"Then you, Sir, are very gullible. Those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it"
I appreciate the reply, but tossing out statements like that with no context is exactly what the guy I was responding to did.
Also, a personal question, why resort to an insult instead of answering the questions? That's not generally the kind of thing those who are informed about a topic have to resort to.
What exactly do you want?They got a warrant. Isn't that kind of oversight what we want? I don't understand why you think making a comparison to the Gestapo (and did they really have warrants?) adds a single thing to the conversation.
Please tell me what your solution is, so I can put your comment in some kind of context. I've seen it and its like from several other posters, but not a single one of them goes on to make a coherent argument after making it, and neither did you.
The FBI has a job, in this case it seems a job that we'd all like them to be proficient at, that of preventing bombings. They pursued evidence through the correct channels, got a warrant, set up an operation, and did their jobs. In light of that, doesn't the "Gestapo" comment seem a bit reactionary and irrational?
So what the hell is with the specious Gestapo comparison? Do you think someone's rights were violated somehow, or the FBI overstepped their authority, or what exactly? Or is it vogue here to toss out inflammatory comments for no reason other than to provoke a reaction? I thought that's what the "troll" mod was for?
Lastly, the Gestapo also pandered to the fears and insecurities of the populace, so I'd be careful throwing around such comparisons if I were you.
And someone who operates a plane, even remotely would be a...
wait for it...
wait for it...
wait for it...
Pilot.
Thanks, I'm glad you agree you were wrong, it's pretty unusual for someone to admit it after they said something so far off the mark.
At least you didn't try that "a remote operator is not the same as a pilot" garbage, I've seen some pretty stupid tries with that kind of argument, and it always makes me wonder if the person making it realizes how retarded they sound.
And if it crosses state lines? Hmm, not local anymore...
"There were horse thefts when the Constitution was written -- and those aren't covered."
As if they should have been. It was not the job, nor the desire of the framers to enumerate every specific right and responsibility, they counted on the establishment of judicial bodies to do that as the situation arose.
It seems very clear to me that your problems stem from an inability to accept that a literal reading of the Constitution was neither expected nor intended. Doing so, as you have done, is absurd and unwarranted.
"Wow, now who's being stubborn. I'm making a point that I believe in. Just because you don't doesn't mean that I'm delusional to even suggest something contrary to your arguments."
I'm sorry, I don't understand. I think you are under the impression that I am someone else. I have only posted in this thread once, so what exactly are you talking about?
"1. A Cessna is smaller than a F-22. Which would you rather be in in a dogfight"
One is a fighter, and one is a very large toy. This comparison is, I'm sorry, a little ridiculous. Then of course, you're ignoring the fact that the only one you'd actually be "in" is the F-22, as the "Cessna" in this case would be a drone. Your point fails. But to answer your question accurately, I'd rather be piloting the Cessna from a thousand miles away, which is how the situation would play out in reality.
"And, it's not designed to be as evasive as a manned fighter. "
This is wrong. Current development includes drone fighters, which maneuver in ways that would kill a human pilot.
"The military spends millions training a single pilot, so a modern fighter has to be more survivable."
This point makes absolutely no sense.
"2...."
You failed to answer my question. Restating your point, albeit more completely, doesn't answer my question.
"3. Manned fighters have stealth too."
And? You original point was "speed is life" and I showed you it's not always true. I could respond to your point with "unmanned fighters have speed too" at which point I'd link to one of the several high speed fighters in development, but that would be irrelevant. Not getting shot is life, and there is more than one way to do that.
"I just sited the study (can't recall the name) that showed that isolation from your human subject makes you less compassionate."
I didn't see that post, but what kind of isolation was it? They are not all interchangeable, so please don't assume so. The Milgram experiment doesn't work if you can see the "victim" for example, and you can see the "victim" with a drone, so I suspect that study is irrelevant.
You didn't refute a single point I made.
By the way, you said "there is NO WAY..." but I showed you one. Unless you're claiming being smaller doesn't sometimes make a target less vulnerable.
I said it before and it seems to be true, your arguments fail, and you're apparently unable to admit you've made a mistake. Please explain why I would continue the conversation when all you're doing is insisting you're right and making flawed arguments based on inaccurate assumptions?
"There is NO WAY that a remotely piloted vehicle is less vulnerable than a human-piloted vehicle."
They're smaller. That's one way right there.
"a local and thus more reactive pilot"
Explain this. Being local makes your reflexes improve? It seems to me that "warning light goes off, react" is not location dependent. I think the best you could possibly do with this argument is to find a certain subset of situations that are improved by a local pilot, but that would require you to admit that there are also situations where a local pilot is a hindrance. Claiming that one is unequivocally better is not accurate. That being said, piloted aircraft are also 1) much larger 2) much louder 3) much hotter and as such 4) can be much easier to detect. These are obvious problems that you've seemingly ignored.
"Speed is life in air combat"
Sometimes. Stealth works pretty well too though.
"And a tech manning a remote station is not even close to having a real pilot making on-site decisions with better visibility and more refined control of instruments."
Apart from you insisting this is so, why is this so? What part of being "on site" is likely to make you more cautious when targeting? It seems to me, if you're in the line of fire, you'd be far more stressed and prone to mistakes than you would while off site. "They're shooting at us, let's drop the bombs and get the hell out of here" or something like that. As to the "better visibility and more refined control of instruments" why are you assuming this is the case? Nothing I've seen suggest this is accurate at all.
I see no real reason to agree with any of the points you made. It sounds very much like you've taken a position and are determined to support it, reality be damned.
Slashdot Mirror
"Then you, Sir, are very gullible. Those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it"
I appreciate the reply, but tossing out statements like that with no context is exactly what the guy I was responding to did.
