Slashdot Mirror

That's the problem; we're number 3 in the world in spending per student, and we're 17th out of 22 in the OECD in high school graduation rates.

We should pay more attention to Eisenhower's warning about the Government-Education complex, and how it's feeding off of the US taxpayer as much as the military-industrial complex. For example, the DOD budget in 2016 was $585 billion; Federal and State spending on K-12 education in 2016 was $620 billion. How many people would guess we spend more on education of K-12 than we do on the military?

When DOD cost overruns are found, there is much howling about cutting back to the DOD, increasing oversight, etc. When the educational system fails (as it does), there is handwringing and demand to spend even more. Somehow society has been conditioned to accept failure of the Government-Education complex and reward that failure with even more dollars and apologies.

The US spends about $700 billion a year on defense. Clearly not all of that is spent on oil and the Middle East, but let's say it is. The EU gets about 20% of its petroleum from the Middle East, and the US gets about 16% from the Middle East. Assuming that oil runs about 30% of the economy of a region (transport, pharma, power, manufacturing, plastics, etc) that means about $7 trillion in annual economic activity is dependent upon the US military in the Middle East. And assuming that all US military spending is in the Middle East, that would be about a 10X return.

Now, we could always slash all our involvement in the Middle East, and turn off the spigots. The US currently has a net import of oil around 30% of its consumption (we do produce a massive amount domestically), and most of our imports are from Canada and Mexico. The EU has a net import of oil around 85% of its consumption - meaning it would have essentially no way of replacing oil (at least for now). So, ultimately, we're spending those hundreds of billions of dollars to protect and ensure the delivery of power predominantly for our allies in the EU. And that's generating around 10-15X returns in terms of economic activity. Is that worth the cost?

"This award is part of a portfolio of three agreements that leverage commercial launch solutions in order to have at least two domestic, commercial launch service providers that meet National Security Space requirements, including the launch of the heaviest and most complex payloads."

https://dod.defense.gov/News/C...

They already restrict the carrying and usage of [mobile devices, including phones.

cid=56442457 Here it is.

It seems that the US story is falling apart fast. The Pentagon claims that all missiles hit their target and the Syrian claim of shooting down ~3/4 of the missiles is nonsense. But there are online videos of missiles being shot down and the Pentagon now says they're going to study the attack. Trump is using the issue of chemical weapons to flip-flop and now refuses to pull out the thousands of US troops who presently occupy/control 28% of Syria.

The Pentagon has bluntly said:

Q: General McKenzie, the three targets that you struck, were those manufacturing or researching chlorine or sarin?

GEN. MCKENZIE: A little of both. And particularly in the Barzeh target, but there’s a little of both. (source)

But the OPCW, the int'l org which is responsible for enforcing the chemical weapons treaty, inspected the Barzeh site in mid-March and said they saw no evidence of chemical weapons there. (Their PDF report point 8 on page 2.)

When Bush told his lies about Iraq's chemical weapons, at least the BS story held up for a couple of months. :(

because you can only use the "Propper Linuxes", RedHat, Suse, and to a lesser extent Ubuntu and Debian. Other things will lack support from the hardware maker propper certification (think PCI, not the bus/slot, the certification)

that's mostly a myth; we build and support certified systems running free-as-in-beer linux (mostly centos, some ubuntu): pci, hipaa, fedramp, and dod/ic (from unclassified to above top secret)

because it's open source, we serve as the "vendor" for purposes of support

"Q: How can I get support for OSS that already exists?
You can support OSS either through a commercial organization, or you can self-support OSS; in either case, you can use community support as an aid." http://dodcio.defense.gov/Open...

Great for the USoA. And good to know (no sarcasm here).

But, what's the situation in Europe? Japan?

What about the four other eyes of the five eyes? Canada? Australia? New Zealand? UK?

Or in LatAm, where I do the Training (and, just to remind you, just South America has 11 countries, central america and the Caribean have many more, some really tinny, like Belize or Dominica (not to be confused with the dominican republic)).

What about EMEA? Or south East Asia?

I can personaly vouch for what I said in the cases of Spain (where I did my MBA), Mexico, Brazil (where I did training), and Colombia and Venezuela (where I lived and worked). And friends and contacts tell me is similar for other countries in LatAm as well.

And even if Govt/Industry regulations allow it, you still have to face the internal policy of each company. The first customer facing linux project for a Telco in Venezuela was headed by yours truly in 2001, and the politics were quite nasty to get it going...

