Slashdot Mirror


User: EvilTwinSkippy

EvilTwinSkippy's activity in the archive.

Stories
0
Comments
4,256
First seen
Last seen
Profile
(view on slashdot.org)

Comments · 4,256

  1. Re:It's true it can't lose on Army Game Proves U.S. Can't Lose · · Score: 1

    You had better be talking about Hiroshima and Nagasaki, because I've never seen a civilian casualty count top 100,000 from Iraq.

  2. Re:But wait ... on Army Game Proves U.S. Can't Lose · · Score: 1

    Look closely. They arent't targeting the house. That shot is just showing off the fireball.

  3. Re:Sad on Army Game Proves U.S. Can't Lose · · Score: 1

    Cry in the Dojo, Laugh on the battlefield.

    The best warriors are those who live for combat daily in simulation. What do you think the sport of fencing is? Or most sports for that matter?

    Ever play chess? Chess was designed as a simulation for training field commanders. No joke, look it up.

  4. Re:It's true it can't lose on Army Game Proves U.S. Can't Lose · · Score: 1

    Has it ever occured to you that we might be pitching all this high tech gear as a means of throwing the enemy off? Think about it, for a few million we can get the enemy to develop all this elaborate but otherwise harmless technology. In the mean time we have never given up on basic marksmanship, and we still have TONS of technology from WWII in mothballs that can be tossed back into service in a matter of months.

  5. Re:But wait ... on Army Game Proves U.S. Can't Lose · · Score: 3, Funny

    And aside from mine clearing and scaring the enemy it is tactically useless.

    And they aren't particularly good at mine clearing.

  6. Re:It's true it can't lose on Army Game Proves U.S. Can't Lose · · Score: 1

    No, US Army Doctrine is not obsolete.

    The US is simply not geared to handle invasion and occupation. That's not our MO. We have territory, foodstocks, and natural resources out the yinyang. The only reason we would have to engage in warfare is if someone was disrupting our trade, or swiping our territory overseas, or attacking one of our allies.

    Basically, if you are planning on occupying a country you need an entirely different military structure. Ours is designed for strategic victory over a standing army. I view our incompetance in occupying another nation as proof that we mean no harm.

  7. Re:Political FUD on Army Game Proves U.S. Can't Lose · · Score: 4, Informative

    This is actually an important part of training. The Army regularly puts their troops up against some of the best live opponents that can find. It's called "Opfor." My spend 2 years in the Mojave desert, knocking off one battalian after another as the bad guys.

    In full scale war games, they actually bolt electronics onto the Serviceman's actual rifle that essentially plays laser-tag with blanks. You have to have a clip to make the gun fire, and the guns do actually Jam, and they have simulated land mines, IED's, morter attacks, air strikes, etc. It's all in a real environtment, so you have heat and cold, dirt, body odor, everything.

    Some reserve units are actually pretty experienced and can beat Opfor. They are the minority. Most newer units get schooled, and they have the experience of having died in battle to teach them what not to do.

    "You die at Fort Irvin so you survive your real battles."

  8. Re:But wait ... on Army Game Proves U.S. Can't Lose · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Except that you have to deliver your horde into the belly of the infidel.

    Last I checked there was about 6000 miles of Ocean between the US and China. And the US has a deep water navy, while China does not.

  9. Re:But wait ... on Army Game Proves U.S. Can't Lose · · Score: 1

    People bad mouth the Aircraft carrier as outmoded and expensive. But in support of your argument, we have them and nobody else does, at least in the quantity and quality of the US Navy. Beyond the Nuclear carriers that carry entire fighter squadrens, the US also has numerous "Amphibious Assault" ships that are essentially carriers without the jets.

  10. Screw taxes, stop subsidizing consumption on Is a Carbon Tax a Good Idea? · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Before anyone starts on about the need for a carbon tax, we need to address the Billions that go into subsidizing our consumption habits. I'm speaking of Americans in particular, beyond the war on "terror", highway funding, and preferential tax status of oil companies, we also directly subsidize these companies that are taking us for billions in retail.

    I say eliminate all of the special subsidies, odd tax loopholes, and other artificial advantages that make Fossil fuel desireable. And then the market will finally be able to sort it all out.

  11. Re:But wait ... on Army Game Proves U.S. Can't Lose · · Score: 1

    Good luck with that. It's so big it can't be carried by any of our bombers. It has to be air dropped from a cargo plane.

