Wait what the fuck? She personally KNOWS this guy? The guy who "is sending child porn and infant rape fantasies to hundreds of women"? Guy who is "too good for police to catch"?
I call massive bullshit and obvious attention whore enjoying the attention.
Ten years of "child porn and infant rape fantasies to hundreds of victims", and police "they tried and found no trails, he's too good we won't investigate"?
She makes claims that "police say he's too good for them and FBI won't investigate". Something I personally find very hard to believe considering she's claiming that he's systemically sending "her and hundreds of other victims child porn and infant rape fantasies".
Someone who doesn't fuck up when massively sending crap like that to hundreds of recipients for a decade? That's inhuman. And on top of the cake, her letters with the moderators clearly state that she actively talked to this stalker on their site.
I don't mean to be an ass, but that's a natural survival instinct. You don't get into the fight between people you don't know unless you see with absolute certainty that one is a victim. And even then, things are often not as they would seem from the first glance.
That's what police is for in modern society. If you can stop the immediate fight, do it, but get authorities involved. Not yourself. Which is what the site in question did, it stopped the immediate fight by banning the account and informed the known active party (note that she actively participated in those spam threads) that this behaviour will be stopped and that she should not engage in it again if she doesn't want that fight being stopped by banning again.
I honestly don't see anything done wrong. Sure, if it's really as bad as the woman says, it's terrible for her and she should go to the police and really file a complaint with copies of "child porn and infant rape fantasies" she claims she's being sent. But it's not other people's job to take significant commercial losses because she chooses to take the fight to their shop. They also have a right to conduct business without such fights
This is really #1 question mark that pops up upon reading the story. Why is she not going to police with this? If it's such a clear cut case of long term stalking as she claims, it should be a no brainer to get police to look into it. This has a strong whiff of publicity stunt. She claims he's openly sending child pornography to multiple people and that "police/FBI won't investigate". Now I don't know where she lives, but considering current hysteria in the West about child pornography, I find this very hard to believe.
Also, reading the stuff on the other site, she appears to actively engage in conversations with this stalker on her own. Very strange considering that police would recommend to not engage in any contact with such a stalker.
This stinks of something big and important to the whole picture is being intentionally obfuscated by complaining party.
I don't think you quite understand the ROLES of the aircraft. Also F-22 has done equally "nothing" to prove your claims, however you boldly proclaim victory without noticing that the same merits used to prop F-22 in your argument have been used to prop MiG-31 in mine, yet you actively move to dismiss my claims while boldly presenting yours on exactly the same merits in the very next sentence.
And mind you, FLYING is enough to back this up. MiG-31 has a combat speed higher then F-15's maximum speed even if it redlines its engines. Notably MiG-31 is a high speed interceptor designed to control airspace as both AWACS aircraft and a extremely long range anti air missile platform. Situation where F-15 would actually be able to engage a MiG-31 is not dissimilar to an artillery unit going into melee combat. Sure, it will lose in melee against a melee specialist unit, but it will decimate such a unit long before it ever gets in range, and if in danger it will either run or be shielded by aircraft escorting it with much better close combat capability. Not to mention that even if its out of missiles, all it needs to do not to lose it to simply climb and run. F-15's engines and frame cannot handle more then mach 2.5-2.6, while MiG-31 is known to reliably fly at mach 2.8 and if redlining engines up to mach 3.3. How do you plan to use a plane that simply cannot catch up to even get to weapon range to kill that target?
What US actually does nowadays is far more sane and a whole lot less pretentiously ignorant of real threats. It puts electronic warfare planes such as Prowler to support its self-supporting strike aircraft that will attempt to jam any medium and long range missiles fired at those aircraft. Which is why modern fighters and attack planes can in fact often survive missile engagements, especially against older models of missiles. A fired missile is by no means a certain kill, because both electronic countermeasures from the targeted plane as well as electronic countermeasures from electronic warfare support aircraft can jam even a modern missile with a relatively high success chance. Even after this, there's still the last ditch maneuvering done by modern aircraft, not to mention the most obvious approaches of either denying mid-life situation update by forcing enemy aircraft to get its fire control radar to stop tracking the target usually by forcing it to flee (this kills AMRAAM in long range engagement for example which essentially requires a mid life update for successful engagement at long ranges if target significantly changes its course during inertial guidance phase) or just turning around and fleeing until incoming missile runs out of fuel. SAMs tend to be a bit more robust in terms of guidance, but are still prone to jamming and even more so to range issues.
