supplanted by Ada these days. The USAF can tell you a bit more about Jovial if you're having a slow day today ;)

Oops I lost my link there - Jovial Lives!

To protect the craft during the 6.7 Mach flight, there was a coating sprayed on the body of the X-15. As it burnt off, it would cloud the view of the pilot, Air Force Major Robert White in this case.

One small correction - the pilot for the M6.7 flight was Major Pete Knight. The highest mach that Major White got to was M6.04. See:

http://www.edwards.af.mil/history/docs_html/aircra ft/x-15_mach6.7.html
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/x15conf/ log.html

Cedar Point is a good reason to visit Ohio. There's also The Pro Football Hall of Fame and The USAF Museum.

Everything I've looked at so far seems too complicated ... or too childish (Logo, Squeak, Lego Mindstorms). Is there anything in the middle that is also cheap/free and suitable for adults?

Squeak is a dialect of Smalltalk which I can't imagine any not taking seriously, and Logo is kin to lisp. Both of them are more than capable of serious programming. There is even a complete computer science curriculum based in Logo. Lego Mindstorms in the form of Ada/Mindstorms is used at the US Air Force Academy to tech programming and robotics, and is no doubt a lot of fun. So, what is the real problem with using them? I'm guessing you are just unfamiliar with them?

If you can't think of anything better Visual Basic for Applications might be the way to go. It is simple, cheap, useful, and there is a lot of support for it. Of course you shouldn't expect her to take up kernel hacking if you expose her to it.

hwo want's the gory details? The airforce fact sheet

Before Area 51 was the big name, it was Hangar 18.

Hangar 18 was on Wright-Patterson Air Force Base.

Area 51 / Groom Lake is just a flight strip for testing stealth equipment, etc.

Hangar 18 was storage at one of the most secure bases in the country. This base is where the Air Force Research Lab is, their aerospace projects started there, etc.

Wright-Patterson Air Force Base

Apparently nothing is funnier than watching a squad of guys try to complete a night-fire exercise with loaded rucks, wearing full MOPP IV (with the old M-17 masks), old-style "shoulder pad" type kevlar vests. I wasn't laughing, but then again I was one of the guys in MOPP IV, not one of the range control guys watching...

here's something funny to illustrate. in the army we have this thing called a PLGR (Portable Lightweight GPS Reciever) or "plugger". i assure you that there is nothing portable, lightweight, or GPS about it. it's huge, like the biggest text book you've ever seen. the batteries don't last for shit, it has only an alphanumeric display (no arrows and maps), it weights a good few pounds, it is TERRIBLE at getting a GPS signal. you practically have to climb a tree or be in the middle of open desert to use it.

That thing was a load of crap. Even the SLGR which replaced it sucks. Take a look at DAGR, the unit that's supposed to get fielded Q4 this year. Finally, something that can tell you "GO THAT WAY".

pretty much anything special forces uses too gets trickled down into infantry use because our gear sucks and they've got the common sense and freedom to use what works.

You know one thing snake-eaters use all the time now that I really wished for? BDU shirts with slanted chest pockets and pockets added to the shoulders. Put on your LBE and/or a kevlar vest and all your damn pockets are covered! Used to aggravate me to no end.

Carbon nanotube ribbons as mentioned might very well work (not an endorsement on my part) for the tension loads, but you have to consider the wind loads and oscillations they will induce. Does the name Tacoma Narrows ring a bell?

Wind engineering is serious business for just this reason. If the profile of the tether increases drag (thereby reducing terminal velocity), there will be a corresponding increase in susceptibility to wind forces.

Consider the tethered balloons (aerostats) in various US locations.

Fine, don't call it a "law". But the The United States military still calls it LOAC, or

Laws

Of

Armed

Conflict

So call it whatever the hell you want, while the rest of the world and the United States military calls it what it is -- Law!

Fine, don't call it a "law". But the The United States military still calls it LOAC, or

Laws

Of

Armed

Conflict

So call it whatever the hell you want, while the rest of the world and the United States military calls it what it is -- Law!

Fine, don't call it a "law". But the The United States military still calls it LOAC, or

Laws

Of

Armed

Conflict

So call it whatever the hell you want, while the rest of the world and the United States military calls it what it is -- Law!

