You're right, medics don't need more weight, nor restrictively-large NVGs. But these things won't get any smaller unless someone buys the Gen-1 product, and a medic operating on a Blackhawk, working at a unit Casualty Collection Point, or even BN Aid Station (if light discipline is in effect) could gain a lot from having these available to him / her. By purchasing early revision models, the Army gets better casualty care near the front lines now, and hopefully even greater gains down the road.
Additionally, from the manufacturer description of how this system works, it sounds as if may be possible for it to be adapted to the PVS-21, allaying concerns about lack of depth perception (which, as noted above is an issue of binocular - not color - vision).
OK, the problem with this - much like smclean pointed out - is their intent. If I know that they're out there advertising, but they're not doing it with a P2P username that I can readily identify, and using the same filenames as others do for 'illegal' music downloads, I have no choice but to attempt to gain access to said advertisements by downloading lots of music (does P2P even have usernames? Honest to God I *am* the one college student who's never used it). Now if they're spending money on this advertising, they're doing so because they clearly want me to see it. Ergo, I am simply doing my part in trying to be an educated consumer by going out there and trying to find out what the record labels want me to see / hear. Now the that they don't understand the distribution media they've selected is their own problem.
Don't anyone get me wrong, I'm not arguing this from a moral standpoint - this is a very selective interpretation of the facts. But the reality is that the RIAA (and MPAA) have so blatantly and inexcusably used the legal system and its idiosyncrasies to try to intimidate and extort money from would-be consumers that I wouldn't ever think less of someone using this defense for P2P downloads of music. The music industry is long due for a complete overhaul (i.e. sacking of all major record labels in favor of GoogleMusic or somesuch).
That said, why not continue the rant and pose a question to the/. community? We all know that current corporate culture isn't to go out and create something new - it's to buy something already established and rebrand it. Look at all of Yahoo!'s 'unmonetized social networks' and Google's acquisition of YouTube. We all know that the future of music is something ala AllofMp3 (NO, please don't start that side debate), wherein the end user gets to choose encoding rate / quality / format and download whatever music they want, how they want, because the technology is there. We also know that recording contracts are a thing of the past - there's no reason that musicians can't see all / most of the money from every download sale, increasing their $$ as well as reducing cost to the consumer. Computers are so much cheaper to pay for than media execs and their legal teams. So why doesn't the community start the next wave of music label? Start the GMusic that everyone has been hoping for - just call it something else until it gets bought out. The/. community is unique in that I'm wholly confident that whomever reads this will be either connected to the IT field of know someone who is. This is a unique group who could literally collaborate to start this project, make it a success, and oh by the way, for whomever would be smart enough to bankroll it (OSTG, are you reading too?), turn a tidy profit.
Just make sure you include support for OGG & FLAC please.
Though it makes sense from a marketing perspective, this seems to compromise their position legally. If they really don't want people downloading the P2P files, then why are they spending so much money to talk directly to them OVER P2P? Could leave a defense much like the First Commenter said - just walk into court and claim you were downloading all of that illegal music because you wanted to see the ads you heard about on the Internet.
This isn't strictly true... don't make the classic mistake of historical fallen militaries who were arrogant enough to believe that not only were their means (read: routes) of communication uninterceptable, but that their method of encryption was unbreakable as well. Neither has ever proven true; see the aforementioned Simon Singh work if you want a laundry list of individuals / nations who made these mistakes.
For the poster who asserts that Iran articles are a dime-a-dozen these days - while some are apparently fake, this one rings with a great deal of plausibility. It's not something that we've just pushed out recently to state Iran is supporting Hezbollah - the intelligence services have been saying for 20+ years that Iran has been a supporter of their organization, its contemporaries, and their predecessors. What's news is that they're doing so now so flagrantly without concern for international repercussion. And the notion that Iran may have technology to intercept and break these transmissions isn't so far-fetched, either. The FH / crypto used on these systems is actually quite old and based on computing power which didn't even anticipate what a laptop computer today is capable of. But we'll probably not know details of this aspect for 50+ years. What we can talk about is that the idea that they did have access to all the Israelis' communications fits with what we do know. The Israeli Army has shown itself time and again to be one not to be trifled with, and yet they were given a very bloody nose in this recent engagement... not by a collaboration of Arab nations, but by a terrorist organization with largely inferior arms and far less training. Yes, part of their losses stemmed from their shift of tactics to a campaign of minimizing collateral damage. Additional losses stemmed from the hesitance of the Israeli government to commit. But that doesn't explain losses which should not have otherwise occurred (the majority) in the individual battles. Short of having been trained alongside the Iranian version of special forces, Hezbollah could not have inflicted such heavy casualties on the Israelis without having exceptional intelligence. We already know that the Iranians provided them with UAVs... why not SIGINT gear as well?
