Slashdot Mirror
New Approach For Laser Weapons
An anonymous reader writes "Laser guns and other 'directed energy weapons' have remained in sci-fi lore because of their inefficiency, bulkiness, and poor beam quality. Now an MIT Lincoln Lab spinoff called TeraDiode is developing a diode laser that uses 'wavelength beam combining' to create what it calls the brightest and most powerful laser of its kind. The two-year-old company, backed by $3 million from the U.S. Department of Defense and $4 million from venture capitalists, is working on a compact airborne laser system for planes to shoot down heat-seeking missiles. Eventually, the lasers could be mounted on a tank or ship to destroy enemy UAVs or even incoming artillery shells. That's still at least three to five years away, but with advances in semiconductor lasers there seems to be quite a renewed interest in weaponry."
But what do the sharks think of the frick'n things?
New ways to kill people more efficiently, just what the world needs...
I would think a shield could be created to protect against UAV's. It would be possible to just create a laser net around a certain area as a defense shield.
How effective would it be?
...to be nice to your research students, or next thing you know they'll fill your house with corn kernels and reprogram the laser to aim at your house and blow your roof off with popcorn.
Both Commercial and weapons. Hopefully, the will produce the cutter and welder for us here in America, rather than just giving the tech to China.
They're calling it the most powerful laser of it's kind, and it's a new kind of laser...
Only Boeing's will cost a litthttp://news.slashdot.org/story/11/07/05/2033259/New-Approach-For-Laser-Weapons#le more than 22 times their 7 million and all paid by the US Government.
Just because you are wrong and I called you out on it doesn't mean I am a Troll.
I will finally have sharks with friggen laser beams mounted on their heads.
Is ready!
No seriously, listen...if there's ever anything I can do for you, or more to the point, to you, you let me know, okay?
Since somehow my post got messed up here is the other article: http://science.slashdot.org/story/11/06/21/2136203/Boeings-Enormous-Navy-Laser-Cannon
Just because you are wrong and I called you out on it doesn't mean I am a Troll.
Agreed. It is much better when people are killed by the old methods instead.
This post comes with a double-your-money-back guarantee!
Any offense taken to this post is at your sole discretion.
Whatever else happens, killing people is always good business.
Lacking <sarcasm> tags,
The main focus of laser technology seems to be shooting down incoming projectiles, SAVING lives rather than killing them. Is that such a terrible thing?
Plus, lets say for the sake of it that the laser based weapons are eventually used to kill people, what exactly is wrong with being "more efficient" about it? By "more efficient", what do you actually mean? In my mind, this means less collateral damage. I like the idea of a weapon that's powerful, yet exceptionally accurate. I like the idea of being able to pick out a target hiding in a crowd and neutralising him without toasting the person standing next to him. I also don't see that as such a terrible thing.
War is tragic, but until we have some sort of united earth, it also seems inevitable. Rather than just building bigger bombs, I'm glad someone is investing in alternative ways of fighting those wars, ways that ultimately mean less people have to die.
+1 IDisagreeSoHeMustBeATrollOrAnAstroturferOrAShill
eventually I believe that someone will figure this out. But, as amazing as this technology is... I really hope it doesnt turn out to be one of those things that we wish we could uninvent.
I don't know. We haven't had an actual, good population-culling in so long that we're starting to see the sociological problems involved in overpopulation.
Add to that the fact that there's nowhere to send the disaffected/indigent/criminal populations. We've pretty much filled up the US and Australia haven't we?
The main focus of laser technology seems to be shooting down incoming projectiles, SAVING lives rather than killing them. Is that such a terrible thing?
It is when we're launching humans as projectiles at our enemies. Then even your vaunted DEFENSIVE lasers will undoubtedly be being used to KILL HUMANS.
only, what cutsie misspelling should they use when creating the marketing name for it?
sigh....
--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
UAVs or even artillery shells?
A unique way to learn a language: http://languageloom.com
Now we can kill each other better...
Don't get me wrong, I'm not Pollyanna. I believe we need the ability to defend ourselves against the world's jerks. It's just... sometimes I really wished we could work more towards helping each other than hurting each other. It kind of wears on you after a while.