I remember at that time, HP made a big deal about supporting debian, but only if it was HP's Debian, on top of HP hardware, installed by HP personnel... We in the FOSS world have come a long way since then, but still have a long way to go... (from the get go RedHat was required in my project, by the way)

Trust me dude. Is hard to get FOSS Support accepted outside of the BigUns (RedHat/Suse/Oracle and to a lesser exent Ubuntu and Debian for linux, other companies for other technologies). It will be either regulation making it difficult, or internal procedures of the companies making it difficult.

Finally, and I say this in all seriousness, and without sarcasm at all: If your company could set shop in our countries, and lobby to change those regulations and perceptions, would be wonderfull...

But for the time being, it is as it is...

Oh, c'mon.

https://www.defense.gov/News/Article/Article/1254719/project-maven-to-deploy-computer-algorithms-to-war-zone-by-years-end/

Project Maven focuses on computer vision -- an aspect of machine learning and deep learning -- that autonomously extracts objects of interest [i.e., targets] from moving or still imagery, Cukor said.

...

For now, many tasks, like computer vision, are ready for AI capabilities and many are not, Cukor said, noting that “AI will not be selecting a target [in combat] any time soon. What AI will do is compliment the human operator.”

IOW, for now AI will be used identify targets from the data supplied by drones, but the ultimate goal will be autonomous selection as AI object labeling improves. That's what Google AI is going to help the military with. They can be publicly called a defense contractor now.

captcha: disarm

The IPCC Working Group 2 report covers that.

Yes, there are certainly some positive benefits from climate change (which are indeed described in the WG2 report), and in the long term (hundreds/thousands of years), once the pace of change has settled down, some (mostly higher) latitudes will likely be significantly better off. However lower latitudes will likely be significantly worse off, and as more energy is pumped into the climate system then extreme weather events are likely to increase too.

But in the short term, the impacts are almost all negative, some massively so. The main reason for this is the rapid pace of the changes - our infrastructure and agriculture are all designed and located for our current climate, so as the climate changes (and we can already see it changing), then we will have to move/fix/protect/upgrade/relocate large amounts of our society along with it. Coastal cities will need levees to deal with higher storm surges, large areas of farmland will need more irrigation or flood protection, etc etc - and any countries or communities that can't afford those adaption costs (or have nowhere to move agriculture or population to) will suffer. The worst off will have to leave, creating refugees that will worsen international tensions - leading the DoD and NATO to class climate change as a "threat multiplier" that is already having visible effects.

Estimating the net monetary costs from these impacts is not easy, but some studies have been done, and they've all concluded the costs of later adaption far outweigh the costs of earlier action to mitigate climate change.

I don't know, it seems strange, especially when there's so much actual news related to SpaceX, such as the recent government audit which found some pretty serious problems with their manufacturing and test protocols ( See article here https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-12-22/top-u-s-space-contractors-cited-for-lapses-by-pentagon-watchdog, actual report https://media.defense.gov/2017/Dec/22/2001860659/-1/-1/1/DODIG-2018-045_REDACTED.PDF). On a more positive note, SpaceX's Falcon Heavy is still on schedule, and we've now seen pictures of the fully-assembled Falcon Heavy https://www.space.com/39164-elon-musk-unveils-falcon-heavy-rocket-photos.html. But apparently, out of all the important things happening, a satirical letter is what is apparently what gets posted.

http://archive.defense.gov/pub...

You living in your own private fantasy land doesn't mean jack shit to reality.

• Cyber Command (also here
• Cyber Strategy
• Cyber Workforce
• Cybersecurity

• Cyber Command (also here
• Cyber Strategy
• Cyber Workforce
• Cybersecurity

• Cyber Command (also here
• Cyber Strategy
• Cyber Workforce
• Cybersecurity

Interestingly enough, the US DoD is only 450,000 and I'm willing to bet the vast majority aren't even close to being on Windows 10. I think if you added in all the third party contractors it would be much larger, but those would be separate companies.

Nobody has demonstrated the small amount of warming we've had and can expect in future isn't beneficial to mankind and the biosphere

Nobody who is actually informed about the issue agrees with you. Heck the US Department of Defense disagrees with you. Please explain how even the more modest of predicted consequences such as rising sea levels, food supply disruptions, extreme weather events, melting ice caps, etc are beneficial to earth.

especially the biosphere, which quite likes CO2 and expends a lot of energy trying to keep itself warm above and below certain lines of latitude.

