Slashdot Mirror

Military units around the world are already equipped with a decent laser defence mechanism. It's called a smoke grenade. It even comes in bigger sizes, from mortars all the way up to the bigger cannons. The US army at least now has smoke screen rounds engineered to also block out IR so as to defeat thermal and IR sighting systems. (and therefore would also be a good defence against IR up through the visual range laser wavelengths.)

i could have never seen ending this summit very well, it would have been a massive failure for Trump and to cancel it was the best possible option for him.

One needs to look at a little bit of history to understand negotiating with North Korea. http://www.koreanwaronline.com... From early July to August 23rd the Negotiators simply stared at each other in silence. Then they broke off negotiations temporarily. https://history.army.mil/broch...

This is not a "normal" group to negotiate with. We often talk about America's relationship with Russia. Well, it hasn't always been bright and chipper, but we can work with each other. The Russians and US have had many productive negotiations over the years. Despite our differences, we understand each other and are more compatible than it would appear at first blush.

North Korea? What are we going to do - Nuc them? Shit, aside from starting WW3 as China and others are drawn into the radioactive cloud, and as South Korea is decimated - better check how close Seoul is to da north-once the nucs start flying they are toast. And Rocket boy will be in an underground bunker the whole time anyhow.

Whatever we think of Mr Trump, it is pretty obvious that any negotiations with that nutcase of a nation are not going to work with a person of his temperament tweeting out the tweets that he tweets. We are seeing the intellect of the man honestly in those tweets.

6 million gallons/day? Chicago diverts 2 billion gallons/day from the Great Lakes watershed, much of it to move their crap elsewhere, just like they do with air pollution.

Odd that you chose to respond only to that item. Odder still that you would assume that I wasn't in favor of stopping diversions through the Chicago canals, which will likely be responsible for introducing asian carp to the Great Lakes, further destroying the fishery, unless shut down.

But by all means, let's keep adding Great Lakes water diversions on top of the ones Chicago started in 1848 and added to up to 1922. Just one more, ad infinitum, cannot hurt, and we've learned nothing since the 1920s anyways.

Does the FBI agents and administrators swear a oath to protect the Constitution and laws of the US or to obey the President? Lets check
https://www2.fbi.gov/publicati...

I [name] do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.

Which is different than the oath that the military swears
https://history.army.mil/html/...
"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."

The FBI was made to be politically independent (https://fas.org/irp/agency/doj/fbi/fbi_hist.htm)

https://www.fleetmon.com/maritime-news/2017/19867/gps-spoofing-preps-worldwide-sabotage/
You can also look up the Altria and find its true size. (in the photo section).

I'm not sure I want to follow the link, but googling it let to this interesting tidbit from the Army's OPFOR guide http://www.apd.army.mil/epubs/...
"Note: A GPS jammer the size of cigarette pack transmitting 4 Watts, can effectively deny use of GPS in an area ranging as far as 150-200 km. It is extremely simple to install one of these lightweight GPS jammers into a small UAV. Off-the-shelf remote controlled aircraft can also be modified to provide this capability. "

Interesting theory. Link: Pseudolite Quote: Pseudolite is a contraction of the term "pseudo-satellite", used to refer to something that is not a satellite which performs a function commonly in the domain of satellites.

Why pseudolites are used: Pseudolites preserve position information during GPS-denied conditions (June 2, 2016)

More info about the development of radio frequency position information:

Opening Up Indoors: Japan's Indoor Messaging System, IMES (May 1, 2011)

There are, of course, problems:

Danger, Will Robinson! Beware the IMES of Japan (Oct. 8, 2014)

Eh, the DoD has had SAFE, an equivalent service, for years now. If anyone would be worried about exfiltration, you would think it would be them.

Army space command
https://www.army.mil/info/orga...

Navy space command
http://www.navy.mil/local/spaw...

Coast Guard Space command
http://coastguard.dodlive.mil/...

But it's DoD and DHS. The two worst US Government Departments. They are never held accountable.

You can see some of the dirty russkie's under the table efforts here. http://www.arcyber.army.mil/Pa... We really have to do something about this.

There is an entire body of stealth antennas that have been developed for legally and space-constrained homes, such as flagpole antennas, magnetic loops, folded attic dipoles, and even tuned metal gutters! Yet these are all compromise antennas due to their limited height from the ground , proximity to metal objects and wiring, and size (for the 40m band on HF, you need at least a 10m/33ft vertical plus one or more counterpoises of that length on the ground). Some HOAs are even more draconian and allow nothing outside of a strict approved list of items per the HOA contract. This means that even a 1/4 wavelength vertical wire antenna that is barely visible to the eye is disallowed. Ironically, it's these same antennas that contribute to RFI issues for neighbors, increase RF exposure and worsen problems that would not be present with a properly deployed non-compromise antenna. HOA agreements have a disproportionate impact on hams who tend to be older and often use ham radio to communicate with their friends. Some of these are ex-military and civilian volunteers who are part of the Military Auxiliary Radio System or Civil Air Patrol, or participate in volunteer civil safety services such as Amateur Radio Emergency Service, Radio Amateur Civil Emergency Service and Skywarn that use HF frequencies as well.

