Slashdot Mirror

Ok, am I the only one thinking if you can make windows out of alumina, that doping it correctly you can make a seriously BIG 'synthetic' ruby by doping said window with chromium? The article is non-specific about size, even a window of 4" square and 1" thick represents a pretty big honking ruby. Are sapphire (the other kind of alumina) and ruby about to go the way of aluminium itself?

If I remember correctly at the time it was built, the Washington Monument was capped with an aluminum peak. This was done, because refined aluminum metal was both rare and precious.

I'm thinking ruby drinking glasses, ruby soda cans, 5c ruby rings. You get the picture. :)

Lee

"many people chose to vote with their pocket book."

It sure would be nice if I had a pocket book I could vote with. Except these are the real voters. Enron is a classic example. They got their guy elected, set the US's energy policy and placed their executives into positions where they could do the most good for big oil. This is not new and it's not going to stop. Moron defending big business. Brainwashed into thinking that they are on your side.

I find it really interesting that it's illegal to distribute materials concerning the manufacture of bombs, when an Army server has a whole big page on it.
http://www.adtdl.army.mil/cgi-bin/atdl.dll/fm/21-7 5/Apph.htm

There seems to be a lot of misinformation here about the removal process of landmines. As a combat engineer for the US Army I have been trained on such procedures (though never having done them, thank god!). I'd like to explain how the process of breaching a minefield works.

Your basic tools are the ANPSS-12 Minedetector (basically a metal detector), and a ceramic rod. The detectors are sent out in groups of 3 (there are 4 more people in the group for command and control purposes, but they aren't the ones doing the detecting) and they move forward in a diagonal formation and they sweep in a circular arc around them searching for the mines. When one of those people finds a mine, the other two go back to the rear of the formation while the other lies down in the prone (face first) and starts poking the mine with his ceramic rod(having checked for trip wires and things of that nature of course).

Keep in mind that it takes only a few pounds of force to detonate an antipersonel mine. Something easily achieved with a little stick!

When the mine is found, if it's buried(not all are, I'll cover that in a minute) then the soldier uncovers the top of the mine and goes about checking for Anti-Handling Devices(booby traps). If the soldier finds one, he(I say he becuase women are not allowed to be combat engineers) must disarm because he's already handled the mine. Yes they can be that sensitive! If he screws up, he has several pounds of explosives blow up in his face.

Not all mines are triggered by pressure. There is another type of fuse used to trigger a mine called a tilt rod. It stands on top of the mine and when tilted a few degrees, which for US tilt rod fuses requires only 10 lbs of force, detonates the mine. These are used exclusively in anti-tank mines, the theory being that the vehicle rolls over the mine causing the mine to detonate under the belly of the vehicle. These add something else to the mix. Now first you have to disarm the tilt rod fuse before defusing the rest of the mine.

Is this job dangerous? VERY!!!

In fact, combat engineer is one of the most dangerous jobs in the military (for a variety of other reasons too :) )

All traditional US Mines have metal in them to make them easier to find by our guys once the war is over. Other countries don't play so nice. They use wood and plastic. So our little mine detectors won't find them, but our feet will! Also some of them have magnetic fuses, which operate similarly to the sensors for traffic lights. When our metal detectors go over them they go "boom!"

Having explained all this I'm sure you can see why the army (and other services I'd imagine) continually look for better and safer ways to disarm mines. There have been several items that have been tested and are being tested right now. We tested a South African device only to discover that it performed horribly :) They're now testing a minedetector that uses radar instead of just a regualr metal detector and I remember seeing on CNN that there is a European company that has a remote controlled mine remover.

This japanese robot is a great device that deserves a serious look. For those critics who think that the detector will get caught up on terrain, they've never seen what a tracked vehicle can do. Wheeled vehicles can be very reliable too (remember the mars rover?)

Now before you start flaming me about misinformation, this is as I remember it, so there is no warranty :) If you'd like to check out more about mines and such you can refer to: FM20-32 .

And here is a picture of a small disc of transparent aluminum

Ahh, Google, my friend.

I think several (highly modded) contributors to this discussion are confusing
the concepts of information bandwidth and frequency bandwidth. Ultra-wideband
refers to the bandwidth in the frequency domain, which is only indirectly
connected to the concept of information bandwidth, in that a wide band in
the frequency domain translates to narrow pulse in the time domain. Coding
techniques also strongly affect the ultimate information bandwidth of the
system. UWB is nothing like IEEE 802.11b,
which operates in the narrow 2.4 GHz - 2.483 GHz band.

