There's no proxy in firing a typical range weapon. By proxy I mean a remote operator sitting at some control panel that provides feedback from the firing platform. Artillery, arrows, and long-range missiles *are* the platform.
A drone would be more accurate if you can get the fine control for firing weapons from a remote station that you can from a pilot sitting in a cockpit. I doubt that. Plus, drones are probably going to be used in low-threat environments where there are marginal anti-air threats, so you're talking about a pilot stressed out avoiding enemy fire while lining up for a shot. I think that drones have a catch-22. They'd bemore accurate where a pilot isn't anguishing over his own survivability, but in that same environment a drone would be sitting duck. Plus, I disagree that the drone would be more accurate as getting into a firing position probably requires some survivability in that environment. I'm speaking in terms of total force effectiveness. Maybe you'd have to send out 2 manned aircraft to accomplish a mission that would take 10-20 more vulnerable drones to accomplish. At a certain point, drones aren't cost effective and simply can't perform some missions.
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.
1. A Cessna is smaller than a F-22. Which would you rather be in in a dogfight. Small size doesn't discount all of the other advantages a manned fighter has. Hence, my argument that a drone is more vulnerable. And, it's not designed to be as evasive as a manned fighter. The military spends millions training a single pilot, so a modern fighter has to be more survivable. 2. I used to play a lot of flight simulators and I'm a military aviation buff which is the extend of my experience. Based on that, watching a static view screen and a simple tracking system doesn't equate to the much more powerful radar in a modern fighter, the much better resolution of an eyeball, the much wider of visibility, and the on-site reaction time that a manned fighter affords. 3. Manned fighters have stealth too. 4. I just sited the study (can't recall the name) that showed that isolation from your human subject makes you less compassionate. We see this everywhere like worse customer service in national corporations versus small businesses, etc. Those are my suggestions, far from "nothing."
The issue isn't the range of a weapon system (i.e. your artillery analogy), it's using a very lossy (in terms of situational awareness) remote controlled proxy.
There is NO WAY that a remotely piloted vehicle is less vulnerable than a human-piloted vehicle. The latter have better counter-measures, a local and thus more reactive pilot, and better maneuverability and speed. Predators aren't designed with survivability in mind since there is no expensive human pilot to protect. Speed is life in air combat and drones are basically only good for attacking low-tech targets like terrorists who probably don't have much in the way of anti-air. Any modern military will lunch on a drone.
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.
Remember the shock treatment study where subjects issued lethal shocks to pretend patients they couldn't see or hear? The separation will actually *decrease* caution as the controllers will have less sympathy for targets on a screen than the real people that a pilot would see scurrying around a target site.
Because there isn't a human being up there looking at the target and pulling the trigger. Predators are proxy weapons and there is a concern that these weapons are more likely to produce civilian casualties. It's like the debate between robotic versus manned space exploration. You might be saving money, but at the expense of human judgment.
Has everyone forgotten that soliciting prostitutes is a CRIME? If this were some average Joe construction worker cruising Main Street for a $20 blow job, he'd find himself in jail. But, for some reason everyone is rationalizing away the CRIME that Vitter committed. He didn't just cheat on his wife, he BROKE THE LAW!
Now, I don't think that prostitution should be criminalized, but since it is and since other citizens who can't afford $300/hr hookers are routinely targeted by law enforcement, I think that it's only fair that this man be subjected to the same punishment. Especially when it's a hypocritical law maker!!!
This is a HUGE problem with not just CGI, but action sequences as well. So many action directors (John Woo I'm looking at you) screw up the physics. I don't mind if a ninja jumps 5 ft in the air, but his trajectory has to follow the expected parabola. If he floats in the air for too long, or slides way to far forward at the apex of his jump to kick two bad guys in the face, you ask the viewer to stretch their suspension of disbelief too far.
Firstly, Bush's approval rating is around 1/3 and probably at about 28%. So, unless you're willing to admit that most US citizens are liberal and that conservatism is loud-mouthed minority, then please stop assuming that anti-Bush means "liberal."