The HOAs have been vociferously opposed to this act as an infringement of civil liberties and have written both to the FCC and to congress opposing this. Yet there are already FCC-mandated requirements for such things as satellite antennas on HOA-governed properties that supersede any restrictions that may be contained in HOA contracts on spectrum which is technically regulated by the FCC. The intent is not to replicated a nearly 200' tall antenna tower with stacked Yagis, but to provide reasonable accommodation. A 1/4 wavelength vertical wire antenna barely visible to the eye can literally communicate with the entire world, yet somehow the HOA board fanatics claim that even these should be restricted. Even one of the trapped multiband vertical antennas in a back yard can make a big difference in getting out and participating in radio, but they again want no part of it.

There is bias against what we don't know or don't want to know. Heck, people think that there is an environmental impact to these antennas. I'm hopeful this will get passed and withstand scrutiny in the inevitable court battle that will ensue over it. But in a country turning its back on science for sports, maybe even the discussion with the non-ham folks might actually activate a few brain cells.

The whole purpose of this is to facilitate non-satellite transmission of signals using ionospheric skywave propagation. This is the most common over-the-horizon communication method for HF frequencies (3-30MHz) and below. The military uses HF for tactical communications using radios like the Harris Falcon series manpacks. HF is also used for the Military Auxiliary Radio Service as well as Civil Air Patrol. None of these uses have dependence on satellites which are, in any event, potentially prone to attack, jamming and failure by natural phenomena, and where end user equipment is expensive and potentially tricky to deploy.

In order for HF communications to work effectively and consistently, the sun needs to ionize the atmosphere. It normally goes in the same eleven year cycles, but this year has seen very bad conditions with insufficient consistency to rely on HF. The shortwave and amateur radio community has similarly been affected adversely by this phenomenon. Ionizing the atmosphere through this proposal is one way to make this happen without relying on satellites.

From the Army's FOUO fact sheet:

FOUO is a DoD dissemination control applied to unclassified information when disclosure to the public of that particular record, or portion thereof, would reasonably be expected to cause a foreseeable harm to an interest protected by one or more of Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Exemptions (DoDM 5200.01-V4, February 24, 2012, DoD Information Security Program: Controlled Unclassified Information).

For Official Use Only is part of Controlled Unclassified Information, which is above public but below Confidential. CUI would probably be censored out of any FOIA response in the same way as someone else's health records.

The army uses a VR dome to train soldiers how to perform air defense.

You're mistaken, it isn't a "genocidal" anything.

Take a look, maybe you can tell me where the (imaginary) "genocidal" part comes in?

Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation

Hmmm ....

How can you ensure students graduating from your institute will not commit crimes against their people?

Just as any school cannot guarantee that some of their students will not someday commit crimes, neither can we. We provide our students with the training that emphasizes their role in serving a democratic society. They learn what it means to “protect and serve.” They learn the moral and ethical reasons for doing what is right and just in their duties, and they learn the practical benefit—the support of their people.

We can guarantee that all instruction will be conducted in accordance with U.S. law, doctrine and policy. The institute instructs its students within the context of the democratic principles set forth in the Charter of the Organization of American States and supporting agreements, while fostering mutual knowledge, confidence and cooperation among the participating nations and promoting democratic values, respect for human rights, and knowledge and understanding of U. S. customs and traditions. The operation and curriculum of this institute are under the independent oversight of the Board of Visitors that includes members of the U. S. Congress, representatives from the State Department, Department of Defense, along with civilians from academia, religious and human rights groups and nongovernmental organizations. WHINSEC maintains the highest academic standards, as shown by its accreditation from the U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command, as well as by the recognition of the American Council on Education, which evaluates its courses for their academic value to students seeking degrees in civilian educational institutions.

You're mistaken, it isn't a "genocidal" anything.

Take a look, maybe you can tell me where the (imaginary) "genocidal" part comes in?

Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation

Hmmm ....

How can you ensure students graduating from your institute will not commit crimes against their people?

Just as any school cannot guarantee that some of their students will not someday commit crimes, neither can we. We provide our students with the training that emphasizes their role in serving a democratic society. They learn what it means to “protect and serve.” They learn the moral and ethical reasons for doing what is right and just in their duties, and they learn the practical benefit—the support of their people.

We can guarantee that all instruction will be conducted in accordance with U.S. law, doctrine and policy. The institute instructs its students within the context of the democratic principles set forth in the Charter of the Organization of American States and supporting agreements, while fostering mutual knowledge, confidence and cooperation among the participating nations and promoting democratic values, respect for human rights, and knowledge and understanding of U. S. customs and traditions. The operation and curriculum of this institute are under the independent oversight of the Board of Visitors that includes members of the U. S. Congress, representatives from the State Department, Department of Defense, along with civilians from academia, religious and human rights groups and nongovernmental organizations. WHINSEC maintains the highest academic standards, as shown by its accreditation from the U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command, as well as by the recognition of the American Council on Education, which evaluates its courses for their academic value to students seeking degrees in civilian educational institutions.