I have been working on a project for US Army STRICOM,
in which we are using 8 UWB devices manufactured by
Time Domain Inc. to perform position location. These devices
operate at 1.9 GHz center frequency with a 2 GHz bandwidth,
which translates to a 500 ps pulsewidth.
We have a short conference paper on UWB simulation, accepted for presentation
to the 2002 IEEE Antenna and PropagationSociety Symposium,
which you can access
here. Speaking in general and rather simplistic terms, the information
bandwidth of such a system would depend of the time frame over which you
will allocate these 500 ps slots to listen for the transmission of 1 bit
of information. For example, if we choose a 5 ns time frame, then we
could theoretically obtain 200 Mb/s information bandwidth, while (ideally)
allowing for 10 channels of operation. Of course, the previous analysis
neglects the need for redundancy, and you may want to choose a time slot
over which to listen for a pulse different than the pulsewidth itself, but
I think the discussion gives one a good idea about how to relate information
bandwidth to frequency domain bandwidth in a simple communication system.

The U.S Army uses a system called MARKS (Modern Army Recordkeeping System) which includes destruction procedures. Every record within the MARKS system is supposed to have a disposition which indicates when it is to be destroyed. The system is designed so that there is no ambiguity about when to destroy the file (e.g., "destroy 1 year after expiration"). Any half-awake clerk can follow the instructions.

Usually the person creating the document knows it's proper scope, and can specify the disposition. Then anyone who receives the file just follows the instructions.

Necessary for any similar system for private companies would be
1) publish guidelines/SOPs/regulations for dispositions
2) make sure document authors specify destruction dispositions on all documents
3) publish SOPs for regularly purging documents
4) auditing to make sure that destruction dispositions are followed

The best way would to be to have some automation in there -- document creation tools modified to automatically insert this information, automated purging, automated auditing. Otherwise you're just adding a lot of workload to people who probably don't give a flying f--- about document destruction.

Actually, the James Bond types will likely be driving this: http://www.tacom.army.mil/tardec/nac/projects/smar trck.pdf (PDF file).

No jet boat, but drops oil, smoke-screens, pepper spray, teargas, electro-shocking door handles, bulletproof, and with some get up and go to boot.

You know where we all can get free food, rent and tuition?

And you also get paid for it, too!!!

It can only get worse when Land Warrior is implimented and thousands of troops are dependent on Windows 2000 on the battlefield.

In USASETAF we had thousands of users on each exchange server and except for running out of disk space because of no mailbox limits it worked well. But that was the admins and a political issue. My office in US Army Corps of Engineers we had 140 users on ours and only had one problem in the year I was there. But isinteg works very well. My present job we have a server with over 300 users and a ew other servers with 150 users each. All works well. I never touch exchange except to make new mailboxes or delete terminated employees.

The main thing is the hardware. You need a good SCSI adapter and plenty or RAM. 512MB is good enough for 140 users.

U of Kansas needs to either hire some decent admins or put some policies in place. The Southern European Task Force deployed MS Exchange back in 1997 and we had problems for the first few years. But it was because there were no mailbox limits set and they kept running out of disk space. It's all in the admins.

U of Kansas needs to either hire some decent admins or put some policies in place. The Southern European Task Force deployed MS Exchange back in 1997 and we had problems for the first few years. But it was because there were no mailbox limits set and they kept running out of disk space. It's all in the admins.

The Mexican-American war? Is that some sort of civil rights thing? Or did you mean the Mexican War?

http://www.smdc.army.mil/FactSheets/THEL.html

http://www.smdc.army.mil/FactSheets/HELSTF.html
TRW's contribution:

http://www.trw.com/thel

-Mark

http://www.smdc.army.mil/FactSheets/THEL.html

http://www.smdc.army.mil/FactSheets/HELSTF.html
TRW's contribution:

http://www.trw.com/thel

-Mark

U.S. ARMY COMMAND AND GENERAL STAFF COLLEGE

S 510/0 Strategic, Operational and Joint Environments

Lesson Guide for Lesson 6
National and Theater Command and Control

Wrong, lots of smoke. There is a movie here that shows an aircraft being hit. Now tell me if I'm just imagining that smoketrail :-)

They *are* fast, and certainly undetectable before launch. They could be used against airliners, but my point was that someone would have noticed, and would have called CNN by now.