Umm, what? The biosphere "quite likes CO2"? Are you trolling or just ignorant? We're releasing billions of tons of CO2 that has been sequestered out of the atmosphere for millions of years and you're arguing that's somehow a good thing? Support your (absurd) statement with a viable hypothesis and actual data.

Aren't they talking about data taken on ships by physically reading thermometers to an accuracy less than the claimed effect?

It isn't about the accuracy. It's about what is actually being measured. It's like the difference between trying to do astronomy in the middle of a light polluted city versus doing it in a dark and remote desert with calm dry air. You're trying to look at the same thing but the noise in the measurements is quite different and has to be accounted for.

Billions of people live already in warm climate, which is going to become warmer. In many of these warm areas gigantic droughts are expected. Those droughts are expected for the US as well.

But let's say you only care about yourself and your village where you live and think that its actually enjoyable to have a warmer climate because its nicer to have it warm in winter. Let's assume you'd be fine with those people dying from thirst or starvation.

The thing is, before these people die, they will first stir up world peace. This has led the Pentagon to call climate change a security risk: http://www.defense.gov/News/Ar...

Trump is consistent in this single point: if we continue to speed up climate change (like he proposes), the US and all other patches of still usable land will get flooded with refugees, and one needs to expand spending in defense (which trump proposes too).

And if you don't like dark winters, I'm afraid it will get worse, as they'll become darker if the snow melts due to more light absorption.

Btw, the "agressive action" doesn't imply much of agression. As the renewables are almost competitive, all you need to do is to lower the subventions on coal and other fossil energy sources to give renewables a better standing.

If we "swear never to use them", which has been our position for the past 60 years, it's still pretty obvious to anyone with half a brain that we will use them if someone launches a nuclear attack on us. There's a big difference between the card being on the table, and announcing to everyone that you've got this awesome nuke card that you might use under some new unpredictable circumstances. That just emboldens your enemies and frightens your friends.

The US publishes a report called the Nuclear Posture Review that clearly details the US government's stance on the use of nuclear weapons. And it has NEVER been "we swear not to use them". The President's current position, as of this year, is "No First Strike", with caveats. That means the US won't initiate a nuclear war, but WILL use them in response. The caveats have usually dealt with other circumstances, like use of biological or chemical weapons, or major violations of the traditional laws of war, that might justify using nukes.
The standard policy from Cold War through 2016 was much simpler: We'll use them if we feel sufficiently threatened. Trump's position, saying that nukes might be used, is the norm, not a variance.

Ah, I finally understand why the military-industrial complex has been denying climate change for so long now...

Uh, what? To be sure, there are some industries with a vested interest in denying climate change (Exxon and Koch are an example) but the military? Not so much:

http://www.washingtontimes.com...
http://www.defense.gov/News-Ar...
http://www.forbes.com/sites/ja...

Fallacy much?

So you think a this is the same as this?
You also need to read a bit more.

Nothing like ignoring the obvious I pointed out.

All you said was being dependant is bad. I agree and there are ways around dependence. What did I miss?

A soldier running a recon mission

Who said recon mission. It could be a patrol.

is different than every soldier walking around with a tiny drone tethered to them

They are not talking about a drone for every soldier all the time but a drone per squad used when needed.

You are not going to fit much into a small drone in terms of either anti-jamming or encryption.

Are you an electronics expert who knows what can and can not be done on small chips these days?

If you think that you can find a sniper with this drone, I have a nice bridge for sale.

Explain to me how a drone with a camera transmitting back to an operator can't look behind a rock and see anyone hiding there.

Wrong, it takes very little to detect electronic signals being broadcast.

Detection is very different that locating the source. The former can be done with any radio the latter requires a lot more equipment. Your car has a radio which can detect radio stations. Try to use it to find the transmitter. See the difference?

The concept being discussed goes back to the Army (FCS) project work which ended up being cut.

The FCS program was between 2003 and 2009. Drone and computer technology has come quite a way in the last 6 years. How about you catch up with technology.

Hopefully nothing will, ever: adapting to rapid change is the essence of being human. You're welcome to lobotomize yourself and attach to a rock somewhere if you like. Others will not follow you.

I can only assume you're not typing this from the coast of south Florida, Bangladesh, or Tuvalu. I also assume you haven't paid attention to the extreme degree of wildfires, forest-killing beetles that winter should have held back.

Does the fact that 99% of the scientists, all the indigenous cultures of the polar regions, the satellite images of the shrinking ice caps say nothing? Does the increasing acidity of the oceans which is by now preventing shellfish and krill from growing shells in large swaths of the ocean not get inside that bubble? Does multiple years of having to take snow in huge truckloads to keep the Iditarod from being held in a mudpit instead of a snowbank say nothing?