You've just sounded the mating call of the head-burying oppression sheep. Apparently, privacy to you only applies to those in power even when they break the law. I have to assume you respect the President and Co-President's unprecedented lack of disclosure. I suppose you have no problems with the government spying on innocent protest groups or citizens who object to public policy. I suppose you also have no problem with the government spying on the political strategies of its opponents. I suppose you have no problems with government using private details of people's lives to extort or intimidate them. I suppose you have no problems with authoritarianism as well since Big Brother knows what's best for all of us.
If Ben Franklin were here to read your ignorant post, you'd soon feel the swift kick of a brass-buckled foot to your back-side.
We simply have a different transportation system based on our population density and the resulting layouts of our cities. Not sure if you've ever been stateside (I've lived in Europe for 8 years thanks to my dad's military service), but there aren't a lot of people who could use public transportation even if they (by that I mean me) wanted to. So, our government doesn't have the luxury of taxing the hell out of gas to encourage use of public transportation.
Now that gas is getting expensive (politically as well), you'll start seeing our country develop unique solutions that work for us (commuter vehicles, alternative fuels, etc.). But, have faith. Besides a rough patch back in the 70s, gas has always been cheap so this is the first time we've been forced to do something.
Wow, I started digging around for info on this guy. Definitely a nutjob. I'm a little embarrassed for even referencing him. I guess The Science Channel airs geek tabloid stories.
How about a real "perpetual energy" machine a la Newman's generator? It's not really a perpetual device, just uber efficient. I saw it featured on Beyond Invention on the Science Channel last night. Two interesting points; the government sabotaged his demonstration by grounding it and the patent office refuses to give him a patent for his design. He was also purportedly offered $200 million for the design, but refused without a guarantee that the generator would be produced for public use. He's had it scrutinized by dozens of scientists and engineers who've signed affidavits, so there must be something to it.
People still play CS? I gave up years ago after the cheating got shameless. Well, if CS is a good honeypot for 12 year olds who think they're hackers for downloading cheats, then mod parent up! Keep them away from my current favorites.
There are two types of credit queries; solicited and unsolicited. The way I understand it, the credit bureaus sell your credit ratings for unsolicited queries (which I assume contain less information) to lenders. If the lenders like what they see about you, they send you a pre-selected or pre-approved offer. If you take the bait, they then make a solicited query (which you have to approve of) which contains all of your credit information. Check out your credit report or take a home-buying class and you'll see what I mean.
The credit bureaus weren't set up for YOU, they were set up for businesses to mitigate the costs of investigating each potential loan applicant. That's why their practices are so pro-business/anti-consumer. But, the Libertarians don't see a problem with that, right?
It was a court decision that defined the acceptance of a pardon as an admission of guilt. A pardon amounts to the President saying "yeah, you did it but the country is best served by your release or the commuting of your sentence." You, sir, have earned your login.
Libby was the one who originally requested the information on Wilson and Plame that he presumably distributed to anyone with media contacts. Just because someone leaked the name to a source first doesn't mean that he wasn't wrong (if not legally culpable).
Oh, but he DID. The Russians, the Iraqis, the Iranians, the Saudis, and anyone else who read Novak's articles. This was all a concerted effort driven by Libby (and probably ordered by Cheney) to get that information out to the general public. Libby got jail time for covering for his boss's ass through obstruction and perjury. Anyone closely following the story knew the pardon was coming when Libby relaxed his defense. I have no doubt that a secret deal was made.
Ooooooooh! Snap Finite! You just got GHEYED!
Seriously, I understand your point but you can't tell me that the prison shower scene from "Half Baked" wasn't funny as hell.
Tell that to the animals that swallow and choke or back up their digestive tracks on chemically inert plastics. Innocently floating and brightly colored objects are a lure for aquatic life as any fisherman will tell you.
Slashdot Mirror
I'll have you know I'm sporting the latest ultra-comfort line of clogs at this very moment. Ignorant Americans...