It's reviewed in further detail in the November 2001 issue of PC Gamer. Sorry, no online copy. Like I said, it's a serious wargame so they didn't put up an online copy of the review.

Given how long military pilots have been using flight simulators, it makes sense that there would be a similar type of computerized Risk game for commanders. It will be interesting to see the crossover between the military use of it, and the commercial / retail aspect of it. Where Hollywood fits into this, other than through its ownership of the software firm in question, is a bit sketchy to me - that article is pretty hokey IMHO.

Of course, the whole thing kinda reminds me of when the Marine Corps used DOOM II to train 4-man fire teams.

You are correct in that the media is made up of humans, and prone to make mistakes. But I think you misrepresent the entire situation with this statement, in implying that human error is the most significant factor in misreported news.

If you are not already aware, virtually all major news sources are intimitely tied in with large corporations that have major interests in slanting the media. Bias is a much larger problem than error.

If you check the CNN web page, you most likely see that the anthrax stories overshadow what is happening in Afghanistan. They are taking advantage of the current local scare to distract people from more important events happening elsewhere.

I suggest that you look into independent sources of media as well. They are error prone as well, but at least have a different bias than the conglomerates (unbiased media is a myth):

Independent Media

DMOZ: News -> Alternative Media
ZMag: Left Wing media resources
Indymedia: Non-Corporate news coverage
Guerrilla News Network
Project Censored: Censored news stories
Alternet: Alternative news, opinion, and investigative journalism
MediaChannel: "MediaChannel exists to provide information and diverse perspectives and inspire debate, collaboration, action and citizen engagement"
Common Dreams: "Breaking News & Views for the Progressive Community
The Public i: An Investigative Report of the Center for Public Integrity
Pacifica Network News
The Onion: Media Satire

Media Analysis

"Propaganda" at the University of Washington School of Communication
PROMO: Project on Media Ownership
Military school article on Psychological Operations (PSYOPs)
Media Access Project: "A Non-Profit Public Interest Telecommunications Law Firm
Reporters Committee For Freedom of the Press
FAIR: Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting
The Poynter Institute: What journalists read
Columbia Journalism Review
Who Owns What
People for Better TV: "69 percent of Americans say TV is the most trusted source of information"

LS

The SIPRNET is completely, physically disconnected from the rest of the world. In fact, you can't even get to the boxes w/o a clearance.

The SIPRNET is completely, physically disconnected from the rest of the world. In fact, you can't even get to the boxes w/o a clearance.

The SIPRNET is completely, physically disconnected from the rest of the world. In fact, you can't even get to the boxes w/o a clearance.

The USA killed ~7000 innocent Somalian civilians in -93 while failing to kill one single warlord.

Look at this...

link to the army.mil

I tried the obvious, but I agree that it is weird that it is virtually unused.

Howstuffworks has a page about clearing landmines and here is another page that describes how it can be done. The US Army even has a page about different ways to detect and remove mines. There is a UK company/charity that is developing an anti-mine robot. During the Gulf War, the military used small rockets to shoot lengths of explosive cord into a mine field. When the cord exploded, it would detonate the mines near the surface. Detonation of fuel-air bombs is another technique that I've heard about. Unfortnately, most of the land mine resources on the web that I've found appear to be charity/activist pages about the need to get rid of land mines, but very little on how to actually do it.

Actually, the army has been working on a milspec wearable for a couple of years now. I suspect that your display would need to come up a few notches in features before they would be interested, and you'd need to be able to provide mass quantities, but you there is a market there...perhaps you could do a deal to work as an expert advisor to the program, or something like that.

Look here for details: http://www-tradoc.army.mil/pao/landwarrior.htm

Dave Storrs

Uncle Sam wants you to help fight the war on terrorism. They demonize you and criminalize you and then ask for your help. What's a hacker to do?

Japanese Americans were poorly treated during WWII. They could have complained, and whined, but they volunteered for the military. A famous Army unit was most made up of Japanese Americans. They fought well and heroically on the European front. Their sacrifice and committment helped change American opinion of Japanese Americans.

Another unit is the 5th Signal Command in Germany. They do network monitoring for the US Army Europe Wide Area Network. They also have deployable units that can go anywhere in the world and set up LAN's. In 1997 I was deployed to Africa and they set up non-classified and classified info LAN's with a satellite link back to Germany and Internet access. I was surfing the Internet form Central Africa. It was great.

