Slashdot Mirror

I remember! And I remember the "out of band" communications. Nice to hear from you. Glad you enjoyed it, yourself.

Yeah. I gotta go lighter! I was coming down with the flu when I saw this - and got grumpier from there...

Still - the film seems to promote some fantasy about who the military/industrial elite are, and that there are individuals in those positions who can act singularly - out of conscience - for the benefit of humanity.

Tony Stark is like a comic book John Galt. I can't stand Ayn Rand, either. :-)

Ultimately, the film was produced with help and cooperation of the USAF.

The "chair force" have moved themselves to the forefront of the Military mission of generating propaganda and conducting surveillance on the world's civilian populations - including US domestic operations. You don't need to do much more than search for "Air Force" on Slashdot and Wired.com's Danger Room to see how insidious and corrupting this has become.

Nick Turse talks about how this has evolved: http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/032008T.shtml

But Marvel Comics has gone as far as hiring Active Duty USAF officers on duty in Israel to write for them! And they boast about it!

So, yeah. I had a hard time seeing this as an entertainment, when I had the continual creepy feeling it was a PsyOp.

I'd rather see The Ipcress File, The Conversation, or Three Days of the Condor.

Yeeeeah. And now for something completely not useless and stupid.

Answered my own question, I think.

According to this document, Psychology of Intelligence Analysis, Center for the Study of Intelligence, Central Intelligence Agency, 1999, they are:

1. Identify the possible hypotheses to be considered. Use a group of analysts with different perspectives to brainstorm the possibilities.

2. Make a list of significant evidence and arguments for and against each hypothesis.

3. Prepare a matrix with hypotheses across the top and evidence down the side. Analyze the "diagnosticity" of the evidence and arguments--that is, identify which items are most helpful in judging the relative likelihood of the hypotheses.

4. Refine the matrix. Reconsider the hypotheses and delete evidence and arguments that have no diagnostic value.

5. Draw tentative conclusions about the relative likelihood of each hypothesis. Proceed by trying to disprove the hypotheses rather than prove them.

6. Analyze how sensitive your conclusion is to a few critical items of evidence. Consider the consequences for your analysis if that evidence were wrong, misleading, or subject to a different interpretation.

7. Report conclusions. Discuss the relative likelihood of all the hypotheses, not just the most likely one.

8. Identify milestones for future observation that may indicate events are taking a different course than expected.

I'm not entirely sure though. But it's the best result Google returned, and there are 8 of them.

To the Aerospace Maintenance and Regeneration Group (AMARG) located at Davis-Monthan Air Force Base in Tucson Arizona.

http://www.dm.af.mil/units/amarc.asp
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aerospace_Maintenance_and_Regeneration_Center

while the drone cost is hypothetical.

Personally, I was figuring more on a cruise missile than a drone* for such a high risk target. Still, it's not like we can't make an educated guess.
~$500k for a tomahawk.
$40 million for a set of 4 predators, including ground systems.

Figure half the cost is the ground station and sat link, and that's $5 million each for the preds. $3 million for a more disposable drone isn't out of sight. Or for a much more capable cruise missile, for that matter.

*The difference being that you at least hope to get the drone back.

(beating expert F-15 pilots 3 to 1 is no joke)

Actually, the bird is still in the air...

The bomb lift trucks used to load missiles are actually simple, stable, easy to use, and precise.

http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=981

http://musee.1wing.free.fr/VHC/VHC%20023.htm

OTOH, changing truck tires sucks, as does changing track. Mechy strength would be useful there.

If you can shoot down a Predator at 25,000 feet you win a cookie.

In a Herculean effort, I succeeded in applying to the Cyber Command just now. But I must say that their website doesn't speak well of their cyber expertise; they make it extremely difficult to figure out how to even apply. The "Join" link on the Cyber Command website just goes to the main Air Force recruiting site, where all I learned is that I'm too old and too fat to join the Air Force. Undaunted, I submitted a question about whether I'd qualify anyway, given that I want to work for the Cyber Command, and gave them a link to my resume.

