As I recall, there was never any evidence that the bad guys used the info to their advantage, at least resulting in any additional deaths. It my be too early to conclude that it was all just knee-jerk Pentagon bullshit, but without evidence it's just talk.
On average people buy a new phone every six months
I sincerely hope that's not true. That would be unconscionably wasteful. And for what? Incremental improvements in one frivolous function or other? Or do they just not last more than six months? It sounds a bit dubious, given that the contract periods are typically at least a year long.
Mathematics is the language of science. (all science)
This is utterly and completely false. It is used in some aspects of some sciences to highly varying degrees. To say it is the fundamental language of science is absolute rubbish. The only "math" that is universally necessary in science is the logic required to formulate and test a solid hypothesis.
Yeah, I like bashing MS as much as the next guy (if not more so), but it's only fun when MS actually does something stupid. It's not like it's such a rare event that you have to flat out make stuff up.
"Every time there is a new security scare, an extra layer is added on to procedures," Carrivick said. "We need to step back and have a look at the whole situation. Standards change fairly regularly, and this puts pressure on airports and airlines. We need to decide what we are trying to do and how best to do it."
Good Lord! Is this guy insane? He obviously doesn't know how we do things. "Decide what we are trying to do and how best to do it." Jesus H. Christ, what is that guy's friggin' problem...
Violent or unplanned movement of the aircraft and/or the aiming mechanism during the pulse(s) will cause this. I know it isn't a cartoon beam raking everything in sight.
It makes no difference whether the aircraft is a helicopter, a C-130, a 747, or what have you. I have a reasonable understanding of aeronautics. Are you arguing that an aircraft can be guaranteed to be as rock-solid as a fine optical device? It really is not clear what your objection is. My point is that beam precision is NOT the issue. It is the stability of the aircraft, and its relationship to the range of the stabilized optical platform. They move independently but must coordinate with each other. Corner cases will certainly cause inadvertent raking of the beam. There is no magic here.
I've seen the videos. In all of them the target appears to be far away and viewed with a powerful telephoto lens. It is not clear what filtering occurs of the optical image before it reaches the CCD (or, god forbid, the vidicon). How much IR filtering was in front of the lens? It seems that you are assuming everything is OK with no factual basis. Please point us to the data you refer to so that we may judge for ourselves. You are clearly not referring to the videos pointed to here on/. several times.
It is people like you that allow preposterous government programs to move full-steam ahead until they either collapse of their own weight, or are canceled due to irrelevance, obsolescence, or because there is a newer, bigger, and better scam in the wings.
It is not a closed system. We have to borrow hundreds of billions of dollars from other nations every year. These become obligations we must eventually pay with our taxes.
"enable precision ground attack to minimize collateral damage in urban conflicts."
The precision claim comes from the fact that lasers are coherent beams of light. We've all seen laser pointers. You point them at something, and they mark it with a very compact spot of light. That is where "precise" comes from. Therefore, the thinking goes, if you make a laser weapon, it too will be "precise," right? Yes and no. Yes, it will hit whatever you point it at, but it will do so with the precision of the pointing mechanism, not the laser. Put it on a helicopter, and the laser will weave around as much as the helicopter. Well, you say, put it on some kind of gyro-stabilized device. Fine, that does give you additional stability, until the chopper moves outside the range of the pointing device, as when the pilot detects an incoming RPG, or has to do an emergency maneuver for whatever reason. Again, the laser will rake an unintended target. My point? The "precision" argument is Pentagon bullshit. The object of the exercise is 1) for the Pentagon to retain its vast funding and influence, 2) for the defense industry to retain its vast funding and influence, and 3) for current politicians to retain their vast campaign funding, lobbying perks, and influence.
Just as the "dazzler" weapons "temporarily reduce a person's vision," the more destructive weapons will produce much more powerful light scattering that will blind people even ata a distance and produce potentially significant collateral damage in the area of the target. The astute reader will note that damage outside of the point of light on the target due to reflection and other light scatter reduces much of the precision of the weapon. Again, it is Pentagon bullshit, not science or engineering.
Wake up, people. How long will we have to give away hundreds of billions of our hard-earned tax dollars to liars, cheaters, thieves, swindlers, murderers, and war criminals of every stripe?
This is insightful? Please point to specific legislation. Last I heard, Phil Gramm is a Republican, who was for a while a John McCain campaign advisor. He and his cronies spearheaded the legislation that brought this on.
Keep trying. If you shut your eyes really tight and keep repeating "The market corrects itself!", "Private enterprise is more efficient!", "Socialized [insert industry here] is always bad!", "Laissez-Faire is the only true and good Capitalism!", maybe the bad things will go away. Wake up and see that which is right before your eyes, citizen.