Or you can go to 18th Airborne Corps . You can be in one of the higher level signal units or 82nd Airborne where you'll jump from planes with you servers and set up LAN's when you land.

Another unit is the 5th Signal Command in Germany. They do network monitoring for the US Army Europe Wide Area Network. They also have deployable units that can go anywhere in the world and set up LAN's. In 1997 I was deployed to Africa and they set up non-classified and classified info LAN's with a satellite link back to Germany and Internet access. I was surfing the Internet form Central Africa. It was great.

Or you can go to 18th Airborne Corps . You can be in one of the higher level signal units or 82nd Airborne where you'll jump from planes with you servers and set up LAN's when you land.

Another unit is the 5th Signal Command in Germany. They do network monitoring for the US Army Europe Wide Area Network. They also have deployable units that can go anywhere in the world and set up LAN's. In 1997 I was deployed to Africa and they set up non-classified and classified info LAN's with a satellite link back to Germany and Internet access. I was surfing the Internet form Central Africa. It was great.

Or you can go to 18th Airborne Corps . You can be in one of the higher level signal units or 82nd Airborne where you'll jump from planes with you servers and set up LAN's when you land.

Actually at my last posting in SETAF the planning started 10 months out. Every one put their dream sheet in for unfunded projects months out and hoped for the best. That's how they found the money to dig up the streets and lay fiber.

I remember some cool shopping trips with my US Government VISA card in September. Basically we throw stuff in the cart just to spend the money. Whether you need it or not important.

Who would even begin to question whether or not the military knows more about making war than civilians?

The Military.

Ask anyone who served in Vietnam.

Had the Military been allowed to do their job and fight that battle their own way, not so many people would have been killed. Instead, our brilliantly fucked up nation of civilians and politicians had way too much input and as a result way too much blood was shed.

It's historic fact.

We shouldn't have been there to begin with, but if you aren't on the battle field, keep you fucking mouth shut and let those risking their lives make their own decisions.

If, on the other hand, you think you have something to ad, Join the Services.

While I have seen comments relating to issuing pilots sidearms and the use of rubber bullets in aircraft, it seems to me that one solution would be the use of "sticky foam". Sticky foam could immobilize any prospective hijacker. For that matter the area immediately outside the cockpit could be fitted with a spray dispenser that would immobilize anyone and everyone trying to gain entry to the cockpit. It is effective and can be removed using a non toxic solvent! See, "What price Sticky Foam"

My argument is that people and organization are more important for intelligence work than technology.

Similarly consider Operation Bagration, the destruction of the German Army Group Center in Summer 1944. Bagration I suppose is the Russian counterpart of the Allied deception campaign that mislead the Germans about the Normandy invasion. The "technology" that led to the success of Operation Bagration was the massive fleet of trucks the West had given Russia through Lend Lease, so perhaps some argument can be made that indirectly Enigma contributed to the victory. But what made Operation Bagration work was organization, attention to detail.

In my opinion, overemphasis on technology such as Enigma is dangerous in today's era because it reinforces current United States prejudices on how to conduct intelligence without "getting one's hands dirty". It would be a shame to repeat all the mistakes of the Germans and learn nothing from what worked for say the Russians.

I believe it was the MCMSMO (MARINE CORPS MODELING AND SIMULATION MANAGEMENT OFFICE).
and for some background: Marine Doom.

The Marine Corps at one point used a customized version of DOOM for training... wish I could remember the URL!

Now to more serious stuff...

STRICOM is the Simulation, Training, and Instrumentation Command. They are heavily into distributed simulation (especially DIS and HLA).

I recall that at one point they ran some exercise (I think it was REFORGER, but I could be wrong) completely simulated, involving units from all over the world. This was back in the '95-'96 time frame.

Also, simulation isn't just for desensitization. It's mainly used for vehicle simulations. Remember, those planes/tanks/whatevers ain't cheap! Not to mention the ability to train soldiers under battle conditions without risk to their lives.

The urgency of this article reminds me of something from the annals of the U.S. Army's JRTC:

Each morning in the African Savannah, the lion wakes up and knows that he must run faster than the slowest gazelle or he will starve. Each morning, the gazelle wakes up and knows that he must run faster than the fastest lion or he will be killed. It does not matter whether you are lion or gazelle: when the sun comes up, you'd better be running.