Kill 'em in the air, or let 'em hit and die in a splat. Which is more inhumane?
No where in that article did I see any new technology. Just semiconductor lasers and optical beam combining. Bit scarce on the hard numbers too.
So, what's the chance this could be used by terrorists to shoot down commercial airliners?
Currently hooked on AMP
Just bring back the New Jersey class and the 16 inch AP shells. I doubt that a laser would have much effect on them :)
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
There's no technical information here, just that they can now make a more powerful diode laser. More info here.
I mean, couldn't they be a flash in the pan?
Lacking <sarcasm> tags,
I don't think so. I think they just want to be able to cook giant pans of jiffy pop that they snuck into people's houses.
So much intelligence capable of creating incredible things. So many problems in the world. Why waste time on fricking weapons?
none
War generally does not really cull the human population. It occasionally does so locally or within a certain group, usually because of genocide, but the number of people who die in war is always small compared to the human population of the planet. Short of going nuclear, something like the Black death is much more effective at population culling.
-- IANAL, this isn't legal advice, and definitely isn't legal advice for you. Also, Squee!
The scary part isn't I remember reading that Pogo when it first appeared in newspapers. It's that it's just as true as it ever was.
Lacking <sarcasm> tags,
That's great! I'll be ready with the massive popcorn pan in 5 years! I should get started soon, maybe Jordan can come over and help me, she never sleeps.
"All great wisdom is contained in .signature files"
But what do the sharks think
Objection, Your Honor! Question assumes cognitive processes not in evidence!
Lacking <sarcasm> tags,
Clearly you were given a great opportunity to be a Chris Knight and you turned it into a moment to be a Kent.
From now on, stop playing with yourself :P
"All great wisdom is contained in .signature files"
From the side?
I drank what? -- Socrates
There are no "better" ways to kill. Only easier ways.
I am not convinced that we need easier ways to kill.
I wonder what the Founders would think of the NRA's position on private ownership of laser weapons, which will certainly be: "You can have my laser gun when you wrest it from my smoldering, dead hand".
And no, I don't think the NRA's position would be any different on a handheld, semi-automatic anti-matter weapon or a handheld, semi-automatic planet killer for that matter. Nihilism is nihilism, even when it's wrapped in the flag.
You are welcome on my lawn.
You can order it from the ACME catalog.
http://www.neatorama.com/2008/05/14/the-original-acme-catalog/
Fight Spammers!
I'm pretty sure I saw a documentary about exactly this kind of defence weapons on Discovery years ago, not sure if they had a working one or if it was just in the planning face but they where close to beeing able to put them on airplanes
I am sad that anything that involves lasers is automatically an Austin Powers Shark joke. Real Genius is by far the better and funnier movie. Please help endorse the correct kind of nostalgic references.
This is clearly objectively correct and in no way affected by my bias for and love of Real Genius. I don't care that it was probably the only movie I've ever seen that included real hacking and appropriate technology references.
Won't somebody think of the children?
Also get off my lawn.
I wonder what the Founders would think of the NRA's position on private ownership of laser weapons, which will certainly be: "You can have my laser gun when you wrest it from my smoldering, dead hand".
Why would the founding fathers reject citizens owning current generation weapons? Remember, these are men that took up arms and fought for freedom against an oppressive government. Many of them owned weapons that were state of their art for the day, similar to modern day ownership of AR-15s and similar firearms. Private ownership of cannons was not uncommon either.
The 2nd Amendment was not written to protect duck hunters.
This post comes with a double-your-money-back guarantee!
Any offense taken to this post is at your sole discretion.
Eventually, the lasers could be mounted on a tank or ship to destroy enemy UAVs or even incoming artillery shells.
I can see this resulting in a lot of dead birds in the future.
The main focus of laser technology seems to be shooting down incoming projectiles, SAVING lives rather than killing them. Is that such a terrible thing?
But if we have awesome solid state lasers, why not just use the laser to shoot down the planes instead of missiles?
There are better ways to kill. When those ways minimize or even remove collateral damage, that improves the outcome. These methods are often not easier, requiring much more training, maintenance, and sometimes cost to implement at a cost of reduction in unwanted damage.