Anyway, this is not really up to the argument. Neither of the planes suggested have even a theoretical capability to engage aerial targets at more then 50km away, as they simply do not have weapons that are capable of such feats. Last generation of AMRAAM, which is the longest range air to air missile in service in US that can be mounted on F-15 and F-22 has around 50km maximum range (the last upgraded version currently in service). Neither aircraft can field AIM-54 even if it was brought back to service due to lack of radar needed to support the missile's guidance which was buried alongside F-14.
Which is again neither here or there. US and Russia (formerly USSR) have always tried to counter each other in weapon systems. Stealth, and by extension F-22 has been largely used a counter to superior radar technology fielded by USSR, US naval surface superiority was effectively countered by Russia's heavy reliance on supersonic mach2+ tactical bombers and very unique anti-ship missiles, US superiority in submarine silent running tech has been countered with Shkval cavitating torpedoes, Russia's reliance on tanks and light armour on the ground was countered with heavy investments in attack planes and helicopters on US side and so on. To
MiG-31 will never go "head on" with F-15. It will splash it from 150-200km away along with whatever high value escort plane it's escorting. That's how MiG-31 is designed to work, and that's why NATO gave it a fitting call sign of "foxhound".
Closest US example of similar plane is F-14, but US never got that to work as well as USSR did with MiG-31 due to different command stricture and F-14 being shoehorned into naval patrols, which forced it to be suitable for dogfighting as well as long range engagement as well as lack of AA-9 Amos-like missile (AIM-54 just plain sucked in comparison).
Standard MiG-31 quad can conceivably drop a small fleet of F-15s (until they run out of missiles) long before F-15s ever see these MiGs with their radars. But that's not here or there, as MiG-31 quad is essentially a flying long range AAM site + AWACS unit rather then a fighter plane squad. It was also the first plane in the world to have a passive phased array radar and it was essentially an F-22 of its time. A ridiculously expensive machine full of cutting edge tech designed to achieve total air superiority that simply did not have equivalents at the time. It still doesn't, but stealth aircraft like F-22 displace its air superiority advantages by negating its superb long range engagement abilities.
If I remember correctly, MiG-31 was the first plane in the world to debut the P2P networked data distribution system in core design - I don't think I've ever heard anyone credible claim otherwise as computers back then were simply too weak and data links too slow to provide for this without some massive programming expertise. Look up how MiG-31 quad squads work. You'll find that US copied this in their own implementation (AWACS + current battle theatre command and data distribution) very closely while successfully expanding the concept to share the data beyond the single unit. Russians had a severe problem getting the data sharing to be scaled up beyond that single unit + potentially led MiG-25s downlinked to these command planes, US worked around the problem much better and had a full theatre control far earlier then (it's known) for russians to succeed in the same task.
I'm also confused as to why you seem to doubt that parts of F-22 were clearly lifted from russians. It's fairly obvious that with tech stealing going on in cold war, most of the cutting edge technologies were stolen and copied, typically debuting around 10-20 years later it took to properly reverse engineer, implement and roll out the new military technology. Example: russians copying early guided AA missiles (AA-2 Atoll).
Russians weren't any different in this regard. While some technologies were successfully kept secret, most leaked at one point or another. Another great example is the HMD (helmet mounted display) of F-35, touted as one of the most revolutionary parts of the plane. It's a direct copy from MiG-29, and it's been all but admitted that it was lifted from GDR MiG-29s that were "donated to the cause" by Western Germany after the unification of Germany. Revolutionary being the ability to aim fire control radar in a much wider cone in front of the fighter then current generation of US fighters can.