Fine, don't call it a "law". But the The United States military still calls it LOAC, or

Laws

Of

Armed

Conflict

So call it whatever the hell you want, while the rest of the world and the United States military calls it what it is -- Law!

2) Get shot in the chest by an AP round. Play taps, or a user designated song like, " Stairway to Heaven"?

3) They run away from a fight. Will their back turn yellow?
I'm sure they will have some way of tracking the people that go awol eventually. Like a permanent tracking device in the base of the skull.
Inquiring minds want to know.

I suspect it was left turned off this last time because the military still doesn't have decent GPS receivers. They're supposed to be fielding the DAGR Q4 of this year, but for now all they've got is those awful PLGR and SLGR units. Sometimes it seems like everyone over there brought their own Garmin GPS.

Note further that differential GPS was developed specifically to overcome the limitations imposed by SA. Most commercial-grade GPS receivers support it. Even if they didn't, it isn't so difficult a concept that it couldn't be reinvented if it were needed by a potential belligerent.

Well, DGPS is really pretty useless if you're "the enemy". It requires a stationary GPS unit transmitting constant corrections to the mobile GPS, and anything sitting on the ground bleeping RF like that is gonna be blown up real quick like.

The correct links for the US-administered GPS satellite constellation, known as NAVSTAR:

NAVSTAR GPS Joint Program Office - responsible for operational maintenance of NAVSTAR GPS equipment, services, and infrastructure

Interagency GPS Executive Board - executive management of NAVSTAR GPS

GPS fact sheet - US Air Force facts about NAVSTAR GPS

US Naval Observatory NAVSTAR GPS home page

Further information:

FAS GPS background info

Global Security GPS background info

The correct links for the US-administered GPS satellite constellation, known as NAVSTAR:

NAVSTAR GPS Joint Program Office - responsible for operational maintenance of NAVSTAR GPS equipment, services, and infrastructure

Interagency GPS Executive Board - executive management of NAVSTAR GPS

GPS fact sheet - US Air Force facts about NAVSTAR GPS

US Naval Observatory NAVSTAR GPS home page

Further information:

FAS GPS background info

Global Security GPS background info

Hmmm, I'm not sure many people would be too keen on posting their accounting information, myself and my little company included. Companies generally keep things like financials and compensation packages pretty well protected unless they're forced to reveal it (usually to the Government e.g. in an audit).

However, posting accounting techniques or accounting lessons learned would be a terrific idea.

I'll start with one that took us a few years to grasp: when doing business with the Federal Government, don't try to religiously stick to your projected overhead rate. Instead, make a reasonable guess with your projected budget, and if overhead-type costs come up, go ahead and spend on them. At the end of the year you can adjust your overhead rate to meet your actual costs, and go back and seek reimbursement from the Government if you've underbilled. You'll be audited at the end of the contract anyway to square up your overhead expenditures, so as long as the things you spent on were reasonable, you don't have to fret about staying within your original projections. And remember, FAR section 31.205 tells you exactly what constitutes reimburseable overhead expenses.

Even if you could name such a case, historian, that is beside the point.

The moral error in reasoning from in the ticking bomb scenario arises from weighing the harm to the guilty terrorist against the harm to the prospective innocent victims. Instead, the harm to innocent terrorist victims should be weighed against the breakdown of key social institutions and the state-sponsored torture of many innocents. Stated most starkly, the damaging social consequences of a program of torture interrogation evolve from institutional dynamics that are independent of the original moral rationale.

The 'torture' at Abu Grab is completely insignificant compared to the greater horrors in the world right now. What about the full scale genocide occuring *right now* in the Sudan? Where is the outcry from the 'progressives' of the world on this issue?

This thread isn't about the Sudan. What is your point, that a crime should be overlooked because a greater crime is occurring elsewhere? That people who put forth the argument that perhaps the torture at Abu Ghraib was a pretty objectively bad thing are "bad progressives" with no credibility, because what about the Sudan? Come on.

or they get some of these

[quote] This is the first real laser weapon.[/quote]

Requirements are both good and necessary, but they do require something that I've noticed a severe lack of amongst programmers: Discipline. The discipline to develop preliminary functional models, perform up front what-if analysis, do the FMEA's and maybe a few MSC models for the interfaces. Then map it all back into what the customer says they want and walk them though it. Sound like a lot of work? It is. It also requires a modest amount of negotiating skill and the willingness to both educate the customer, when necessary, and the determination to stick to your guns when you know you are right, always.