  12. Re:Another way to look at it on MPAA Goes After Home Entertainment Systems · · Score: 2, Insightful
    You can't spell Lawyer without layer. The answer is to simplify the legal system, not add on yet another veil for the powers that be to pierce and misuse.

    The fact that you need an advocate to find an advocate to talk to a representitive who may be able to help is stupid.

  13. Re:yawn on MPAA Goes After Home Entertainment Systems · · Score: 2, Funny

    And Fark is SlashDot's speculative prediction algorithm.

  14. Re:MPAA: So retarded this stuff's actually plausib on MPAA Goes After Home Entertainment Systems · · Score: 3, Funny

    Ironically, I copy the movies off DVDs then erase the files from my hard drive just so I don't have to watch the movies. Ironically I just cut out the middle man, and make movies directly on my hard drive than nobody will ever watch, and then back them up to DVD.

  15. Re:No business case for TV on No Business Case for HDTV? · · Score: 4, Funny

    After about 4 posts to various videos, I dare say I seem to have stumbled across the next big thing in porn.

    Now if you'll excuse me I have to stock up on brain bleach.

  16. Re:Why not use a better OS to do this? on Dumping Aqua On Mac OS X For X11? · · Score: 1

    What's wrong with AquaEmacs? And if you get some water up into that crack, you might just get the sand out. Seriously, if you are ever serious about actually LEARNING to play with the mac on it's own terms, Xcode and darwinports are your friends. As far as running OS X as a server, I like Tiger Server so much my Xserve G5s running UbuntuPPC. You'll get OS X off my MacBook when you pry it from my dead hand though. I'm hard core at work, but at home I really can't give a flying hoot what is doing what as long as it works.

  17. Re:No business case for TV on No Business Case for HDTV? · · Score: 1
  18. Re:Too late on No Business Case for HDTV? · · Score: 1

    But I like watching the big men hit each other!

  19. Re:And what about for the consumer? on No Business Case for HDTV? · · Score: 2, Funny

    Don't make me invent a device to thwart that.

  20. Re:GOVERNMENT is the Driver of HDTV on No Business Case for HDTV? · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Actually there is a business case for it.

    Only it has nothing to do with television, and everything to do with the FCC being able to auction off all the old television bandwidth to wireless carriers.

    And yes, I do have that in writing.

  21. Re:Zits and t*ts on No Business Case for HDTV? · · Score: 1

    That's only a problem when the sheer the poor girl down to bare skin an nuthin else.

    Dear god there is a reason people have hair in some places. And for better or for worse once you've seen one naked beaver, the next 100 add nothing. Especially if it shot after shot of some love sausage diving in and out.

    Bring back real looking chicks!

  22. Re:Back in my day on No Business Case for HDTV? · · Score: 1

    Hey, and some of us even prefer to old fuzzy channels. /No joy on satellite...

  23. Re:No business case for TV on No Business Case for HDTV? · · Score: 3, Funny

    Meh.

    The problem is they'll be recording modern porn at 1080p. I want my old grainy, barely color balanced, and sure as hell not a model porn. Back before they could do all those really raunchy camera angles. Or just stuff shot today in that style.

    Genital shot after genital shot in perfect color gets old after the first 20 seconds. God help us if medical imaging ever advances to the point they could follow Mr. Happy inside for his little trip through the flesh tunnel.

  24. Re:Alas... on Microsoft Cheaper For Web Serving? · · Score: 1

    And yet when I mention TCL to people they look at me like I'm crazy. "Isn't TCL dead?" they ask. "Tcl has been at 8.4 for eons." "Rivet doesn't run under Apache 2". And oddly all of my stuff continues to run, year after year. When I started web programming Perl was big and Java was up and coming. I've seen Ruby flash in the pan, Python pop up, and now this PHP which seems to be the latest crack cocaine for programming. And non of them stress a back to the basics "And how is this going to work in 5 years time" that makes them at all sustainable for business to invest any serious time in. Ok, Java does. The rest is amateur hour, and I don't care how much you make.

  25. Re:The myth of 'productivity' on Has Productivity Peaked? · · Score: 1

    Meh. Do what I do: Harmon Kardon speaker and New Age music on a loop. And nothing good like Velvet Underground. I'm tallking crappy piano New age.