Depriving an enemy of the means to fight is the most basic tenet of warfare. Once gunpowder came on the scene, this got much, much messier over the years until guided weapons started getting involved. What used to take a squadron of aircraft to destroy by dropping hundreds of bombs now takes only one or two aircraft dropping one to three bombs each. What used to devastate neighborhoods whether or not it hit the target now involves significantly less collateral damage.
You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
The Crossbow Project: There's no defense like a good offense.
--fatboy
Recently the navy "disabled" (i.e. caught on fire) a small ship using a high-power solid-state laser (video here)
New ways to kill people more efficiently, just what the world needs...
You think you're so creative. You don't know what it's like to really create something; to create a life; to feel it growing inside you. All you know how to create is death...
"I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)
I'm wondering how they choose which humans to use as projectiles. That sounds suspiciously close to HUMAN SLAVERY to me!
I wonder if this would make laser-ignited fusion possible...
Sit, Ubuntu, sit. Good dog.
...someone just paint the target using silver color (or the respective reflective color for the laser)?
The best way to do that has been outlawed as its called an assassination. Think how many people and how much money we could have saved if over this century alone if we could have just assassinated the prick at the top? That's one thing that I've never understood. That we make assassinating a leader unlawful because of some moralistic subterfuge, like somehow its more moral to go kill several thousand, or several million people who aren't really connected to the process because we don't have the balls to shoot one other guy in the head.
What good is building a purpose built weapon for something if we don't have the moral fiber to use the damned thing because we're stupidly conflicted about it.
sorry, don't have time to RTFA or even all of the comments, but would any of these help in this circumstance?
been waiting for 35 years for someone to get a handle on this.
last minute desperate solutions to impossible problems created by other fucking people.
But wont it look kind of funny when all the marines have to dress in Kylie Minogue sparkly dresses to deflect the lasers???
If my comment didn't sound as good in your head as it did in mine, then I guess we all know who's to blame
I imagine a big part of the push for developing this technology is to have something that can be mounted on ships to counter anti-ship missiles. Specifically the kind of ballistic anti-ship missiles that China wants to perfect/deploy as deterrent against the US 7th fleet operating in what it sees as its territorial waters/sphere of influence.
if you wanted to fight your government, you really need to invest in getting SAM hardware (which, as far as i know, is still illegal) and RPG's, rifles aren't going to be much use to the sort of war that would be waged on the citizens by the government..
that last line almost sounded like an argument for using nuclear weapons.
I'm perfecting a new kind of mirror that's far more efficient than old mirrors...
Mostly random stuff.
Probably it's because the people who made it unlawful to kill the pricks at the top are the pricks at the top.
Insanity: voting in the same two parties over and over again and expecting different results
if you wanted to fight your government, you really need to invest in getting SAM hardware (which, as far as i know, is still illegal) and RPG's, rifles aren't going to be much use to the sort of war that would be waged on the citizens by the government.
Your statement might be true if the government is distant, as in American Colonists vs George III in England. However it is untrue when the government is local, and the government officials live and work near the citizens, as in American Colonists vs George III's governors and institutions located in the colonies. Note that the American revolutionaries began by threatening the local tax collectors and such, not the king and his ministers.
A more contemporary failing of your logic would be the Arab Spring where portions of an Army with ties to the community defect when unjustly ordered to attack that community.
takes to long,
Planes have greater maneuverability,
Planes have pilots that can pick up on such clues,
to kill a missile you just have to burn through a mm or two of shell, and either detonate the warhead, or destroy hardware inside(a burned out guidance ship is useless.
To kill a UAV,(slow moving over a fixed area)you simply have to burn through the again thin shell to destroy sensitive electronics or ignite the fuel supply
To take out any fighter jet or bomber the skin suddenly becomes 2-5 times thicker, armor panels may be present, It is a larger target giving it greater heat dispersal area, It can move around a bit more again making it hard to hold onto one small space.
will it happen, definitely. but you are limited to line of sight ranges. Which means to take out a target, you launch 3-4 missiles at it and then fly behind them. The laser shoots down the missiles, becoming vulnerable to bomb drops from the plane.
i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
And it was certainly not written to protect the individual ownership of handguns outside of a well-regulated militia.