Destroy the supporting ecosystem, you destroy the civilization. All the achievements you list are in a top-heavy unstable equilibrium with, not sustainable progress, but an unsustainable equilibrium.

I find your assertions to be shockingly out of touch, and if we haven't gotten a single biodome stable, you may be assured we will at best prolong the deluded existence of the rich by a few decades at best if the biosphere gets pushed too far. Seven billion people are not going to starve quietly. The Pentagon already knows this - http://www.defense.gov/News-Ar... - and Exxon knew this decades ago - but, believe the infomercials if you think humanity's at all ready for what happens if it burns billions of years of evolution down for a century or two of unhinged materialism.

Ecosystems and physics simply are not required to comply with your manifest destiny.

The level of arrogance and ignorance in both your post and the grandparent would be astounding if it wasn't for the fact that it appears to be all-too-common. That "landlocked Asian minor country" has the largest coastline of any nation in the world. They are in the midst of rapid deployment of technologies to exploit the resources and opportunities of the arctic region including many new icebreakers in an effort to open a northern sea route (which may become very viable if the global warming predictions come true). Further, their current military campaign in Syria has proven remarkably effective, especially in contrast to the anemic actions of the United States and our western allies before they entered the conflict. They have demonstrated the capabilities of submarines being able to fire missiles while submerged to the effective use of some of their most modern fighters (as opposed to our failed F-35) and effective long range cruise missiles. They are growing increasingly capable while we appear to be stagnating.

It should also be noted that Russia has been signing major deals with some of the world's largest nations at the same time that we seem to be alienating our friends here in the United States. Far from being a needy border-line-third-world-nation, Russia seems to be showing us up time and again. Twice now the United States in the past few years, the United States has been forced to back down when Russia asserted their will in Syria, and despite economic pressure on Russia over Ukraine, they have not backed down at all. A lot of talk has been made over how Russia has a shrinking cash reserve and yet everyone seems to forget that _they_actually_have_a_reserve. Further, their foreign debt is currently decreasing at the same time our national debt has just reached $19 trillion. When one considers that our proposed defense budget is as large at the combined total of the next 8 countries and yet we have a fighter that cannot fight and a high-tech destroyer that cannot float, I don't think we have much room at all to speak of Russian corruption (though it almost certainly exists).

Given current trajectories, it seems to me that our country is more likely to face a future of irrelevancy than the Russians right now. Our press is very selective about what they cover, but reality has a nasty way of asserting itself and often in very painful ways.

The Pentagon assessment disagrees with you.

So the Pentagon thinks more money should go to the ... Pentagon? Nobody has a greater vested interest in scaremongering about China, especially since Russia is not a scary boogey monster anymore.

The Pentagon assessment disagrees with you.

Heck, WMD were found: http://www.defense.gov/News/Ne... [defense.gov] http://www.nytimes.com/interac... [nytimes.com]

You're embarrassing yourself.

So I guess Saddam gassing all the Kurds didn't really happen, and we should have never gone in there to put a stop to the systematic genocide Saddam was up to...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H... [wikipedia.org]

Saddam gassed the Kurds with the gas that you gave him. And later Rumsfeld dropped by to shake his hand.

Don't expect to be given the moral high ground over Saddam. During their mercifully brief but incredibly bloody reign, Rumsfeld/Cheney killed more Iraqis than he did during any period of the same length.

That gas was expired long before the lying started: the best the Iraqi Air Force could have done with it would be to hurl it from the plane and hope to hit someone in the head with the canister.

What false premise? It was pretty clear at the time that everyone thought there were WMD in Iraq. Before Bush was elected all the Democrats were saying it.

http://politics.slashdot.org/c...

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

Heck, WMD were found:

http://www.defense.gov/News/Ne...
http://www.nytimes.com/interac...

So I guess Saddam gassing all the Kurds didn't really happen, and we should have never gone in there to put a stop to the systematic genocide Saddam was up to...

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

That seems to be for the troops' recreation and communications, not propaganda.

Because I'm so sure that the military's top priority with enabling its workers to use facebook is so that they can trade cat pictures with their relatives, rather than spread the "information" their employer needs them to spread. Who do you think you're kidding?

Remember that the military put out an effort to secretly recruit bloggers back in 2008: http://www.wired.com/dangerroo...