The Military uses the Golden Master Image for Windows. There are a few changes, most notably you activate with your CAC card. Not that many people know that and countless times I come across a computer that is complaining about being non-genuine. The Secret Computers are usually always like this. Put in your CAC card and click activate, and it is a genuine install.

If they heavily modified the activation code, you can bet they modified other parts. Just because it is approved does not mean it will be used. About 9 months ago we upgraded from Server 2003 to Server 2008R2. (Both Golden Master)

The upside is if you can get the install DVD, as long as you have a valid CAC card you have unlimited copies of windows.

https://chess.army.mil/Content...
https://chess.army.mil/Content...

The Military uses the Golden Master Image for Windows. There are a few changes, most notably you activate with your CAC card. Not that many people know that and countless times I come across a computer that is complaining about being non-genuine. The Secret Computers are usually always like this. Put in your CAC card and click activate, and it is a genuine install.

If they heavily modified the activation code, you can bet they modified other parts. Just because it is approved does not mean it will be used. About 9 months ago we upgraded from Server 2003 to Server 2008R2. (Both Golden Master)

The upside is if you can get the install DVD, as long as you have a valid CAC card you have unlimited copies of windows.

https://chess.army.mil/Content...
https://chess.army.mil/Content...

No worries from our end. And that's why I wrote what I did in the way that I did: I've given this talk several times to people, and they typically fall into one of two categories:

1: They're so invested in civilian disarmament that they just stick their fingers in their ears until they can't hear me any more.

2: As in your case, they're not USian, so they don't have the cultural background for the debate.

Having said all that though, speaking as a combat veteran myself: Call of Duty is not an accurate model of reality. If you're interested, here's a paper where the US Army itself discusses the lethality of the 5.56 NATO round: http://usacac.army.mil/CAC2/Mi... Depending on the ammunition issued, the 5.56 NATO round either is too fast to do more than make a tiny hole going in and a tiny hole going out (if you're close to the bad guy), or it won't reach the bad guy at all.

I wish I could find it (my Google skills are weak today, I guess) but I remember seeing a helmet video of a US soldier engaging an enemy in an alley somewhere in Afghanistan, I think it was. The soldier hits his enemy something like 4 times with his M-4, and is then killed by the enemy with one shot from his AK.

Note that there were some folks up-thread that brought up alternate calibers (things like .300 AAC, 6.5 Grendel, and so on). Modifying a standard M-4 to accept one of these other calibers can be as simple as just swapping out the barrel (in the case of the .300 AAC), or swapping out the barrel and bolt (6.5 Grendel). These are much more effective, but they're also much more expensive, and they're still pretty hard to come by.

Look up the word conscription.

Look up the word, "volunteer".

http://www.army.mil/article/10...

i'll take what is selective service for $1 please !!

Hmmm ... disingenuous or ignorant, disingenuous or ignorant . . .

The correct answer is neither, although I understand those are both big clubs.

Judge said Army or jail, but military doesn’t want him - Army: ‘Not taking jailbirds has been our policy for decades’

Guerra, of North Tonawanda, outside Buffalo, was facing up to a year in jail after pleading guilty to an aggravated assault charge for allegedly hitting a woman who came between him and his girlfriend during a domestic dispute, said Niagara County District Attorney Matthew Murphy.

When Guerra’s attorney told the judge in the case that his client wanted to join the military, the judge gave Guerra a choice, Murphy said.

“The judge said, ‘Well, I’ll give you a conditional discharge: the condition is you join the military,’ ” Murphy said.

But Army regulations say that people facing pending charges are ineligible to enlist, said Army spokesman Lt. Col. Bryan Hilferty.

“Army policy reflected in Army Regulation 601-210, paragraph 4-32a states ‘waiver is not authorized if a criminal or juvenile court charge is pending or if such a charge was dismissed or dropped at any stage of the court proceedings on condition that the offender enlists in a military service,’ ” Hilferty said in an e-mail response to questions.

Army recruiters are also banned from helping someone get out of pending charges by joining the Army, Hilferty said.

“It isn’t a new regulation. Not taking jailbirds has been our policy for decades,” he said.

July marks 40th anniversary of all-volunteer Army

Only 20 percent of Americans are qualified to be in the Army under standards of health, behavior, and intelligence. Seamands said recruiting still remains a challenge.

"We are very selective because we know what's at stake," Seamands said. "What's at stake is having a professional force that's capable of fighting and winning our nation's battles."

It isn't 1969 any more.

Look up the word conscription.

Look up the word, "volunteer".

http://www.army.mil/article/10...

The soldiers sent to die at the behest of some government are the primary victims in war.