Also, a personal question, why resort to an insult instead of answering the questions? That's not generally the kind of thing those who are informed about a topic have to resort to.
But posts like this really irk me.
What exactly do you want?They got a warrant. Isn't that kind of oversight what we want? I don't understand why you think making a comparison to the Gestapo (and did they really have warrants?) adds a single thing to the conversation.
Please tell me what your solution is, so I can put your comment in some kind of context. I've seen it and its like from several other posters, but not a single one of them goes on to make a coherent argument after making it, and neither did you.
The FBI has a job, in this case it seems a job that we'd all like them to be proficient at, that of preventing bombings. They pursued evidence through the correct channels, got a warrant, set up an operation, and did their jobs. In light of that, doesn't the "Gestapo" comment seem a bit reactionary and irrational?
So what the hell is with the specious Gestapo comparison? Do you think someone's rights were violated somehow, or the FBI overstepped their authority, or what exactly? Or is it vogue here to toss out inflammatory comments for no reason other than to provoke a reaction? I thought that's what the "troll" mod was for?
Lastly, the Gestapo also pandered to the fears and insecurities of the populace, so I'd be careful throwing around such comparisons if I were you.
And someone who operates a plane, even remotely would be a...
wait for it...
wait for it...
wait for it...
Pilot.
Thanks, I'm glad you agree you were wrong, it's pretty unusual for someone to admit it after they said something so far off the mark.
At least you didn't try that "a remote operator is not the same as a pilot" garbage, I've seen some pretty stupid tries with that kind of argument, and it always makes me wonder if the person making it realizes how retarded they sound.
"Car jacking is a local crime."
And if it crosses state lines? Hmm, not local anymore...
"There were horse thefts when the Constitution was written -- and those aren't covered."
As if they should have been. It was not the job, nor the desire of the framers to enumerate every specific right and responsibility, they counted on the establishment of judicial bodies to do that as the situation arose.
It seems very clear to me that your problems stem from an inability to accept that a literal reading of the Constitution was neither expected nor intended. Doing so, as you have done, is absurd and unwarranted.
"Wow, now who's being stubborn. I'm making a point that I believe in. Just because you don't doesn't mean that I'm delusional to even suggest something contrary to your arguments."
I'm sorry, I don't understand. I think you are under the impression that I am someone else. I have only posted in this thread once, so what exactly are you talking about?
"1. A Cessna is smaller than a F-22. Which would you rather be in in a dogfight"
One is a fighter, and one is a very large toy. This comparison is, I'm sorry, a little ridiculous. Then of course, you're ignoring the fact that the only one you'd actually be "in" is the F-22, as the "Cessna" in this case would be a drone. Your point fails. But to answer your question accurately, I'd rather be piloting the Cessna from a thousand miles away, which is how the situation would play out in reality.
"And, it's not designed to be as evasive as a manned fighter. "
This is wrong. Current development includes drone fighters, which maneuver in ways that would kill a human pilot.
"The military spends millions training a single pilot, so a modern fighter has to be more survivable."
This point makes absolutely no sense.
"2...."
You failed to answer my question. Restating your point, albeit more completely, doesn't answer my question.
"3. Manned fighters have stealth too."
And? You original point was "speed is life" and I showed you it's not always true. I could respond to your point with "unmanned fighters have speed too" at which point I'd link to one of the several high speed fighters in development, but that would be irrelevant. Not getting shot is life, and there is more than one way to do that.
"I just sited the study (can't recall the name) that showed that isolation from your human subject makes you less compassionate."
I didn't see that post, but what kind of isolation was it? They are not all interchangeable, so please don't assume so. The Milgram experiment doesn't work if you can see the "victim" for example, and you can see the "victim" with a drone, so I suspect that study is irrelevant.
You didn't refute a single point I made.
By the way, you said "there is NO WAY..." but I showed you one. Unless you're claiming being smaller doesn't sometimes make a target less vulnerable.
I said it before and it seems to be true, your arguments fail, and you're apparently unable to admit you've made a mistake. Please explain why I would continue the conversation when all you're doing is insisting you're right and making flawed arguments based on inaccurate assumptions?
"There is NO WAY that a remotely piloted vehicle is less vulnerable than a human-piloted vehicle."
They're smaller. That's one way right there.
"a local and thus more reactive pilot"
Explain this. Being local makes your reflexes improve? It seems to me that "warning light goes off, react" is not location dependent. I think the best you could possibly do with this argument is to find a certain subset of situations that are improved by a local pilot, but that would require you to admit that there are also situations where a local pilot is a hindrance. Claiming that one is unequivocally better is not accurate. That being said, piloted aircraft are also 1) much larger 2) much louder 3) much hotter and as such 4) can be much easier to detect. These are obvious problems that you've seemingly ignored.
"Speed is life in air combat"
Sometimes. Stealth works pretty well too though.
"And a tech manning a remote station is not even close to having a real pilot making on-site decisions with better visibility and more refined control of instruments."
Apart from you insisting this is so, why is this so? What part of being "on site" is likely to make you more cautious when targeting? It seems to me, if you're in the line of fire, you'd be far more stressed and prone to mistakes than you would while off site. "They're shooting at us, let's drop the bombs and get the hell out of here" or something like that. As to the "better visibility and more refined control of instruments" why are you assuming this is the case? Nothing I've seen suggest this is accurate at all.
I see no real reason to agree with any of the points you made. It sounds very much like you've taken a position and are determined to support it, reality be damned.
"pilot-less, remote controlled aircraft"
If they're pilot-less, then who is controlling them remotely?