(I have more than ten years of experience as a software engineer, including embedded, systems programming, and HMI/SCADA. I expect them to be particularly interested in my HMI/SCADA work, as that would be how I'd make things blow up over the Internet.)

Somewhere I found a link to USAJOBS website, where I spent several hours filling out an online resume. They want separate entries for each job one has held, rather than uploading a text resume. They also wanted the name and phone number of every manager I ever had.

But I spent quite a bit of time searching at USAJOBS, and couldn't find any positions that looked like they had anything to do with the Cyber Command.

Back at the Cyber Command website, I found their contact form - which was hard to spot - and which, Lo and Behold! allowed me to specify a recipient of "Employment Inquiries". So I put my resume in there, and pointed out they could find my resume on USAJOBS.

I emailed a buddy who is a civilian software engineer for the Navy, and he told me that most Cyber Command jobs are going to be civilian. So I guess it's OK that I'm old and fat, but I won't get to wear that cool blue Air Force uniform. I imagine I'll also just be flying a desk rather than an electronic warfare jet.

In a Herculean effort, I succeeded in applying to the Cyber Command just now. But I must say that their website doesn't speak well of their cyber expertise; they make it extremely difficult to figure out how to even apply. The "Join" link on the Cyber Command website just goes to the main Air Force recruiting site, where all I learned is that I'm too old and too fat to join the Air Force. Undaunted, I submitted a question about whether I'd qualify anyway, given that I want to work for the Cyber Command, and gave them a link to my resume.

(I have more than ten years of experience as a software engineer, including embedded, systems programming, and HMI/SCADA. I expect them to be particularly interested in my HMI/SCADA work, as that would be how I'd make things blow up over the Internet.)

Somewhere I found a link to USAJOBS website, where I spent several hours filling out an online resume. They want separate entries for each job one has held, rather than uploading a text resume. They also wanted the name and phone number of every manager I ever had.

But I spent quite a bit of time searching at USAJOBS, and couldn't find any positions that looked like they had anything to do with the Cyber Command.

Back at the Cyber Command website, I found their contact form - which was hard to spot - and which, Lo and Behold! allowed me to specify a recipient of "Employment Inquiries". So I put my resume in there, and pointed out they could find my resume on USAJOBS.

I emailed a buddy who is a civilian software engineer for the Navy, and he told me that most Cyber Command jobs are going to be civilian. So I guess it's OK that I'm old and fat, but I won't get to wear that cool blue Air Force uniform. I imagine I'll also just be flying a desk rather than an electronic warfare jet.

First, the organization's name is Air Force Cyber Command. There is no "Defense" or "Attack" in the name. Almost no research is needed to figure this out. http://www.afcyber.af.mil/

Second, we haven't been attacked since Pearl Harbor? That either means that: your aren't counting terrorism, hacking or probably hundreds of attempts that have been quelled; or the Dept. of Defense is doing an incredible job. Pick one.

Third, quoting John Lennon on war? What's next, Gen. Patton on use of the sitar in pop music?

Pick another reason (and there are plenty).

California is huge with NASA and aerospace, and have you looked at whom it sends to Congress? Just because the space shuttle doesn't launch from there doesn't mean the state isn't cleaning up. Moffett Field, JPL, Vandenberg AFB, Skunk Works, Edwards AFB... to name a few. The state is also big on the military, which you won't see in the national news these days either.

Maybe the cuts in NASA are designed to hurt California. Guess where the Mars rovers are controlled from.

Pick another reason (and there are plenty).

California is huge with NASA and aerospace, and have you looked at whom it sends to Congress? Just because the space shuttle doesn't launch from there doesn't mean the state isn't cleaning up. Moffett Field, JPL, Vandenberg AFB, Skunk Works, Edwards AFB... to name a few. The state is also big on the military, which you won't see in the national news these days either.