Ping is one of those 'was there at the time, first to make the tool that was needed' kinds of things.

BRL-CAD is one of those 'one hell of an accomplishment even though not enough people appreciate it fully' kind of things.

Do go to Mike's page. Check out BRL-CAD if you haven't already.

I was there with my battallion from the 10th MTN Division in 1991, and I can tell you that by the time most soldiers actually get into a "shoot/no-shoot" situation, they're already in a state that no video game can replicate.

1) They're tired. Military operations are 'round-the-clock affairs. Nobody ever gets enough sleep (except for pilots) ;-)

2) They're nervous. Even in "routine" situations, the adrenaline can run pretty high. For example, while on patrols in Kismayo, Somalia, we would often encounter young men who would hide in alleyways with sticks or small lengths of pipe held behind their backs. They'd whip these things out as you approached, and each and every time, you'd have to decide in a split-second if the thing was a weapon or just a stick.

3) They're dealing with visual conditions. If it's hot and sticky, and you've been on a patrol for a long period of time, you're going to be even more tired than usual. Your long-range visual acuity can be seriously hampered by glare. Sure, you can wear sunglasses, but then you're at a disadvantage in shadows.

4) They're often overburdened with equipment. Read this: this for a few notes on how the soldier's load can affect combat performance.

5) They're dealing with sound issues. Unfortunately, it's not always easy to pinpoint gunfire's point of origin. Test it yourself: Next time you hear a jet plane overhead, time how long it takes for you to find it, then imagine someone is shooting at you while you're looking. In crowd situations, it's even worse.

6) Terrain can have a tremendous effect. Dense jungle canopy, for example, tends to make you nervous all the time (unless you grew up in in, I suppose). At the Jungle Warfare School at Ft. Sherman, Panama, we'd go on 4-6 hour patrols, and the entire time we'd be constantly on edge because our OPFOR were likely to pop up anywhere.

The problem with any form of simulation is that the further removed you get from real situations, the less likely the training is to provide any real value. In fact, even in the most realistic training environments possible,. like the NTC and JRTC, "perfect" training is impossible.

The MILES laser training system tends to reward use of concealment as cover, for example. While bushes may stop MILES lasers, they don't stop bullets. Even with disadvantages like this, there's no substitute for out in the mud, getting your ass run down and tired, stressed out, is-that-guy-gonna-kill-me-or-not, why-in-the-hell-am-I-here training.

The JRTC is an excellent example of hands-on training that works. There are many situations during a JRTC rotation in which soldiers will have to deal with "civilians" whose motives are unclear. They'll have to try and win over the population by using their brains and communicating with them. The intangibles that computer simulations simply can't replicate are all there at the JRTC.

While I understand the need to save money in training, this is a supreme case of You Get What You Pay For.

I was there with my battallion from the 10th MTN Division in 1991, and I can tell you that by the time most soldiers actually get into a "shoot/no-shoot" situation, they're already in a state that no video game can replicate.

1) They're tired. Military operations are 'round-the-clock affairs. Nobody ever gets enough sleep (except for pilots) ;-)

2) They're nervous. Even in "routine" situations, the adrenaline can run pretty high. For example, while on patrols in Kismayo, Somalia, we would often encounter young men who would hide in alleyways with sticks or small lengths of pipe held behind their backs. They'd whip these things out as you approached, and each and every time, you'd have to decide in a split-second if the thing was a weapon or just a stick.

3) They're dealing with visual conditions. If it's hot and sticky, and you've been on a patrol for a long period of time, you're going to be even more tired than usual. Your long-range visual acuity can be seriously hampered by glare. Sure, you can wear sunglasses, but then you're at a disadvantage in shadows.

4) They're often overburdened with equipment. Read this: this for a few notes on how the soldier's load can affect combat performance.

5) They're dealing with sound issues. Unfortunately, it's not always easy to pinpoint gunfire's point of origin. Test it yourself: Next time you hear a jet plane overhead, time how long it takes for you to find it, then imagine someone is shooting at you while you're looking. In crowd situations, it's even worse.

6) Terrain can have a tremendous effect. Dense jungle canopy, for example, tends to make you nervous all the time (unless you grew up in in, I suppose). At the Jungle Warfare School at Ft. Sherman, Panama, we'd go on 4-6 hour patrols, and the entire time we'd be constantly on edge because our OPFOR were likely to pop up anywhere.