The US has had an all-volunteer military for over 40 years.

http://www.army.mil/article/10...

Amusingly, anything a terrorist would need to know is offered up free in PDF form by the US army.

You seem to have misstated things. If the women could stay and repeat RTAC rather than being removed from the course upon failure as a man would, there isn't an inconsistency with only 5 passing a particular iteration. So your claim of "a bold faced lie" doesn't hold up.

So according to you, the Army has many, many iterations of RTAC at Fort Benning. And women were allowed to pass RTAC repeatedly for MONTHS on end until they passed. According to this Army article, there are only 4 between January and April when Ranger School began.

Those who are unsuccessful at RTAC can still volunteer to attend another RTAC iteration.

So, anyone can attend another RTAC. Again, a bold faced lie.

Anonymous sources ... I seem to have heard of them. The sources of the story are unknown to you, but not to the reporter. And there are people on the record there making interesting statements.

I don't have problems with some anonymous sources. All sources being anonymous sounds fishy. Anonymous sources have told me you murdered a hitchhiker in 1978. Should I believe them?

Did you notice that the Sargent Major of the Marine Corps was apparently slapped down recently for stating a position on a related issue in opposition to the ideologically driven Secretary of the Navy?

I don't know to what you are referring.

What do you think would happen to lower ranking people in the army leaking embarrassing information? They'd be squashed like bugs.

I don't consider a general to be a low ranking member of the Army.

Pentagon Could Be ‘Shredding’ Docs About Female Rangers [dailycaller.com]

The Congressman said some documents were "shredded" but the Army disagrees with that assessment in that some documents were not meant to be saved.

FWIW, most military bases are gun-free zones. You are not allowed to carry firearms unless you are an MP. Yes, it makes zero sense, but that's the actual regulation.

Bullshit. If the Army has a commander-in-chief justification for going through your papers it can do so.

The Army oath of enlistment has you swearing to defend the Constitution. Obeying the President's orders is secondary. The Army makes a pretty big deal about this when you're enlisting since it's a common question among potential recruits. You are only obligated to obey Constitutional orders. If a conflict arises between the Constitution and the President's (or your superior's) orders, the Constitution wins.

Re-check your logic.

I was saying an Army order is not a Search under the Fourth Amendment unless it is intended to turn up evidence of a crime. Which means that if your Captain orders you to search somebody's car, and he's got a valid justification under the Commander-in-Chief clause, that's a Constitutional order.

So a Presidential order for you to go through someone's papers doesn't have to be obeyed (and in fact shouldn't be obeyed) if there's good reason to believe it's an unconstitutional order.

This is why they can read your papers at the border

They can read your papers at the border because the Constitution only applies to U.S. soil (which incidentally is why Bush chose Guantanamo Bay to hold terrorists - it's not U.S. soil, it's Cuban). The definition of U.S. soil got stretched a bit to account for air travel - people who've landed on planes in the U.S. but haven't yet been processed by Customs and Immigration are not considered to be on U.S. soil yet. That exclusion was famously abused by three letter agencies claiming anyone living within a hundred miles of an international airport no longer had Constitutional protection.

The US Constitution binds the government everywhere. Otherwise there would be no such thing as a Constitutional order to the guys at Ramstein. The President's p[ower to order them around, and thus their officer's power to order them around, stems from the US Constitution.

Overseas they don't have to bother with the Fourth (as much) because they don't have to assume a random dude in Dublin is American. They kidnap him, it's a seizure, but it didn't need a warrant because he's not American. If he turns out to be American they have an interesting legal case because there's a "good faith exception" to the warrant requirement.

The official explanation for the exception is that it's reasonable to search travelers for contraband (remember: the Fourth only applies to searches the Courts deem "unreasonable"). But if it got thrown out the President could easily accomplish much the same effect simply by having the Army do the searches, and then not arrest the dude with the weed until a District Court Judge could be found to sign the warrant.

Bullshit. If the Army has a commander-in-chief justification for going through your papers it can do so.

The Army oath of enlistment has you swearing to defend the Constitution. Obeying the President's orders is secondary. The Army makes a pretty big deal about this when you're enlisting since it's a common question among potential recruits. You are only obligated to obey Constitutional orders. If a conflict arises between the Constitution and the President's (or your superior's) orders, the Constitution wins.

So a Presidential order for you to go through someone's papers doesn't have to be obeyed (and in fact shouldn't be obeyed) if there's good reason to believe it's an unconstitutional order.

This is why they can read your papers at the border

They can read your papers at the border because the Constitution only applies to U.S. soil (which incidentally is why Bush chose Guantanamo Bay to hold terrorists - it's not U.S. soil, it's Cuban). The definition of U.S. soil got stretched a bit to account for air travel - people who've landed on planes in the U.S. but haven't yet been processed by Customs and Immigration are not considered to be on U.S. soil yet. That exclusion was famously abused by three letter agencies claiming anyone living within a hundred miles of an international airport no longer had Constitutional protection.