Maybe the cuts in NASA are designed to hurt California. Guess where the Mars rovers are controlled from.

"LOL, he's a general. What, he's going to get gangrene due to a splinter from his desk?"

He didn't join the air force and immediately become a general. He's been in the air force for 30+ years. I'm sure during that time he wasn't always sitting behind a desk.

I'm a bit shocked a general would answer questions. Usually they're so far up the chain-of-command they're impossible to talk to and they're considered god-like to regular grunts (imagine your favorite famous celebrity or athlete x 100). I have my doubts whether he really answered any of these questions, probably someone a little further down the totem pole answered the questions and he signed/stamped his name at the bottom. Generals don't answer questions, they have a Capt or Major do that stuff for them.

>>>
(Something about having most of the airframe be doors is probably the weakness of this idea)
>>>

No need for that.

Boeing 747F : http://airways.cz/images/novinky/china-airlines-747f-prague.jpg
Antonov An-124 : http://www.loral.com/inthenews/iPSTAR_1-HiRes.jpg
Lockheed C-5 Galaxy : http://www.512aw.afrc.af.mil/shared/media/photodb/photos/050611-F-9171L-135.jpg

In yet another twist of Irony, the actual article was picked up by the Air Force's daily Aim Points news aggregation site that is recommended reading. http://aimpoints.hq.af.mil/display.cfm?id=24302

From my stateside USAF-issue computer and connection I verified today that I was able to read the Wired blogs, and Michael Yon's blog mentioned later in this article as well without hitting the filter. Slashdot is unblocked, save for Ask Slashdot and the Games sections.

Posted AC for obvious reasons.

Correct. But we could say the F15 is even older:
The first flight of the F-15A was made in July 1972. In November 1974, the first Eagle was delivered to the 58th Tactical Fighter Training Wing at Luke Air Force Base, Ariz. 76 was when the first combat squadron was delivered.
http://www.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?fsID=102

Most of the Air Force runs on JP8, here's an article that says 1 gal costs $2.53, back in '06

http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123026679

Sometimes you get the Pounds and Ounces and Newtons and Pascals confused.

As the Air Force loudly proclaims, "We live in fame or go down in flame"

Usually they get it right, but when they screw up...

Which is how we got to the point where, Dr. Dewar and Dr. Schonberg:

...students who know how to put a simple program together, but do not know how to program. A further pitfall of the early use of libraries and frameworks is that it is impossible for the student to develop a sense of the run-time cost of what is written because it is extremely hard to know what any method call will eventually execute.

Last I checked, NASA doesn't do return on investment. The US doesn't get a monetary return on its space activities. And you claim $7 returned on $1 invested? Fantasy numbers. If it were truly delivering that sort of value, it'd never have trouble getting funding. Hell, there's be private enterprising getting a piece of that action too. Instead, we see that NASA pursues a host of low value activities, for example, limp, expensive unmanned scientific missions (science being a traditional low value product despite the numerous claims to the contrary) and a trivial amount of manned activity in space (even lower value than the science). And you somehow get that the $16 billion a year in NASA funding turns into $110 or so billion value for the US government? That is absurd, and a bit larger than the estimated GDP contribution from all US space activity (according to the FAA in reference 34).

I can't open the website of http://www.stsc.hill.af.mil/CrossTalk/2008/01/0801DewarSchonberg.html [af.mil] Who can post the whole article "Computer Science Education: Where Are the Software Engineers of Tomorrow?"

I can't open the website of http://www.stsc.hill.af.mil/CrossTalk/2008/01/0801DewarSchonberg.html Who can post the whole article "Computer Science Education: Where Are the Software Engineers of Tomorrow?"

Isn't your bank the only institution able to transfer money out of your account? Don't you have to show your ID? Don't you have to sign some documents???

The short answer is, no. Someone at our base lost about $600 to a scam like this -- only it was worse for him, because someone managed to randomly generate his routing and account numbers. About the only way you can prevent something like this is by being OCD about your day-to-day bank transactions.