Tnat view of the law didn't even exist until the late 1970s. Did you know that? Before that, even the most conservative thinkers believed the 2nd Amendment was only to guarantee state militias. No less than Judge Robert Bork, one of the patron saints of today's Right Wing, held that belief publicly as late as the 1980s.
You are welcome on my lawn.
I believe that the notion that wars are meant to "kill bad guys" is a delusion.
I fear the belief that there are neat and clean ways to conduct warfare to minimize casualties on our side and the "good" people on the other side. It will lead to very bad things.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Well, once missiles become untenable to use in combat, they won't be fielded as often. At that point, everyone will just be shooting lasers at one another, because it's probably the only weapon aside from bullets (with many advantages and disadvantages) that can't practically be shot down by lasers. Actually, that's pretty awesome.
We might see stuff like the bomb equivalent of grapeshot to thwart lasers... that's a possibility, I think.
Random Thoughts From A Diseased Mind (Not For Dummies)
Hopefully we do it democratically, by voting. Conveniently, we already have a reasonable quantity of individuals who have already been elected for some purpose or another by the public. I suggest, for the sake of efficiency, we just reuse the same votes.
Reducing collateral damage isn't actually a good thing, holistically speaking.
For true peace, war needs to be hell, it needs to be bloody, it needs to as brutal and insane as it can be.
When war is clean, cheap, and easy, it's employed much more indiscriminately, more frequently, and allowed to continue for much longer. War needs to be expensive, yes monetarily but also morally expensive. The images of thousands of innocent people dead and dieing is one of the last true deterrents of war. A deterrent that is already being chipped away quickly by the greatly expanded use of drones over the last couple decades.
My
'I believe that the notion that wars are meant to "kill bad guys" is a delusion.'
What do you do if bad guys try to attack you? Send good vibes and read poetry to them?
How likely would it be for bad guys attack you if you had a poor defense? Hint: think of how often African countries are toppled by a military coup.
And it was certainly not written to protect the individual ownership of handguns outside of a well-regulated militia.
Tnat view of the law didn't even exist until the late 1970s. Did you know that? Before that, even the most conservative thinkers believed the 2nd Amendment was only to guarantee state militias. No less than Judge Robert Bork, one of the patron saints of today's Right Wing, held that belief publicly as late as the 1980s.
^ Absurd propaganda.
Do people challenge your false assertions less when you ask if they knew that? It's an interesting tactic, like you are privy to some little known fact and are doing them a favor by informing them of it. After which, they have to recompute their entire worldview, which just so happens to fall towards your bias, or that of the person who informed you of it. Then they repeat it. Don't be a tool.
"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
- George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
"The militia is the natural defense of a free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and domestic usurpation of power by rulers. The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of the republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally ... enable the people to resist and triumph over them."
-- Joseph Story, Supreme Court Justice, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, p. 3:746-7, 1833
"The right [to bear arms] is general. It may be supposed from the phraseology of this provision that the right to keep and bear arms was only guaranteed to the militia; but this would be an interpretation not warranted by the intent. The militia, as has been explained elsewhere, consists of those persons who, under the laws, are liable to the performance of military duty, and are officered and enrolled for service when called upon.... [I]f the right were limited to those enrolled, the purpose of the guarantee might be defeated altogether by the action or the neglect to act of the government it was meant to hold in check. The meaning of the provision undoubtedly is, that the people, from whom the militia must be taken, shall have the right to keep and bear arms, and they need no permission or regulation of law for the purpose. But this enables the government to have a well regulated militia; for to bear arms implies something more than mere keeping; it implies the learning to handle and use them in a way that makes those who keep them ready for their efficient use; in other words, it implies the right to meet for voluntary discipline in arms, observing in so doing the laws of public order."
-- Thomas M. Cooley, General Principles of Constitutional Law, Third Edition [1898]
Did you know that?!
Because, sir, assassination is too efficient. If you haven't noticed, common capitalist likes a full-scale war much better.
Yeah. When it's just swords and axes the poor sod on the recieving end has a chance to defend themselves (however slim that might be). Plus, the person doing the killing has to watch them die.