There's no proxy in firing a typical range weapon. By proxy I mean a remote operator sitting at some control panel that provides feedback from the firing platform. Artillery, arrows, and long-range missiles *are* the platform. A drone would be more accurate if you can get the fine control for firing weapons from a remote station that you can from a pilot sitting in a cockpit. I doubt that. Plus, drones are probably going to be used in low-threat environments where there are marginal anti-air threats, so you're talking about a pilot stressed out avoiding enemy fire while lining up for a shot. I think that drones have a catch-22. They'd bemore accurate where a pilot isn't anguishing over his own survivability, but in that same environment a drone would be sitting duck. Plus, I disagree that the drone would be more accurate as getting into a firing position probably requires some survivability in that environment. I'm speaking in terms of total force effectiveness. Maybe you'd have to send out 2 manned aircraft to accomplish a mission that would take 10-20 more vulnerable drones to accomplish. At a certain point, drones aren't cost effective and simply can't perform some missions.
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.
1. A Cessna is smaller than a F-22. Which would you rather be in in a dogfight. Small size doesn't discount all of the other advantages a manned fighter has. Hence, my argument that a drone is more vulnerable. And, it's not designed to be as evasive as a manned fighter. The military spends millions training a single pilot, so a modern fighter has to be more survivable.
2. I used to play a lot of flight simulators and I'm a military aviation buff which is the extend of my experience. Based on that, watching a static view screen and a simple tracking system doesn't equate to the much more powerful radar in a modern fighter, the much better resolution of an eyeball, the much wider of visibility, and the on-site reaction time that a manned fighter affords.
3. Manned fighters have stealth too.
4. I just sited the study (can't recall the name) that showed that isolation from your human subject makes you less compassionate. We see this everywhere like worse customer service in national corporations versus small businesses, etc. Those are my suggestions, far from "nothing."
The issue isn't the range of a weapon system (i.e. your artillery analogy), it's using a very lossy (in terms of situational awareness) remote controlled proxy.
There is NO WAY that a remotely piloted vehicle is less vulnerable than a human-piloted vehicle. The latter have better counter-measures, a local and thus more reactive pilot, and better maneuverability and speed. Predators aren't designed with survivability in mind since there is no expensive human pilot to protect. Speed is life in air combat and drones are basically only good for attacking low-tech targets like terrorists who probably don't have much in the way of anti-air. Any modern military will lunch on a drone.
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.
Remember the shock treatment study where subjects issued lethal shocks to pretend patients they couldn't see or hear? The separation will actually *decrease* caution as the controllers will have less sympathy for targets on a screen than the real people that a pilot would see scurrying around a target site.
Because there isn't a human being up there looking at the target and pulling the trigger. Predators are proxy weapons and there is a concern that these weapons are more likely to produce civilian casualties. It's like the debate between robotic versus manned space exploration. You might be saving money, but at the expense of human judgment.
...and we'll have the world's largest pair of boobies. Oh, yeah!
Yes, but the side effects don't include "stupidity" and "raging horny."
Has everyone forgotten that soliciting prostitutes is a CRIME? If this were some average Joe construction worker cruising Main Street for a $20 blow job, he'd find himself in jail. But, for some reason everyone is rationalizing away the CRIME that Vitter committed. He didn't just cheat on his wife, he BROKE THE LAW!
Now, I don't think that prostitution should be criminalized, but since it is and since other citizens who can't afford $300/hr hookers are routinely targeted by law enforcement, I think that it's only fair that this man be subjected to the same punishment. Especially when it's a hypocritical law maker!!!
As far I know,...
From what I just read, that's shorter than the distance to your coffee grinder.
This is a HUGE problem with not just CGI, but action sequences as well. So many action directors (John Woo I'm looking at you) screw up the physics. I don't mind if a ninja jumps 5 ft in the air, but his trajectory has to follow the expected parabola. If he floats in the air for too long, or slides way to far forward at the apex of his jump to kick two bad guys in the face, you ask the viewer to stretch their suspension of disbelief too far.