Here's the original story if you're interested.

Many years ago, the USA and USSR developed launch detection capability, and have had a tendency to dismiss bolides since then. At one point, Los Alamos National Lab had an open-to-the-public display of the satellite system used to detect nuclear detonations (for treaty monitoring) and some poster boards explaining how the system differentiated between nukes and natural phenomena.

The general idea originally, under MAD, was that each superpower represented a sphere of influence, and the right info would go out to satellite countries pretty quickly.

Here's some public info if this particular sub-point to the question is of interest: http://space.au.af.mil/enhance.htm - scan for USNDS.

However, as the political and military climate have changed, for many non-aligned areas, I'd agree with the respondent that said, badly - only to add, way badly. I don't think they'd blame God, they'd blame the US. Outside of the conspiracy nuts in the US (that wouldn't believe what happened even after it was established and reported), there'd be the fundie-rightists who'd credit God for smiting the victims, and the armchair atheists that would blame God for giving us another problem. Those of us left over that got it would have to be nervous about the conspiracy nuts, the fundies and any other subgroups I've left out - at home and abroad.

Let's face it - these days, which part of the globe isn't a more nervous area?

Competent tribunals, like the AR-190-8 Tribunals, can determine that a captive is:
[1] An innocent civilian, who wasn't a combatant, took no part in any hostilities, who should be released immediately. After reading most of those 2200 documents I'd say about half the Guantanamo captives would fall into this group.
[2] A combatant, who took part in hostilities, but carried their arms openly, wore a distinctive marking, answered to officers responsible for their conduct, didn't commit any war crimes. These captives are "lawful combatants" entitled to all the protections of POW status.
[3] A combatant, who didn't comply with the criteria above. They can be stripped of POW status. They are still protected against torture, summary judgement. They are still protected by the rule of law. They can be tried, for murder, or other hostile acts they committed. But they are supposed to be tried by the same system of justice as the captor's own soldiers. That is, a court martial. Since GIs like Lewis Welshofer only got a fine and two months confinement to barracks for the torture and murder of the captive he was interrogating, one could ask why anyone the US tries for war crimes wouldn't get similarly light sentences.

No. The CSR Tribunals do not fulfill the USA obligation to convene "Competent Tribunals". They outwardly resembled the AR-190-8 Tribunals. But they had a totally different mandate. Various Tribunal Presidents told captives they lacked the mandate to do anything but confirm, or not confirm, whether the captives were an "enemy combatant". Moazzam Begg had been issued a POW card. He was entitled to request any witnesses he thought could offer exculpatory evidence. He requested the testimony of the employee of the International Committee of the Red Cross who issued him the POW card. And he requested the testimony of a US officer who had knowledge of his POW status. His Tribunal President disallowed this testimony. She ruled, backed up by the Tribunal's legal advisor, that CSR Tribunals did not have a mandate to rule on whether the captive's qualified for POW status.

So, what is an "enemy combatant" you ask? DC Court judge Joyce Hens Green, who considered a couple of dozen of the captive's habeas corpus cases. She asked: "If a little old lady, in Switzerland, sends a donation to what she thinks is a legitimate charity, and, unknown to her, some portion of her widow's mite is diverted to finance a terrorism-related project, is she an "enemy combatant"?

The DOJ official answered that, yes, the little old lady could be considered an "enemy combatant".

So far the USA has only accused a single captive of killing a US soldier -- Omar Khadr. It is still premature to say the killing he is accused of would be "murder". Last summer the Presiding Officer of his Military Commission ruled that he lacked the jurisdiction to try Khadr. The Military Commissions Act said the Military Commissions could try "unlawful enemy combatants". But Khadr, like all the other remaining Guantanamo captives, had only been determined to be an "enemy combatant". The Prosecution wanted to appeal. But the appeal court hadn't been set up. Officers hadn't been appointed. Rules hadn't been set. These were rushed in. The appeals court decided that the Presiding Officer could decide himself whether he Khadr was an "unlawful enemy combatant". The Presiding Officer was going to make that determinat a few weeks ago. However it turned ou

You write as though you are awfully certain of this, but the fact is it is not, nor ever has been the case. It is a civilian organization, which does not report to the Secretary of Defense, but is accountable to the President and Congress. The military operates its own space program, separate from, but in close cooperation with NASA.