Some 100-lb toothpick pressing a button and killing hundreds of people who are just numbers to him is not progress.
'Don't worry' said the trees when they saw the axe coming, 'The handle is one of us.'
Wars are generally two memes trying to wipe each other out by destroying the other's hosts.
'Don't worry' said the trees when they saw the axe coming, 'The handle is one of us.'
"Five years away" is code for "we have no idea if and when it will happen.
Wake me up when you're sorted it out.
WTF?
Why not figure out what you think about it rather than worrying about the Founding Fathers?
I'm constantly amazed about the American obsession with the constitution. It was written by some very bright blokes but they were far from perfect.
The American judicial system is basically the same as the English one except for this out of date document that allows you to have guns resulting in massive numbers of murders, suicides and fatal accidents.
Give up worrying about a document and make your own laws, or do you think a slave is a third of a person etc....
The solution against the lasers: missiles with mirrors on them!
The mass bombing of civilians first used in World War Two was a terror technique, not the accidental result of missing prime military targets.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
I think because Americans aren't allowed to base their laws on the Bible, they have substituted another holy document in its place.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Being outlawed never stopped the CIA from using assassination. It's only because of their amusing incompetence that Fidel Castro is still alive, not because the US felt morally constrained from trying to kill him.
Also, the definition of "moral fibre" is not "being prepared to act like a psycopath".
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
That's a really good point and I agree. Too much reverence is given to our constitution.
On the other hand, I believe there was a period when some very important thinkers lived. It was one of those rare times when the whole world was shifting. It's well worth paying attention to the things they said and wrote.
You are welcome on my lawn.
If you read those quotes instead of just copying and pasting them, you'd see that none of them contradicts my statement.
They all suppose a "well-regulated militia" not conceal/carry.
You are welcome on my lawn.
The last time that "bad guys attack(ed)" us and we went to war with them because of it was 1941.
And even then there were dissenting opinions. I'm sure the Japanese would have had a different view of who the "bad guys" were.
The notion that war is glorious and honorable is holy horse shit.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Obligatory "Researcher Translation" xkcd.
Right now an effective anti mortar and rocket system could be saving a LOT of lives in Misurata and the other cities Ghadafi has been sieging. Heck if we could effectively stop his offense it would even save lives on his side as we wouldn't have a reason to bomb his armor columns.
Ah, reason is never the problem, trust me. Let me guess, ... probably something cool-sounding vague phrase marketroid-from-Dilbert-gone-politician would utter, like "delivering a strong message" or "demonstrating our determination" or "reinforcing our credibility" ... it's always cock-swinging and you don't want to care about what happens to the other guy, you are not his momma, you are another, beefier kid who will kick his ass. Your public doesn't pay taxes to see PREVENTION of a perfectly good fight, it wants bloody, smoky VICTORY for its buck. You, personally, are probably above those childish and tragic games, but you are probably neither a high-ranking military commander, nor a politician. Nevertheless, you are engineered into thinking that people in charge actually give a rats ass for humanity and that is because your participation and approval is needed. Those overage hormone junkies can't invent all these cool toys themselves.
Mobile . . . said
You think you're so creative. You don't know what it's like to really create something; to create a life; to feel it growing inside you. All you know how to create is death...
An Anon Coward said
WTF?
AgentSmith
What? You never saw Terminator 2?
Pfft! Meh. Kids these days!
Now get off my lawn before I let Clint Eastwood out of the house. (10 points for that reference and a shiny new donkey (Another 10 points for that reference, so let me check my notes (Another 10 points for that reference. Auugh help I'm trapped in a recursive loop. (Another 10 points for that reference. No! Seriously! Somebody reboot the Matrix! I'm frickin' trapped! (Another 10 points for that reference . . . ^P)&*(T%*DVUO*^%F&$DRO*&T&^G
^C
Reboot now? Y
AMIBIOS(C) 2007 American Megatrends Inc.
ASUS P5KPL ACPI BIOS Revision 1010
CPU: Intel(R) Pentium Core2Pro Dual CPU E8400 @ 3.00GHz
Speed: 3.01 GHz Count : 2
Press DEL to run Setup
Press F8 for BBS POPUP
Initializing USB Controllers . . Done
4096 OK
Attempting to restart Windows . . .