Slashdot Mirror
As I recall, there was never any evidence that the bad guys used the info to their advantage, at least resulting in any additional deaths. It my be too early to conclude that it was all just knee-jerk Pentagon bullshit, but without evidence it's just talk.
I think using the word "soviet" is even funnier.
All we need is to get it litigated. It is unlikely to survive. Somebody has to put up the money to do it, though.
Net Army Faction. You know what to do.
On average people buy a new phone every six months
I sincerely hope that's not true. That would be unconscionably wasteful. And for what? Incremental improvements in one frivolous function or other? Or do they just not last more than six months? It sounds a bit dubious, given that the contract periods are typically at least a year long.
After you.
the folks with IQs over 120 are a fast shrinking part of the population
No. As the population grows, the number of people at the second standard deviation will grow proportionately. By definition.
They've stopped mailing out millions upon millions of CDs. That must have saved a few bucks.
What was that scary crunching noise!
Unless one is an anti-suck suck.
Mathematics is the language of science. (all science)
This is utterly and completely false. It is used in some aspects of some sciences to highly varying degrees. To say it is the fundamental language of science is absolute rubbish. The only "math" that is universally necessary in science is the logic required to formulate and test a solid hypothesis.
Yeah, I like bashing MS as much as the next guy (if not more so), but it's only fun when MS actually does something stupid. It's not like it's such a rare event that you have to flat out make stuff up.
No.
[mods down to Score -3: Poor Schmuck]
BTW, are you by any chance Popeye?
From TFA:
"Every time there is a new security scare, an extra layer is added on to procedures," Carrivick said. "We need to step back and have a look at the whole situation. Standards change fairly regularly, and this puts pressure on airports and airlines. We need to decide what we are trying to do and how best to do it."
Good Lord! Is this guy insane? He obviously doesn't know how we do things. "Decide what we are trying to do and how best to do it." Jesus H. Christ, what is that guy's friggin' problem...
There's gold in them thar craters!
But Comrade, it's really great bullshit!
Isn't this how MS Windows works since a couple of versions ago?
Sigh...
Violent or unplanned movement of the aircraft and/or the aiming mechanism during the pulse(s) will cause this. I know it isn't a cartoon beam raking everything in sight.
To my mind, this is by far the best error message of all time. It is succinct, specific, easy to understand, and utterly absurd, all at the same time.
I wholeheartedly agree. My point is that the funding is the core purpose.
I've seen the videos. In all of them the target appears to be far away and viewed with a powerful telephoto lens. It is not clear what filtering occurs of the optical image before it reaches the CCD (or, god forbid, the vidicon). How much IR filtering was in front of the lens? It seems that you are assuming everything is OK with no factual basis. Please point us to the data you refer to so that we may judge for ourselves. You are clearly not referring to the videos pointed to here on /. several times.
It is people like you that allow preposterous government programs to move full-steam ahead until they either collapse of their own weight, or are canceled due to irrelevance, obsolescence, or because there is a newer, bigger, and better scam in the wings.
It is not a closed system. We have to borrow hundreds of billions of dollars from other nations every year. These become obligations we must eventually pay with our taxes.
The precision claim comes from the fact that lasers are coherent beams of light. We've all seen laser pointers. You point them at something, and they mark it with a very compact spot of light. That is where "precise" comes from. Therefore, the thinking goes, if you make a laser weapon, it too will be "precise," right? Yes and no. Yes, it will hit whatever you point it at, but it will do so with the precision of the pointing mechanism, not the laser. Put it on a helicopter, and the laser will weave around as much as the helicopter. Well, you say, put it on some kind of gyro-stabilized device. Fine, that does give you additional stability, until the chopper moves outside the range of the pointing device, as when the pilot detects an incoming RPG, or has to do an emergency maneuver for whatever reason. Again, the laser will rake an unintended target. My point? The "precision" argument is Pentagon bullshit. The object of the exercise is 1) for the Pentagon to retain its vast funding and influence, 2) for the defense industry to retain its vast funding and influence, and 3) for current politicians to retain their vast campaign funding, lobbying perks, and influence.
Just as the "dazzler" weapons "temporarily reduce a person's vision," the more destructive weapons will produce much more powerful light scattering that will blind people even ata a distance and produce potentially significant collateral damage in the area of the target. The astute reader will note that damage outside of the point of light on the target due to reflection and other light scatter reduces much of the precision of the weapon. Again, it is Pentagon bullshit, not science or engineering.
Wake up, people. How long will we have to give away hundreds of billions of our hard-earned tax dollars to liars, cheaters, thieves, swindlers, murderers, and war criminals of every stripe?
Keep trying. If you shut your eyes really tight and keep repeating "The market corrects itself!", "Private enterprise is more efficient!", "Socialized [insert industry here] is always bad!", "Laissez-Faire is the only true and good Capitalism!", maybe the bad things will go away. Wake up and see that which is right before your eyes, citizen.