I think this is mostly right, but really not saying what I hope more people are thinking - Google could, if it chose to, upend the music industry. No company has a better situation already to do it - *payment system*, servers, storage, processing power, and bandwidth to offer the fully (*ahem*) legal equivalent of AllofMp3.com in the US.
As Jugalator says, if Google moves forward and allows musicians to upload their own music and sells directly to the public - say even if they take 30+% of the sales price - not only do artists walk away with more money, but the user (should - if done right) gets exactly the music they want, encoded how they want, and at a price which should be far cheaper than freakin' iTunes.
So my thoughts to Google are: Go for it. You've tried to be the champion of the masses in the technology setting. The RIAA is a dying dog - put it out of its misery - for OUR sake.
And a rail gun eliminates those threats how? Having a rail gun vs. more conventional ordinance delivery helps how? (Might be in the article, but I'm a/. wag, so I shant bother with it.)
Rail guns don't eliminate the threat; they just provide a better means for our warfighters to confront it. These battles will be won by winning the hearts & minds of the local populace (yes, it's an overused phrase, but it is true), and the best way to do this is by using very accurate, very lethal weapons, with little / no collateral damage. The ability for troops on the ground to call in fire to destroy individual buildings, while leaving the surrounding area relatively untouched is an invaluable asset towards this end.
You can risk your neck if you want in a door to door scouring from the Mediterranean to the Pacific, in an attempt to subdue 'just the enemy'. I'd rather see the area nuked if it came to that. It's the only way to be sure.
I understand where you're coming from with this statement, but consider that the best battlefield intelligence that our soldiers in Iraq are receiving comes from locals who are tired of the terrorists. To paraphrase BG Kimmett: "We are receiving calls from citizens all around Fallujah asking why we are not coming into their neighborhoods to fight the insurgents. 'We do not have mosques in our neighborhoods, why are you not expelling the fighters?' they ask." We'll win this one the long and hard way. Killing a couple of million people to eliminate our threats will only harden the resolve of the remaining terrorists and make recruiting that much easier for them.
So when we moved into Afghanistan and Iraq, in pursuit of your nutjobs with boxcutters' friends, do you really believe that all of the fire that came down on them was dropped by the Air Force? Oh yeah, certainly a lot of it was. But I have vivid memories of watching cruise missiles fly overhead, too. And if the Navy can find a way to put a smaller hole in the ground, more accurately, and at a lower cost (meaning the guys on the ground can call for fire more often AND the taxpayer doesn't have to pay so much), then I'm all for it.
BTW, if you're crazy enough to think China's the only threat to national security, you need to up your caffeine intake, cuz you're sleeping. Iran, North Korea, Syria, and possibly Saudi Arabia are all actively engaged in efforts to kill Americans, both in the Middle East, AND here at home. Oh, btw, at least three of the five above have nuclear weapons, and probably all but one have chemical & biological stores.
And how many of these attacks actually took place? You say "That is how far the government was willing to go to get Castro," yet I don't know of a single 'terrorist' event which has EVER taken place which was attributed to Castro.
OK, they wargamed - so what? Has it occurred to you that the best way to catch a real terrorist is to think like one? Or that maybe the most dangerous terrorists are the ones who will design their attacks so that they will be blamed on others?
The NSA spies. Get over it. You have no idea the number of terrorist attacks that would have succeeded on your native soil without them watching your back.
Physics intrigues me, but I don't have the time to study it properly. I'd appreciate it, thought, if someone would take the time to correct me here when I suggest something I've wondered since high school physics: Why do we differentiate between mass and energy - is there conclusive proof that they are not, in fact, one in the same, and what we conceive as mass is merely the resistence of the energy (or its generated fields) to change? It seems that if this were our basis, the lack of Higgs boson would not be an issue.
Is anyone else having trouble playing audio CDs under 2.2.0pre3 (on a RedHat 5.0 system)? I have a Wearnes 32x IDE drive on my secondary IDE connector (I also have a Mistumi 4x drive as the slave on that cable, though whether it's connected or not doesn't seem to make a difference). When I try to play an audio CD with xmcd I get "no disc", and I've gone through all the xmcd help docs and tried cdplay as well, but it just hangs. If, however, I try to mount the CD first, after the error message, both xmcd and cdplay then find the CD. Things had seemed to be working smoothly running 2.0.35. Has anyone else had any problems like this? Any suggestions? Thanks!