Firstly, Bush's approval rating is around 1/3 and probably at about 28%. So, unless you're willing to admit that most US citizens are liberal and that conservatism is loud-mouthed minority, then please stop assuming that anti-Bush means "liberal."
You've just sounded the mating call of the head-burying oppression sheep. Apparently, privacy to you only applies to those in power even when they break the law. I have to assume you respect the President and Co-President's unprecedented lack of disclosure. I suppose you have no problems with the government spying on innocent protest groups or citizens who object to public policy. I suppose you also have no problem with the government spying on the political strategies of its opponents. I suppose you have no problems with government using private details of people's lives to extort or intimidate them. I suppose you have no problems with authoritarianism as well since Big Brother knows what's best for all of us.
If Ben Franklin were here to read your ignorant post, you'd soon feel the swift kick of a brass-buckled foot to your back-side.
We simply have a different transportation system based on our population density and the resulting layouts of our cities. Not sure if you've ever been stateside (I've lived in Europe for 8 years thanks to my dad's military service), but there aren't a lot of people who could use public transportation even if they (by that I mean me) wanted to. So, our government doesn't have the luxury of taxing the hell out of gas to encourage use of public transportation.
Now that gas is getting expensive (politically as well), you'll start seeing our country develop unique solutions that work for us (commuter vehicles, alternative fuels, etc.). But, have faith. Besides a rough patch back in the 70s, gas has always been cheap so this is the first time we've been forced to do something.
Too late.
Wow, I started digging around for info on this guy. Definitely a nutjob. I'm a little embarrassed for even referencing him. I guess The Science Channel airs geek tabloid stories.
How about a real "perpetual energy" machine a la Newman's generator? It's not really a perpetual device, just uber efficient. I saw it featured on Beyond Invention on the Science Channel last night. Two interesting points; the government sabotaged his demonstration by grounding it and the patent office refuses to give him a patent for his design. He was also purportedly offered $200 million for the design, but refused without a guarantee that the generator would be produced for public use. He's had it scrutinized by dozens of scientists and engineers who've signed affidavits, so there must be something to it.
People still play CS? I gave up years ago after the cheating got shameless. Well, if CS is a good honeypot for 12 year olds who think they're hackers for downloading cheats, then mod parent up! Keep them away from my current favorites.
There are two types of credit queries; solicited and unsolicited. The way I understand it, the credit bureaus sell your credit ratings for unsolicited queries (which I assume contain less information) to lenders. If the lenders like what they see about you, they send you a pre-selected or pre-approved offer. If you take the bait, they then make a solicited query (which you have to approve of) which contains all of your credit information. Check out your credit report or take a home-buying class and you'll see what I mean. The credit bureaus weren't set up for YOU, they were set up for businesses to mitigate the costs of investigating each potential loan applicant. That's why their practices are so pro-business/anti-consumer. But, the Libertarians don't see a problem with that, right?
It was a court decision that defined the acceptance of a pardon as an admission of guilt. A pardon amounts to the President saying "yeah, you did it but the country is best served by your release or the commuting of your sentence." You, sir, have earned your login.
Libby was the one who originally requested the information on Wilson and Plame that he presumably distributed to anyone with media contacts. Just because someone leaked the name to a source first doesn't mean that he wasn't wrong (if not legally culpable).
Oh, but he DID. The Russians, the Iraqis, the Iranians, the Saudis, and anyone else who read Novak's articles. This was all a concerted effort driven by Libby (and probably ordered by Cheney) to get that information out to the general public. Libby got jail time for covering for his boss's ass through obstruction and perjury. Anyone closely following the story knew the pardon was coming when Libby relaxed his defense. I have no doubt that a secret deal was made.
Ooooooooh! Snap Finite! You just got GHEYED! Seriously, I understand your point but you can't tell me that the prison shower scene from "Half Baked" wasn't funny as hell.
Well if Douglas Adams is correct, then it would be a floozyBOT.
Tell that to the animals that swallow and choke or back up their digestive tracks on chemically inert plastics. Innocently floating and brightly colored objects are a lure for aquatic life as any fisherman will tell you.