I can hire truckloads of happy little coders who don't have a clue about requirements, and then train them (which I often have to do), but I treasure the software engineer who knows and understands the value of requirements, knows what the term "traceability" means, and can effectively translate the customer's needs and wants into a set of models and requirements definitions that accurately and adequately capture the design objectives.

And, yes, things do change during the course of a project, and new things are discovered. That's why the requirements specification is a "live" document subject to continuous review, and there are things called "derived requirements".

And, just one other thing to consider. If you assume a unit cost of defect removal of one (1) at the coding stage, then it's been shown that finding and removing a defect at the requirements stage only costs around .2! That's right. It gets better. Over half of all errors in SW are introduced at the requirements stage. Not doing any requirements? Then brace yourself for some long and agonizing test and debug sessions. Don't believe me? Take a look at this report:

NIST study on software defects

It's big, but chock full of good information.

For an introduction to requirements engineering, this is one of my favorite books:

Davis' book on software requirements techniques

And lastly, here are some links for the curious:

FMEA/FMECA info
Good article on DO-178B
Some more info on DO-178B
A paper on requirements traceability
Info on SDL and MSC

Then again, I guess there are some folks who enjoy whacking away at their software, growing it "incrementally" (no relation to the formal model, BTW), and spending their time at the back end of the project listening to the customer scream about missed delivery dates while they frantically do the compile-test-debug dance over and over. For myself, I'd rather see it just work with a minimum of verification hassle from the outset and then get on with my life.

They have used blimps in the past to monitor drug traffic from the south. Its called the TARS Program (and here. These blimps have been operational since the 1980's. (1984?). This new program is like an updated TARS program.

I doubt many people join the military for a big salary.
If you want to make decent money, get out and get a job as a DOD civilian doing your same job for 30$ per hour.

Every time the question of how to make money in the IT industry comes up on Slashdot I always say "work for the government." Certain jobs cannot be outsourced, and the government is willing to work with people who do not have a B.S. or a lot of experience. You may not get paid well, but they will pay 75% tuition assistance and give you experience. I am not talking military, I mean DOD civilian. There are a ton of good jobs out there.

USA Jobs
Air Force civilian employment

A few minutes with Google and some common sense search terms will bring up other government job sites. Of course, if someone has more questions you may email me at my un-munged email address.

The airborne's range is classified but this faq suggests "hundreds of kilometers" which handles North Korea.

I'm not sure what deterrent you speak of with regards to North Korea. Our troops are stretched thin - the only credible threat we've got to keep North Korea's million man army in place is nuclear and the willingness to use it. We certainly don't have the manpower in place. That's always been the case - we've been outnumbered ever since WWII wound down. General Marshall once complained about the back seat hawks in Washington telling him to give the Soviets hell by saying it was pretty hard to give someone hell if he's got 200 divisions to you've got 1 1/2.

If you mean the Patriot, it's a last line of defense and it's of limited uitility if you're defending against nukes. If you want to kill the Patriot and you have some nukes, it's not a tough trick to pull. Killing an airborne laser is much harder using the same weapons.

Long story short, we're not sure what airborne laser can and can't do until we get them flying. My hunch is that the weapon will fall somewhere between the holy grail its promoters are saying it'll be and totally worthless as some of its detractors are claiming. If I'm right, and we have enough time to debug it, it could turn out to be a useful tool to have in our arsenal.

Another interesting point the above poster raised in his paper was the effectiveness of ABL against solid-fueled rockets. I don't know enough (and doubt he does) about the ABL's laser and the requirements to rupture the skin of a solid fueled rocket to comment intelligently on this matter. As a guess, I would say that the AF and MDA have a far better idea of what it would take and are designing the ABL accordingly (or at least planning for block upgrades to bring that capability on line in the future).

Contrary to popular belief, the Pentagon does actually give these issues a fair bit of thought.

Here

I wonder what color the laser is...