Slashdot Mirror
You're right, medics don't need more weight, nor restrictively-large NVGs. But these things won't get any smaller unless someone buys the Gen-1 product, and a medic operating on a Blackhawk, working at a unit Casualty Collection Point, or even BN Aid Station (if light discipline is in effect) could gain a lot from having these available to him / her. By purchasing early revision models, the Army gets better casualty care near the front lines now, and hopefully even greater gains down the road.
Additionally, from the manufacturer description of how this system works, it sounds as if may be possible for it to be adapted to the PVS-21, allaying concerns about lack of depth perception (which, as noted above is an issue of binocular - not color - vision).
OK, the problem with this - much like smclean pointed out - is their intent. If I know that they're out there advertising, but they're not doing it with a P2P username that I can readily identify, and using the same filenames as others do for 'illegal' music downloads, I have no choice but to attempt to gain access to said advertisements by downloading lots of music (does P2P even have usernames? Honest to God I *am* the one college student who's never used it). Now if they're spending money on this advertising, they're doing so because they clearly want me to see it. Ergo, I am simply doing my part in trying to be an educated consumer by going out there and trying to find out what the record labels want me to see / hear. Now the that they don't understand the distribution media they've selected is their own problem.
/. community? We all know that current corporate culture isn't to go out and create something new - it's to buy something already established and rebrand it. Look at all of Yahoo!'s 'unmonetized social networks' and Google's acquisition of YouTube. We all know that the future of music is something ala AllofMp3 (NO, please don't start that side debate), wherein the end user gets to choose encoding rate / quality / format and download whatever music they want, how they want, because the technology is there. We also know that recording contracts are a thing of the past - there's no reason that musicians can't see all / most of the money from every download sale, increasing their $$ as well as reducing cost to the consumer. Computers are so much cheaper to pay for than media execs and their legal teams. So why doesn't the community start the next wave of music label? Start the GMusic that everyone has been hoping for - just call it something else until it gets bought out. The /. community is unique in that I'm wholly confident that whomever reads this will be either connected to the IT field of know someone who is. This is a unique group who could literally collaborate to start this project, make it a success, and oh by the way, for whomever would be smart enough to bankroll it (OSTG, are you reading too?), turn a tidy profit.
Don't anyone get me wrong, I'm not arguing this from a moral standpoint - this is a very selective interpretation of the facts. But the reality is that the RIAA (and MPAA) have so blatantly and inexcusably used the legal system and its idiosyncrasies to try to intimidate and extort money from would-be consumers that I wouldn't ever think less of someone using this defense for P2P downloads of music. The music industry is long due for a complete overhaul (i.e. sacking of all major record labels in favor of GoogleMusic or somesuch).
That said, why not continue the rant and pose a question to the
Just make sure you include support for OGG & FLAC please.
Though it makes sense from a marketing perspective, this seems to compromise their position legally. If they really don't want people downloading the P2P files, then why are they spending so much money to talk directly to them OVER P2P? Could leave a defense much like the First Commenter said - just walk into court and claim you were downloading all of that illegal music because you wanted to see the ads you heard about on the Internet.
This isn't strictly true... don't make the classic mistake of historical fallen militaries who were arrogant enough to believe that not only were their means (read: routes) of communication uninterceptable, but that their method of encryption was unbreakable as well. Neither has ever proven true; see the aforementioned Simon Singh work if you want a laundry list of individuals / nations who made these mistakes.
For the poster who asserts that Iran articles are a dime-a-dozen these days - while some are apparently fake, this one rings with a great deal of plausibility. It's not something that we've just pushed out recently to state Iran is supporting Hezbollah - the intelligence services have been saying for 20+ years that Iran has been a supporter of their organization, its contemporaries, and their predecessors. What's news is that they're doing so now so flagrantly without concern for international repercussion. And the notion that Iran may have technology to intercept and break these transmissions isn't so far-fetched, either. The FH / crypto used on these systems is actually quite old and based on computing power which didn't even anticipate what a laptop computer today is capable of. But we'll probably not know details of this aspect for 50+ years. What we can talk about is that the idea that they did have access to all the Israelis' communications fits with what we do know. The Israeli Army has shown itself time and again to be one not to be trifled with, and yet they were given a very bloody nose in this recent engagement... not by a collaboration of Arab nations, but by a terrorist organization with largely inferior arms and far less training. Yes, part of their losses stemmed from their shift of tactics to a campaign of minimizing collateral damage. Additional losses stemmed from the hesitance of the Israeli government to commit. But that doesn't explain losses which should not have otherwise occurred (the majority) in the individual battles. Short of having been trained alongside the Iranian version of special forces, Hezbollah could not have inflicted such heavy casualties on the Israelis without having exceptional intelligence. We already know that the Iranians provided them with UAVs... why not SIGINT gear as well?