The problem with any form of simulation is that the further removed you get from real situations, the less likely the training is to provide any real value. In fact, even in the most realistic training environments possible,. like the NTC and JRTC, "perfect" training is impossible.

The MILES laser training system tends to reward use of concealment as cover, for example. While bushes may stop MILES lasers, they don't stop bullets. Even with disadvantages like this, there's no substitute for out in the mud, getting your ass run down and tired, stressed out, is-that-guy-gonna-kill-me-or-not, why-in-the-hell-am-I-here training.

The JRTC is an excellent example of hands-on training that works. There are many situations during a JRTC rotation in which soldiers will have to deal with "civilians" whose motives are unclear. They'll have to try and win over the population by using their brains and communicating with them. The intangibles that computer simulations simply can't replicate are all there at the JRTC.

While I understand the need to save money in training, this is a supreme case of You Get What You Pay For.

I was there with my battallion from the 10th MTN Division in 1991, and I can tell you that by the time most soldiers actually get into a "shoot/no-shoot" situation, they're already in a state that no video game can replicate.

1) They're tired. Military operations are 'round-the-clock affairs. Nobody ever gets enough sleep (except for pilots) ;-)

2) They're nervous. Even in "routine" situations, the adrenaline can run pretty high. For example, while on patrols in Kismayo, Somalia, we would often encounter young men who would hide in alleyways with sticks or small lengths of pipe held behind their backs. They'd whip these things out as you approached, and each and every time, you'd have to decide in a split-second if the thing was a weapon or just a stick.

3) They're dealing with visual conditions. If it's hot and sticky, and you've been on a patrol for a long period of time, you're going to be even more tired than usual. Your long-range visual acuity can be seriously hampered by glare. Sure, you can wear sunglasses, but then you're at a disadvantage in shadows.

4) They're often overburdened with equipment. Read this: this for a few notes on how the soldier's load can affect combat performance.

5) They're dealing with sound issues. Unfortunately, it's not always easy to pinpoint gunfire's point of origin. Test it yourself: Next time you hear a jet plane overhead, time how long it takes for you to find it, then imagine someone is shooting at you while you're looking. In crowd situations, it's even worse.

6) Terrain can have a tremendous effect. Dense jungle canopy, for example, tends to make you nervous all the time (unless you grew up in in, I suppose). At the Jungle Warfare School at Ft. Sherman, Panama, we'd go on 4-6 hour patrols, and the entire time we'd be constantly on edge because our OPFOR were likely to pop up anywhere.

The problem with any form of simulation is that the further removed you get from real situations, the less likely the training is to provide any real value. In fact, even in the most realistic training environments possible,. like the NTC and JRTC, "perfect" training is impossible.

The MILES laser training system tends to reward use of concealment as cover, for example. While bushes may stop MILES lasers, they don't stop bullets. Even with disadvantages like this, there's no substitute for out in the mud, getting your ass run down and tired, stressed out, is-that-guy-gonna-kill-me-or-not, why-in-the-hell-am-I-here training.

The JRTC is an excellent example of hands-on training that works. There are many situations during a JRTC rotation in which soldiers will have to deal with "civilians" whose motives are unclear. They'll have to try and win over the population by using their brains and communicating with them. The intangibles that computer simulations simply can't replicate are all there at the JRTC.

While I understand the need to save money in training, this is a supreme case of You Get What You Pay For.

I was there with my battallion from the 10th MTN Division in 1991, and I can tell you that by the time most soldiers actually get into a "shoot/no-shoot" situation, they're already in a state that no video game can replicate.

1) They're tired. Military operations are 'round-the-clock affairs. Nobody ever gets enough sleep (except for pilots) ;-)

2) They're nervous. Even in "routine" situations, the adrenaline can run pretty high. For example, while on patrols in Kismayo, Somalia, we would often encounter young men who would hide in alleyways with sticks or small lengths of pipe held behind their backs. They'd whip these things out as you approached, and each and every time, you'd have to decide in a split-second if the thing was a weapon or just a stick.

3) They're dealing with visual conditions. If it's hot and sticky, and you've been on a patrol for a long period of time, you're going to be even more tired than usual. Your long-range visual acuity can be seriously hampered by glare. Sure, you can wear sunglasses, but then you're at a disadvantage in shadows.