Again, all the way back in 2008, the military was throwing money at web propaganda outlets in other languages, under phony names: http://usatoday30.usatoday.com... The websites suggest a pattern of Pentagon efforts to promote its agenda by disseminating information through what appear to be independent outlets, says Marvin Kalb, a fellow at Harvard University's Joan Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics and Public Policy.

Yet, even further back in 2006, US Central Command publicly stated its efforts to "engage bloggers who are posting inaccurate or untrue information".

http://www.defense.gov/news/ne... "We were given the mission to do electronic media engagement," Flowers said. "The idea was put forth that so many people are getting their news from online sources that we would be remiss if we neglected that audience."

But clearly when he says "people", he's talking about non-US citizens, right? Try to find some evidence of that in the entire article. Go ahead.


The notion that the US government was somehow *new* to web propaganda even in 2006, even compared to the Russians, is absolutely absurd. Just as blogs were targeted by the military after coming into vogue in the mid 2000s, using social media was the obvious next step. What "propaganda programs" do you think Leon Panetta was referring in that previous USA today article, that they wouldn't involve Americans? Especially considering the military propaganda budget was 580 million dollars by 2012: http://www.usatoday.com/story/...

That's the same article, that the AC above linked to, while making an allegation I rebutted.

You didn't "rebut" anything, you simply mentioned that the Russians also had active propaganda programs, and that we don't know "what has become of that software development effort". I really love the way you tried to turn the thread back around to being about the Russians, even though that wasn't being discussed, and you just wanted an excuse to use that news link. It's very telling that you're more worried about Russians propagandizing to you than your own government.

The article specifically said that a 2.76 million dollar contract was awarded to Intrepid for their sockpuppet software. It would be incredibly naive to think the military threw down the money and forgot about the effort, especially considering their other web propaganda efforts (above) are evidenced at least back through 2006.

The article also mentioned "It would not disclose whether the multiple persona project is already in operation or discuss any related contracts." I'm sure you, in your neverending puppydog trust of our government's good-will, could only take that to mean that the programs were discontinued.

If you think the DoD would encourage its workers to use social media, and would not be willing to utilize sockpuppet software it had already paid for on Americans--at the very least after 2013 when this sort of propaganda is now technically legal!--you're more naive than anything else you've said thus far could possibly let on.

So, it was not done by a go

While they can retire at 20 years they get 50% benefits not 100%. To get 100% they have to be in for 40 years. Which for most people would make them at least 58. It is also a recruiting tool. Better retirement brings people into the military. The other point that you seem to miss is that job related stress expenses are not always medical. Many times the stress causes it to be very difficult to hold a civilian job. That is where pension comes in.

They did a really bad job on not discussing it again http://www.defense.gov/news/ne... along with other press releases
Also you think they would remove the original speech, along with the discussion of what happened with the money that you ignored, http://www.defense.gov/speeche...

They did a really bad job on not discussing it again http://www.defense.gov/news/ne... along with other press releases
Also you think they would remove the original speech, along with the discussion of what happened with the money that you ignored, http://www.defense.gov/speeche...

It's not a new thing. Here http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=42772 is an Army surgeon/doctor from the Civil War who got caught in combat often enough that they awarded her the Medal of Honor. Those things don't come in cereal boxes...

The only female recipient of the Medal of Honor was an Army doctor.

Well, the DoD is considering the effects of climate change a priority, but they're not trying to stop it. They're trying to adapt to it: http://www.defense.gov/Release...

I'm not worried about enforcement at all, because in two years Obama will be nothing more than an unpleasant footnote in the history of the world...

Not on the Block IIIA Satellites - DoD Permanently Discontinues Procurement Of Global Positioning System Selective Availability. Granted, they're not in the sky yet, but the US military already has the capability to deny GPS to specific areas, so they wouldn't need it anyway.

Remember, it was the FAA that was the force behind deactivating SA. Turning it back on now could well be more dangerous than just denying GPS and issuing a NOTAM.

They got money for the competition phase, then whatever bones Lockheed threw them. It definitely was not awarded to both parties. http://www.defense.gov/news/ne...

I would be interested in what the voter/incumbent ratio is in those other democracies. I would be interested in their taxation model, and their services model. I would be interested if their leaders are directly elected or elector-elected. Obviously your two Senators cannot do everything that needs to get done, so are they going to appoint people to handle the local details?

Obviously it would be ideal to adjust details such as number of senators and etc. if there were no state governments. There are a lot of things that would need to be adjusted, but without the gigantic bureaucracy of 50 state governments a lot could be done.

We would end up with massive cronyism with 6 years to wait to get rid of them...if we could.