The F-22 can cruise at Mach 2 without using afterburners, and I believe it can only carry two Mk-82 JADM weapons.

Or eight small-diameter bombs.

Fargo is even a relatively safe distance from a major USAF nuclear installation.

Nope. Tightbeam space communications have been around for years. :)

What, like Greenland?
Granted, a good reason to fear the American presence now is that they've found oil.

This would be funny if it wasn't true - federal police are now being given access to military satellites.

So what am I trying to say here? These guys over simplify everything so that others like them can understand it. Especially the pilots (since most of the generals in the Air Force are pilots). I'm not saying pilots are dumb; far from it. I am saying pilots can't do everything and know their jobs better than they know computers.

So what am I trying to say here? These guys over simplify everything so that others like them can understand it. Especially the pilots (since most of the generals in the Air Force are pilots). I'm not saying pilots are dumb; far from it. I am saying pilots can't do everything and know their jobs better than they know computers.

So what am I trying to say here? These guys over simplify everything so that others like them can understand it. Especially the pilots (since most of the generals in the Air Force are pilots). I'm not saying pilots are dumb; far from it. I am saying pilots can't do everything and know their jobs better than they know computers.

It's as much a defensive weapon as it is offensive, as quoted:

"I can't see the [expletive deleted] thing," said RAAF Squadron Leader Stephen Chappell, exchange F-15 pilot in the 65th Aggressor Squadron. "It won't let me put a weapons system on it, even when I can see it visually through the canopy. [Flying against the F-22] annoys the hell out of me."

On other fronts, the F-22 represents our leading edge technology (even though it's essentially 1990's tech) and is what gives us an advantage. It's not surprising the technology isn't up for export. The F-15 and F-16 both were in the same position when they were introduced, but eventually were considered for export after there advantage subsided a bit (or "lower" tech versions of them were available).

As well, the F-22 is really expensive. The United States is one of the few countries (or groups of countries) that can pull off such an endeavor. This also naturally limits its export capability, there's simply few others that could afford to buy it.

IMHO, Japan will end up with export variants of the F-35 (the USAF already has F-22 stationed in Okinawa). And continue with their F-15 and possibly be allowed to construct a variant of the F-15E to replace their aging F-4s (though their limited production of F-2 can already fulfill this requirement).

Japan has tried this move before, they eventually canceled production of their F-2 program (basically a modernized F-16) and are looking to persuade the United Stated to open up more tech for them to acquire (again, probably the F-35, though possibly future F-22 export variants).

All Japan produced planes, so far, have been based on US tech. Any other home grown R&D project would be too expensive to survive in the political arena. There's no reason to believe this ATD-X project will find the same fate.

Finally, IMHO, it wouldn't be able to beat the F-22 is most engagements. Physical performance is only one aspect of why the F-22 is the best air superiority fighter in the world. Avionics, radar, and weapon load out represent some of the others. The ATD-X would just be too expensive to match the F-22 in all areas, if it sees flight, major compromises will have to be make.

This post coming from a guy who just saw the F-16, F-15, and F-22 fly back to back at the Gathering of Mustangs and Legends.

In my opinion, Google has decided to take advantage of this area simple BECAUSE their millionare employees don't live there. You can bet your bottom dollar if there were $1M houses there and a significant number of their employees living there they wouldn't even think about it.

"Air Combat Command"

Click on "CONUS Crash Locator." It's not complete, but it's pretty good.