1. No, it cannot. While radar technically has this capability, the software needed is not written beyond barely working beta stages (as of last checking it). There was a big scandal about it some seven or eight years ago. 2. Threat assessment of entire battlespace is done on AWACS/command center, not individual fighter, unless there's a severe emergency. This also feeds into 3. 3. Almost every modern plane can do this to varying extent. It's a system lifted from 30 years old MiG-31. The main differences in reality are full ground attack capability, single engine and HUD lifted from MiG-29 allowing for much wider fire control radar coverage of airspace in front of the fighter (and rumoured worse stealth). 4. F-22 has several hard points. They are generally not used because carrying external munitions essentially negates stealth. Problem: It can only carry minimal air to ground weaponry (and even AMRAAM's had to be modified to fit by cutting off tips of control wings, making missiles much less capable of maneuvering, the bays are so small).
I think you missed the point. You generally want to protect weaker members of society from wrongdoing of strong ones. That is also the basis for condemning racism. In your situation, racism would be a very much proper card to play, because white would be at severe disadvantage.
But since it's hypothetical because whites are generally in control, the situation is different.
Model name/number is HP 635, but that model is for the shell (form factor) and it can fit a number of different specs. Mine is E-450 based with 4 gigs of ram, 500GB hard drive and 15 inch matte LED backlit display.
I can recommend touch pad on this thing btw. It has a rather unique implementation with sort of "bumpy" texture that feels much better then typical touchpads as it gives your finger a very pleasant haptic feedback on how far your finger has travelled on the touchpad.
Slashdot Mirror
US constitution, and how it was born is a wonderful story you may wish to read sometime. I'm not even american, and I found it fascinating.
"How it was born" is also quite relevant to your question.
The proof is popping up as we speak, more and more of it. I suggest reading the rest of the reddit in question, or just reading this slashdot post (not mine):
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2786853&cid=39685615
Actually I have. However I also applied some analytical thinking instead of taking everything she said at face value.
Stuff is starting to surface to suggest that she in fact knows identity of the perpetrator, and has known for at least a decade.
http://www.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/s97g4/banned_from_kickstarter_for_being_a_stalking/c4c5j7r
"Too good for police to catch" indeed.
http://www.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/s97g4/banned_from_kickstarter_for_being_a_stalking/c4c5j7r
Boy do I feel vindicated.
Wait what the fuck? She personally KNOWS this guy? The guy who "is sending child porn and infant rape fantasies to hundreds of women"? Guy who is "too good for police to catch"?
I call massive bullshit and obvious attention whore enjoying the attention.
You misunderstand. Talking back to the spammer actively is fighting. Not being passively stalked.
She's former, not the latter, this is spelled out very clearly in her conversation with moderators.
Ten years of "child porn and infant rape fantasies to hundreds of victims", and police "they tried and found no trails, he's too good we won't investigate"?
Are you really that naive?
We have no intention of abusing CISPA = We have every intention to claim any abuse has been unintentional?
She makes claims that "police say he's too good for them and FBI won't investigate". Something I personally find very hard to believe considering she's claiming that he's systemically sending "her and hundreds of other victims child porn and infant rape fantasies".
Someone who doesn't fuck up when massively sending crap like that to hundreds of recipients for a decade? That's inhuman. And on top of the cake, her letters with the moderators clearly state that she actively talked to this stalker on their site.
I don't mean to be an ass, but that's a natural survival instinct. You don't get into the fight between people you don't know unless you see with absolute certainty that one is a victim. And even then, things are often not as they would seem from the first glance.
That's what police is for in modern society. If you can stop the immediate fight, do it, but get authorities involved. Not yourself. Which is what the site in question did, it stopped the immediate fight by banning the account and informed the known active party (note that she actively participated in those spam threads) that this behaviour will be stopped and that she should not engage in it again if she doesn't want that fight being stopped by banning again.
I honestly don't see anything done wrong. Sure, if it's really as bad as the woman says, it's terrible for her and she should go to the police and really file a complaint with copies of "child porn and infant rape fantasies" she claims she's being sent. But it's not other people's job to take significant commercial losses because she chooses to take the fight to their shop. They also have a right to conduct business without such fights
This is really #1 question mark that pops up upon reading the story. Why is she not going to police with this? If it's such a clear cut case of long term stalking as she claims, it should be a no brainer to get police to look into it.