I followed Irate Engineer's link below and came across this: http://www.transportation.army...

This is similar looking, but not exact, to what I had recalled in my earlier post. The one I am thinking of had the railing, I think it went most or all the way around, and was jet powered (not rocket powered).

The AirGeep (1957)

Strangely enough, they never caught on. Maybe because for the number of troops you could deploy with the same sound footprint, you could actually use helicopters accompanied by gunships? And the troops are therefore not encumbered with their own transportation?

Giving everyone in the platoon their own hoverbike means that you have a bunch of hoverbikes that you have to keep and maintain. And the Ewoks can still kick your ass because they are unencumbered with such hardware.

there are other uses for lasers that projectile weapons don't satisfy easily.
http://www.army.mil/article/82...

there a high peak power, low total energy, laser ionizes a trail from the laser to the target device. then you send a bolt of lightning down that air column, which continues to ionize it while it electrically destroys the target. This can be used to disable vehicles non-lethally from remote distances. It can even be used to destroy roadside IEDs.

Another use, in fact the one it was originally researched for in the 1990s, is discharging lighting storms. In the 1990s there were multiple outages of the internet and other coms systems with astonishing price tags, due to lightning strikes. These don't seem to be as much of a problem now, at least not making the news. But at the time it looked like our new electronic infrastructure would need protecting.

ships are the ideal laser platform due to their abundant power and cooling, as well as their weight carring capacity, sturdy rigid platform, limited storage space for ordinance. Moreover ships are a highvalue asset that in recent years have been denied access to coastlines (littoral) due to proliferation of cheap anti-ship weapons. so defeating those is important to the navy. the main drawback with lasers is you can't fire them over the horizon, and thus the longer range weapon will always bee needed as well.

I really hated having to kill that skink.

That was one of Infocom's greatest games.

I made the pilgramage to Trinity Site a few years ago. It is well worth the visit. If you're driving your own vehicle, I strongly encourage you to come in from the north, through the Stallion Gate opening. Be there about an hour before the gates open at 8am. Put your camera in the trunk so you're not tempted to do anything stuipd. You'll see some fascinating things along the 20-minute cruise drive to the site. No paperwork is required; although you'll be traveling several miles into a military base, on these two days per year, foreigners and civilians are as welcome as servicemen.

Take your camera out after you've found the parking lot. Visit the monument before the bus traffic arrives from the south an hour later. Visit the Ranch House (especially if you remember the Infocom game) before the bus traffic makes its way there. Revisit the monument and take a few more pictures. Then drive on out of there and make your way to the Very Large Array, which offers upgraded tours owing to the massive influx of geeks on these particular days of the year.

PROTIP: If you enjoy beer, there's also a great little brewpub/pizzeria within walking distance of the motels in Socorro, NM. Fantastic place to stop the night before you see Trinity, or after you return from VLA.

If you have even a passing interest in history or physics, this is a bucket-list level road trip. Whatever your politics, do it while there are still greyhairs around who remember seeing it. (I'm pro-nuke here, and although the most interesting conversation was with someone who was the right age to have served at the time, the memory that sticks with me is hugging a spouse of one of the downwinders. My one regret is that I lacked the courage to talk to an old Japanese man whose family I heard speaking English.) Everyone who visits Trinity Sites does so with their own reasons. Seek out at least one person whose reasons differ from yours.

Thank you, WSMR and NPS, for putting up with the logistical hassles that give all of us the opportunity to meet.

https://shoals.sam.usace.army....

This Connection is Untrusted

You have asked Firefox to connect securely to shoals.sam.usace.army.mil, but we can't confirm that your connection is secure.

shoals.sam.usace.army.mil uses an invalid security certificate.

The certificate is not trusted because the issuer certificate has expired.
The certificate expired on 2014-06-10 02:24. The current time is 2015-04-06 13:17.
(Error code: sec_error_expired_issuer_certificate)

Next time provide a link that actually works.

I don't have the remaining fuel data, but if you look at a map of the route they used it certainly looks like it was a small fraction of their trip:

http://www.history.army.mil/bo...

On the other hand the Yamato class had an 8285 mile range, the distance between Japan and Hawaii is 4107 miles. Although fleets normally bring bunker ships with extra fuel I did find a statement on wikipedia with regards to a third air strike wave "The task force's fuel situation did not permit him to remain in waters north of Pearl Harbor much longer, since he was at the very limit of logistical support. To do so risked running unacceptably low on fuel, perhaps even having to abandon destroyers en route home" Of course if you take the island and seize the fuel reserves there you obviously A) Don't have to sail home and B) Now have more fuel.