4) They're often overburdened with equipment. Read this: this for a few notes on how the soldier's load can affect combat performance.

5) They're dealing with sound issues. Unfortunately, it's not always easy to pinpoint gunfire's point of origin. Test it yourself: Next time you hear a jet plane overhead, time how long it takes for you to find it, then imagine someone is shooting at you while you're looking. In crowd situations, it's even worse.

6) Terrain can have a tremendous effect. Dense jungle canopy, for example, tends to make you nervous all the time (unless you grew up in in, I suppose). At the Jungle Warfare School at Ft. Sherman, Panama, we'd go on 4-6 hour patrols, and the entire time we'd be constantly on edge because our OPFOR were likely to pop up anywhere.

The problem with any form of simulation is that the further removed you get from real situations, the less likely the training is to provide any real value. In fact, even in the most realistic training environments possible,. like the NTC and JRTC, "perfect" training is impossible.

The MILES laser training system tends to reward use of concealment as cover, for example. While bushes may stop MILES lasers, they don't stop bullets. Even with disadvantages like this, there's no substitute for out in the mud, getting your ass run down and tired, stressed out, is-that-guy-gonna-kill-me-or-not, why-in-the-hell-am-I-here training.

The JRTC is an excellent example of hands-on training that works. There are many situations during a JRTC rotation in which soldiers will have to deal with "civilians" whose motives are unclear. They'll have to try and win over the population by using their brains and communicating with them. The intangibles that computer simulations simply can't replicate are all there at the JRTC.

While I understand the need to save money in training, this is a supreme case of You Get What You Pay For.

A good place to learn about military simulation is at the Simulation, Training, and Instrumentation Command web site.

Anyone seriously interested in this should also research DIS (Distributed Interactive Simulation) and HLA (High Level Architecture [for simulation]).

The US Army has such a major interest in simulation that it maintains two separate centers in this area: the National Simulation Center in Fort Levenworth KS and STRICOM (Simulation, Training and Instrumentation Command). Check em' out!

The US Army has such a major interest in simulation that it maintains two separate centers in this area: the National Simulation Center in Fort Levenworth KS and STRICOM (Simulation, Training and Instrumentation Command). Check em' out!

The Army has been using Norton Diskwipe for a long time because it meets "military" standards, If i remember there was a g3 option that made it run itself three times.

there's a document here on using Norton to kill a hard disk section 5.2.3.4

http://www.ct.ngb.army.mil/Security/ctsecpol.htm

This is disturbing because even if China was at war with the US this would not be an honourable attack. From this paper:

Since a control system is the portion of the electrical grid most vulnerable to computer network attack, and since it disrupts the transmission and distribution systems serving all consumers, such an attack is indiscriminate except in one isolated, hypothetical case. If it were possible to disrupt only the electricity to those targets which are proper for iron bombs (e.g., military facilities and defense industry targets making only war materiel), then, and only then, would such an attack be discriminate. Until such a capability exists, however, one must assume that an attack on electrical power facilities is an attack on noncombatants, including facilities such as hospitals, specifically excluded from attack by numerous treaties.

The widespread effects of electrical grid attacks are so devastating to a modern society that they are neither humane nor proportional to the military effect achieved. Iraq's experience after the Gulf War is an example. Neither water treatment plants nor sewage treatment plants were operational due to the long-term electricity outages. These combined to produce a major health crisis. During the year after the Gulf War, some estimates linked as many as 70,000 to 90,000 Iraqi deaths to the higher-order effects of life without electricity.[26] In Iraq, the outages were long-term in nature because the large, obvious generator halls were a favorite target of allied airmen, and these are more time-consuming and expensive to repair than distribution yards.[27] The efficacy of these attacks also has been called into question because many, if not most, military targets have backup power from dedicated generators, making them independent from the public power utilities. Thus, evidence from past wars suggests that air attack of electricity grids produces only a limited effect on the outcome of a conflict.[28] In such a scenario the military advantage would not outweigh the harm to civilians from reduced hospital capacity, diminished agricultural capacity, and reduced medical refrigeration capability. Indeed, "customary law" protects foodstuffs, crops, and medicines during time of war.[29] Attacking the political stability of an enemy by cutting off his electricity clearly is devastating to the civilian population and thus bears no resemblance to a discriminate attack.

The fedz are right to call these punks "terrorists."