This has a strong whiff of publicity stunt. She claims he's openly sending child pornography to multiple people and that "police/FBI won't investigate". Now I don't know where she lives, but considering current hysteria in the West about child pornography, I find this very hard to believe.
Also, reading the stuff on the other site, she appears to actively engage in conversations with this stalker on her own. Very strange considering that police would recommend to not engage in any contact with such a stalker.
This stinks of something big and important to the whole picture is being intentionally obfuscated by complaining party.
I don't think you quite understand the ROLES of the aircraft. Also F-22 has done equally "nothing" to prove your claims, however you boldly proclaim victory without noticing that the same merits used to prop F-22 in your argument have been used to prop MiG-31 in mine, yet you actively move to dismiss my claims while boldly presenting yours on exactly the same merits in the very next sentence.
And mind you, FLYING is enough to back this up. MiG-31 has a combat speed higher then F-15's maximum speed even if it redlines its engines.
Notably MiG-31 is a high speed interceptor designed to control airspace as both AWACS aircraft and a extremely long range anti air missile platform. Situation where F-15 would actually be able to engage a MiG-31 is not dissimilar to an artillery unit going into melee combat. Sure, it will lose in melee against a melee specialist unit, but it will decimate such a unit long before it ever gets in range, and if in danger it will either run or be shielded by aircraft escorting it with much better close combat capability. Not to mention that even if its out of missiles, all it needs to do not to lose it to simply climb and run. F-15's engines and frame cannot handle more then mach 2.5-2.6, while MiG-31 is known to reliably fly at mach 2.8 and if redlining engines up to mach 3.3. How do you plan to use a plane that simply cannot catch up to even get to weapon range to kill that target?
What US actually does nowadays is far more sane and a whole lot less pretentiously ignorant of real threats. It puts electronic warfare planes such as Prowler to support its self-supporting strike aircraft that will attempt to jam any medium and long range missiles fired at those aircraft. Which is why modern fighters and attack planes can in fact often survive missile engagements, especially against older models of missiles. A fired missile is by no means a certain kill, because both electronic countermeasures from the targeted plane as well as electronic countermeasures from electronic warfare support aircraft can jam even a modern missile with a relatively high success chance. Even after this, there's still the last ditch maneuvering done by modern aircraft, not to mention the most obvious approaches of either denying mid-life situation update by forcing enemy aircraft to get its fire control radar to stop tracking the target usually by forcing it to flee (this kills AMRAAM in long range engagement for example which essentially requires a mid life update for successful engagement at long ranges if target significantly changes its course during inertial guidance phase) or just turning around and fleeing until incoming missile runs out of fuel. SAMs tend to be a bit more robust in terms of guidance, but are still prone to jamming and even more so to range issues.
Anyway, this is not really up to the argument. Neither of the planes suggested have even a theoretical capability to engage aerial targets at more then 50km away, as they simply do not have weapons that are capable of such feats. Last generation of AMRAAM, which is the longest range air to air missile in service in US that can be mounted on F-15 and F-22 has around 50km maximum range (the last upgraded version currently in service). Neither aircraft can field AIM-54 even if it was brought back to service due to lack of radar needed to support the missile's guidance which was buried alongside F-14.
Which is again neither here or there. US and Russia (formerly USSR) have always tried to counter each other in weapon systems. Stealth, and by extension F-22 has been largely used a counter to superior radar technology fielded by USSR, US naval surface superiority was effectively countered by Russia's heavy reliance on supersonic mach2+ tactical bombers and very unique anti-ship missiles, US superiority in submarine silent running tech has been countered with Shkval cavitating torpedoes, Russia's reliance on tanks and light armour on the ground was countered with heavy investments in attack planes and helicopters on US side and so on. To
MiG-31 will never go "head on" with F-15. It will splash it from 150-200km away along with whatever high value escort plane it's escorting. That's how MiG-31 is designed to work, and that's why NATO gave it a fitting call sign of "foxhound".
Closest US example of similar plane is F-14, but US never got that to work as well as USSR did with MiG-31 due to different command stricture and F-14 being shoehorned into naval patrols, which forced it to be suitable for dogfighting as well as long range engagement as well as lack of AA-9 Amos-like missile (AIM-54 just plain sucked in comparison).