I hear the green ones burn out your eye

Actually the laser beam will be invisible (unlike the the one in the movie Real Genius), as it is in the infrared range of light. This particular frequency of light also lends itself to good transmission through the atmosphere. More info here

Another interesting thing about the laser is that it's a chemical laser that genrates energy through the reaction of oxygen and iodine.

Which means that the plane will have a limited number of shots (I believe three or four) before it has to go and refuel.

The power of this laser would not heat up and pop the popcorn like in the movie, but would vaporize a nice hole right to the ground.

I hear the green ones burn out your eye

Looking into a laser or letting laser light into your eyes is a very bad idea, no matter how low the power may seem. Even for the pen lasers that are everywhere. You do not know what the consequences may be, and harm to your eyesight is not worth it.

I wouldn't bit more than $500 for this!

It's lacking the Mr. Fusion unit!

Once I'd seen what they were capable of (you'll have to imagine a hundred 20mm rounds per second hitting a soldier; I'm intentionally not seeking a link), that sound took on a whole new meaning.

There's a whole ethical debate on this sort of imagery: can national security be weakened by US citizens being repulsed by the carnage our weaponry is capable of? Imagery impacted US public perceptions of the war in Viet Nam, and we've advanced a lot technologically since then.

I realize I'm off topic by here, but whining about maglev (pun intended) seems silly in comparison. As with jets and computer fans and traffic noise, maglev's purpose is considerably more benign. We can work around or get used to the sound.

Didn't Scott Crossfield mention to the media something about his pants getting wet (from the firewater used to douse the flames) in the rescue due to the explosion of the X-15?

One of the next day's newspaper headlines was, "Experimental Plane Blows Up, Test Pilot Wets Pants".

Flying cars have got to be the classic poster child of the genre. For economic and safety reasons alone, the idea is a non-starter. Harder for people to grasp is the fact that flying cars can never exist, they would be private aircraft, an entirely different beast with different laws and different applications. If I may belabor the point a bit, can you see how the very term flying car negates itself and coerces itself into a different noun? There have been small private aircraft for decades, you'd think these people would have noticed them.

People's willingness to believe in the patently absurd is borne out in the authors list of the downsides of flying cars:

• "The prospect of horrific crashes and air rage spring to mind."
• "The British weather often prevents microlight flying, and you can only travel during daylight hours. You need an airfield and learning to fly isn't easy."
• "There is also the question of developing propellers that can safely power cars."
• "'Whilst taxiing up the road under propeller power, I met a group of cycling proficiency children who I thought I'd chop up, so stopped and pushed the rest of the way,' says Bill Brooks of an early test run."

No doubt some of you will trot out the same old arguments about how people said Christopher Columbus was an idiot and see how he proved them wrong, or that believing in things like flying cars means you are open minded and imaginative, and folks such as myself are closed minded old farts, and damn the evidence to the contrary. Those folks often cite the evidence that contradicts their beliefs as a perverse sort of proof that they are right and everybody else is stuck in some obsolete paradigm.

And what set this off? NASA successfuly tests an aircraft that, under highly specialized and contrived conditions, flew at 5,000 mph, well over six times the speed of sound. Immediately, pundits around the world speculate that soon passenger aircraft will do the same. This in spite of the fact that aircraft flying at mach 3 have been around for half a century. In fact, the Concorde reached the end of its useful life last year. It proved too expensive and impractical. But nay say the futurists! In the future we will all fly even faster! Even farther!

The Dark Ages were characterized in part by fanatical religious beliefs that had entire regions hypnotized and enslaved. I conjecture that the same is true today. Traditional religion melts away before pop culture, consumerism, and a vast new array of supertitious beliefs. We are all equally enslaved, toiling away as our masters enrich themselves and our planet, our precious and timeless inheritance, is burned away like a cheap cigarrette.

Highly industrialized wars are fought; nations are bombed senseless, invaded, and conquered on a whim; truck bombs detonated among the innocent and passenger planes full of more innocents are slammed into buildings filled with still more innocents; fanatics strap explosives to their bodies and detonate themselves among their peers and fellow citizens, heads filled with wild dreams; fanatics kill their enemies in the name of God, Right to Life, Democracy, Liberty, Free Trade, and endless other litanies. Societies that support such acts cheer them on with empty eyes and apparently empty heads. "Soon," they must be thinking, "Soon I will have a flying car and these terrible times will be over."