We already have massive cronyism in federal government, and this problem is significantly worse in many current state governments.

I think the local governments are incompetent and poor because the lions share of the tax money is going to the Federal government.

Interesting thought. The federal government will always get more tax money than the state governments. We have gone dramatically too far down that road to turn back. We are currently spending over 700 billion dollars each on military and social security. These two gigantic budget items are each a bit larger than the total tax revenue from all 50 states combined. These two items not going away anytime soon (admittedly, neither are state governments, so this entire discussion is basically moot).

We could afford and feel entitled to the best people in our local governments if they were the ones controlling the dispersment of tax revenues. Last I heard, the pentagon could not account for a trillion dollars. Thats a lot of schools, hospitals, roads, and jobs that were lost.

"Not able to account for" is not the same as "missing". But yes, I do not see any reason to argue whether the federal government is inefficient and/or spends too much money. This behavior seems to be a foundational requirement for all governments. My position is that state governments are more wasteful, and less functional than the federal government.

I do not feel inclined to give control of any more tax revenue to the state governments who have already proven to be inept and/or malicious in their handling of funds at a truly ludicrous level. I think the most logical conclusion, based on my observations of state governments, that if we transferred a significant portion of federal funds to state control, the currently pervasive financial misconduct would only increase by a factor of how much more money was available.

The 1973 Fire, National Personnel Records Center

They are still recovering from that one.

Experts Recover Military Personnel Records 40 Years After Fire

Look at the sock puppets we get on slashdot :)
Pentagon Spokesman: Public Affairs Must Change With Times (Jul. 25, 2013)
http://www.defense.gov/News/Ne...
"We must communicate with the American public in crisp and memorable lines that deliver a clear and accurate message,”"
Expect to see a lot of hints of new options to shape the flow of information and public opinion in the next few years.
Blocking select servers, the turning of online activists into "busy work" or traps
"Jeremy Hammond: FBI directed my attacks on foreign government sites":
http://www.theguardian.com/wor...
All this will require an inner cadre of new people skilled with the slang, memes and culture to enter and thrive in different online communities building trust, spreading disinformation long term.
Why new people? They may know nothing but a constant war on a tactic and may find aspects of 'privacy' i.e. the domestic legal protections are historical/just red tape/understood talking points to them.
Think of it a cyber 'cannon fodder' for 1000's of sites, chatrooms, forums been flooded with 1000's of unique new/old user names to spread disinformation.
"Revealed: US spy operation that manipulates social media" (18 March 2011)
http://www.theguardian.com/tec...
to "From Twitter with love: American spies snooping on our social media feeds" Feb 17, 2014
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/t...
also see http://cryptome.org/2014/02/ar...

Does anyone know why they can't use lasers to knock down these fast missiles? http://www.defense.gov/News/Ne...

You can read more via the pdf at http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=121392 or a mirror at http://publicintelligence.net/dod-unmanned-systems-2013/
The US gov wants to try pre-programmed tasks, new algorithms, more sensors, and complex machine learning to remove the need for constant expensive, skilled teams to be working with the 'drone' 24/7.
Expect to see a drone swarm been released or more than 1 drone converging on a target area with less human guidance.
The other aspect is need to shape "cultural hurdles" after double tap drown strikes.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2208307/Americas-deadly-double-tap-drone-attacks-killing-49-people-known-terrorist-Pakistan.html
Facial recognition is still http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2011/09/drones-never-forget-a-face/ been worked on at great distances.
What is left is a 'group' or 'person' in the wrong place at the wrong time doing wrong things or a 'helpful' local has placed a tracking chip on a person to be removed.

It's not a secret that the US owns MiG-29s so that doesn't seem like the best "deniability". Heck, there's at least one civilian flown MiG-29 in the US and a US military contractor that flies MiG-29s (among others) to provide OpFor training for the USAF/USN.

Something to keep in mind is that different people play by different rules, and not everyone that is claimed to be "innocent" is in fact innocent and/or truthful.

Al Qaeda Manual Drives Detainee Behavior at Guantanamo Bay

The closing chapter teaches al Qaeda operatives how to operate in a prison or detention center. It directs detainees to "insist on proving that torture was inflicted" and to "complain of mistreatment while in prison." ...

Butler said the Manchester document includes "a large section which teaches al Qaeda operatives counterinterrogation techniques: how to lie, how to minimize your role."

The document, he said, has surfaced in various locations, including Afghanistan.