Ominous "stand aside or perish in a horrible pile of gore!" would sound so much more convincing.
You just know that every SUV and truck will use that.
"Give me your PIN or I will cut your hand off!"
No wait...
Standard MiG-31 quad can conceivably drop a small fleet of F-15s (until they run out of missiles) long before F-15s ever see these MiGs with their radars. But that's not here or there, as MiG-31 quad is essentially a flying long range AAM site + AWACS unit rather then a fighter plane squad. It was also the first plane in the world to have a passive phased array radar and it was essentially an F-22 of its time. A ridiculously expensive machine full of cutting edge tech designed to achieve total air superiority that simply did not have equivalents at the time. It still doesn't, but stealth aircraft like F-22 displace its air superiority advantages by negating its superb long range engagement abilities.
If I remember correctly, MiG-31 was the first plane in the world to debut the P2P networked data distribution system in core design - I don't think I've ever heard anyone credible claim otherwise as computers back then were simply too weak and data links too slow to provide for this without some massive programming expertise. Look up how MiG-31 quad squads work. You'll find that US copied this in their own implementation (AWACS + current battle theatre command and data distribution) very closely while successfully expanding the concept to share the data beyond the single unit. Russians had a severe problem getting the data sharing to be scaled up beyond that single unit + potentially led MiG-25s downlinked to these command planes, US worked around the problem much better and had a full theatre control far earlier then (it's known) for russians to succeed in the same task.
I'm also confused as to why you seem to doubt that parts of F-22 were clearly lifted from russians. It's fairly obvious that with tech stealing going on in cold war, most of the cutting edge technologies were stolen and copied, typically debuting around 10-20 years later it took to properly reverse engineer, implement and roll out the new military technology. Example: russians copying early guided AA missiles (AA-2 Atoll).
Russians weren't any different in this regard. While some technologies were successfully kept secret, most leaked at one point or another. Another great example is the HMD (helmet mounted display) of F-35, touted as one of the most revolutionary parts of the plane. It's a direct copy from MiG-29, and it's been all but admitted that it was lifted from GDR MiG-29s that were "donated to the cause" by Western Germany after the unification of Germany. Revolutionary being the ability to aim fire control radar in a much wider cone in front of the fighter then current generation of US fighters can.
Fellas... we were talking about phone's design in terms of beauty. I.e. outer features, not internals.
Not new by a long shot. Look at N9.
The official bashing name is "NoWin".
In order:
1. No, it cannot. While radar technically has this capability, the software needed is not written beyond barely working beta stages (as of last checking it). There was a big scandal about it some seven or eight years ago.
2. Threat assessment of entire battlespace is done on AWACS/command center, not individual fighter, unless there's a severe emergency. This also feeds into 3.
3. Almost every modern plane can do this to varying extent. It's a system lifted from 30 years old MiG-31. The main differences in reality are full ground attack capability, single engine and HUD lifted from MiG-29 allowing for much wider fire control radar coverage of airspace in front of the fighter (and rumoured worse stealth).
4. F-22 has several hard points. They are generally not used because carrying external munitions essentially negates stealth. Problem: It can only carry minimal air to ground weaponry (and even AMRAAM's had to be modified to fit by cutting off tips of control wings, making missiles much less capable of maneuvering, the bays are so small).
Depending on level of "control" involved, that might be a pretty normal life. How many husbands you know are pussy-whipped?
It's actually a healthy mix of low and medium with good fps on normal maps. You can get slowdowns in unit heavy custom maps though.
I think you missed the point. You generally want to protect weaker members of society from wrongdoing of strong ones. That is also the basis for condemning racism. In your situation, racism would be a very much proper card to play, because white would be at severe disadvantage.
But since it's hypothetical because whites are generally in control, the situation is different.
Model name/number is HP 635, but that model is for the shell (form factor) and it can fit a number of different specs. Mine is E-450 based with 4 gigs of ram, 500GB hard drive and 15 inch matte LED backlit display.
I can recommend touch pad on this thing btw. It has a rather unique implementation with sort of "bumpy" texture that feels much better then typical touchpads as it gives your finger a very pleasant haptic feedback on how far your finger has travelled on the touchpad.