Some folks formerly at Schriever Air Force Base did something similar with Defense Satellite Communication Systems satellites, which saves the Air Force $5 million per year per satellite. There's more on that story here.

Something tells this guy will be looking for a new job real soon.

Wing warping doesn't scale... interesting. http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?storyID=123009980

If they start releasing games that have the same controls and abilities of UAVs and armed ground robots like Talon Swords, think of what they will have. Kids start training in elementary school, by the time they turn 16 they could be ridiculously skilled with the use of remote operated war machines. Heck, the upgrades for the machines could well come from the feed back from the kids playing the game. It could be very like the end of "Ender's Game" real battles could be remotely won by kids thinking of it as playing a tournament.

http://www.foster-miller.com/lemming.htm http://www.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?fsID=12 2

Do you know the HUGE industry that has developed for them.

I'll give you a hint. The collective GDP contribution of all US activity in space ($100 billion per year) is about five times as big as recreational fishing ($20 billion a year last I heard some years ago). I don't know, but most of it seems driven by government spending. NASA spends 16-17 billion and then there's spending from Department of Defense and national intelligence.

The problem continues to be three fold:

Human body has serious failings for long term space travel (micro G/null G does horrible things to muscles and bones).

Not a serious obstacle. The only commercial manned activity planned is space tourism. That doesn't require someone to live in space for years. And if zero G is a problem, one can rotate the vehicle. There are relatively cheap ways to do that.

Huge cost to travel the first 100 km (A Space fountain can solve this problem, using today's technology, just highly vunerable to terrorism and cost is high, though doable by the US).

The primary obstacle to space investment. For example, the ISS is having trouble renting research slots for free because the parties in question would have to pay considerable sums to bring their experiments to the ISS. Many costs are dependent on this factor. Shrink costs to orbit and you can tame most of the costs associated with space.

Large (but not huge) cost to bring things back to earth is scary. Again, a Space Fountain can solve this issue.

This is a solved problem. There are various designs, capsules, lifting bodies, etc for bringing even sensitive cargos (like paying tourists) back to Earth in a reliable fashion. The cost of the solution is dependent on the cost of getting the solution in orbit. Hence, much of the price is dependent on the cost of getting things into orbit in the first place.

I doubt that a space fountain has a chance for many decades. There's just not a lot of demand and no sign that the demand is going to increase suddenly. Even reusable vehicles just aren't viable in the current climate.

Car accident 35 MPH to 0 in 2.5 feet. Broken ribs from my small 3 point seatbelt, wrist from steering wheel. Other hand didn't break, but left a fist imprint on my windshield (really cool looking).

Indy/formula one/Nascar drivers routinely do more G's, but are strapped in better (neck HANS restraints), 5 point belts, wrist restraints.

Paul Strapp, MD, US Airforce did up to 40 G deccel (equiv to 120MPH brick wall crash) on a rocket sled, with various breaks, no perm damage. http://www.af.mil/history/person.asp?dec=&pid=1230 06472

Given the targets and, more importantly, the specificity of the described attacks, I would almost bet money that - if ever caught - it will be found that the break-ins were funded by and/or committed by the foreign intelligence branch of another government.

Especially notable is that L-3 Communications (note: NOT Level3 Networks, an entirely unrelated company with an unfortunately similar name) was attacked. L-3 is a major, major contractor for highly classified work with the Department of Defense. Other organizations on the list are less prominent but nonetheless important players in U.S. defense electronics.

It has been long recognized that virtually all opposing foreign governments (except, interestingly, North Korea) have active electronic and communications espionage programs against both the U.S. government and leaders in scientific and engineering fields. This is in fact the main reason that the rather silly-named U.S. Cyber Command (http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?storyID=12303050 5) was created.

Apart from the technology not being ready yet, we are faced with the usual trouble of how to get heavy hardware up there. Laser systems, magnets and giant Hoovers are not generally lightweight items. There's also the issue of whether we want to have nuclear stuff in orbit.