So it looks like it would have required extra resources in terms of troop carriers and bunker ships plus some willingness to take risks. Of course freeing up the three divisions they'd likely need to take the island and having enough shipping available would mean curtailing one of their other objectives. They had about 11 divisions available with enough shipping to move them around. The Philippines and Malaya were essential in order to prevent US and British forces from raiding their supply lines so that's about six divisions unavailable. If they abandoned their plan to initially take Burma and delayed the invasion of Thailand and the US outer islands I think they could have scraped three divisions together along with enough transport. Of course they wouldn't be able to leave them all there, but they could have seized the island and then reposition two divisions afterwards leaving a single division as defense.

*shrug* High command would probably never have approved such a risky venture in the first place, but if they did it's reasonably likely they could have pulled it off at a cost of some progress on their other objectives.

daily caloric deficit of over 2700 calories, which is beyond a starvation diet. If your RMR was 2000 calories per day

36 year old, 170 cm, 111 kg, male individual has an RMR of about 2000 calories per day.
Running "about 30 miles a week, swimming for about one hour and a half twice a week and doing all sort of exercise" raises his daily calorie needs to about 3800 calories per day.
If he's also working a physical job, that's about 4200 calories per day.

That's a daily difference of 1800-2200 calories from exercise alone.
Diet-vise he could drop bread for one meal, or skip breakfast.
And that's without knowing how many calories he was taking in "after military service".

Army was feeding him AT LEAST 3250 calories per day, possibly up to 6000-7000 calories per day if he was stationed in a high altitude location in Afghanistan.
And that's not counting snacks. Or fighting stress with food.

He probably came home and continued eating 5000+ calories per day.
There's plenty room there to drop all that weight with exercise and moderate calorie restriction.
Particularly for someone used to military standards of exercise.

Tell me you aren't a citizen, Please.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P...

and

http://www.arng.army.mil/about...

The US military isn't "too high strung," isn't "trained to kill everything that moves," and has been used on many occasions to aid the civil authorities in the restoration and maintenance of law and order. A few examples include the use of elements of the US Army 7th Infantry Division, 1st Marine Division in the aftermath of the Rodney King riots in Los Angeles, and the use of elements of the 327th Airborne Battle Group of the 101st Airborne Division in Little Rock to enforce a federal court desegregation order.

The US military seems to be another area in which your comments are highly subject to error. Your exit from the United States will prove more successful if you avoid commenting on it. Perhaps you could take up commenting on the mlitary of the nation in which you now reside?

I also volunteered at Ft. Monmouth during the 1st Gulf war operating their Army MARS station AAR2USI providing comms between deployed soldiers and their families stateside.

When Fort Monmouth shut down, the MARS station moved to Camp Evans. It's currently located in Building 9116, adjacent to the TLM-18

I remember seeing that dish when I worked at Concurrent Computer in nearby Oceanport. I also volunteered at Ft. Monmouth during the 1st Gulf war operating their Army MARS station AAR2USI providing comms between deployed soldiers and their families stateside.

Say your brother was a soldier who was killed in the line of duty. At the funeral some people turn up to scream abuse at you and call him a murderer.

Here in the US, soldiers fight to defend the constitution -- they swear an oath to do so -- and the constitution in turn forbids the federal and state governments from restricting speech:

1st amendment: Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech (and the 14th amendment applies this to state legislatures as well.)

I take that to mean that a fallen soldier's sacrifice for those principles would be devalued if my reaction to speech I disagreed with was to incite the government to use force to muzzle people of different opinions in any public venue.

If one wants to hold a ceremony where no one can speak unless the host permits it, they need to do so on the host's own private property. Hosting a ceremony or speech in public, by its very nature, exposes it to everyone, not just people who are like-minded. Holding a public ceremony and then complaining when someone shows up who disagrees... I see that as attempting to claim an entitlement that should never exist in the first place.

Or how about if he was gay and they stated chanting "faggot" over the words if[sic] the priest. Would you be okay with that?

Again, if the funeral is public, they can say whatever they want. If it is on private property -- which is where my gay sister's funeral was held, by the way, in a very conservative small eastern Pennsylvania town -- then exercising control of the event is up to the owner of the property.

Is there really no limit to what someone can say to you, in any possible context, that doesn't bother you?

No, of course there are things people could say short of injury, financial and/or reputation damage that would bother me. Some of them don't even have anything to do with me.

I just don't think that there's any principle important enough to justify government force and coercion in order to protect my sensibilities from someone who wants to say something that only reaches the level of bothersome or offensive to me.

So the upshot is that should someone's speech bother or offend me, I need to deal with it myself. In such cases, I have options. I can silently manage the stress; I can undertake countering speech of my own; I can remove myself from the venue; and in the case where I own the venue (home, property, website, etc.), I can control the offensive speech directly.

Is that clearer?

Unfortunately, there is a lot of overlap in your definitions, so they are by no means exclusive.
Also, if both, the manufacturer, as well as the Army, decide to call it aerostats, then I think that does carry a bit more weight than what some guy on Wikipedia thinks it should be called...

since March has raised about $300 million from ordinary citizens

That's how it would cost Pentagon to build temporary barracks in Eastern Bumfuck.