I think this is mostly right, but really not saying what I hope more people are thinking - Google could, if it chose to, upend the music industry. No company has a better situation already to do it - *payment system*, servers, storage, processing power, and bandwidth to offer the fully (*ahem*) legal equivalent of AllofMp3.com in the US.
As Jugalator says, if Google moves forward and allows musicians to upload their own music and sells directly to the public - say even if they take 30+% of the sales price - not only do artists walk away with more money, but the user (should - if done right) gets exactly the music they want, encoded how they want, and at a price which should be far cheaper than freakin' iTunes.
So my thoughts to Google are: Go for it. You've tried to be the champion of the masses in the technology setting. The RIAA is a dying dog - put it out of its misery - for OUR sake.
And a rail gun eliminates those threats how? Having a rail gun vs. more conventional ordinance delivery helps how? (Might be in the article, but I'm a /. wag, so I shant bother with it.)
Rail guns don't eliminate the threat; they just provide a better means for our warfighters to confront it. These battles will be won by winning the hearts & minds of the local populace (yes, it's an overused phrase, but it is true), and the best way to do this is by using very accurate, very lethal weapons, with little / no collateral damage. The ability for troops on the ground to call in fire to destroy individual buildings, while leaving the surrounding area relatively untouched is an invaluable asset towards this end.
You can risk your neck if you want in a door to door scouring from the Mediterranean to the Pacific, in an attempt to subdue 'just the enemy'. I'd rather see the area nuked if it came to that. It's the only way to be sure.
I understand where you're coming from with this statement, but consider that the best battlefield intelligence that our soldiers in Iraq are receiving comes from locals who are tired of the terrorists. To paraphrase BG Kimmett: "We are receiving calls from citizens all around Fallujah asking why we are not coming into their neighborhoods to fight the insurgents. 'We do not have mosques in our neighborhoods, why are you not expelling the fighters?' they ask." We'll win this one the long and hard way. Killing a couple of million people to eliminate our threats will only harden the resolve of the remaining terrorists and make recruiting that much easier for them.
So when we moved into Afghanistan and Iraq, in pursuit of your nutjobs with boxcutters' friends, do you really believe that all of the fire that came down on them was dropped by the Air Force? Oh yeah, certainly a lot of it was. But I have vivid memories of watching cruise missiles fly overhead, too. And if the Navy can find a way to put a smaller hole in the ground, more accurately, and at a lower cost (meaning the guys on the ground can call for fire more often AND the taxpayer doesn't have to pay so much), then I'm all for it.
BTW, if you're crazy enough to think China's the only threat to national security, you need to up your caffeine intake, cuz you're sleeping. Iran, North Korea, Syria, and possibly Saudi Arabia are all actively engaged in efforts to kill Americans, both in the Middle East, AND here at home. Oh, btw, at least three of the five above have nuclear weapons, and probably all but one have chemical & biological stores.
And how many of these attacks actually took place? You say "That is how far the government was willing to go to get Castro," yet I don't know of a single 'terrorist' event which has EVER taken place which was attributed to Castro.
OK, they wargamed - so what? Has it occurred to you that the best way to catch a real terrorist is to think like one? Or that maybe the most dangerous terrorists are the ones who will design their attacks so that they will be blamed on others?
The NSA spies. Get over it. You have no idea the number of terrorist attacks that would have succeeded on your native soil without them watching your back.
Physics intrigues me, but I don't have the time to study it properly. I'd appreciate it, thought, if someone would take the time to correct me here when I suggest something I've wondered since high school physics: Why do we differentiate between mass and energy - is there conclusive proof that they are not, in fact, one in the same, and what we conceive as mass is merely the resistence of the energy (or its generated fields) to change? It seems that if this were our basis, the lack of Higgs boson would not be an issue.
Is anyone else having trouble playing audio CDs under 2.2.0pre3 (on a RedHat 5.0 system)? I have a Wearnes 32x IDE drive on my secondary IDE connector (I also have a Mistumi 4x drive as the slave on that cable, though whether it's connected or not doesn't seem to make a difference). When I try to play an audio CD with xmcd I get "no disc", and I've gone through all the xmcd help docs and tried cdplay as well, but it just hangs. If, however, I try to mount the CD first, after the error message, both xmcd and cdplay then find the CD. Things had seemed to be working smoothly running 2.0.35. Has anyone else had any problems like this? Any suggestions? Thanks!
--Sean