More Former Guantanamo Bay Detainees Return To Terrorism

Of the 603 former detainees tracked by US intelligence services, a total of 100 have now been confirmed as reengaging in "terrorism" or "insurgent" activities, while another 74 are suspected of reengaging. This brings the total rate of recidivism to nearly 29 percent, up from 28 percent as of the last report six months ago.

I would also like to know what was claimed as a "favorable references to the KUBARK manual" since electric shock or other forms of torture would not be acceptable methods of interrogation in a criminal investigation, and would seem to have little relevance.

As to another point, gathering information for intelligence is to some degree a separate question from gathering evidence for a criminal prosecution. I expect that is where the "clean teams" comment came in.

The problem is that you cannot attribute those fuckups to Bush and a lack of funding. The Katrina problem is well documented and while it sounds good, it was no where close to reality.

As for the Mexican field kitchen, I'm pretty sure they were attending evacuees and relief workers from parts of Texas hit by the storm.

At least that is what the DOD seems to think. You might think they could have been used better or something, but they did serve a welcomed purpose.

http://www.defense.gov/News/NewsArticle.aspx?ID=17205

> You mean like Medicare (single-payer) or the VA (government-run?) Both have high satisfaction ratings.

You must be joking? The VA with high satisfaction ratings? And Medicare is an insurer of LAST RESORT, of course people are going to at least appreciate that aspect of it. It's that or NOTHING.

No, I am not joking:

http://www.defense.gov/News/NewsArticle.aspx?ID=14560
http://www.commonwealthfund.org/News/News-Releases/2009/May/Elderly-Medicare-Beneficiaries-Give-Their-Coverage-Higher-Ratings.aspx

Here, lets look at your "facts", which are really just half statements with commentary.

*** The fact is that the ACA (aka Obamacare) sets up exchanges for people to purchase insurance from private companies. The government is not providing the coverage -- the private sector is.

You left out the part about doing it with other people's money, aka Taxdollars.

Only if low-income people need help with the premiums. That's hardly a precedent.

*** And yet there's a hue and cry about "government-run healthcare." Guess what: it already exists, it's called the VA. Single-payer? That already exists too, it's called Medicare (probably Medicaid too.)

Forgetting to mention those are huge expensive boondoggles with very poor outcomes in the case of the VA.

Actually, the VA has a high satisfaction rating compared to the private sector.

***The main point is that medical-insurance coverage is now open to tens of millions of people who would not be able to purchase it otherwise.

Again, open, but at the cost of taxdollars, and for people that don't want the health insurance because they don't really need it, like young healthy adults.

The fact is, nobody needs health insurance...until they do. And then, if they don't have it, we all pick up the tab when they go to the emergency room. And that's where the requirement that we all have insurance comes in. All of us have to contribute to our heath insurance. If we don't, we're mooching. Plain and simple.

And they presently lack an effective delivery mechanism.

Except for the 65 odd ICBMs.

So? Clusterbombs kill and maim for decades after they are deployed. You don't hear about the US going on about how awful they are, do you? In fact, the US is real big on them:

Textron Defense Systems, Wilmington, Mass., has been awarded a $640,786,442 modification (PZ00001) to a firm-fixed-price contract (FA8213-12-C-0064) for 1,300 cluster bomb units. Work will be performed at Wilmington, Mass., and is expected to be completed by Dec. 31, 2015. This contract involves foreign military sales (FMS) for Saudi Arabia. FMS funds in the amount of $410,218,248 are being obligated at time of award. Air Force Life Cycle Management Center/OO-ALC/EBHKA, Hill Air Force Base, Utah, is the contracting activity.

Cluster bombs! Get yer cluster bombs right here!

I did not. I hate when some jackass statist "news" conglomerate insists on showing me some retarded film instead of giving me the words to read for myself.

I did, however, do a bit of my own research, and found this article, in which Gen. Alexander repeatedly states "we have [concrete] proof that Snowden's actions have helped terrorists/hurt America blah blah blah," Yet I noticed a stark absence of the actual "proof" he claims to have.

Reminds me of one of my uncle's, a psychologically diagnosed pathological liar; always claims to know the information you want, and always has some bullshit excuse on why he can't tell it to you.

Only a child or invalid would accept "We have the information to prove our claim, but we can't show it to you" as a legitimate response.

Or a sucker.

Speaking of which, I have a lovely piece of property spanning the East River in NY, NY, that would be a perfect investment opportunity for you...

Interesting post. I disagree with a number of your points, but I'll limit myself to a few counterpoints.