That Ukraine — a country promised protection, when it gave up nuclear weapons, and one of America's allies (such as in Iraq) want of anything, when they now need to defend their own country is a shame.

Obama would not supply them with weapons . Even getting some blankets and helmets — a puny quantity of the so called "non-lethal" supplies — was delayed by months.

http://efmp.amedd.army.mil/scr...

https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic...

https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic...

Europe is about 1/2 the size of the US. Wyoming was an example, not the totality of "wilderness" states. Montana is bigger than all of Sweden, and 1/8th the population. The problem with comparing Europe with the USA, is that one cannot usually make comparisons that make sense. The point being, is that one cannot make "one size fits all" laws for Rural areas that work in Dense cities or visa versa.

School shootings occur in Europe http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S... claiming they don't is simply ignorance or wonton lies.

I don't see why those laws wouldn't work well in the US. I can see why they wouldn't be implemented with all the gun nuts around, but there is no reason to why they wouldn't work.

Gun control works, and also allows for dictators to arise. In the 230 years of our country's existence, we haven't had a single dictator. How has Europe fared in the same period? You anti gun nuts are simply ignoring the fact that a well armed population is not capable of being ruled by dictators.

lool fox news report on how afghans are gay. you're an excellent troll.

Could you expand on that? What makes a report from Fox News regarding a study conducted in Afghanistan by the military a "troll"?

Are you claiming that the information is wrong? Does the news change when its comes from other sources? No, it doesn't look like it.

Paedophilia 'culturally accepted in south Afghanistan'
Afghan sex practices concern U.S., British forces
Chapter 4. Afghan Cultural Influences

Or are you simply engaging in anti-Fox News trolling yourself?

Could it be as simple as "haters gonna hate" and you're a hater? Sure looks that way, "Noah."

One more thing: LOL

How indeed?

Army National Guard
Air National Guard

Army National Guard Vision 2010

A Full Spectrum Land Force
The Army National Guard is fully committed to implementing the joint operational concepts of dominant maneuver, precision engagement, focused logistics and full-dimensional protection. With 34 percent of the Army's strength, more than half of the combat power, nearly 70 percent of field artillery, and more than a third of its combat support and combat service support capabilities, the Army National Guard is a full partner in rapid strategic mobility, tailor-to-task organizational flexibility, and, ultimately, a key component in a seamless joint force that can be committed cross-dimensionally along the entire spectrum of contingencies.

Army National Guard Combat Power

A visual representation of the Army National Guard's brigades. This represents the National Guard's Infantry and Heavy brigades but also includes Engineer, Field Artillery and Aviation brigades as well. .

You're thinking "rank", which is Private, Private First Class, Corporal, Sergeant (all enlisted) Lieutenant, Major, Colonel (all commissioned)).

An MOS is your actual occupational specialty.

Here's a list of MOS'es.

http://www.usarec.army.mil/hq/warrant/WOgeninfo_enlmos.shtml

Things like medic, truck driver, engineer, mechanic, pilot, etc, etc.

Well...

When I was Civil Service IT, I had frickin' awesome benefits (sick leave AND annual leave?? And sick leave doesn't have max carryover?!? And I can use sick leave as paternity leave?!?!?!?!?), I got 3 hours a week PAID to go to the gym (link), and I got to work a 9/80 schedule.

In the private sector job I'm at now, where you have to, you know, actually produce results on time and under budget, I'm frequently working nights and long hours because if I don't get our release done by a certain date, our customer won't pay us and I won't have a job.

But yeah, despite the awesomeness of the benefits and work life of civil service, it can be pretty soul-crushing to not actually do anything relevant and important. I spent most of my time making powerpoint slides of our enterprise architecture. And I probably got between 80-120 emails a day. And usually had at least 3-5 meetings.

Contrast that with my current commercial corporate job, I am directly responsible for delivery and revenue so I'm usually left alone so I can actually deliver.

In 1959 there were plans to establish a moon base before 1970... Complete with anti-cosmonaut mines to keep the commies away and an org chart. We ended up not doing that.

I agree, we should stick to the science. Here you go:

• The peer-reviewed Journal "Nature Climate Change" includes and references thousands of scientific papers on the subject.
• The IPCC's 1,500-page "Physical Science Basis" report cites hundreds of references and is authored by hundreds of experts. It clearly states what we know, don't know, and how we know it. It reviews its past predictions, notes where its models have errored, and takes into account an incredible wealth and scope of scientific observations over 150 years.
• The IPCC also makes all of its data and models available for review. So you can see for yourself.
• The US Government also recently updated its regularly scheduled report written by over 300 experts.
• The USGS has a Climate Model Browser that lets you try out all the different simulated predictions for Global Warming. You'll notice the specifics vary widely, but they all predict dramatic temperature rises.
• The NOAA has a National Climate Data Center where you can watch the temperature trends. Here's a visualization based on the data.
• The United States Defense department has several reports on the risks posed by Global Warming (see here, here, here, and here).
• The Center for Coastal Resources Management (CCRM) has produced some excellent reports on sea level rise due to Climate Change to inform local communities like Norfolk VA, where flooding is already a major issue, what to expect in the near future due to Global Warming.
• You can also watch the sea levels rise at the NOAA's Sea-Level Trends website.
• If you don't trust the government, then I recommend The Berkely Earth Project. It was funded by the liberal's favorite bad guys, the Koch Brothers, but its results were so compelling that the lead Climatologist, Richard A. Muller, wrote a piece for the New York Times announcing he was no longer a skeptic.
• Of course, it's always good to have a contrarian viewpoint in the mix, and for that, I recommend AGW skeptic Judith Curry, who presents valid challenges to the consensus with her strong scientific background. I don't find her convincing, but her challenges make for good food for thought.

If you dispute this science, then I recommend publishing your own peer-reviewed papers, your own models, and your own alternative hypotheses in the scientific journals. I see a lot of skeptics nit-picking the science, but not many actually taking the effort to publish in the scientific forums.

I eagerly await one of the skeptics out there to please post an equally substantive list of references to "balance" my citations, so everyone can review and compare them.

Lame article, which points to a blog, which points to another blog, which points to the wrong place on a Russian site, which copied the article from The Daily Mail. The Daily Mail, even though a tabloid, has a halfway decent article.

I'm not going to explain inertial guidance; that's what Wikipedia is for. This is better inertial guidance. Here's a popular article which describes this new class of "gyros" and accelerometers. If you really want to know what's going on here, read Advances in Atomic Gyroscopes: A View from Inertial Navigation Applications

Laser "gyros", which work by interferometery and have no moving parts, have been around for decades. The best laser gyros still have more drift, by about 2 orders of magnitude, than the best mechanical gyros. Laser gyro technology has hit the limits of what you can do with photons. The idea here is to do interferometry with coupled atoms, rather than photons. That technology has been slowly improving for a decade or so, and it looks like it's getting close to deployment for high-end applcations.

One of the more interesting possibilities here is chip-scale gyros of moderate precision. Here's a Honewell patent from 2006 for one.

"Most people" being not crazy didn't help on S11. When there are 6-7 billion of us even a tiny minority of idiots is hundreds of millions of people.

There are not 6-7 billion domestic terrorist in any country on Earth. I'll leave it as an excersize to the reader why that might be.

Moreover since the military are some of the people who say anti-money-laundering initiatives help prevent terrorism, you're implying the military actually gets paid based on the volume of transactions in the international finance system. It doesn't.

I'm asking who's making the claim. "The military" is still too vague, especially with zero evidence provided.

Let me google that for you. An Army report explicitly linking terrorism to money laundering good enough for you?

Probably not, seeing as you just demanded a source for something that is easily googled. You're probably a troll.

How much is the banking industry paying you to make BTC activists sound like jerks on the internet? Because they'd probably pay me more. You just don't have the talent required to be an effective jerk on the internet.

As how many have been stopped, that's a really dumb way for you to bring up the point.

Really? Asking for numbers to assess effectiveness is a dumb way of doing so? Then how do you propose it's assessed?

The answer is 100% of the attacks that involve spending more a grand.

And that's how many? Exactly speaking, or even as an order of magnitude figure?

Legally available firearms only cost more then $500 if you get a really nice one, which terrorists tend not to do, and pressure-cooker bombs are under $100. Congrats dummy, you just walked into that one. If you didn't suck at this you would have anticipated that argument, and claimed that no major attacks had been tried, and therefore my argument was ridiculous.

So what, exactly speaking, are you claiming here? That terrorist attacks don't actually require a lot of money, so money transfers aren't really that important to terrorists, so watching money transfers is pointless from anti-terrorism point of view?

If you were literate, which is doubtful given your inability to google anything, you could probably figure this out yourself.

Big attacks require multi-thousand budgets. That hasn't happened.

Frankly you're so bad at this I'm already half-convinced you're an anti-BTC agent provocateur.

I'm entirely convinced that you're an idiot. The only question remains whether you genuinely lack intelligence, or just can't bear to be shown wrong on the Internet.

"Idiot?" You're not even good at ad hominem.

You do realize there are entire staffs of people in the military whose entire job is to figure out "what happens if potential opponent x does this thing that nobody thinks he'll ever do?"

It's called contingency planning, and since the real world is fucking weird it's really useful. For example who would have predicted that Ukraine would break up in February?

So yes, I'd say the odds that Al Qaeda actually use BTC mining to get rich are fairly low. But that doesn't mean I don't want a couple $80k analysts to look into the question for a few months. And that's all this report is saying will happen.

Moreover it doesn't imply that a) future terrorist opponents won't be mining the latest altcoin, or b) AQ won't simply buy some BTC on a shady exchange, put it on a wallet, and mail the thumb-drive to DC.

That's all nice and good. But it still doesn't address my point: Al-Qaeda can't compete against miners who put their money on their mini