The Vandenberg AFB launch schedule currently shows the launch as 'indefinite'. Until it's got a scheduled launch date it'll stay down at the bottom of the page.

Yeah, I know there aren't any exact dates listed for the launches. Hopefully Public Affairs will let me change that soon... it's been that way since 9/11. Until then, Google is your friend.

Yes, they did it in the 60s. They reached Mach 7 with a manned plane. This one is unmanned. I don't understand why it is such a big deal.

New spy planes (aurora) can do the same without the loosly put together skin. (which is why the SR-71 leaked like a siv on the ground.

A more useful comparison would be with an F15-e or F16, more than capable of traveling at mach 2ish, no refueling right after takeoff, regular old jet fuel.

The BOMARC was a early ramjet-powered missle from 60s. You can see one in Dayton Ohio at the Wright-Patterson Air Forcebase Museum. One can walk up to the BOMARC and look up inside the ram jets which are nothing more than a hollow tube with a grid of fuel injection nozzles.

The BOMARC was a early ramjet-powered missle from 60s. You can see one in Dayton Ohio at the Wright-Patterson Air Forcebase Museum. One can walk up to the BOMARC and look up inside the ram jets which are nothing more than a hollow tube with a grid of fuel injection nozzles.

Looking Glass (ABNCP)

[A Mars spaceplane...] Where's the Earth version?

That was point #2 of my plan. Read much?

Wow, a spaceplane constructed in LEO (a factory AND space dock?) that is designed to fly in an atmosphere never flown in before. That is pretty impressive considering that we dont' even have a spaceplace that has proved capable of flying in and out of Earth's gravitational pull.

Pegasus launch solution. It shows that the concept is highly workable. Nuclear Thermal Rockets are 40 year old, well understood beasts. While the original program was only running during the 60s (with great success I might add), NASA has done a lot of research with them since then. I've exchanged emails with an engineer who was working on NTR propulsion for NASA back in the 80's, so I can assure you that these engines are not a dead design.

[But if we're assuming that the ability to construct and launch ships in LEO already exists, then a plan costs far less money than from-earth launch systems.]

Why would you assume that?

Because that's what my plan called for. Look, my plan is based around building a Mars mission in a roundabout fashion. By building the infrastructure first, we can not only reduce risk, but we can make great strides toward building a space economy. If all we wanted was to go to Mars, we could simply construct heavy lifter craft to get the prep-work cargo and the Mars craft into space and toward Mars. Nothing to it. Honestly. Unfortunately, we'd also repeat the mistakes of Apollo. By creating a super-expensive mission with zero economic return, we'd manage to get there, come back, then state that it's too expensive and stay home.

Actually the military signal is no more accurate in practice except that it offers codes on a second frequency which helps to offset phase shift and multipath. Good commercial unit use the phase information from both the civilian channel AND the military channel (they can encrypt the code but the signal phase is still available) along with the civilian codes. General accuracy of consumer models is limited to around 10m probability sphere which is actually 5m average accuracy. Good equipment using both frequencies and two antennas can get down to about 12cm accuracy in roughly a minute and centimeter accuracy over a period of time (generally 10 minutes to 2 hours depending on necessary confidence). Btw SA has been turned off for quite a while, in fact it was May 1, 2000 that presidential order turned off SA. This was mostly due to realization that military units were too expensive and not widely enough available to common troops.

Looks like the US Air Force's Rome Air Development Center thinks they have a patent on it. Am I the only one who thinks "United States of America as represented by the Secretary of the Air Force" should not be a valid patent assignee?

Who would have though that a mainframe manufacturer would keep prompting dead langauges? <g>

Whilst Algol isn't there, Oberon is, as is Ada, a shareware version of Forth, Haskell, Eifell, Pascal, Perl, Python (twice) and SmallTalk

Amazingly enough, with modern unmaned warfare, you could now be on the front lines from a cushioned seat in the states. It reminds me way too much of Ender's game. When war becomes a video game, does it also become too tempting to just bomb everything?