Guantanamo bay has never even held a total of 1,000 people as prisoners. Al Qaida teaches its members to lie and carry on the jihad by any means possible. Gitmo guards often attacked by detainees As to feeding tubes - yes they can be unpleasant, but it's likely the prisoners magnify the difficulties in line with their training.
Al Qaeda Manual Drives Detainee Behavior at Guantanamo Bay

WASHINGTON, June 29, 2005 – If you're a Muslim extremist captured while fighting your holy war against "infidels," avoid revealing information at all costs, don't give your real name and claim that you were mistreated or tortured during your detention. . .

Anwar al-Awlaki wasn't targeted due to making speeches, but due to his active participation as a terrorist recruiter, trainer, and leader: Awlaki's Legacy: A Dozen Terror Plots Linked to Al Qaeda Leader

Soviets rule was not benign: The Soviet Story

Better at what? And for which country?

Don't you know? They are all "innocent."

Al Qaeda Manual Drives Detainee Behavior at Guantanamo Bay

WASHINGTON, June 29, 2005 – If you're a Muslim extremist captured while fighting your holy war against "infidels," avoid revealing information at all costs, don't give your real name and claim that you were mistreated or tortured during your detention. . .

Police in Manchester, England, discovered the manual, which has come to be known as the "Manchester document," in 2000 while searching computer files found in the home of a known al Qaeda member. The contents were introduced as evidence into the 2001 trial of terrorists who bombed the U.S. embassies in Tanzania and Kenya in 1998.

The FBI translated the document into English, and it is posted on the Justice Department's Web site.

The 18-chapter manual provides a detailed window into al Qaeda's network and its procedures for waging jihad - from conducting surveillance operations to carrying out assassinations to working with forged documents.

The closing chapter teaches al Qaeda operatives how to operate in a prison or detention center. It directs detainees to "insist on proving that torture was inflicted" and to "complain of mistreatment while in prison."

Chapter 17 instructs them to "be careful not to give the enemy any vital information" during interrogations. . . .

"These detainees are trained to lie, they're trained to say they were tortured, and the minute we release them or the minute they get a lawyer, very frequently they'll go out and they will announce that they've been tortured," Rumsfeld said.

The media jumps on these claims, reporting them as "another example of torture," the secretary said, "when in fact, (terrorists have) been trained to do that, and their training manual says so."

During a February 2004 Pentagon news conference, a DoD official said new information provided by detainees during questioning is analyzed to determine its reliability.

"Unfortunately, many detainees are deceptive and prefer to conceal their identifies and their actions," said Paul Butler, principal deputy assistant secretary for special operations and low-intensity conflict.

Butler said the Manchester document includes "a large section which teaches al Qaeda operatives counterinterrogation techniques: how to lie, how to minimize your role."

The document, he said, has surfaced in various locations, including Afghanistan.

The manual's preface offers a chilling reminder of the mentality that drives al Qaeda disciples and the lengths they will go to for their cause.

"The confrontation that we are calling for ... does not know Socratic debates, ... Platonic ideals ... nor Aristotelian diplomacy," its opening pages read. "But it knows the dialogue of bullets, the ideals of assassination, bombing and destruction, and the diplomacy of the cannon and machine gun."

Recidivism rises among released Guantanamo detainees

The proportion of militants released from detention at the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay who subsequently were believed to have returned to the battlefield rose slightly over the last year, according to official figures released on Monday. In a summary report, the office of the Director of National Intelligence said that 27.9 percent of the 599 former detainees released from Guantanamo were either confirmed or suspected of later engaging in militant activity.

It's not the Olympics, it's war.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People's_Republic_of_China_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction Follow any of the references regarding warhead utilization, or the FAS's research, or the BAS's research. Even the USG assesses the situation as such.
http://www.defense.gov/pubs/2013_China_Report_FINAL.pdf
China's nuclear force is the smallest of any nuclear weapons state. It does not maintain warheads mated to delivery vehicles.
Your ignorance surrounding the analog between pinpoint-precision MIRV/MARV'd solid-fueled stellar-guided advanced ICBM's and orbital rockets is pretty impressive, but analyzing your statements regarding Chinese rocket capability is absurd given that you don't even address the most important issue regarding the potential for offensive use of the Chinese strategic rocket force: THEY DON'T HAVE REMOTELY ENOUGH launchers. If you can't decapitate and then neutralize the US's strategic defence forces, then how you can you utilize your nuclear forces to prevent annihilating counter-battery? The answer is that you can't.
The only adversarial rocket force capable of even targeting all necessary US non-survivable assets is the Russian SRF. Period.