MBR Failure . . .
ntldr not found
Ha Ha suckers! LULZSEC haxxord you Matrix!!!
Go back to your research and look at the language of the day. What was a well regulated militia? The militia was all able bodied men. Well regulated meant they should provide their own functional firearm with adequate ammunition.
Pocket pistols were not uncommon. It is absurd to believe that the founding fathers would not have considered concealed as outside of a well regulated militia.
You can spin it all you want, but at the end of the day you will still be incorrect - just dizzier.
This post comes with a double-your-money-back guarantee!
Any offense taken to this post is at your sole discretion.
Yes they would. The "sort of war" you're talking about would be one of occupation, and thus fought primarily by infantry. The "tank beats gun" argument that you're making is common, but relies on an understanding of warfare that is far too simplistic to have any connection with reality.
I did read the quotes. Did you?
You said: "And it was certainly not written to protect the individual ownership of handguns outside of a well-regulated militia."
According to George Mason and many others, the militia is "the whole people, except for a few public officials". That makes your original statement specious.
You said: "Tnat view of the law didn't even exist until the late 1970s. Did you know that?"
This is clearly contradicted by the quotes I provided from 1788, 1833, and 1898, though you may not comprehend it or you otherwise refuse to acknowledge it.
"Before that, even the most conservative thinkers believed the 2nd Amendment was only to guarantee state militias."
Only a guarantee to state militias? "I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials". How do you define the militia?
You said: "No less than Judge Robert Bork, one of the patron saints of today's Right Wing, held that belief publicly as late as the 1980s."
Careful, your bias is showing through...
I didn't bother to read the article, but I imagine it says a bunch of laser beams come out around a circle and then magically combine into a big beam that goes straight out from the circle. So give the credit to George Lucas' production artists.
There are no "better" ways to kill. Only easier ways.
There are less painful ways to die. I know *I* would rather get shot in the head than get burned to death.
Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
A better way to kill is not the same as a better way to die.
Killing != dying
You are welcome on my lawn.
If you're going to kill somebody, it's more considerate to do it in a less-painful manner. It's all a matter of what your viewpoint is. Like why bayonets were banned.
Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
Which might be why nobody here has suggested that it is, so leave the poor strawman alone. Also, you didn't answer his question.
There were certainly cases of that (Tokyo, Dresden, etc.) but there were also thousands of missions that targeted oil facilities, ball bearing plants, engine and vehicle manufacturing, arms depots, and many other military targets. However, dropping an iron bomb from 15,000 feet (the low end of precision bombing outside of dive bombing) has a huge CEP measured in the hundreds of feet, and it only gets worse as altitude increases. There were many cases of a target structure being missed completely while surrounding neighborhoods were leveled.
One of the best examples of combat use (though admittedly outside of an urban environment) of a laser-guided bomb was against a bridge in North Vietnam. Nearly 300 bombs had been dropped over numerous missions but never more than incidental damage was done for the loss of several planes and aircrew. Equipped with laser-guided bombs, a single mission wrecked one of the spans, and two more destroyed it completely. Had it been in the middle of a city, the civilian casualty count throughout that would have been far higher.
Now we can use an aircraft in a climb to release a bomb on an arc from 30 miles away and let it guide itself into the target with a CEP of only a few dozen feet, if that large. The Air Force has been working on developing the Small Diameter Bomb, a 250-pound munition with a new explosive compound intended to destroy small targets while reducing the traditional blast radius that leads to collateral damage, the idea being that a single house or small building can be hit and, while there would be some damage to other structures, they are less likely to suffer catastrophic damage. Close air support becomes less hazardous for everyone except those in the crosshairs, so to speak. Considering the realities of fighting insurgencies, not killing everyone in the neighborhood is a benefit.
You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
That sounds like something from SWAT Kats: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SWAT_Kats:_The_Radical_Squadron
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
"Considerate"?
I'm not sure our advanced technology has made us more humane or more considerate. Better ways to kill someone just gives us a way to rationalize our monstrous behavior toward one another.
You are welcome on my lawn.
I.e., "You're right." Thanks.
Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF